why did the 15 British sailors surrender and not fight the Iranians.?

Question

With all the training British forces are put through why did they
just surrender to the Iranians they must have had the fire power
to repel the invaders the same thing happened in 2004

Answer 1

The armament of a landing party that the inspecting boarding parties is the same that the troops carry in combat. For the British that would be 9mm handguns and long gun with the same caliber as our M-16 Family of rifles, along with maybe five little machine guns probably carried by the marines.

The mother ship HMS Cornwall has one 4.5 inch Gun on the bow, the pointy end, and .50 Cal machine guns at most but probably 7.62 mm LMGs similar to what was carried by the Royal Marines and two Lynx helicopters similar to the Huey of Vietnam fame. Probably without armaments loaded.

The Iranian had three to four gunboats armed with 3" Guns and heavy machine guns. The thought of going up against these craft while in two Zodiacs type semi rigid craft make it seem that surrender was the best course of action infatct boarding parties are required ,even the USN and Coast Guard, to surrender and to allow diplomacy to run it's course.

The fact that the Iranians don't stop the US in the middle of the gulf is that the US usually has two or three helicopters flying around the boarding operation and the ships move behind the boarded ship ready to rush forward if an Iranian vessel makes a move. The Iranian forces run up and down the gulf looking at all ships that are moving on the water. I think that th gunboats moved very quickly and surrounded the two British Semi-Rigids before Cornwall could react.

The US is not the better force there in the Middle east we are just one of 5 powers that the UN has that are mandated to inspect vessels for contraband. All with the same orders strike back only to defend ones self.

Three Tours in the gulf on several boarding Parties.

Answer 2

The Iranians had larger patrol boats that were heavily armed. Reports say the british were lightly armed. If the British wanted to fight off the Iranians, they had plenty of backup....the only problem would be the 15 British soldiers would have been the first killed.

This incident could have easily spiralled out of control into a full armed confrontation with Iran. British commanders in the area knew this, which is why they decided not to react. The 15 will be returned, Iran cant think they can hold them for much longer. Not with half of NATO's combined firepower sitting in the Gulf.

Its a ploy to get everyone to focus on the soldiers and not the UN vote on sactions. If it were U.S. soldiers, it could have been really ugly.....and we would be bombing Iran at this moment.

I think the brits did the right thing, they knew the best way to survive was to give into the Iranians. It will all work out in the end. Iran will cave and release the soldier, knowing that if they don't it is pretty much all over for them. I mean, really....if anything happens to those soldiers Iran will be held accountable by not only the British, but most of NATO!

I'm sure Iran is looking for a way out of this as quick as possible. Its one thing to talk big, but Iran can't defend itself against two carrier battle groups!!

Answer 3

Most other answers (exception Andrew Noselli) have made the valid point that the British sailors were hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned (sidearms versus heavy machine guns). Consider too that the Brits' boats were RIBS (basically, rigid inflatable boats): one bullet through the plastic bags, the air escapes, the boat sinks.

But the most important reason why the Brits did not resist capture is that they were under orders not to provoke a war with Iran. Their job was to check the cargoes of vessels entering Iraqi waters, to ensure that no weapons or explosives were being smuggled in. Their job was not to start a war.

If Iran is really determined to force yet another Gulf War onto the world, I don't suppose that Britain wants to blamed for starting it.

Answer 4

i'm particular you combat to loss of existence caught in little inflatable boat via massive gunships. those have been youthful little ones too. You of course don't be attentive to lots element approximately how they have been captured and why, the place. to no longer point out we've on no account been hit via Iranian terrorists right here interior the US. And those have been British marines who're no longer very in touch the US 'conflict on terror.' Very odd remark, yet i assume... despite the fact that floats your boat. i might additionally upload that as component of 'conflict on terror' the US put in Shiite gov in Iraq who're extra in all probability to be friendly to fellow Shiites in Iran, and different Shiites like Hamas, Hezbollah. that seems undesirable and worrys lot of human beings interior the area, yet i do no longer think of its over. actually, few British marines getting released without harm can no longer harm something.

Answer 5

I don't care how much training you have, when there are more weapons aimed AT you than what you have to aim at the attackers... YOU ARE OUTGUNNED and the only thing you can do is commit suicide or surrender.

Have you ever had a weapon aimed at you or been shot at? I rather doubt it or you wouldn't have asked this question

Answer 6

they were only carrying side arms,not much good against automatic weapons,and"andrew n"you really are an idiot,american soldiers are not in the same league.

Answer 7

Now that is a very good question. Did they know they were in the wrong place? They were obviously prepared for hostilities because they were stopping and searching ships which could have contained anything or anybody. So why were they not prepared to fight off anybody who challenged them.

Answer 8

Yeah 15 on 100...great odds not to mention you 100 opponents have automatic weapons.........

hmmm....gotta wonder

Answer 9

American soldiers would not have been taken without a fight.

Go get 'em boys !

Answer 10

Because they werent americans