Talk:Operation Praying Mantis

Grrrrr... unprofessional edits

People... PLEASE! If you dispute the factuality of something, tag it as such by using "" 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.

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.

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.

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)

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)