The Gun Counter

Quelle surprise.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/23/na ... ilors.html

Good first step, they need to court martial some of the sailors on the boats too. They can start with the helmsman who refused a lawful command.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/30/re ... -gulf.html

Better, now let's see them court martial them.

In the video bits I've seen of those 2 boats, it looks like they had some MGs aboard. But I have yet to see or hear it stated that they had any small arms with them. I have also not yet heard it said they even had any ammo.

Give the Obama rules of engagement, I would not be at all surprised to learn those boats were taken because they had nothing to shoot with.

Johnnyreb wrote:In the video bits I've seen of those 2 boats, it looks like they had some MGs aboard. But I have yet to see or hear it stated that they had any small arms with them. I have also not yet heard it said they even had any ammo.

Give the Obama rules of engagement, I would not be at all surprised to learn those boats were taken because they had nothing to shoot with.

They had weapons and ammo (or at least it has been reported as such). Apparently at least one of the enlisted disobeyed orders to take evasive action / resist from the SOPA. If that is in fact the case they should be executed for cowardice in the face of the enemy.

The report is damning, BTW. There's an extensive discussion over at http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2016/ ... eased.html

Short form - The only question is whether to allow them to commit seppuku, or shoot them pour encourager l'autres. The latter is winning.

First off, I'm not trying to excuse their abysmal behavior after capture, but this unit was fucked by their command structure 6 ways from Sunday. Read pages 47-50 of the executive summary for a taste. Running boats in harsh conditions for 90 days with literally ZERO parts, only one mechanic, being forced to operate their boats at far less than optimal manning, AND having to run other crew's boats (Which were a different type than they were accustomed to) because they had rotated back to Kuwait, is complete horseshit.

This wasn't just a failure of the two crews. This was a clusterfuck, top to bottom.

Vonz90 wrote:Good first step, they need to court martial some of the sailors on the boats too. They can start with the helmsman who refused a lawful command.

If you haven't already, I would suggest reading the executive summary. (P. 83-84)
While he did refuse a lawful order, the report seems to leans toward his call probably being the best, given the situation. It also mentions that -------- (Presumably the Boat Captain) " ...subsequently reversed his (own) order, recognizing that evasion would likely have produced a worse outcome."


CDR Salamander is a little vague on getting to the report, so go to the link he attached, and then click "Hot Topics".

Wrenchbender1 wrote:

Vonz90 wrote:Good first step, they need to court martial some of the sailors on the boats too. They can start with the helmsman who refused a lawful command.

If you haven't already, I would suggest reading the executive summary. (P. 83-84)
While he did refuse a lawful order, the report seems to leans toward his call probably being the best, given the situation. It also mentions that -------- (Presumably the Boat Captain) " ...subsequently reversed his (own) order, recognizing that evasion would likely have produced a worse outcome."


CDR Salamander is a little vague on getting to the report, so go to the link he attached, and then click "Hot Topics".

Under the circumstances, it was a command not an order. The Helmsman had no latitude of action other than to follow it. The scary part (from a professionalism standpoint) is that he did not even seem to realize that it was the case.

Would it have produced a worse outcome? I don't see how, the outcome that did happen was the worst possible one. Had they shot it up with the Iranians and been wiped out it would have been a better outcome.