VINTAGE-SLOTCARS
member
My father told me that on his way back from the Philippines after the war, he saw several fighter aircraft dumped over the side. What would those aircraft be worth now in dollars and historical value.
Tossing guns into the sea !
- Thread starter krupparms
- Start date
- Status
Floating arsenals are necessary because most of the weapons used are fully automatic and there would surely be at least one sniper weapon and probably a shoulder launched rocket or grenade launcher with each team. These weapons would be illegal even in the USA.
The idea is not to shoot it out with the pirates but to discourage them from even trying. One rocket across the bow is probably all the encouragement the pirates need to look elsewhere.
The idea is not to shoot it out with the pirates but to discourage them from even trying. One rocket across the bow is probably all the encouragement the pirates need to look elsewhere.
Field Tester
Member
Except that's not true at all.
All of those weapons are legal in the US. NFA laws apply, but they are still legal.
There are a lot of ways people try to get away with breaking the law.
Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
My uncle was in the Navy, on the way to Japan when the war ended. He was a landing craft operator. He told me that his next few months were spent loading Japanese small arms (machine guns, mortars, rifles, handguns) into his landing craft, then going out to the "deep water" and dumping them into the sea. Months of just dumping battle weapons into the sea.......Imagine the market for those things now.
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
^^ Likely not, or at least not completely.
Having run boats with guns aboard for a long while in a variety of places internationally, "generally" you can transit thru with arms aboard, but not always.
Generally you either:
1: Declare and are required to keep them in secure stowage aboard.
2: Declare and surrender to local authorities until immediately before next sailing.
3: Declare and have storage arranged off-ship under customs bond in a bonded storage warehouse.
BUT...
"Sometimes" there are places where none of the above are available. In this case it's not unheard of to simply toss them overboard.
"Fairly" local examples:
Bahamas: Option 1 above. They also require an ammunition count inbound and outbound. Interestingly enough they don't seem to really care about NFA stuff, at least not SBR and suppressors.
Turks and Caicos: Option 2 above. Customs will store weapons until 1 hour before departure.
USA: Option 3 above. Yes, it's true, you can store even NFA items under customs bond if needed, for immediate re-export. The goods don't technically "arrive"... they are goods in transit.
Mexico: TOSS 'EM... there's no real way to have them aboard. I know several sailors planning to bypass Mexico coming north who have been forced into port by weather and who have tossed stuff before entering.
Bear in mind also that in many ports ships do not "enter", with the customs ramifications that this entails. Under a variety of circumstances most simply anchor and their cargoes are lightered off by barges or unloaded via offshore terminals that allow oil to be pumped off while the actual ship is still miles offshore. In these cases there's generally no customs entry needed for the ship and it's stores. And also bear in mind that the officials in the ports these ships are visiting are going to be supportive of the efforts, and that the companies involved are international players with sufficient resources and reputations to smooth over the processes. It's not like it's a scruffy sailor on a small boat showing up in Mexico with a rifle aboard.
Note:
The entire "arsenal" for a ship protection detail will likely comprise no more than at maximum a half dozen arms, likely weighted towards shotguns for both practical and logistic reasons. Bear in mind that stand-off range defense against small boats bringing boarding parties close aboard trends towards non lethal solutions like water cannons, not automatic cannons. The mission is to discourage and prevent boarding, not to actively engage an enemy. Reversion to arms is a last ditch solution, not the primary tactic. Shotguns are the usual tool for the final at the rail "get offa my boat" social discussion, and have been for centuries. Buck and Ball... it still works. And shotguns are easy to deal with from a legal standpoint almost anywhere globally. Tossing a half dozen Mossberg pump shotguns after a ship escort detail? <yawn>... they probably spent more on food for the voyage than their value. It's just a business expense billed back to the customer.
Willie
.
Having run boats with guns aboard for a long while in a variety of places internationally, "generally" you can transit thru with arms aboard, but not always.
Generally you either:
1: Declare and are required to keep them in secure stowage aboard.
2: Declare and surrender to local authorities until immediately before next sailing.
3: Declare and have storage arranged off-ship under customs bond in a bonded storage warehouse.
BUT...
"Sometimes" there are places where none of the above are available. In this case it's not unheard of to simply toss them overboard.
"Fairly" local examples:
Bahamas: Option 1 above. They also require an ammunition count inbound and outbound. Interestingly enough they don't seem to really care about NFA stuff, at least not SBR and suppressors.
Turks and Caicos: Option 2 above. Customs will store weapons until 1 hour before departure.
USA: Option 3 above. Yes, it's true, you can store even NFA items under customs bond if needed, for immediate re-export. The goods don't technically "arrive"... they are goods in transit.
Mexico: TOSS 'EM... there's no real way to have them aboard. I know several sailors planning to bypass Mexico coming north who have been forced into port by weather and who have tossed stuff before entering.
Bear in mind also that in many ports ships do not "enter", with the customs ramifications that this entails. Under a variety of circumstances most simply anchor and their cargoes are lightered off by barges or unloaded via offshore terminals that allow oil to be pumped off while the actual ship is still miles offshore. In these cases there's generally no customs entry needed for the ship and it's stores. And also bear in mind that the officials in the ports these ships are visiting are going to be supportive of the efforts, and that the companies involved are international players with sufficient resources and reputations to smooth over the processes. It's not like it's a scruffy sailor on a small boat showing up in Mexico with a rifle aboard.
Note:
The entire "arsenal" for a ship protection detail will likely comprise no more than at maximum a half dozen arms, likely weighted towards shotguns for both practical and logistic reasons. Bear in mind that stand-off range defense against small boats bringing boarding parties close aboard trends towards non lethal solutions like water cannons, not automatic cannons. The mission is to discourage and prevent boarding, not to actively engage an enemy. Reversion to arms is a last ditch solution, not the primary tactic. Shotguns are the usual tool for the final at the rail "get offa my boat" social discussion, and have been for centuries. Buck and Ball... it still works. And shotguns are easy to deal with from a legal standpoint almost anywhere globally. Tossing a half dozen Mossberg pump shotguns after a ship escort detail? <yawn>... they probably spent more on food for the voyage than their value. It's just a business expense billed back to the customer.
Willie
.
Last edited:
Steel Horse Rider
Member
I would think that there would need to be some type of environmental impact study done before any greasy old weapons were dumped into the pristine ocean........
I would imagine most or all full auto weapons being used in anti-piracy operations would be newer than 1986, making them illegal for civilians in the US. Besides that, legal full autos registered under NFA are somewhat of a PITA to transport interstate, let alone in and out of the country.
If they had all been kept there would be no collector value. The only reason for the value of the ones left is because there aren't many. Not only enemy equipment, but a lot of our stuff was dumped. I've read that it would have ruined the post war economy to have returned all of our stuff. No reason to build any new stuff with a flooded market of war surplus equipment.
As to the OP. I'm not sure how commercial craft deal with weapons on board. But I have read where private vessels have kept relatively inexpensive weapons kept on board while at sea. Pretty much anything is legal in international waters. They dump them overboard before coming to shore in areas where they would be illegal.
Not perfect, but at least you have some protection from pirates and if you plan your trip carefully will only have to dump them near the end of a trip.
I spent three years on a guided missile cruiser. We never dumped ammo over board before entering a foreign port of call. Period, no exceptions. Are you sure your room mate was in the US Navy?
blarby
Member
Ok, couplea things :
#1- Listen to Willie. He's a seasoned and active salt.
#2- Read this article, the one in question.
Here : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30512185
A more fearful and hopolophobic diatribe is hard to find. Only a biased Journalist in a very hopolophobic society would come squabbling around, trying to find flaws in whats a generally good workaround system for protecting the transit of Oil, of which their country produces very little..... But hey, the brits were at best a mixed bag repelling pirates anyway. Don't agree ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pirates While they had a few themselves, the colonial empire was ravaged mercilessly for centuries by piracy. You'd think they'd be on board with stopping piracy. I guess you could use your registered slingshot, but hey......
As a final caveat about this one : thats the beauty of international waters. Don't like it ? Don't go there. Pretty simple. The minute one nation starts to exert or attempt to exert anything other than commonly recognized Maritime Law in big water is in for a world of hurt. Maritime law is pretty much the stabilizer and keeper of our world economy. Don't thwack that, please.
#3 Don't try to smuggle arms into countries you shouldn't have them in. Sri Lankan prison sounds pretty bad, for example. Mexico is probably worse. BAD BAD BAD. Thats like the making of a sob-story movie, right there.
#4 Having some understanding of whats going on, and the actual forces involved- I believe " we chucked 'em in the sea" is either a cute play on words for we got in and out of port without being checked, OR, we don't want to tell you what we do with our arms- *** do you want to know ? ( latter more likely )
I believe that indeed some cheap crews may throw arms overboard in dire straits, or specific circumstances, but I doubt its regular practice given the VERY OBVIOUS WORKAROUND developed and which is the very cornerstone of the article. This of course would not apply to irregular transits which very well may warrant tossing certain consumables rather than deal with any hassles relating to other options. Mexico would probably be the most common transit that comes to mind.
#5 Your roommate was in the dream navy. Sorry. Thats just silly, or he's seriously mis-recalling something.
"There is a delicate balance to play in this new privatised world of maritime security. If stringent regulation makes it impossible for the more reputable companies to stay in business, it is possible the industry will go underground.
Maritime experts say some less responsible companies provide their guards with cheap weapons, which are thrown overboard once the job is completed."
#1- Listen to Willie. He's a seasoned and active salt.
#2- Read this article, the one in question.
Here : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30512185
A more fearful and hopolophobic diatribe is hard to find. Only a biased Journalist in a very hopolophobic society would come squabbling around, trying to find flaws in whats a generally good workaround system for protecting the transit of Oil, of which their country produces very little..... But hey, the brits were at best a mixed bag repelling pirates anyway. Don't agree ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pirates While they had a few themselves, the colonial empire was ravaged mercilessly for centuries by piracy. You'd think they'd be on board with stopping piracy. I guess you could use your registered slingshot, but hey......
As a final caveat about this one : thats the beauty of international waters. Don't like it ? Don't go there. Pretty simple. The minute one nation starts to exert or attempt to exert anything other than commonly recognized Maritime Law in big water is in for a world of hurt. Maritime law is pretty much the stabilizer and keeper of our world economy. Don't thwack that, please.
#3 Don't try to smuggle arms into countries you shouldn't have them in. Sri Lankan prison sounds pretty bad, for example. Mexico is probably worse. BAD BAD BAD. Thats like the making of a sob-story movie, right there.
#4 Having some understanding of whats going on, and the actual forces involved- I believe " we chucked 'em in the sea" is either a cute play on words for we got in and out of port without being checked, OR, we don't want to tell you what we do with our arms- *** do you want to know ? ( latter more likely )
I believe that indeed some cheap crews may throw arms overboard in dire straits, or specific circumstances, but I doubt its regular practice given the VERY OBVIOUS WORKAROUND developed and which is the very cornerstone of the article. This of course would not apply to irregular transits which very well may warrant tossing certain consumables rather than deal with any hassles relating to other options. Mexico would probably be the most common transit that comes to mind.
#5 Your roommate was in the dream navy. Sorry. Thats just silly, or he's seriously mis-recalling something.
"There is a delicate balance to play in this new privatised world of maritime security. If stringent regulation makes it impossible for the more reputable companies to stay in business, it is possible the industry will go underground.
Maritime experts say some less responsible companies provide their guards with cheap weapons, which are thrown overboard once the job is completed."
Last edited:
armoredman
Member
Only one port ever refused us entry because of the amount of ammo we were carrying, and that was Seattle - made us stay at Port Townsend. Of course it WAS an ammo ship with enough boom in the belly to erase most of the port...made them a wee bit cautious, it did. Five bars in Port Townsend, got thrown out of three...
- Status
