HMS Liverpool hits shore targets in Libya

#1
It seems that the RAF's PR machine knows no bounds:
BBC News 12 May 2011" said:
Air attacks

On Wednesday night, British warship HMS Liverpool was involved in action to stop Col Gaddafi's forces from mining Misrata's harbour.

The chief of defence staff's strategic communication officer, Maj Gen John Lorimer, said: "The destroyer, while engaged on surveillance operations off the coast, was tasked with other Nato warships to intercept small, high-speed inflatable craft spotted approaching the port of Misrata - similar boats have previously been used by the regime to attempt to mine the harbour.

"The regime artillery on the coast fired an inaccurate salvo of rockets at Liverpool, whereupon she immediately returned fire, which silenced the shore battery."

Col Gaddafi's boats abandoned their operation, he added...
 
#4
He means, if you read down about halfway, that the 4.5inch gun engaging the shore batteries are termed 'air attacks' by the article.


Whatever, BZ on watch PWO and Gunners.
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#8
Raised glasses here to all involved; PWO, gunners, spotters ... and the command approval. BZ
Yes indeed; Mainbrace Spliced, BZ to the LIVERPOOL.
Brassing up the enemy by the Ship's main armament (4.5"), seems a very British way of doing things.

I guess we'll find out later, but did the PWO fancy his chances and use Sea Dart in its Surface to Surface role?
 
#12
Apparently the floating scousepot reported an epidemic of homesickness for Fazarkerley, Toxteth and Crosby after the crew surveyed the bomb damaged ruins and listened to the crackle of gunfire in the distance. One sailor (called wazza by his mates) expressed an interest in purchasing a particularly shell damaged building as a home. He said "It's in better nick than me Ma's 'ouse and there's less violence, crime and unemployment than in Speke." He also observed that the local Muslim fundamentalists were a lot more likeable than his neighbours.
 
#16
...or Tornados or Typhoons. So what?
So why do you wibble incessantly about Harriers when the RN has proven perfectly capable of destroying target speedily, cheaply and effectively with naval gunfire.
See, you don't really need those handful of RAF Harriers operating from CVS to support littoral ops like you claim.
 
#17
So why do you wibble incessantly about Harriers when the RN has proven perfectly capable of destroying target speedily, cheaply and effectively with naval gunfire.
See, you don't really need those handful of RAF Harriers operating from CVS to support littoral ops like you claim.
And I say again, according to your logic Tornados and Typhoons wouldn't be needed either.
 
#18
And I say again, according to your logic Tornados and Typhoons wouldn't be needed either.
How would RAF Harriers operating off a carrier be any quicker to respond than RAF Typhoons and Tornadoes? Would the RAF Harriers operating off your carrier be faster to respond to shore fire than a 4.5" shell going the other way? I know you and the rest of the PTT mafia like to puff the Harrier as the most awesome weapons system of all time, but even a Harrier can't get there faster than a 4.5 travelling at Mach lots.

Counter battery naval gunfire was the correct response to this target, that's why ships have guns, no fast air required to deal with this threat.
 
#19
Forgive me my pedantry, but aren't ships usually the preserve of the Navy rather then the RAF?
Not always. There was a time before helicopters when Brylcreem boys who'd had a prang and ended up in the drink were rescued by spiffing chaps in RAF boats. Pulled from the oggin, they'd be given as many ciggies as they could smoke and a tot of rum that would almost certainly kill them if they had hypothermia.

No nancy boys in the forces in those days hence no need for immersion suits, warm drinks, heated blankets or, perish the thought, shared body warmth.

Relive the glory days of the RAF here, courtesy of British Pathe news, the Empire's finest don'tch know?

[video]http://www.britishpathe.com/embed.php?archive=12615[/video]
 
#20
How would RAF Harriers operating off a carrier be any quicker to respond than RAF Typhoons and Tornadoes? Would the RAF Harriers operating off your carrier be faster to respond to shore fire than a 4.5" shell going the other way? I know you and the rest of the PTT mafia like to puff the Harrier as the most awesome weapons system of all time, but even a Harrier can't get there faster than a 4.5 travelling at Mach lots.

Counter battery naval gunfire was the correct response to this target, that's why ships have guns, no fast air required to deal with this threat.
In this case air support wasn't needed but if you want to claim that Tornados and Typhoons based in Italy burn less juice on their 1,200 mile round trips, need less flight time and can respond faster than carrier-borne Harriers based just off the coast, then carry on. Just don't expect me to agree with you.
 

Latest Threads