1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Why no convoy for the captured tanker?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by emerald52, Jul 22, 2019.

  1. emerald52

    emerald52 Star commenter

    We take the tanker near Gibraltar and then sit back and expect tankers near Iran to get through with the help of one warship in the area. Surely this is basic military strategy? What are they teaching them at Dartmouth, Sandhurst and Cranwell? Or is it the political decision to spend tons on an air craft carrier that leaks and has no aircraft?
    lexus300 likes this.
  2. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Navy like the other two services are run down to skeleton levels. Not enough ships to cover the political rhetoric is my guess.
    emerald52 and FrankWolley like this.
  3. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    You're right. Far too little is spent on defence. Much more needs to be spent on new warships and aircraft.
  4. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Might explain why for you emerald.
    emerald52 likes this.
  5. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    “First seal Lord”

    a Freudian slip indeed for that slippery Blairite toady.
    MAGAorMIGA likes this.
  6. Corvuscorax

    Corvuscorax Star commenter

    What would they have done? Fired on Iranian vessels? Hows that going to improve the situation?
  7. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    To act in accordance with government instructions. The military do not take decisions to deploy forces - they react to political decisions to do so.

    Once deployed, what they are actually allowed to do will depend on the rules of engagement set out by politicians.
  8. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

  9. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    I think we need to be realistic. We are a small country (albeit with a big history) and we are now out of our depth in the world...I fully expect us to have to give up our Permanent Seat at the UN within a decade.

    As for this ship - it may be registered in the UK, but it isn't really British. I'd be asking Sweden, the actual owners, to help negotiate with Iran. Plus the countries of the poor imprisoned crew.
    emerald52 likes this.
  10. emerald52

    emerald52 Star commenter

    So if we can’t guarantee the safety of the second tanker due to lack of ships why get involved with taking the first tanker?
    lexus300 likes this.
  11. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

  12. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Precisely. The Stena Impero is Swedish owned and Swedish managed by the Swedish company Stena Bulk. Why should the Swedes not provide convoys for their own ships?
  13. blue451

    blue451 Lead commenter

    If the idea was to seize the Iranian ship to provoke and incident like this and create a pretext then the convoy would have been counterproductive.
  14. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    On the news I heard that the second tanker was making a regular trip and hadn't informed the navy ships. We've told all UK registered ships not to go in the area at all...
    emerald52 likes this.
  15. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    We seized the Iranian ship as it was involved in taking oil to Syria, in breach of international sanctions (look at its route and you cans see why it was very suspicious...)
  16. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    To act as part of the EU.
    emerald52 likes this.
  17. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    The challenges facing the Royal Navy and the number of ships needed has been going on since WW1. It took a long time to realise that the solution to the U-boat problem was the convoy, a lesson that was learnt for WW2.

    After WW1 it was estimated that the RN needed at least 88 cruisers for trade protection but the Treasury reduced this figure to 50 which included old and unsuitable ships.

    Between the wars the ship that was built to bear the brunt of this was the County class cruiser built to Washington Treaty specs.
    These ships were heavily criticised but proved their worth being large and habitable for long times at sea.(and some spent huge amounts of time at sea)

    The frigates and destroyers (which despite their names are modern versions of the ship above) are probably too big and expensive to use as trade protection. RN has a smaller ship, the River Class which is probably about the right size.

    It can handle a helicopter but lacks a big gun such as

    which is useful to point at other ships(or small speed boats). (HMS Hood acting as a hospital ship during the Spanish Civil War had occasion to point her guns in this way, successfully)

    As is often the case the RN can only do its job if it has the right tools. It is still one of the larger navies of the World and has an enviable reputation for high standards but can only do what it is equipped to do.

    Previous cost cutting by the Treasury did help in starting a war.
  18. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    A possible factor could be that the first incident took place in international waters, but this incident was in Omani controlled waters?
    emerald52 likes this.
  19. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    I read somewhere that the USA offered forces to help with the tanker escorting issue but the UK refused. I presume they thought that lots of American warships in the area might upset the Iranians.
    emerald52 likes this.
  20. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    The USA are currently trying to get a group of allies to join it in providing an escort service, but they have not had much success as yet. I think everyone, not just the UK, has refused.

Share This Page