Pirate surprise!

[DoubleTapDrew]

Several organisations, including the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), have expressed concern that the use of armed security contractors could encourage pirates to be more violent when taking a ship.

Idiots. Maybe they should just take their cargo and valuables to shore and give it to the pirates in advance so the skinnys don't have to get in their little boats and incercept them, that much work could irritate them and cause them to be more violent as well.

Coming home a few men short, or not at all, is the best deterrent.

 

[USAFRetired]

I've always thought it would fairly simple to rig some old fire-fighting turrets on the stern and plumb in some diesel from the engine room. Attach a propane torch.....

That would put the kibosh on a hostile boarding party real quick.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Both platforms are moving.

A Ma Deuce is hard to move around.

Those are conditions under which the Ma Deuce shines. Remember, she was used for defense on the B17 -- a faster moving platform than any ship --with considerable success against Nazi fighters, which were faster than any pirate vessel.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It'll end in tears.

A couple of points:

1: The calls for long range weaponry are out of line, unless you intend to draw first blood. Which sort of begs the question of who is the aggressor here. Somali pirates rely on looking exactly like fishing boats that frequent the area. One can't simply blast any small skiff out of the water on a whim. In this case, it isn't self-defense, if you are shooting first.

2: Until there are enough mercenaries shipboard that the pirates stand a better than even chance of meeting armed resistance, mercenaries will not have a deterrent effect. In the short term, the pirates will definitely up the ante in terms of the violence of their attacks, with resultant loss of life on the good guys' side, over property. I don't see this as a particularly desirable outcome.

3: Even at the point where mercenaries act as a deterrent for large ships that can afford them, the pirates will just move to smaller vessels with smaller budgets, with a greater level of violence than is being used now- think 'dead passengers and crew, with the boat and cargo sold at port.' Picking the low hanging fruit, is what it's called.

Fortunately, the people who make these decisions have been, until now, the more rational sort who think about the unintended consequences, rather than getting all sweaty and excited over the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people. Which is about the level of discourse here.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

1: The calls for long range weaponry are out of line, unless you intend to draw first blood. Which sort of begs the question of who is the aggressor here. Somali pirates rely on looking exactly like fishing boats that frequent the area. One can't simply blast any small skiff out of the water on a whim. In this case, it isn't self-defense, if you are shooting first.

No, it's called "firing a shot across the bow" -- the traditional method of warning a suspect vessel not to come any closer.

2: Until there are enough mercenaries shipboard that the pirates stand a better than even chance of meeting armed resistance, mercenaries will not have a deterrent effect. In the short term, the pirates will definitely up the ante in terms of the violence of their attacks, with resultant loss of life on the good guys' side, over property. I don't see this as a particularly desirable outcome.

Why do you call armed seamen "mercenaries?"

3: Even at the point where mercenaries act as a deterrent for large ships that can afford them, the pirates will just move to smaller vessels with smaller budgets, with a greater level of violence than is being used now- think 'dead passengers and crew, with the boat and cargo sold at port.' Picking the low hanging fruit, is what it's called.

Which is why smaller ships should be armed as well. And the Ma Deuce makes an excellent weapon for a small ship.

 

[Palehorseman]

Simple solution to the matter of legality, the US should just issue a Letter of Marque authorizing US flagged ships to engage the pirates in reverse piracy, seize their vessels and all items found aboard.

The US constitution specifically allows a Letter of Marque to be issued.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-letter-of-marque.htm

Of course if the pirate's vessels were sank and their crews eliminated, no vessels or items could be seized.

 

[gym]

You must always take appropriate action when anyone shoots at you. Giving them money is not a smart idea, it only encourages more people to join the pirates and soon you have an army instead of a small group. So it's not an option to do nothing. We have seen how well that has worked in the past. If someone knows there is a good chance that they will get killed trying to steal, they are less likelly to try in the first place. It's like paying someone not to rob you, "paying protection", "extortion". That's a bad idea, and never works in the long run. That's why we don't "negotiate with terrorists". You will always lose in the end. Better to take a stand and put an end to it.

 

[Driftertank]

As a simple matter, the armed vessels will be attacked with greater ferocity and violence, or the attack will be abandoned. The unarmed vessels would likely be seized in the same manner they are now. Either way, given the opportunity, I'd rather shoot back.

As for my weapon of choice in a "repel boarders" situation, I'd say M-14 EBR or similar. The reach and accuracy to respond to an impending threat, and the firepower and portability to meet force on force in the event that the boarders actually make it over the gunwales.

 

[Manco]

Above there was talk of "outranging an RPG". I really doubt the pirates are lobbing RPG rounds at the ship containing what they are hoping to steal.

Sure they do, and what they're trying to steal are entire ships and crews to be held for ransom, which is usually paid by the owner.

I have to go +1 on the M-16 and gernade launcher. The belt fed 50 as well. While the merchant ship is a stable platform, it could be tough timing the up, down motion of said pirates bobbing craft, even more so under pressure, with AK rounds zinging over your head. I have to vote high capacity millitary weapons that can send large quantities o lead down range.

I agree on your weapon selection, the belt-fed .50 (M2) in particular, because it gives crews a range of capabilities and options.

Both platforms are moving.

A Ma Deuce is hard to move around.

M249 fires enough bullet fairly inexpensively.

Make it rain.

But it doesn't hit hard enough. It would be nice to be able to seriously tear up or sink small vessels at some range, which calls for the M2, which happens to be the usual weapon of choice used by the US Navy to defend against small vessels. However, maybe something like the M249 or M240 could be used when pirates are in the process of boarding and may be out of the M2's gimbal limits; either that or mount M2s so that they can scour the sides of the ship.

It'll end in tears.

Those who can set the consequences and deal out the punishment are in control, and you're suggesting that the pirates should be in control. I think they should face our consequences for their actions.

1: The calls for long range weaponry are out of line, unless you intend to draw first blood. Which sort of begs the question of who is the aggressor here. Somali pirates rely on looking exactly like fishing boats that frequent the area. One can't simply blast any small skiff out of the water on a whim. In this case, it isn't self-defense, if you are shooting first.

Yeah, and I've got a gun that can kill people 100 yards away, which means I'm going to shoot everybody in that radius who could potentially rob me. In situations such as a pirate attack, long-range weaponry can not only be useful for firing warning shots near suspicious vessels, but destroying "mother ships" that may move in to provide RPG and machine gun fire support for skiffs that are already attacking the cargo ship, making their intentions quite clear.

2: Until there are enough mercenaries shipboard that the pirates stand a better than even chance of meeting armed resistance, mercenaries will not have a deterrent effect.

Armed guards will have a deterrent or rather repellent effect on the ships that do have them.

In the short term, the pirates will definitely up the ante in terms of the violence of their attacks, with resultant loss of life on the good guys' side, over property. I don't see this as a particularly desirable outcome.

So the lives of crews were never really in danger before? If we should be so afraid of what criminals will do in response to self-defense, then you're suggesting that everybody here on this forum should disarm or else criminals might get mad and hurt us. I, on the other hand, would suggest that everybody arm themselves and kill any criminals who attack them, including pirates.

3: Even at the point where mercenaries act as a deterrent for large ships that can afford them, the pirates will just move to smaller vessels with smaller budgets, with a greater level of violence than is being used now- think 'dead passengers and crew, with the boat and cargo sold at port.' Picking the low hanging fruit, is what it's called.

There's much less incentive for them to do that, and the crews themselves can be trained and armed--think dead, discouraged pirates.

Fortunately, the people who make these decisions have been, until now, the more rational sort who think about the unintended consequences,

No, they're just the kind who will gladly bend over and take it in the rear because they're afraid of "evil" guns.

rather than getting all sweaty and excited over the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people. Which is about the level of discourse here.

Weak straw man argument.

 

[Dravur]

rather than getting all sweaty and excited over the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people. Which is about the level of discourse here.

I can't believe you said that.. You do realize it matters not what color skin a pirate has. If the Norwegians were hijacking vessels along their coast, my intention of whacking them would be the same. The person made themselves disposable by making themselves a pirate.

1: The calls for long range weaponry are out of line, unless you intend to draw first blood. Which sort of begs the question of who is the aggressor here. Somali pirates rely on looking exactly like fishing boats that frequent the area. One can't simply blast any small skiff out of the water on a whim. In this case, it isn't self-defense, if you are shooting first.

Wow, time to get out the big girl panties. I would take whatever it takes to reach out and touch someone at whatever range needed... including long range. Now, no one here said anything about banging away at the local fisherman. But, if the pirate makes himself known, and is sitting 300 yards out, strafing my ship with machine gun fire, then I want something that will reach out and touch them... Accurately. The first blood line is preposterous. I carry a gun all the time that has a range of about 50 yards accurate. Does that mean I will shoot anyone who comes within 50 yards?

3: Even at the point where mercenaries act as a deterrent for large ships that can afford them, the pirates will just move to smaller vessels with smaller budgets, with a greater level of violence than is being used now- think 'dead passengers and crew, with the boat and cargo sold at port.' Picking the low hanging fruit, is what it's called.

By your logic, we should just wander on in there, give them our ship so they dont harm someone else? by the same logic, should I just give my money to some criminal so he doesn't go pick on someone else? How about I shoot the criminal and then he doesn't bother either of us.

Wow... just wow...

 

[JoeSlomo]

In the short term, the pirates will definitely up the ante in terms of the violence of their attacks, with resultant loss of life on the good guys' side, over property.

It's not about "property".

It is about the right to peacefully traverse the worlds oceans.

It is about the right to defend yourself when being attacked.

The unintended consequence of years of apathy and non-resistance to piracy is the current boom of the piracy trade off the coast of Somalia.

 

[Cosmoline]

the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people. Which is about the level of discourse here.

You're the one bringing race into this. I don't give a good gravy if it's Johnny Depp in all his glory. If the jokers are muscling in for attack, you open fire. Pirates are hostis humani generis--the enemy of all mankind. Trying to cooperate with them hoping that nobody will get hurt is modern PC dogma that runs counter to several thousand years of maritime law and wisdom. The way to get rid of them is not to pay them off but to sink their vessels, kill their personnel and if necessary bomb their ports into ash. Otherwise you can guarantee they'll NEVER stop.

 

[Crawford]

First, when at sea, the ship’s captain is responsible for maintaining a standing 24-hour watch / lookout for other vessels. Today, that task is usually fulfilled, not necessarily safely, by maintaining a radar watch. But, as a security detail, you can probably leave the watch function up to the ship’s crew, and station one person on the bridge. All you should have to worry about is training the crew to notify you of any suspicious (or otherwise) boats and having sufficient people on-call to respond.

Second, you cannot assume that all approaching vessels have nefarious intentions. At the least you have to warn them off with radio followed by a bullhorn or other such device (possibly in several languages) as they approach nearer. Then, if you get no response, you need to fire several warning shots “across the bow”, so to speak. To insure that you have gotten their attention, these should either be tracer rounds or rounds from a Very pistol (i.e., flare gun/pistol). In other words, they have probably gotten fairly close to your ship (e.g., within 50 to 100 yards) before you can assume they are evil.

Since the distance is now fairly close, a 30-06 is probably the maximum size rifle round you will need or can reasonably and accurately use on-board a rolling ship. For backup, I would also want a 12-gage shotgun and 45 ACP in case they manager to board. I would guess a team of 4 or 5 guys, each armed with rifle, shotgun, 45 ACP and flare pistol, could cover the 24-hour bridge watch and also provide enough fire power to repel a couple of small craft approaching from different directions. Even the US Army has now determined that automatic fire is a waste of ammunition and ineffective, so semi-automatics such as the M-14 / XM-21, and pump shotguns should suffice. Also, don’t underestimate the effectiveness of flare rounds in scaring off anyone in a small boat. They can often be much more effective than either rifle, shotgun or even grenade launcher

 

[Deltaboy1984]

They should get some LAWS or a 105mm Recoilless Rifle.

 

[Hatterasguy]

Its better than paying them off, if these moron contry's keep paying they will keep taking ships. If we start shooting back sure some people will die, but the problem will go away.

Back in the old days we would send the Navy and the Marines in to storm the beach and kill them all. These days thats not so PR.

I'd bring ma deuce, no one argues with ma deuce.


Although an M14 with a scope would be just dandy to pick these idiots off in their crappy little boats. Hitting moving targets at sea is damn hard, so you would have to just hope to put a bunch of rounds in their boat and hope they make contact.

 

[noob_shooter]

i'm sorry, but no one is gonna come aboard my ship and rob me of my stuff... Either i die or you die... no exceptions. All those cargo ship crews should have @ least 3-4 guns per.

 

[rmfnla]

Good riddance!

I wonder how much money you could make being part of a "armed private vessel protection detachment".... Sounds like fun to me!

It does sound like fun!

How much trouble do you think it would be to organize hunting, I mean fishing charters in those waters?!

 

[IronLance]

Perhaps the ships master heard that the Maersk Alabama repelled boarders the second time someone tried to board them. Back in November, I believe. Pirates tried to board the Alabama several months after the first incident where three of the pirates ended up dead. This time the Alabama replied with gunfire(hired security guards, iirc). Something you didn't hear in the media.

There was an article about it in America's First Freedom magazine.

 

[Uhrmacher]

I've never understood why having small arms aboard merchant vessels is so frowned upon by governments. It seems pretty illogical to have no means of defending a large and valuable cargo when traveling through international waters where the nearest sympathetic "police" force may be days away. I guess the difficulty of reaching any kind of agreement with all of our major maritime trading partners is mostly to blame.

Think about trying to get the UK to agree let a ship that has a few *gasp* handguns on board enter port. Consider the children!

 

[LemmyCaution]

No, it's called "firing a shot across the bow" -- the traditional method of warning a suspect vessel not to come any closer.

Sure, if you're a sovereign navy. Presumably with Rules of Engagement and some minimal level of accountability. Merchant vessels haven't done this in I don't know how long, for somewhat obvious legal and liability reasons- Oops! My warning shot just ricochet off water and took the top of that fisherman's skull off! My bad! Sorry! See, he wasn't really coming toward me, I was heading toward him! Gee whiz!

Which leads to:

Why do you call armed seamen "mercenaries?"

Because that's what they are. Do you seriously think that any shipping line is going to train their crews in armed defense of a ship? They're going to hire PMCs, which is the PC way of saying mercenary. No shipping company is going to take on the liability concerns of arming and training their crews (see above). No underwriter will insure it, either. Let Xe train them and be liable for their actions. Shipping companies are just not set up to undertake the enormous legal responsibilities and expense involved in making sure that the escalation of force is done within modern maritime law, which is nowhere near what some of you eagerly imagine it is.

Which leads to:

Which is why smaller ships should be armed as well. And the Ma Deuce makes an excellent weapon for a small ship.

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that now that we have a socialist government, Obama had introduced the Ma Deuce for Every Home Stimulus Program, ensuring that every man woman and child in the global community was provided a .50 and a lifetime supply of ammunition gratis, c/o Uncle Sugar. Since most of us don't need one, we've all been putting them on eBay to raise a little extra wine change. There's no reason every bass boat in the ozarks shouldn't have a belt fed machine gun with a CIWS fire control system mounted on the deck. If you don't have a bass boat, just put it in your front yard to keep those noisy kids off the grass.

 

[IronLance]

Uhrmacher,

According to the first article I read about the Somali pirates in America's First Freedom magazine, the British Foreign Office has expressly told their warships not to stop suspected pirate vessels. Who knows, they might even let the bad guys board them and provide a nice tea.

 

[rondog]

One of these rigs on each corner of the ship would do nicely. BRRRRRRRTTTTT!!!!! Blub, blub, blub.

 

[mljdeckard]

Not only is the Ma Deuce idea good, it could be done easier and cheaper with twin Russian 12.7s fore and aft. They were built in these mounts for this purpose.

I know some guys why are probing a business idea for shipping security, specializing in providing weapons and/or guards on ships abroad, and then allowing them to offload their arms to ships in international waters prior to making port anywhere they are illegal. (I have no idea how viable this idea is.)

 

[Crawford]

Uhrmacher said: “I've never understood why having small arms aboard merchant vessels is so frowned upon by governments. It seems pretty illogical to have no means of defending a large and valuable cargo when traveling through international waters where the nearest sympathetic "police" force may be days away. I guess the difficulty of reaching any kind of agreement “with all of our major maritime trading partners is mostly to blame.”

I don’t think governments are the ones responsible for the restrictions. It’s the shipping companies that own the vessels that don’t permit arms on-board. At least in international waters, any vessel can have carry arms. However, most countries do require that they (i.e., all arms) be locked up in a secure gun locker when in port. Typically, most ship owners would rather pay an occasional ransom rather than arm/train the crew and assume all the liability involved with that option. It is only when the ‘occasional’ becomes ‘often’ that they start changing their approach and start seriously looking at other options.

 

[doc2rn]

I would go with a 7.62 belt fed machinegun like the M60 or the MK 48. Plenty of power and easily portable.