PDA

View Full Version : Real life what-if, Indian Army assault on Deigo Garcia



Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 17:33
This has happened but was called off at the last second.

I've been wracking my brain for years coming up with the scenario on how this could be done.

What we do know. Captain Lemontree's father was part of an ambulance tasked to taking Deigo Garcia. He was getting ready to bore his plane when the assault was called off.

Based on that, I deduced that this was a brigade size airborne operation.

Add to this, Indian posters have stated that the InAF have at least talked about kamakazie attacks on the USS ENTERPRISE.

Go to it, people. Come up with the size of forces, what size initial entry forces, what objectives, and how do they hold Deigo Garcia ... or do they even intend to hold it?

astralis
19 Mar 12,, 17:50
what was the context and reason given for an attack?

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 17:56
This the USS ENTERPRISE incident during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War

Native
19 Mar 12,, 18:03
This might be a useful reference.


Operation Cactus 1988
Main article: Operation Cactus
With the capture of Maldives, an island nation off the south western coast of India on 3 November 1988 by PLOTE mercenaries, the army turned to the 50 (Independent ) Parachute Brigade to carry out an airborne/air transported operation to liberate the country and return power to the legal government. This operation had 6 Para spearheading the mission. 6 Para flew in on 4 November 1988 in a fleet of IL-76, An-32 and An-12 transport aircraft. One team rescued the president, another took over the airfield and a third rescued Maldivian security personnel besieged in their NSS HQ. Later 7 Para & part of 17 Para Fd Regt were also deployed to the Maldives. When mercenaries tried to escape by sea along with hostages, they were intercepted by the Indian navy. Thus, 6 Para ,7 Para & 17 Para Fd Regt conducted the first ever international intervention by the Indian army without any loss of life.

Side note: I was sailing by during this and watched the airborne assault on radar. Was pretty interesting to watch.

1979
19 Mar 12,, 18:13
Enterprise keeps a safe distance, sure they can overwhelm the carrier air group by sheer numbers but the problem is their land based interceptors lack range to take the fight to the carrier . The carrier has to come to them and that was unlikely to happen.
plus the carrier battle group is a small navy by itself and as Dreadnought pointed out they pack a lot of FLAK.
the armament of the sukoi and migs is designed for CAS at best, not taking down big carriers, albeit the explosion of a ZUNNI rocket on the flight deck can cause a lot of problems.
i'll look into what guided weaponry they got back than, but my gut feeling tells me flak is still going to be a problem.

EDIT:
They got AS-7 KERRY IN 1985 (which is basically a AGM-12 Bullpup copy ) so no fancy weaponry in 1971 , if they bomb they do it ww2 style.

Native
19 Mar 12,, 18:51
So this scenario takes place in 1971?


On 23 January 1971, a nine man advance party from NMCB-40 landed
on Diego Garcia to initiate a preliminary survey for beach landing areas.
Fifty additional Seabees from Amphibious Construction Battalion Two
landed on the island and marked underwater obstructions, installed
temporary navigational aids and cleared beach areas for landing
additional personnel and materials. On 20 March 1971, an additional
party of 160 Seabees from NMCB-40 arrived. Construction for U.S. Naval
Communication Facility Diego Garcia was started four days later by the
Seabees from NMCB-1 and finished by NMCB-62. The Seabees also
started construction of an interim runway - to support the
Communication Facility.
In October and November of 1971, Detachment CHAGOS of NMCB 71
and the whole of NMCB 1 arrived, marking the beginning of large-scale
construction. NMCB 1 built the transmitter and receiver buildings and
placed the base course for the permanent runway and parking apron. In
July 1972, NMCB 62 relieved NMCB-1 and took over the departing
3/19/12 Diego Garcia "Camp Justice"
www.globalsecurit��.org/militar��/facilit��/diego-garcia.htm 3/10
battalion's projects. On 25 December the first C-141J transport landed
on the newly completed 6,000 foot runway with the Bob Hope Christmas
Troupe.

Curious, I wonder if the idea of taking Diego Garcia was from the Soviets?

commander
19 Mar 12,, 19:39
Just want to update the link provided by Native

Diego Garcia "Camp Justice" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm)

Blademaster
19 Mar 12,, 19:49
Despite a token force, I fail to see how the IAF and IN could land there and take off. The runway was not completed till 1972.

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 19:53
We know it's a full scale op. Otherwise, you don't take an ambulance which also means that they were expecting casualties.

commander
19 Mar 12,, 19:57
Despite a token force, I fail to see how the IAF and IN could land there and take off. The runway was not completed till 1972.

So BM what about the chances of Pearl Harbour like strike ?? Rather than sending para troops to land and try to take control just send a fleet of Ouragon's and try to create some damage ???

commander
19 Mar 12,, 20:13
what objectives, and how do they hold Deigo Garcia ... or do they even intend to hold it?

Sir I am no Military expert but in my opinion holding against US army so far from mainland could have been suicidal the intentions might be just to create some damage and head back home ???

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 20:25
Sir I am no Military expert but in my opinion holding against US army so far from mainland could have been suicidal the intentions might be just to create some damage and head back home ???Well, the problem with your scenario is that you're ignoring what the force is telling you. First, this is not some hypothesis. This actually happened.

Ambulances are brigade level assets, well, it's actually division level for the Indian Army. To include it means a nasty fight and casualties must be collected which means a holding area of some kind. For an airborne operation, cargo space is at a premium, you don't transport things you don't need. That ambulance takes the space of a mortar section. If that ambulance is going, it means that the ambulance is more important to an extra mortar section.

1979
19 Mar 12,, 20:41
So BM what about the chances of Pearl Harbour like strike ?? Rather than sending para troops to land and try to take control just send a fleet of Ouragon's and try to create some damage ???

fighter bombers cant fly that far out.
it's basically either a paratrooper / naval operation but if Enterprise positioned itself between the island and the mainland ,
the landing party is cut off.

Blademaster
19 Mar 12,, 20:50
What was the orbat of IAF's airlift capability in 1971? Tankers? IAF had no tankers. How could IAF have aerial escorts without means of refueling? It means that the carrier would be escorting IAF's cargo planes all the way.

It was a suicide trip if you had no escorts and the cargo planes would be at the mercy of any USN battlegroup.

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 20:58
You can't help but admire the gutsy move but as I stated, I've been wracking my brain for years on this one but I do not see what the InA saw at the time.

1979
19 Mar 12,, 21:05
33 IL-12 Cub ,

For all other transports ( CARIBOU, HAWKER SIDLEY,C-119G Packet ) it's a one way trip.

Blademaster
19 Mar 12,, 21:07
You can't help but admire the gutsy move but as I stated, I've been wracking my brain for years on this one but I do not see what the InA saw at the time.

Maybe gutsy, but suicidal. InA and IN were never known for suicidal tendencies.

Blademaster
19 Mar 12,, 21:09
33 IL-12 Cub ,

For all other transports ( CARIBOU, HAWKER SIDLEY,C-119G Packet ) it's a one way trip.


Then I guess it was to be done when no US CVBG was in the area. More of a surprise raid. Question is: did USN have any radar or early warning coverage there? What about the Soviet angle? Were the Soviets expected to assist India? I don't think so. The Soviets would tell India to back the hell off which maybe in this case, did happen because after all, India did back off.

Albany Rifles
19 Mar 12,, 21:11
All,

Okay...who is engaged in combat? Indian and US? India v US/UK?

I admit I am lost.

And we are positing forces in place in 1971 not 2012, correct?

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 21:13
India vs the US during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 21:13
Maybe gutsy, but suicidal. InA and IN were never known for suicidal tendencies.Precisely which meant that they had some confidence of success ... whatever success meant.

Blademaster
19 Mar 12,, 21:18
Precisely which meant that they had some confidence of success ... whatever success meant.

Maybe they were expecting Enterprise to be busy or it could be that, they wanted to draw Enterprise away from Bay of Bengal as to relieve the Indian naval forces there. Maybe they were gonna throw a sacrificial lamb as a small price to draw the Enterprise force away from Bay of Bengal and saw the payoff as worth the risks and casualties.

Albany Rifles
19 Mar 12,, 21:20
India vs the US during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.

Grazi

Any specified ROE?

commander
19 Mar 12,, 21:22
Precisely which meant that they had some confidence of success ... whatever success meant.

Sir maybe they had the help of Russian subs to divert the attention of US troops and try a surprise attack using the para troopers ?? When I looked for Diego Garcia IMHO it looks like a place with strategic importance.

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 21:27
Grazi

Any specified ROE?Buck, that's the point. We don't know. This is not some theory that we dream up. This op actually took place but called off at the last second.

What I posted in the original piece is what we do actually do know. Our own WAB's Lemontree's father was part of an ambulance tasked to taking Deigo Garcia. He was on the tarmac before he got called back to barracks. And if the ambulance was on the tarmac, then the initial entry force had already left.

What's been bugging me for years is what the hell was the Indian Army thinking to have a reasonable chance of success?

1979
19 Mar 12,, 21:27
Maybe they were expecting Enterprise to be busy or it could be that, they wanted to draw Enterprise away from Bay of Bengal as to relieve the Indian naval forces there. Maybe they were gonna throw a sacrificial lamb as a small price to draw the Enterprise force away from Bay of Bengal and saw the payoff as worth the risks and casualties.

seams possible to me, albeit i'm not familiar enough with Indian interest in Bangladesh to judge if it was worth the risk.

Albany Rifles
19 Mar 12,, 21:42
Buck, that's the point. We don't know. This is not some theory that we dream up. This op actually took place but called off at the last second.

What I posted in the original piece is what we do actually do know. Our own WAB's Lemontree's father was part of an ambulance tasked to taking Deigo Garcia. He was on the tarmac before he got called back to barracks. And if the ambulance was on the tarmac, then the initial entry force had already left.

What's been bugging me for years is what the hell was the Indian Army thinking to have a reasonable chance of success?

Got it sir.

I see where you are going. I am wondering if the Indians didn't figure they had bitten off enough with Paks and causing WW 3 to start on their door step was going to add badly for India.

I wonder where our boomers and attack subs were?

And most USN carriers back then carried nuclear weapons.

Firestorm
19 Mar 12,, 21:45
Aside from the huge tactical difficulties of launching an airborne assault on Diego Garcia, such an attack if launched pre-emptively would have been strategic suicide. It would have given the US an excuse for intervening in the war on the pakistani side. Not only would India have lost the war but it would have suffered severe damage if the US had launched an all out attack.

My guess is this could have been decided as a desperate last-ditch response to a potential attack by the Enterprise on Indian naval assets in the Bay of Bengal, since India would already be at war with the US in such a case. Perhaps Indian intelligence had initially suspected that such an attack was imminent and the IA had readied it's assets for the Diego Garcia assault. If the Enterprise was busy attacking the Indian navy in the BoB, it wouldn't have been available to defend Diego Garcia. But since the Enterprise never attacked the assault was called off.

This is all highly speculative of course. personally I still find it hard to believe that this was real. I read about this a long time ago but it felt like rumor and hearsay at the time.

Firestorm
19 Mar 12,, 21:50
33 IL-12 Cub ,


That would be the Antonov An-12, not Il-12. Where did you come across the 33 number? It seems rather high.

1979
19 Mar 12,, 22:05
yes , my mistake an-12 .

Trade Registers (http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php)
list 24 delivered in 1963-1964
8 delivered in 1962 (missed them first time i looked )
8 delivered in 1961

also 24 Il-14/Crate Transport aircraft 1961 1961-1962 which may explain my error

Native
19 Mar 12,, 22:11
I am still curious if this whole ideas was Russia's.

I read the real reason that the Enterprise BG was sent was a show of force against the Soviets.

Also, the Soviets were concerned that Diego Garcia was going to become a operating base for U.S. Submarines.

There is a lot of reference to an unknown number of Soviet submarines in the IO.

zraver
19 Mar 12,, 22:32
Buck, that's the point. We don't know. This is not some theory that we dream up. This op actually took place but called off at the last second.

What I posted in the original piece is what we do actually do know. Our own WAB's Lemontree's father was part of an ambulance tasked to taking Deigo Garcia. He was on the tarmac before he got called back to barracks. And if the ambulance was on the tarmac, then the initial entry force had already left.

What's been bugging me for years is what the hell was the Indian Army thinking to have a reasonable chance of success?



Land the paras to divert the Big E from the coast of India-Pakistan (if she was helping Pakistan) to retake DG with marines, and hope the task force stumbles into the path of Indian DE subs lying in wait. Sacrifice a thousand or so men max for sinking a carrier... But someone probably pointed out that Yankee Station was not so far away that several more super carriers could not be on station in days, and until then a big honking force of B-52's experienced in breaking/jamming Soviet systems along with escorting F-4's was parked in Thailand, while a very hostile China was sitting to the North and a war with Pakistan to the East and West.

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 22:50
Actually, now that makes a lot of sense. The objective was not Diego Garcia but the Big E.

zraver
19 Mar 12,, 22:52
Buck, that's the point. We don't know. This is not some theory that we dream up. This op actually took place but called off at the last second.

What I posted in the original piece is what we do actually do know. Our own WAB's Lemontree's father was part of an ambulance tasked to taking Deigo Garcia. He was on the tarmac before he got called back to barracks. And if the ambulance was on the tarmac, then the initial entry force had already left.

What's been bugging me for years is what the hell was the Indian Army thinking to have a reasonable chance of success?



Land the paras to divert the Big E from the coast of India-Pakistan (if she was helping Pakistan) to retake DG with marines, and hope the task force stumbles into the path of Indian DE subs lying in wait. Sacrifice a thousand or so men max for sinking a carrier... But someone probably pointed out that Yankee Station was not so far away that several more super carriers could not be on station in days, and until then a big honking force of B-52's experienced in breaking/jamming Soviet systems along with escorting F-4's was parked in Thailand, while a very hostile China was sitting to the North and a war with Pakistan to the East and West.

commander
19 Mar 12,, 22:55
I am sure InA knows that by either damaging the Enterprise or as zraver said sinking it could potentially result in USA entering the war alongside Pakistani why would they take such a risk when Soviet subs and Vessels has blocked entry of Enterprise in the Bay of Bengal ???

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 22:56
Because they didn't.

commander
19 Mar 12,, 23:00
But Sir like you said they were prepared for such an attack and all of a sudden it was called off which means something must have happened in between which altered the mind of InA and back off.

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 23:07
The Bay of Bengal is in international waters. The Soviets have no right to deny American passage ... and no means of stopping them.

commander
19 Mar 12,, 23:12
The Bay of Bengal is in international waters. The Soviets have no right to deny American passage ... and no means of stopping them.

Sir I am not sure if the following article indeed answers your question about stopping Enterprise entering BoB but I would still give it a go and as per the following source the USSR was successful in stopping USN. Please correct me If I am wrong


Soon the news of American carrier Enterprise and USS Tripoli's advancement towards Indian water came.

V. Kruglyakov “ I had obtained the order from the commander-in-chief not to allow the advancement of the American fleet to the military bases of India”

"We encircled them and aimed the missiles at the 'Enterprise'. We had blocked their way and didn't allow them to head anywhere, neither to Karachi, nor to Chittagong or Dhaka".

The Soviet ships had small range rockets (only upto 300 KM). Therefore, to hold the opponent under the range, commanders ran risks of going as near to the enemy as possible.

"The Chief Commander had ordered me to lift the submarines and bring them to the surface so that it can be pictured by the American spy satellites or can be seen by the American Navy!' It was done to demonstrate, that we had all the needed things in Indian Ocean, including the nuclear submarines. I had lifted them, and they recognized it. Then, we intercepted the American communication. The commander of the Carrier Battle Group was then the counter-admiral Dimon Gordon. He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: 'Sir, we are too late. There are Russian nuclear submarines here, and a big collection of battleships'.

Americans returned and couldn't do anything. Soviet Union had also threatened China that, if they ever opened a front against India on its border, they will receive a tough response from North.



Source: 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis (http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html)

commander
19 Mar 12,, 23:18
IMHO , When InA and USSR got information that USS Enterprise will be entering BoB, InA prepared itself to confront and divert USS Enterprise from entering BoB if incase USSR was unable to stop the advancing 7th fleet. BUT Since USSR Navy was Successful in stopping USS Enterprise from advancing InA called off the attack. The reason why I think InA had little hope if none like you mentioned before was InA hoped maybe with the help of Russian vessels it can strike the advancing fleet and stop if not slow down the advancing fleet and hoped to have forced the East Pakistani force to surrender ??

Firestorm
20 Mar 12,, 00:11
Commander, in any potential confrontation between a small soviet surface force plus a submarine and a USN CBG it is pretty obvious who would end up floating in life boats. Of course, this doesn't mean that the soviet ships did not serve as a deterrent at all especially since it is not exactly clear how many ships they sent.

The very fact that the Indian armed forces contemplated suicidal missions like attacking Diego Garcia or a Kamikaze attack on the Enterprise means that they weren't exactly counting on the soviets to deter anyone. The reason neither of these missions were attempted was because the Enterprise never fired a shot. Whether it was because Nixon and Kissinger never had any intention of ordering it to or because they wanted to avoid any confrontation with the soviets we'll never know. Even if it was because of the soviets, the Americans will never accept it.

All said and done, it was fortunate for India that the war ended before the Americans got tired of watching their favorite genocidal dictator get whacked around.

zraver
20 Mar 12,, 00:17
Sir I am not sure if the following article indeed answers your question about stopping Enterprise entering BoB but I would still give it a go and as per the following source the USSR was successful in stopping USN. Please correct me If I am wrong


Source: 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis (http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html)

Your wrong, all of the US spy sats of the time used film ejection and were short orbit platforms. Begining with Bill Clinton and continuing today every sat launch of the era has been declassified.

1. and there were no US sats in orbit during the war
2. The sats flew pre-programmed missions so there was no way for the US to see surfaced Soviet subs even if there was a sat in orbit.
3. The Soviets knew what we had in space.
4. No other claims of real time reading American encrypted military communications exist for the time period.
5. The primary Soviet nuclear subs of the era were November SSN and Echo I SSGN subs. The first had no missiles, and the second had missiles with a 500km range.
6. None of the Soviet naval ships of the era had a 300km range missile.

Kruglyakov is boasting, but its a fishing story and is not true.

commander
20 Mar 12,, 00:31
Your wrong, all of the US spy sats of the time used film ejection and were short orbit platforms. Begining with Bill Clinton and continuing today every sat launch of the era has been declassified.

1. and there were no US sats in orbit during the war
2. The sats flew pre-programmed missions so there was no way for the US to see surfaced Soviet subs even if there was a sat in orbit.
3. The Soviets knew what we had in space.
4. No other claims of real time reading American encrypted military communications exist for the time period.
5. The primary Soviet nuclear subs of the era were November SSN and Echo I SSGN subs. The first had no missiles, and the second had missiles with a 500km range.
6. None of the Soviet naval ships of the era had a 300km range missile.

Kruglyakov is boasting, but its a fishing story and is not true.

If all of your statements are true , Why did Nixon did nothing if not little to help his ally in Pakistan ?? If Nixon could send the 7th fleet to the waters of BoB how was he reluctant in actually using the force in helping East Pakistani forces ? Maybe the initial intentions were to pressure India from four fronts but when India started to whack Pakistan's bottom what was Nixon doing with a huge fleet sitting around so close and doing nothing ??? This persuades me in thinking that Soviet has stopped the advancing USN and eventhough USSR had too little naval power to oppose the USN in the waters of BoB , in order to avoid confrontation with USSR Nixon must have ordered his men to stand down and watched Pakistan being divided into Pakistan and Bangladesh.

If you don't agree with my view please provide some strong reason as to why Nixon didn't help Pakistan it's ally when in deep trouble ???

zraver
20 Mar 12,, 01:27
If all of your statements are true , Why did Nixon did nothing if not little to help his ally in Pakistan ?? If Nixon could send the 7th fleet to the waters of BoB how was he reluctant in actually using the force in helping East Pakistani forces ? Maybe the initial intentions were to pressure India from four fronts but when India started to whack Pakistan's bottom what was Nixon doing with a huge fleet sitting around so close and doing nothing ??? This persuades me in thinking that Soviet has stopped the advancing USN and eventhough USSR had too little naval power to oppose the USN in the waters of BoB , in order to avoid confrontation with USSR Nixon must have ordered his men to stand down and watched Pakistan being divided into Pakistan and Bangladesh.

If you don't agree with my view please provide some strong reason as to why Nixon didn't help Pakistan it's ally when in deep trouble ???

All Nixon could do was bluff, there was a massive anti-war movement in the US, the county was still reeling from the troubles of a divided nation. When India didn't back down, she called his bluff and Pakistan was doomed.

commander
20 Mar 12,, 01:38
All Nixon could do was bluff, there was a massive anti-war movement in the US, the county was still reeling from the troubles of a divided nation. When India didn't back down, she called his bluff and Pakistan was doomed.

Point taken. Still I don't understand the bold bit of your statement divided nation(?).

zraver
20 Mar 12,, 02:17
Point taken. Still I don't understand the bold bit of your statement divided nation(?).

The US was probably at one of its lowest points as far as feeling like 1 nation. Hippies v squares, Republican v Democrat, black v white, man v woman it was a very divided time.

Doktor
20 Mar 12,, 09:10
Actually, now that makes a lot of sense. The objective was not Diego Garcia but the Big E.

Colonel, from what I could read the Big E, was shadowed by Soviet sub(s) and left the Bay in a matter of week(s).

Maybe she was departing to Vietnam when IA cancelled the operation?

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 12,, 11:29
No one knew outside of India (even very few in India) knew of this op until a few years ago.

commander
20 Mar 12,, 13:53
No one knew outside of India (even very few in India) knew of this op until a few years ago.

Sir , is there any official or unofficial source for this that I can refer to ??

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 12,, 13:59
The only source I know is the son of a member of the ambulance that took part. He is our very own respected WAB's Lemontree, a retired Captain of the Indian Army and he told us all we know.

We filled a few blanks here and there, ie this was a brigade sized op and that the initial entry force was only hours away from jumping, mainly due to experience on what's needed and the timing of such an op.

Albany Rifles
20 Mar 12,, 14:17
Point taken. Still I don't understand the bold bit of your statement divided nation(?).

As Z has pointed out the US was very divided at the end of the 1960s. We were roiling from the vocal anti-war movement which gained great momentum the previous year over the the Cambodian Invasion coupled with campus protest which culminated in the Kent State shootings. While the civil rights movement had been succesful in the previous decade in getting some legislation passed there was still some wide divides in our society.

The government was trying to wind down the Viet Nam war and DOD was already studying how to do away with conscription.

Drug use was rampant in civil society as well as in the military....and that is not just illegal drug use. Alcohol consumption was very high.

Most Americans could not tell you back then about East and West Pakistan and India other than places which appeared in fundraising ads for CARE, UNICEF and a host of other aid organizations.

Nixon realized that the country would not follow him into a war on the subcontinent of Asia.

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 12,, 14:31
Sir,

The Big E was the catalyst, nothing more nothing less. The IN/IAF/InA had nothing in hand to throw back at that boat.But getting the Big E away from attacking the InN and rescuing one of their own would accomplish the same.

Blademaster
20 Mar 12,, 14:39
But getting the Big E away from attacking the InN and rescuing one of their own would accomplish the same.

Yes and it would give the necessary ammunition to Nixon to galvanize the nation and follow him into another war and against India. Sure the operation would work, but it would be sheer national suicide. USSR would not save India despite the friendship pact.

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 12,, 15:00
Hitesh,

The historic fact was that the decision to launch that op was taken. It was countermanded later. It can only mean that the facts available to make that decision were considered.

Albany Rifles
20 Mar 12,, 16:19
Yes and it would give the necessary ammunition to Nixon to galvanize the nation and follow him into another war and against India. Sure the operation would work, but it would be sheer national suicide. USSR would not save India despite the friendship pact.

Hitesh,

Read my post at #51.

America was not about to get involved in another war in Asia as it was trying to get out of the one it was already involved in South East Asia. Congress would not have appropriated the long term funding.

And the US did nto yet see that area as key to our vital interests. Our focus had shifted to Europe and the very real problem that due to the Viet Nam war and friction with France NATO had fallen into disrepair. The US had to focus its resources on NATO and how to get our land forces out of Viet Nam.

Nixon and the JCS knew the Army, and to some extent the Marines, was broken and could not afford a fight with India while trying to start the long, hard slog to get NATO back to where it could be a deterrent. If NATO had been stronger I don't know that there could have been a Prague 68.

astralis
20 Mar 12,, 16:53
the US would HAVE to respond if the indians attacked the Big E or Diego Garcia, though.

wonder what the response would have been.

zraver
20 Mar 12,, 17:16
the US would HAVE to respond if the indians attacked the Big E or Diego Garcia, though.

wonder what the response would have been.

Depends, what if the target was DG, but the goal was to get the Big E out of the BoB until the InA concluded its operations. The InA lands, seizes the seebees, the Big E responds retakin the island, India has a few dwad a bunch of POWs, the US has a few dead and a bunch of feed prisoners and Pakistan is broken in two.

What did the InN have at sea,
how much of the InAF interceptor capability was in the East
Could the Phantom's escort the B-52's to India
How many carriers were on Yankee Station.
Did the Soviet Union pressure India to begin the moves to draw pressure off of Vietnam?

Blademaster
20 Mar 12,, 17:16
Hitesh,

Read my post at #51.

America was not about to get involved in another war in Asia as it was trying to get out of the one it was already involved in South East Asia. Congress would not have appropriated the long term funding.

And the US did nto yet see that area as key to our vital interests. Our focus had shifted to Europe and the very real problem that due to the Viet Nam war and friction with France NATO had fallen into disrepair. The US had to focus its resources on NATO and how to get our land forces out of Viet Nam.

Nixon and the JCS knew the Army, and to some extent the Marines, was broken and could not afford a fight with India while trying to start the long, hard slog to get NATO back to where it could be a deterrent. If NATO had been stronger I don't know that there could have been a Prague 68.

Doesn't matter. India attacked a US territory or base and it demands a military response. Never has been in the history of United states history did US fail to respond with overwhelming or disproportionate response or with fury to a military attack no mater how dire the economic or social situation was.

The majority of the public including Congress would be sufficiently galvanized to give Nixon free license to punish India by authorizing air raids in support of Pakistan. US would be carpet bombing left and right on Indian cities and military bases and forces until India cries mommy and accede to Pakistan's demands, including loss of massive territory such as complete handover of Kashmir, several key areas around East Bengal (Pakistan) and Pakistan would have crushed the fledgling independence movement with USAF and USN's help. Nixon would not go for ground troops but he sure can aid Pakistan tremendously with unlimited material support and monetary aid.

The only way I could see to avoid that is to seize Diego Garcia and wait for the Big E to shift course and steam forward to counter attack DG. When the Indians see the Americans coming, they skeedadle out of the way by heading for Mauritania or other islands in the Indian ocean perhaps using American seebees as hostages only to release them in return for safe passage. Big E has no choice but to proceed ahead and secure the island and secure the captured Americans or hostages. India apologizes profusely and attempt to diffuse the situation with diplomatic means saying it was a rogue operation or such. End result? No US naval presence in BoB for a couple days allowing the Soviets to set up a defensive screen and prevent further US naval forces from interfering with Indian operations and little Indian or American casualties.

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 12,, 17:50
Doesn't matter. India attacked a US territory or base and it demands a military response. Never has been in the history of United states history did US fail to respond with overwhelming or disproportionate response or with fury to a military attack no mater how dire the economic or social situation was.Marines Barracks Beirut, Lebanon. USAF housing, Dubai, Saudi Arabia.

Albany Rifles
20 Mar 12,, 18:10
Hitesh,

And you come to that conclusion how? I lived through those times. I remember watching Cronkite and Chancellor every night.

We didn't care.

It wasn't until the entire Indian Ocean area went to hell in a hand basket over then next 5 - 8 years that the US got involved seriously. When the flow of oil was threatened then you got America's attention.

But frankly, by the mid 1970s we all just wanted to get drunk and get laid and forget about the 1960s.

So if the Indians attack Diego Garcia (a British Territory, BTW, not US) there may be a proportional response from the US with the Enterprise CBG....but an overwhelming response and war with India? Nope...

Blademaster
20 Mar 12,, 18:12
Marines Barracks Beirut, Lebanon. USAF housing, Dubai, Saudi Arabia.

Those were non-state actors. When there was a state actor, US never failed to respond.

commander
20 Mar 12,, 18:15
So if the Indians attack Diego Garcia (a British Territory, BTW, not US) there may be a proportional response from the US with the Enterprise CBG....but an overwhelming response and war with India? Nope...

But wasn't it used as a US Naval base rather than UK's Navy base ???

Blademaster
20 Mar 12,, 18:19
Hitesh,

And you come to that conclusion how? I lived through those times. I remember watching Cronkite and Chancellor every night.

We didn't care.

It wasn't until the entire Indian Ocean area went to hell in a hand basket over then next 5 - 8 years that the US got involved seriously. When the flow of oil was threatened then you got America's attention.

But frankly, by the mid 1970s we all just wanted to get drunk and get laid and forget about the 1960s.

So if the Indians attack Diego Garcia (a British Territory, BTW, not US) there may be a proportional response from the US with the Enterprise CBG....but an overwhelming response and war with India? Nope...

It didn't matter. Let us look at the facts. You got a president at the helm who is itching for any excuse to go against the Indians. Congress won't let him. He got serious naval assets and USAF assets in the Southeast region. Nixon is still popular with the US populace. The oil crisis hasn't occurred yet. Now, there has been no resolutions passed by Congress forbidding Nixon to go to war or initiate conflicts with India. However, Nixon, being the president of US, has the War Powers Act which allows him to unilaterally move to secure US's national security interests for 90 days before requiring Congressional approval to continue further hostilities. Given those assets in that region, Nixon could very well order massive carpet bombing for 90 days pummeling Indian forces and giving Pakistan further relieve and space and time to initiate a strong counter attack and seize Indian strongholds and capture Kashmir and what else. When India attacks US personnel or assets, I will bet you my mother's set of pearl jewelry that Congress would not lift a finger to stop him for the next 90 days while Nixon has free license under the War Powers Act to kick the shit out of India.

So yes for 90 days, I can see US kicking the shit out of India with massive carpet bombing and naval bombardment. I think you still got those battleships in reserve at that time (that should bring USS Wisconsin or Dreadnought into this debate for sure :biggrin:) and can use that for serious naval bombardment. And despite the social divide, there would be a large segment of US population who are not hippies or pot smoking liberals and they would give vocative support to Nixon for the aerial and naval bombardment and give him the necessary political cover he needs to get through the next 90 days.

kato
20 Mar 12,, 18:27
Those were non-state actors. When there was a state actor, US never failed to respond.
USS Liberty Incident, 1967?

Arguably also the attack on LORAN-C Lampedusa by Libya in 1986.

Blademaster
20 Mar 12,, 18:27
Hitesh,

The historic fact was that the decision to launch that op was taken. It was countermanded later. It can only mean that the facts available to make that decision were considered.

Based on the timing of Big E's entry into the BoB and the subsequent surprise of Indians of Americans' naval movement, I can only surmised that this was a hastily planned op. So it meant that this op didn't have all the necessary assets to pull it off. Furthermore, most of the Indians' assets were tied up in fighting the eastern or western front, including ferrying of war supplies. I just don't see, with the given orbat of IAF and IN, that India would have sufficient assets to pull it off, even if it was a suicidal mission. Yes I know about the ambulance section being a divisional/brigade asset and it being included meant that it was serious, but I just don't see how it would be pulled off. We need more information.

Blademaster
20 Mar 12,, 18:30
USS Liberty Incident, 1967?

Arguably also the attack on LORAN-C Lampedusa by Libya in 1986.


And IIRC, Israel was an ally of US at that time and profusely apologized for the incident and offered compensation and an explanation that this was a blue on blue engagement. There were no casualties or damage on that Libya attack. Two scud missiles were fired and missed their targets.

With the DG incident, you have no such excuses and you cannot avoid casualties.

Firestorm
20 Mar 12,, 18:36
Based on the timing of Big E's entry into the BoB and the subsequent surprise of Indians of Americans' naval movement, I can only surmised that this was a hastily planned op. So it meant that this op didn't have all the necessary assets to pull it off. Furthermore, most of the Indians' assets were tied up in fighting the eastern or western front, including ferrying of war supplies. I just don't see, with the given orbat of IAF and IN, that India would have sufficient assets to pull it off, even if it was a suicidal mission. Yes I know about the ambulance section being a divisional/brigade asset and it being included meant that it was serious, but I just don't see how it would be pulled off. We need more information.
Exactly. Most of the An-12s and Il-14s would be already deployed transporting supplies to both the eastern and western fronts. India would be hard pressed to airlift a fully equipped brigade sized force even today. In 1971 it would be near impossible especially with a two-front war already going on.

Albany Rifles
20 Mar 12,, 20:14
You got a president at the helm who is itching for any excuse to go against the Indians.

And you get that assessment from where?

He got serious naval assets and USAF assets in the Southeast region.

Which is tied up supporting forces in Viet Nam...there wasn't a whole lot of extra assets available. Most of the conventionally capable B-52s were tied up...all the rest were nuclear capable only.

Also, 6th Fleet is tied up in the Med and the rest of the Navy is covering the North Atlantic.

No battleships left and the USN started rapid decommissioning WW 2 era ships styarting 1969...here is the draw down

Date 6/30/69 6/30/70 6/30/71
Battleships 1 - -
Carriers 22 19 19
Cruisers 34 31 30
Destroyers 201 155 152
Frigates 43 47 61
Submarines 100 103 100
SSG/SSBNs 41 41 41


US Ship Force Levels (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm)

Nixon may have been frustrated but he was not looking for a war with India. He was trying to keep the USSR at bay and open up China. Keeping West Pakistan viable was his goal. He saw India as a Soviet stooge. While he hated Indira Ghandi he was not willing to risk a nuclear war over it.

All of the unclassified documentation points to that.

Blademaster
20 Mar 12,, 20:30
You got a president at the helm who is itching for any excuse to go against the Indians.

And you get that assessment from where?

I got that assessment from published released Nixon recordings. I don't have them in my library and I will have to do a search for it but I don't have time for that right now. Based on the language expressed by Nixon, he was looking for any excuse or reason to lend military support and couldn't find one.



He got serious naval assets and USAF assets in the Southeast region.

Which is tied up supporting forces in Viet Nam...there wasn't a whole lot of extra assets available. Most of the conventionally capable B-52s were tied up...all the rest were nuclear capable only.

Also, 6th Fleet is tied up in the Med and the rest of the Navy is covering the North Atlantic.

No battleships left and the USN started rapid decommissioning WW 2 era ships styarting 1969...here is the draw down

Date 6/30/69 6/30/70 6/30/71
Battleships 1 - -
Carriers 22 19 19
Cruisers 34 31 30
Destroyers 201 155 152
Frigates 43 47 61
Submarines 100 103 100
SSG/SSBNs 41 41 41


US Ship Force Levels (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm)

If I recall correctly, you had one of the Iowa battleships launching one of its famous broadsides at Vietnam during 1969 or something like that. Is it possible that that ship would have continued service well into 1971 or be retained on battle reserve,but ready to go?



Nixon may have been frustrated but he was not looking for a war with India. He was trying to keep the USSR at bay and open up China. Keeping West Pakistan viable was his goal. He saw India as a Soviet stooge. While he hated Indira Ghandi he was not willing to risk a nuclear war over it.

All of the unclassified documentation points to that.

I get a different assessment from those documentations based on the published released Nixon recordings. USA would not risk a nuclear war wrt India because India would have been seen as the aggressor and SU had no intention of standing up to USA when India attacked USA. Moreover, keeping West Pakistan viable meant that he would have seriously contemplated attacking India with B-52 carpet bombing for several weeks. Is it so hard to divert resources from the Vietnam theater? I mean the continued presence of B-52s wasn't gonna change the status quo in Vietnam and Nixon knew that.

Edit note: I meant to say that USSR would not risk a nuclear war with USA wrt India because ...

Firestorm
20 Mar 12,, 21:13
While he hated Indira Ghandi he was not willing to risk a nuclear war over it.

Just a data point, but it wasn't just Indira Gandhi.


This wasn’t just about Indira Gandhi herself, they had a pretty low opinion of Indians in general:

Indians are “a slippery, treacherous people,” Nixon said.“The Indians are bastards anyway,” Mr Kissinger replied. “They are the most aggressive goddamn people around.” { Guardian }

Declassified US Documents Reveal What US Thought About India In Indo-Pak 1971 War PakDefenceUnit (http://pakdefenceunit.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/declassified-us-documents-reveal-what-us-thought-about-india-in-indo-pak-1971-war/)


In any case, coming to the topic of this thread, I guess what Blademaster is trying to say is that India couldn't afford to be seen as the aggressor in any conflict with the US. Not only would it invite an overwhelming response from the US, but it would have also left the chances of a soviet intervention extremely low. So this Diego Garcia operation IMO could only have been planned as a response to an attack by the Big E, to draw it away perhaps, as others have mentioned. Never as a pre-emptive attack.

Albany Rifles
20 Mar 12,, 21:15
Is it so hard to divert resources from the Vietnam theater? I mean the continued presence of B-52s wasn't gonna change the status quo in Vietnam and Nixon knew that.

Not without hurting SAC and he was not about to do that. And how did Nixon know this? B-52 strikes were being used to keep the NVA at bay and making up for a shortage of US manpower as the Amry was withdrawing. The USAF had no forces to divert to that mission without hurting that effort. And the force which would be needed to defeat an Indian air defense network was the TAC F-105s and F-4s which where attacking North Viet Nam from Thailand. They had the expertise to take on an inegrated AD network, not the B-52s.

The New Jersey was in mothballs by early 1970.

And I have read the reports as well....my read was Nixon was not ready to go nuclear...and with China and the Soviet Union getting pulled into it that is where it would end up.

So Colonel, to your point, the move by the Soviet forces to forstall the Enterprise may have in fact helped avert a nuclear confrontation.

Blademaster
20 Mar 12,, 21:53
Is it so hard to divert resources from the Vietnam theater? I mean the continued presence of B-52s wasn't gonna change the status quo in Vietnam and Nixon knew that.

Not without hurting SAC and he was not about to do that. And how did Nixon know this? B-52 strikes were being used to keep the NVA at bay and making up for a shortage of US manpower as the Amry was withdrawing. The USAF had no forces to divert to that mission without hurting that effort. And the force which would be needed to defeat an Indian air defense network was the TAC F-105s and F-4s which where attacking North Viet Nam from Thailand. They had the expertise to take on an inegrated AD network, not the B-52s.

The New Jersey was in mothballs by early 1970.

And I have read the reports as well....my read was Nixon was not ready to go nuclear...and with China and the Soviet Union getting pulled into it that is where it would end up.

So Colonel, to your point, the move by the Soviet forces to forstall the Enterprise may have in fact helped avert a nuclear confrontation.

What about repositioning forces and assets from the Europe and North American theater to attack India. IIRC, USA had that two and half war doctrine at that time and therefore could fight one more war on the India theater while leaving the other NATO assets and nukes to deter a Soviet counter-move in the Europe theater.

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 12,, 22:06
What about repositioning forces and assets from the Europe and North American theater to attack India. IIRC, USA had that two and half war doctrine at that time and therefore could fight one more war on the India theater while leaving the other NATO assets and nukes to deter a Soviet counter-move in the Europe theater.

A war in Europe. A war in the Pacific. And a war in Korea. Notice South Asia ain't among those.

Blademaster
20 Mar 12,, 22:34
A war in Europe. A war in the Pacific. And a war in Korea. Notice South Asia ain't among those.

Doesn't mean the situation can be fluidly changed in response to changing events. Were there any unusual deployments of US forces aside from the Big E's deployment, such as anticipation of hostilities between US and India during the 1971 war and moving forces around to be ready for that? Can we find out?

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 12,, 23:20
The only forces that can respond that fast are the 101st and 82nd. Too light for my comfort.

Blademaster
21 Mar 12,, 00:18
But enough to counter the forces available at DG and forestalling the need for Big E to come to DG and rescue the Seabees.

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 12,, 01:11
It would take at least 72 hours to ready a brigade and then the flight time to get there but since commanders like time to plan things out. Say a week before the first American rifleman sees the island.

zraver
21 Mar 12,, 02:02
And IIRC, Israel was an ally of US at that time and profusely apologized for the incident and offered compensation and an explanation that this was a blue on blue engagement. There were no casualties or damage on that Libya attack. Two scud missiles were fired and missed their targets.

With the DG incident, you have no such excuses and you cannot avoid casualties.

Sorry Hitesh, your claim doesn't hold water. The USS Rueban James was sunk with the loss of 115 lives, about what would be lost if India invaded DG.

Mexican raids 1910-16
UK seizure of US merchant shipping 1914-17
USS Panay (Imperial Japan) 1937
Looting of US property in Nanking and the Allison incident 1938
UK and France seize American ships and ignore Pan-American safety zone 1940
US and Germany fight an undeclared war in the North Atlantic 1941
U-2 shoot down 1960
USS Peublo (North Korea) 1968
USS Liberty
40+ shoot downs of US aircraft by the Soviet Union 1945-92
Iran Hostage Crisis
USS Stark (Iraq) 1987
China ramming a US surveillance plane
PLAN harassment of US intelligence trawler

Deltacamelately
21 Mar 12,, 10:10
Sir,

There is aboslutely no evidence to suggest that the Diego Garcia Operation was planned as a Premptive one.

It could be well argued, that with the size of balls that Mrs. Gandhi had, she could ask the InA/IAF to mount that type of an Operation against DG out of sheer fury, but Only after the Big E fired the first shot at the Indian mainland.

payeng
21 Mar 12,, 13:45
This has happened but was called off at the last second.

I've been wracking my brain for years coming up with the scenario on how this could be done.

What we do know. Captain Lemontree's father was part of an ambulance tasked to taking Deigo Garcia. He was getting ready to bore his plane when the assault was called off.

Based on that, I deduced that this was a brigade size airborne operation.

Add to this, Indian posters have stated that the InAF have at least talked about kamakazie attacks on the USS ENTERPRISE.

Go to it, people. Come up with the size of forces, what size initial entry forces, what objectives, and how do they hold Deigo Garcia ... or do they even intend to hold it?

I wonder did they receive any briefing about the operation, without any such briefing even a solider might not know where is he assigned to during the war.

Mrs. Gandhi's tour to the west with a message prior to the invasion was not in vain for India to attack a CENTO territory, I think. But it might be that if CENTO decides to joins the other side if the Soviet gets involved with India . DG was as much British as American during that time I think.

If the above hypothesis is true in any ways, I think India's non aligned policy needs to be blamed for that :biggrin:

Albany Rifles
21 Mar 12,, 13:54
The only forces that can respond that fast are the 101st and 82nd. Too light for my comfort.

And in 1971 the 101st ABN and 1 brigade of the 82nd were in Viet Nam....so they weren't available.

Albany Rifles
21 Mar 12,, 13:55
Sir,

There is aboslutely no evidence to suggest that the Diego Garcia Operation was planned as a Premptive one.

It could be well argued, that with the size of balls that Mrs. Gandhi had, she could ask the InA/IAF to mount that type of an Operation against DG out of sheer fury, but Only after the Big E fired the first shot at the Indian mainland.

No argument there.

And my point has been the US did not want to get into a fight with India...nor could it afford to.

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 12,, 14:21
It took a friggin nine years for this to make sense! Thank you, Gentlemen. I finally have a scenario that I am comfortable with.

Blademaster
21 Mar 12,, 14:34
Sorry Hitesh, your claim doesn't hold water. The USS Rueban James was sunk with the loss of 115 lives, about what would be lost if India invaded DG.

Mexican raids 1910-16 - Which was eventually responded to by Gen. Pershing's invasion. N
UK seizure of US merchant shipping 1914-17 - Not US government ships but private merchants who knew the dangers and risks. One could say that Wilson was trying to get on Britain's side and there were no casaulties or damage and made no protests about it but certainly issued a strong warning to Germany when Germany threatened to sink US ships when it would cause casaulties.
USS Panay (Imperial Japan) 1937 - Boat was in a war zone and Japan apologized and claimed that it was part of fog of war and a friendly fire incident and Japan paid for the damages. Japan - US relations
Looting of US property in Nanking and the Allison incident 1938 - Again in a war zone and the Allison incident was based on a slap by a Japanese soldier, No lives lost.
UK and France seize American ships and ignore Pan-American safety zone 1940 Not US government ships but private merchants who knew the dangers and risks. Again, Roosevelt was on the side of Britain and France.
US and Germany fight an undeclared war in the North Atlantic 1941 No surprise there. US eventually came out against Germany.
U-2 shoot down 1960 - Flying over enemy airspace. No ROE broken.
USS Peublo (North Korea) 1968 - In or nearby enemy territory or not which can be disputed back and forth. Again fog of war.
USS Liberty - Already explained above
40+ shoot downs of US aircraft by the Soviet Union 1945-92 - Not enough info. You need to be more precise as to which and where and when these planes were shot down. I am sure US also shot down SU planes as well.
Iran Hostage Crisis - In Iranian territory
USS Stark (Iraq) 1987 - Blue on blue incident and Iraq apologized for it and compensated damages. Same thing when US shot down an Iranian airliner.
China ramming a US surveillance plane - No lives loss and it was disputed to be in Chinese airspace. he said, she said situation with no clear conclusion.
PLAN harassment of US intelligence trawler - does not rise to the level of war. On same level as Greenpeace harassing whaling ships

The above incidents that you cited are not valid counter points. I have rebutted them in the above. We are talking about attacking a base, and not only that, but an allied base in which UK can invoke the charter of NATO and US would have to support UK in the face of such an open and naked aggression. The intent is unmistaken. In the above incidents you have cited, there was no open intent as to declaring war. Attacking DG would be nearly on the same level of Pearl Harbor.

Doktor
21 Mar 12,, 14:44
It took a friggin nine years for this to make sense! Thank you, Gentlemen. I finally have a scenario that I am comfortable with.

Colonel,

You gonna settle with attacking DG to reroute Task Force 74? how long was the group present in the BoB and how much time it takes to plan, authorize and organize the Brigade wise landing on DG?

Considering that Big E entered BoB on December 11th and the war ended 5 days later, also considering we don't know the exact date when the landing was scheduled... is it safe to assume the war with Pakistan ended and that's why the whole show was cancelled? Sounds plausible to me.

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 12,, 15:50
We don't know and the people who do know ain't talking. But for nine years, I could not wrap my head around this op. The fact that it did take place meant they must have thought it viable. This is the first time anyone has come up with the scenario that works and I'm happy with that.

zraver
21 Mar 12,, 15:57
The above incidents that you cited are not valid counter points. I have rebutted them in the above. We are talking about attacking a base, and not only that, but an allied base in which UK can invoke the charter of NATO and US would have to support UK in the face of such an open and naked aggression. The intent is unmistaken. In the above incidents you have cited, there was no open intent as to declaring war. Attacking DG would be nearly on the same level of Pearl Harbor.

Hitesh,

attacking DG would not invoke the NATO charter, which only applies to attacks in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean area. For a very clear example the UK was not able to invoke NATO during the Falklands.

The list I provided shows classic acts of war the US ignored or did not respond with overwhelming force to. And that was your claim. Hell the sinking of a major named warship USS Rueban James a power the US President wanted to go to war with killed more people than India would have killed in attacking DG and US didn't go to war.

Your theory is bust.

Blademaster
21 Mar 12,, 16:05
Hitesh,

attacking DG would not invoke the NATO charter, which only applies to attacks in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean area. For a very clear example the UK was not able to invoke NATO during the Falklands.

The list I provided shows classic acts of war the US ignored or did not respond with overwhelming force to. And that was your claim. Hell the sinking of a major named warship USS Rueban James a power the US President wanted to go to war with killed more people than India would have killed in attacking DG and US didn't go to war.

Your theory is bust.

Wrong again. The sinking of USS Reuben James was not considered as an act of war when it got mixed up with Allied convey shipping or escort which at the time was considered fair game to enemy combatants under the rules of war. The US president knew that. With Diego Garcia, it was never part of the 1971 war and no confusion or ambiguity could be applied there. It would be clear as day vs. night.

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 12,, 16:11
Iran Hostage Crisis

Blademaster
21 Mar 12,, 16:15
Iran Hostage Crisis

Operation Eagle Claw and it failed. Besides, the hostages were eventually released. And it was on Iranian soil. I know the US embassy is considered as a US soil but look at other historical precedents where embassies have been attacked and/or taken over.

Can you give me an example of where a US base was attacked?

Let me give you examples of mine. The Gulf of Tonkin incident which directly led to the Vietnam War. The USS Maine incident which led to the Spanish - US war. The sinking of Lusitania that led to US entry into WWI.

Doktor
21 Mar 12,, 16:17
Guys you are looking like these fellas at the moment


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Albany Rifles
21 Mar 12,, 16:18
We don't know and the people who do know ain't talking. But for nine years, I could not wrap my head around this op. The fact that it did take place meant they must have thought it viable. This is the first time anyone has come up with the scenario that works and I'm happy with that.

If the Colonel is happy, we are all happy!

Doktor
21 Mar 12,, 16:20
If the Colonel is happy, we are all happy!

With the powers vested in you, close this thread till he is still happy :)