Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Oceanguy does. He was there back in the '80's and reminisces on Iranian military effectiveness and the growing Iranian nuclear threat:
Often, from a distance, we encountered Iranian Naval vessels, what would commonly be called "gunboats." These gunboats, at least the ones we were concerned about, carried medium range surface-to-surface missiles which the Iranians used to target oil tankers.
Although a British warship would not have been a target for those missiles, they were still extremely dangerous. Quite a few times, while sailing in the vicinity of an Iranian gunboat and a merchant vessel, our crew was called to Action Stations, or what we American's call, General Quarters. It was never a drill.
The gunboats were not usually in tip-top fighting condition. It appears that the commanders were not technically savvy enough to make sure their systems were in proper working order. More than once, these calls to Action Stations were the result of our sensors detecting an Iranian fire-control radar had locked on to our ship... whether it was sad, humorous, or just plain stupidity is up to you...
Those "gunboats" were boghammers, those "surface to surface missiles" were anti-tank rocket launchers aka RPG-7, and they were about as "threatening" to a naval vessel as a pin prick, so what does this have to do with nuclear weapons? Iran had every right to stop and search oil tankers according to the laws of war, and US support for Iraq by protecting Kuwaiti tankers (that were transporting Iraqi oil) was, in the judgment of history, a shamefull act. And the International Court of Justice ruled that US attacks on IRan at that time were illegal.
RPG7s with fire control radar? Hmm...OK, Hass. Keep up the good work!
Hess is right in one sense, the Boghammers were very little threat to warships, they are simply speed boats, what some might call cigarette boats. The Iranian Gunboats that were a concern were both the Combattante class and the much larger Saam class they had bought from the Soviets. If my memory is right, the Combattante had been retro-fitted with Chinese missiles and there was only one of the 5 or six Saams which was seaworthy. Italian Sea Killer Missiles were also a threat, and I'm too lazy to research which vessel was fitted with them... Google it yourself.
The Iranian Navy involvement in the tanker war was very short lived... they were late into the game in response to Iraqi attacks, preferring instead to use their land based Silkworms... Obviously the Navy was ineffective, which is one of my story's points.
Boghamars came into focus two to three years after the events I described, primarily as targets for carrier based jets. They were a nuisance, not a threat. The incidents I am referring to happened before a US Carrier had ever entered the Gulf.
Excuse me, Hass... not Hess... what the story has to do with nuclear weapons is the abysmally low standards of performance that were evident in the Iranian Navy... my belief is that it is probably worse today.
Low levels of technical expertise among the operators and maintainers... almost certainly high levels of deceit from lower levels when reporting readiness and effectiveness to higher echelons... in general a largely under-trained UNProfessional Armed Force.
That degree of sloppiness mixed with an elevated stature, even desire for martyrdom, PLUS nuclear weapons is nothing more than a recipe for disaster.
Hass, I am a bit miffed at having my integrity questioned, and I’d normally ignore it, but there’s just enough truth in your comment to warrant more of a response. Even though you've displayed a limited knowledge of the Iranian Order of Battle during the 80's and for the events of the Tanker War, please feel free to argue the level of training, professionalism and expertise of the Iranian forces that will be managing, operating, maintaining and deploying their nuclear weapon(s) when they get them. But please, check your facts before you question the veracity of a story.
Yes, the Iranians had every right to board and inspect vessels, but you seem to be implying that they did not attack any. You are wrong. The US attacks on the Iranians occurred much later, more like 1987. Until then, American forces were only observers. The Iraqi attack on the Stark was probably the genesis of changes in American Ops and that was in May of ’87.
In 1983 or 1984, I don’t remember which, and I’m not going to look it up while making a quick comment on someone else’s blog, (Again, sorry Sol) the Iranians changed their tactics. In response to the success of Iraqi airborne Exocet attacks on shipping, the Iranians responded by attacking ships destined for non-Iranian ports in the Gulf. Between early 1983 and March of 1986 I spent few days shy of two years in total living in Bahrain and embarked on a British Warship deployed to monitor the war and to provide escort services for British and Commonwealth flagged vessels. The Tanker War began in 1981… your limited view appears to be of some limited specific events in 1988 or later… again, please check your facts before impugning someone’s writing.
One last thing… The gunboats in the post Sol linked to were, indeed, a threat to warships, significantly more a threat than a “pin prickâ€â€¦ although as I said, we were not worried about a deliberate Iranian attack on any warship. I’ve spoken before about Iranian “gunboats†and they weren’t Boghammars either.