2008 Election | The Pub | The Field Mess | The Staff College | Bookmark WAB


Go Back   World Affairs Board > Military Forums > Naval Forces
Register FAQ WAB RSS Feed Forum GuidelinesMembers List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!

The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-21-2006, 15:49 PM   #31 (permalink)
canoe
Military Professional
 
canoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-13-05
Posts: 698
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
It was the biggest naval action since the Faulklands, one of the bigger naval actions since the end of Korea or even WWII. No Jutland, no.....but then, we ARE talking about Iran. Three separate SAGs supported by a carrier TF and MAG TF is not exactly a "Small engagement".

IMO the Iranian navy poses no real risk to a US TF operating on a wartime footing. It would take some real bad luck on the Americans part for the Iranians to take out even a single US ship with gun or missile fire.

PS: Wikipedia is a pretty weak resource.
I totally agree the U.S put alot of ships out, I'm just saying the Iranian's didn't. If it came to exchanging fire this time I'm sure they'd have alot more ships attacking. I still think the U.S would easily win any conflict but they'd probably take a little more damage/casualties then the last time.
canoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2006, 16:38 PM   #32 (permalink)
Anon
New Member
 
Join Date: 08-03-03
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by canoe
I totally agree the U.S put alot of ships out, I'm just saying the Iranian's didn't. If it came to exchanging fire this time I'm sure they'd have alot more ships attacking. I still think the U.S would easily win any conflict but they'd probably take a little more damage/casualties then the last time.
Well i agree it's a safe assumption that more than 2 Americans will die in an all out naval war with Iran, so yeah, i'll give ya that.
Anon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2006, 11:04 AM   #33 (permalink)
2DREZQ
Contributor
 
2DREZQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-04-03
Posts: 704
As opposed as I am to blowing up or sinking perfectly good ships (and men), perhaps the world needs some sort of reminder of the sort of hellfire a US Carrier Battle Group is capable of. Most of the world hasn't got a clue.

PS. Wouldn't 16-inch fire be perfect for takng out an oil rig? You never know when you might have to do that...
__________________
USS North Dakota
2DREZQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Iranian Identity Crisis: Islam v. Iranian Identity joey2 The Iranian Question 29 04-12-2007 15:06 PM
Neocons Baiting Iran With Second Strike Group maddog88 Political Discussions 59 01-30-2007 01:48 AM
Guerilla Warfare troung The Staff College 13 04-05-2006 02:25 AM
Iran to be refered to U.N. Security Council Dreadnought Political Discussions 13 01-16-2006 15:14 PM
A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences lulldapull International Defense Topics 14 11-20-2004 16:27 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:01 PM.


Rochen is the business hosting sponsor of World Affairs Board and a provider of reseller web hosting services.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8