Talk:Operation Praying Mantis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Iran Ajr

The Iran Ajr seems to be completely missing from the article so I added its role in. The full story can be found on the Iran Ajr wikipedia page. The Iran Ajr was the Iranian minelayer ship that was officially validated as laying the mines which detonated the US navy vessel. It seems as though the retaliatory strike on the Iran Ajr was not officially included as part of Operation Praying Mantis, by what's on the main body of this article, so I added the little tidbit in the introduction.--Exander 05:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Iran Ajr was captured and sunk by U.S. forces in October 1987, well before the April 1988 laying of the mines that got the Samuel B. Roberts. PRRfan 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Serial numbers on the mines aboard Iran Ajr were recorded after the capture and before its sinking. According to No Higher Honor ISBN 1-59114-661-5 page 178, the serial numbers from Iran Ajr were in the same sequence as the mines found by Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal in the minefield where USS Samuel B. Roberts struck the mine. --Dual Freq 02:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Biggest surface action since WWII

Notes attached to the the unsigned edits in the article appear to indicate that the anonymous editor believes that the biggest battle between surface forces since World War II took place during the 1982 UK-Argentine Falklands War. Certainly, the two countries' naval forces clashed — UK helicopters damaged an Argentine sub, a UK submarine sank an Argentine cruiser, etc. — but were there battles between surface forces? I don't believe so. PRRfan 15:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read that it was the biggest battle for US surface forces since WWII, and have cited as so. If someone finds anything different please feel free to change. Joshdboz 17:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In answer to 'PRRfan'. Yes, there was. HMS Alacrity engaged the Argentinian ship ARA Isla de los Estados and sunk it after hitting it with a shell from her 4.5 inch guns for example.

Futuristic Source Material?

Could somebody explain where they found this source: Wise, Harold Lee (2007). Inside the Danger Zone: The U.S. Military in the Persian Gulf 1987-88. USA: Naval Institute Press? I've been all over the USNI website looking for it, Googled the title and the author and no such book exists, even as a Future Release by the USNI. This book is listed as a source on several Wikipedia articles about the naval conflict in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War. Gulfstorm75 06:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Digitally altered images

This was a lower resolution alteration of a DOD image, rotated with a falsified ocean surface added. I have replaced it with the higher resolution original, without the falsified ocean added. Maybe someone can colorized the corners differently to better match the water color, but I think it is important not to create fake items to alter images. See also original source Image:MightyServantRoberts19882.jpg. --Dual Freq 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

ICJ

I added the direct quote from the ICJ ruling, so I'm not sure how NPOV it could be. I don't especially agree with the ruling, but the dismissal of reparations is not included in that reference. I've split them and asked for a citation. --Dual Freq 12:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can represent the ICJ case in such a limited manner. Your single quote from the judgements, makes it sound as if the court case and the court's ruling was on the legitimacy of the U.S. actions. Did you even read this summary or establish what the case was about? You ask for a citation, but it is the essential ruling of the case... in fact the very sentence you quoted reads in full: the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America under Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States of America and Iran, as interpreted in the light of international law on the use of force; finds further that the Court cannot however uphold the submission of the Islamic Republic of Iran that those actions constitute a breach of the obligations of the United States of America under Article X, paragraph 1, of that Treaty, regarding freedom of commerce between the territories of the parties, and that, accordingly, the claim of the Islamic Republic of Iran for reparation also cannot be upheld;

In other words, the case bought by Iran is dismissed. The very selective portion you quoted is a misrepresentation of the court case and ruling. I will combine both aspects of the case with a new edit. --Deon Steyn 10:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deon. Until I actually clicked on the ICJ link provided and read through the article, the Wikipedia entry gave me that same impression of selective quoting and misrepresentation of the facts. Gulfstorm75 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Roberts, DIW

Dual Freq: Good point that losing the gas turbines didn't leave Roberts dead in the water. Of course, and as you no doubt know, the Roberts was actually DIW for an hour or so after the blast, when not only the LM-2500s but also the ship's diesel generators were offline. But I certainly wouldn't want to load up the intro with all that. PRRfan 19:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hole Size Discrepancy

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_%28FFG-58%29 it says a 15 foot hole (5m), and on this page it says 25... Thought someone might want to check on that. --Ikyork 02:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Grrrrr... unprofessional edits

People... PLEASE! If you dispute the factuality of something, tag it as such by using "‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› " or some other tag. Please do NOT write IN THE MAIN ARTICLE your disputes, gripes, etc. That's what THIS page is for... discussing the edits. Putting it in the main article makes the article look like yak-dung! The main article is NOT a forum for a pissing contest!

Supersquid 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since someone appears to think ‘operation praying mantis’ was the largest engagement between surface forces since WW2. I would be interested to know their definition of ‘largest engagement’ and ‘surface forces’ . I notice that the ‘order of battle’ is shown as consisting of 10 US ships and 9 Iranian ships.

The Falklands battle (1982) was fought between at least 40 UK warships and 19 Argentine warships. (not including dozens of other fleet auxiliary ships)

‘praying mantis’ involved 1 aircraft carrier, the Falklands battle involved 3 aircraft carriers.

‘praying mantis’ involved 4 destroyers, the Falklands battle involved 23 destroyers

‘praying mantis’ resulted in 2 known fatalities (according to the wikipedia article) the Falklands war resulted in 907 known fatalities. (323 being killed in the sinking of one ship)

‘praying mantis’ involved 1 amphibious transport dock, the Falklands battle involved 6 amphibious transport docks.

‘praying mantis’ resulted in the sinking of 8 ships (of which 6 were speedboats) , the Falklands battle involved the sinking of 13 ships mostly destroyers but also a battle cruiser (with at least twice as many severely damaged.)

‘praying mantis’ lasted 1 day, the Falklands battle lasted 43 days (from the start of naval engagements)

I could go on, but this will do as an opener. Let us see how long it will take before truth is allowed to appear in Wikipedia...the Baghdad Bob genre of reference literature.

First, I highly suggest that, if you want to be taken seriously, you register and get a username, and edit under that name. It lends credibility to your editing. Also read up on Wikipedia policies. It's ain't too hard, even a dumb sailor like myself can understand it. Second, you keep mentioning numbers of ships without citing your sources. See, it's not what we believe, it's what we can reference. That's how Wikipedia works. You mention one of the combatants as being a battlecruiser. Sorry, friend, but no such animal exists, at least not since WWI, unless you count the pocket battleship, the Alaska class large cruisers, or the Soviet Kirov class missile cruiser. Maybe a technicality, but that's the importance of citing your sources. Third, yes all together the Falklands War had a large number of naval engagements over a period of time, no disputing that. But, that's not what we're talking about! We're talking about a single naval operation, occurring on one day. This was a battle, not a war, which is what the Falklands War was (obviously). Lastly, please don't get offended by all of this... Wikipedia is a work in progress. By becoming offended and making disparaging comments about Wikipedia, such as your Baghdad Bob comment, it does nothing but undermines your credibility and makes you appear to have an agenda.

BTW, if you haven't noticed, I was the one to tag the item that you have issues with. That means it needs references.

Supersquid 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Good morning Supersquid. I would like to address your points one by one, I hope you will take the time to read them as carefully as I have read yours.

I am not the least bit interested in ‘how people take me’, I am only interested in truth.

Your criteria for ‘being taken seriously’ are not my criteria, for example I am not particularly impressed by people who use vulgar language such as ‘yak dung and pissing contest’.

Now to the substance of the debate. You assert that we are talking about ‘a single naval operation, occurring on one day’. Really? As defined by whom? On that basis the Battle of Leyte gulf was not a battle, the battle of Jutland was not a battle, the battle of Midway was not a battle etc. Do you need references for these battles?

You further assert that the Falklands conflict was a war ‘(obviously)’ . I have to point out that both Argentina and the UK went to great lengths not to use the word ‘war’ and neither side declared war during the dispute. This is why the conflict was limited to the sea and air around the islands and no action taken against the respective homelands.

Even if we use the term ‘war’ I have limited my comments to the NAVAL BATTLE around the Falkland islands and not mentioned the land campaign.

Forgive me for not providing sources earlier but I was working under the assumption that some things are common knowledge. Here now are references for everything I previously stated.

The Royal navy order of battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

The Argentine navy order of battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

The ‘battle cruiser’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Belgrano#Falklands_War

The details of the battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War Please notice that I have replied to your points. If you choose to respond I would be most grateful if you would answer the following points as they seem to be at the heart of the contention.

1/ Who decreed that ‘we are talking about a single naval operation, occurring on one day’ and would you define ‘single naval operation’? (like Operation Corporate perhaps?)

2/ How would you define ‘surface forces’ ? For example are aircraft carriers and their planes ‘surface forces’ ?

3/ How would you define ‘biggest battle’. does this mean number of ships involved? Tonnage sunk or damaged? Most deaths?

Finally, if your answer to #3 is any of the afore mentioned I can pick out any number of ‘single days’ during the Falklands naval battle where the numbers involved are greater than ‘operation praying mantis’

Good day to you sir and merry Christmas.

Supersquid is talking about engaged surface forces. The Falklands did not have opposing surface forces in contact. OPM did. It was the largest surface battle since WWII.

To the person defending Supersqid in the preceding paragraph, your statement is untrue. There were many 'surface engagements' in the Falklands conflict for example HMS Alacrity engaged and sank ARA Isla de los Estados after hitting it with shells from her 4.5 inch guns.

According to Wikipedia's article on the ship, Isla de los Estados was an unarmed vessel, and not a true warship. I would not quite call a warship shelling a transport a battle.69.144.67.88 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing a "battle" with a "war". Yes, there were more vessels "involved" or "deployed" in the 2–3 month long Falklands War, but they weren't all involved simultaneously in one battle on one day. --Deon Steyn (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oil Platforms

"By the end of the operation elements of the American fleet had damaged Iranian naval and intelligence facilities on two inoperable oil platforms in the Persian Gulf"....According to this statement in the article, the oil platforms were inoperable BEFORE the American fleet damaged them. Is this a misstatement?

This article repeats the same events twice yes? 195.229.241.183 23:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the platforms were inoperable, but the Iranians were using them to launch attacks on U.S. ships.

Ok, I was there for Operation Praying Mantis. The two oil platforms were no longer petroleum producing sources. They were, however, being used for military purposes, surveillence and intelligence gathering missions. The oil platforms were not "damaged" they were completely destroyed. After suffering in excess of 200 5" shells from my ship alone the Sassan platform was finished off by charges planted after our ground forces scoured it for intelligence and brought back many helicopter loads of documents and other items. Heck, I have a photo of the finale where the Sassan platform was blown off it's supports and sunk. Finally, two years later when I returned to the Gulf the ship returned to the spot of these oil platforms and there was nothing more than a few bits of metal barely poking up past the surface of the Gulf. How they got "repaired" and brought it back is beyond me. There was nothing to repair. Replaced maybe but I would like to see a source on the claim listed because I know for a fact they were no longer in existence in 1988 after Praying Mantis, or 1990 when I returned for my next deployment in the Gulf. 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Steve

Right, Steve...I was also there, in 1988 and again in 1990; I dunno if MERRILL fired 200 rounds, but the platforms were fully functional as military posts on 17 Apr and smoking twisted metal on 19 Apr. "Doc".

Were there any Iranian personnel present on the two platforms when they were attacked by the U.S.? Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Each surface action group issued a radio warning a few minutes before opening fire. Our Outboard had a Farsi linguist who made sure the personnel knew what was about to happen.

[1] PRRfan (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This Article Contains a Blatant Lie

Good morning Supersquid. I would like to address your points one by one, I hope you will take the time to read them as carefully as I have read yours.

I am not the least bit interested in ‘how people take me’, I am only interested in truth.

Your criteria for ‘being taken seriously’ are not my criteria, for example I am not particularly impressed by people who use vulgar language such as ‘yak dung and pissing contest’.

Now to the substance of the debate. You assert that we are talking about ‘a single naval operation, occurring on one day’. Really? As defined by whom? On that basis the Battle of Leyte gulf was not a battle, the battle of Jutland was not a battle, the battle of Midway was not a battle etc. Do you need references for these battles?

You further assert that the Falklands conflict was a war ‘(obviously)’ . I have to point out that both Argentina and the UK went to great lengths not to use the word ‘war’ and neither side declared war during the dispute. This is why the conflict was limited to the sea and air around the islands and no action taken against the respective homelands.

Even if we use the term ‘war’ I have limited my comments to the NAVAL BATTLE around the Falkland islands and not mentioned the land campaign.

Forgive me for not providing sources earlier but I was working under the assumption that some things are common knowledge. Here now are references for everything I previously stated.

The Royal navy order of battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

The Argentine navy order of battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

The ‘battle cruiser’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Belgrano#Falklands_War

The details of the battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War Please notice that I have replied to your points. If you choose to respond I would be most grateful if you would answer the following points as they seem to be at the heart of the contention.

1/ Who decreed that ‘we are talking about a single naval operation, occurring on one day’ and would you define ‘single naval operation’? (like Operation Corporate perhaps?)

2/ How would you define ‘surface forces’ ? For example are aircraft carriers and their planes ‘surface forces’ ?

3/ How would you define ‘biggest battle’. does this mean number of ships involved? Tonnage sunk or damaged? Most deaths?

Finally, if your answer to #3 is any of the afore mentioned I can pick out any number of ‘single days’ during the Falklands naval battle where the numbers involved are greater than ‘operation praying mantis’

Good day to you sir and merry Christmas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.8.105.64 (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Falklands conflict, surface warships never fired at each other. Jets and helicopters and submarines fired at surface warships. In Praying Mantis, surface warships exchanged missile fire and did damage. PRRfan 16:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. For example HMS Alacrity engaged the Argentinian ship 'Islas de los Estados' in Falklands sound and sank it after shelling it with her 4.5 inch guns.

Yes. There was also a further minor engagement, known as the Battle of Seal Cove (click on link). DagosNavy 15:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordanance Used

I question the accuracy of the ordnance cited in the battle's description. First, Did the Joshan actually use a "Harpoon missile;" had the US exported any to Iran prior to '79? Perhaps an Exocet [2] was used? Secondly, Did the US frigates actually fire surface-to-air "Standard missiles" against sea-borne targets, as the article suggests. Harpoon's seem more likely. I've flagged the two sentences in question as "citation needed," since I don't know the answer either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.144.132 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It would make perfect sense to use a standard(which is dual use) to destroy things like radars and other delicate instruments that will mission kill a ship, the missile is real fast and accurate. I'm not sure if the missile can be guided by AWACS(I would imagine it probably could be), P-3 or a helo with some radar so I don't know about over the horizon. Not to mention that most ships nowadays are not really armored so I guess you could also turn the superstructure to swiss cheese and probably start some fires or cook some of the ammo on board. it still is, after all a big missile with a big frag warhead and probably a lot of fuel still when it gets to the ship. But it would be hard to sink a ship with standards, that is what the harpoons are for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.87.149 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Though you maybe doubtful of the statement 1) Yes, Johan fired a "harpoon" at Wainwright, not an exocet. 2) Yes, Johan was taken out by an SM-1. I was there.

---

Wainwright

I was involved in Operation Praying Mantis from start to finish onboard the USS Wainwright (My battle station was in Combat Information Center), so I am a good source of information that is credible as far as SAG C is concerned). We were informed shortly after this skirmish that it was in fact the largest US Naval engagement with other surface forces since WWII, the emphasis being on "US". For the sailors onboard the USS Wainwright it was a very close call (the missile fired at us from the Joshan passed so close that we could hear it throughout the ship). Also worthy to note, the information on the 'USS Vincennes (CG-49) is not correct. The 'USS Vincennes (CG-49)arrived as per schedule to relieve the USS Wainwright (CG 28) that was scheduled to return to Charleston, SC. They were not there to oversee the departure of the damaged Roberts, they were there for routine duty previously scheduled. In defense of the Vincennes, it was not an uncommon practice for the Iranians to fly their fighter aircraft, with I.F.F. squawking, in extreme proximity to civilian airliners flying from Iran to Dubai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.171.98 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Decorations

Moved from main page pending cites:

"All were awarded Battle (E) Medals and Navel Expeditionary Medals.Special Note* Purple Heart awarded to Those Wounded SH-1 SW ,Willis (BILL) Hamilton." 01:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Again:

"Navel Expeditionary Awards and Battle "E" Awarded to SH-1 (SW) Willis (Bill) Hamilton crewmember of the USS JOSEPH STRAUSS DDG-16 by (Admiral) (William J Crowe)."PRRfan (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

http://abbot.us/DD629/NavyAwards/1650_1g.pdf citation for decoration (please review) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlywood 24201 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Was USS Benjamin Stoddert involved?

Anon editor 71.94.221.139 says USS Benjamin Stoddert was part of SAG Delta. Two books about Praying Mantis, Peniston and Wise, say SAG Delta included only O'Brien, Jack Williams, and Joseph Strauss. Unless someone can offer a non-OR citation indicating otherwise, I'm going to reremove Stoddert from the order of battle. PRRfan (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

DANFS confirms that Stoddert was not in the Persian Gulf during Praying Mantis. I'm deleting. PRRfan (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[

Marine Assault

It needs a lot more work but I added a first draft of the description of the Marine assault on the Sassan GOSP. I welcome contributions and suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC) yep, was me Veriss (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Need more eyewitness accounts from Air perspective...

There is a lot of input to this from my SWOverall clad brothers in arms, but not enough from those who wore flight suits!

I believe the following is factually incorrect: "A-6E Intruder aircraft from the VA-95 "Green Lizards" were directed to the speedboats by an American frigate. The two aircraft, piloted by Lieutenant Commander James Engler and Lieutenant Paul Webb, dropped Rockeye cluster bombs on the speedboats, sinking one and damaging several others, which then fled to the Iranian-controlled island of Abu Musa.[2]" I do not recall Jingles (Engler) and Robo (Nortz) striking Boghammars (I'll see if Jingles will respond to an e-mail request for verification); but Spider (Webb) and Goose (Herath) definitely did.

Spider related the story that he and Goose (his Bombardier/Navigator, or BN) chased down a pair of Boghammars fleeing. They dropped one Rockeye, and the targeted boat 'jinked' to the right. While flying downwind to set up for another pass, Spider reasoned that as an A-6 pilot sitting on the left side of the aircraft he is more comfortable turning to the left, that the boats would likely continue to jink to the right to avoid the weapon because that is the direction of turn the boat helm would be more comfortable taking. He recalled, from riding in my boat back home at Whidbey Island, that the steering wheel of my boat is on the right side, so it made sense that the Boghammar steering would also be on the right side of the boat. So, on the next pass, he intentionally offset to the right, and sure enough, the boat jinked right again and was turned into toothpicks in the center of the Rockeye pattern. After that run, two other Boghammars continued full throttle onto a beach at Qeshm Island at about 70 mph, bounced violently then came to a stop and the crew jumped out and ran away! They wanted nothing more to do with Rockeye armed Intruders! The Intruders launched armed with a six pack of Rockeye, a Harpoon & an LGB, which was a recoverable load back at the Enterprise; having a recoverable load was important because all missions had to be ready to fight, but not all would expend ordnance, and we did not want to set ourselves up to be in a situation where we would have to jettison ordnance. Bakerod, my pilot, and I flew three missions during lull periods, so we were never called out of the CAP stack and had to bring all of our weapons back.

The Intruders were operating independently, which furthers my belief that it was only one Intruder crewed by Spider and Goose that struck the Boghammers. Jingles and Robo were in a lone Intruder when Robo dropped the laser guided bomb down the stack of the Sabalan. DCAG and Pappy were in a lone Intruder when they were trolling the Strait of Hormuz looking for bad guys (there are usually a lot of ships in the Strait), and found one (the Sahand) that nominated itself as a target when it fired guns at them (not missiles, another factual error in the main article). The article phrase, "The frigate was spotted by two VA-95 A-6Es while they were flying surface combat air patrol" makes it sound like they were flying formation, which I do not believe they were; I recall the second Intruder, crewed by the XO and his pilot, was vectored to the fight once the Sahand was located. Killer and his BN were fired on by surface ship guns (likely the Sabalan; I'll ask Killer to see if he remembers), and they were in a lone Intruder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien BN (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

'Intruders'

using the label of 'Intruders' for US forces seems excessively emotive for me and may give the hint of bias. I suggest we change this simply to, 'US forces' where appropriate. Any objections? --Richardeast (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the article only uses "Intruder" as an abbreviation for the Grumman A-6 Intruder attack aircraft. Hut 8.5 19:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Term is then obviously fine --Richardeast (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed then...

I'm afraid we can't use your personal recollections as sources for article content. We require that information be verifiable to a reliable published source, and we have rules against original research. This would also rule out using inferences from unpublished photographs and unpublished records. Hut 8.5 16:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Navycbtactvet, I think you could have left your eye witness account here since it could have given other editors leads to find verifiable sources. It did not appear to violate any policies by having it here on the talk page. Please restore it if you are so inclined. Semper Fi, Veriss (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Veriss; it may indeed lead to verified edits. PRRfan (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Several Questions

I was one of the Marines who landed on the Sassan GOSP (Gas-Oil Seperation Platform). I have noticed what may be some minor inacuracies in the information currently provided. I am not a sailor nor an expert on petroleum extraction operations and cannot be sure so am asking here on the talk page.

Is the phrase "5 inch, 54 caliber" correct or should it be 5.5 inch guns or would some other nomenclature be more accurate?

During the operation we refered to the Sassan platform as a GOSP, not the acronym used in the article currently. Were we incorrect or is the acronym in the current article standard industry terminology for such a platform?

Since there is very little information on the web concerning Contingency MAGTF 2-88 and it's subsequent landing operation on Sassan GOSP, and the article appears to focus on the broader Naval Surface and Air Operations, would the community be interested in additional details of the Marine MAGTF landing portions of the operation or would it be better to start a seperate Contingency MAGTF 2-88 page?

Feedback welcome. Veriss (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

5 inch 54 caliber is correct. With Naval Guns caliber means the length of the barrel, as in 54 times the bore in this case. 5"x54 works out to 270" long barrel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.10.64 (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Chronology...

In "The Battle", this article indicates the Joshan was sunk [Para. 3]. Later, in [Para. 6], the Joshan attacks U.S. ships Simpson and Bagley, and is sunk again?

In [Para. 4], weapons delivered against the Sahand are "successful", and the Sahand sinks in [Para. 5]. The Sahand is indicated as being sunk again in [Para. 6] (redundant).

In [Para.3], the Sabalan departs Bandar Abbas; it then departs port (again?) in [Para. 5].

[I would edit this myself, but I don't know the true chronology of this battle.

"U.S-backed Iraq"

I'm curious about the use of this line. It might be proper to simply remove this adjective or comment altogether. The issue about who 'backed' Iraq during their war with Iran is frought with pitfalls.

According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US materiel support accounted for less than half of a percent of total value in conventional arms suppies sold to Iraq. By contrast, the USSR accounted for nearly 60%.

The US provided Iraq intelligence support, and Iran with weapons. I don't know who else 'backed' Iran, but the was far from the leading materiel supplier to Iraq. This was why the Iraqi army used/uses Warsaw Pact airplanes, missiles, armor, light arms, tactics, etc. The Soviets trained them, sold them weapons, etc. Western European countries also armed Iraq. These sales and transfers probably account for the huge debt Iraq incurred prior to invading Kuwait.

Source: http://web.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html

Decisive battle

The inclusion of Praying Mantis with genuine, history-altering battles such as Midway is just plain silly. Any naval confrontation between the US and Iran that did not resolve itself in an American slam-dunk would've been a de facto victory for Iran. The good professor needs to realign his historical gyros, which obviously have tumbled.

Is the article NPOV?

I am not an expert in these topics but I have read Iranian side of story and it seems different. Does the article only gives one side of story (US side)? If so we need to add Iran side to be NPOV. I wonder those who know enough about what both sides say can help out, meanwhile I think there is need for a Nutrality tag.Farmanesh 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Simply add the information you have and provide sources. I'm all for providing both sides of the story, but let's make sure that it isn't something that is mere propoganda. As long as it can stand up to scrutiny, then I say just put it in. The neutrality of this article may be a bit one-sided, but that's because there isn't any contradicting evidence to back up most of the Iranian claims.

Add them (maybe under a new section entitled "Controversy"), we'll see what you have, and then go from there. Fair 'nuff? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes fair enough, except this reminder that we are not here to decide whether one side's story is right or wrong as it would be "OR". We should just mention both sides with reference without putting ourselves in the judge position. Problem is I am not expert in the topic and also the sources I saw are in Persian language which may have "verifiability" problem. I think I leave this to experts, anyhow there is no rush in wikipedia. I will get back if someday I found a proper source, meanwhile I hope those who know more on the topic add the other side's story too.Farmanesh 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see someone else noticed that this article is one-sided. While the article seems to be factually based, it is written in Americanized English with phrases like, "In short". These give it the feel of being written by Americans (who may or may not be members of the armed forces). It wouldn't hurt to have more information from the Iranian side too, as most of the specifics involve the heroics of American military personel.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. There's nothing against writing in American English as per the Manual of Style as long as it is consistently done throughout the article. As for the "heroics of American military personel"^[sic], personally I do not see anything in the article mentioning heroics... it's told without any embellishments. And in regards to the Iranian side of the story... I agree with BQZip01 in reference to "contradicting evidence," and with Farmanesh regarding the Farsi articles. If I can get in touch with some old friends that I worked with while in Afghanistan, I might be able to get those articles translated (and these people do VERY good work) so we can have proper references. It may be a long shot though. Or maybe get in touch with someone working the Farsi side of Wikipedia to ask for translation help.

As for the POV tag... ehhhhh I really think that a different tag would make better sense, such as a "need additional sources" tag. But that's just my $2 (inflation lol).

Supersquid (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The article could certainly use more information about Iranian actions, but the information presented is relayed in a factual, non-biased way: this happened, then that happened. Unless Cdogsimmons and Farmanesh can say what they believe is POV, I'm not persuaded there's a need for the tag. PRRfan (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

With no specific POV claims presented, I'm removing the tag. PRRfan (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

However, the title of the article itself might reflect some bias. The use of an operational codename specifically entails to the American side of the operations, and do not particulary cover the Iranian reactions. There is the same problem with Operation Overlord, which is being evaluated to be renamed as Battle of Normandy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force. In your opinion, what would be an appropriate alternative name ? Cochonfou (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is inherently biased. It is written as if there was a war between Iran and the USA. The reality is that it was an unproved attack by small US forces on a handful of Iranian ships. Clearly an act of war, and a war of aggression (AKA a war crime). However the article suggests that the USA was justified in the attack on Iran, notwithstanding the admission that the ICJ found that the actions by the USA was unjustified.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem with outdated info

This is likely just one specific example out of several WP:DATED problems, but it is the specific one I happened to run across. See this January 2, 2020 edit, and the assertion, "is still in service", re the Iranian frigate Sabalan. I looked back a bit further than indicated in the edit summary there, and I see that that particular vessel appears not to have been verified as in service as of 14:51 on October 14, 2003 -- the modification time shown here, in the earliest copy of that GlobalSecurity.org web page present at archive.org -- archived on December 5, 2003. In a related apparent problem, that vessel is reported as in service in the current version of the List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy article. I don't know where I might check to refine this info further with a citeable supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

See a related discussion at Talk:List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy#Problem with outdated info. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy article seems so outdated and the sources it cites (e.g.,[3]) and related sources (e.g.,[4]) are undated and difficult to interpret. I've given up hope on being able to contribute usefully to straightening this out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Victory?

Are there any reliable sources saying the operation led to the American victory? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the result= parameter argument to handle this as suggested in the {{infobox military conflict}} docs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop spreading misinfo in this page

I've seen an uncited and false claim on this article constantly be passed around social media. That being that somehow half Iran's navy was sunk. This is blatantly false. Iran only lost an Alvand class frigate and a Kaman class FAC. They still had a dozen more FACs, 3 more Alvand class frigates, dozens of auxillary vessels, dozens of landing craft, and 2-3 more corvettes IdkIdc12345 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

POV, the lead, and No Higher Honor (Bradley Peniston)

Here, I've WP:BOLDly reverted the content of one para of the lead to an earlier version. The version I have restored was removed in this edit by an editor alleging violation of WP:NPOV. It was restored as the version I have replaced in this edit on the basis of a judgement that the removal on that basis itself flouted NPOV. The version I replaced did not provide support for the specific assertion made which (WP:AGFing here -- I have not seen the book) the page-numbered book cite I have restored does. I note that removal of this cite due to argued POV bias was improper -- see WP:DUE, which is part of the NPOV policy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)