South Korean navy stops pirates.

[theprestige]

They had no problem paying the Taliban when Christian missionaries were being held back in 2007.

Wouldn't the sign of a good special operations policy be the ability and willingness to use the most advantageous strategy for the given circumstances?

Personally, I'd value very highly a special ops commander who paid when paying was the best solution, and fought when fighting was the best solution.

For appropriate values of "best", of course.

 

[Quad4_72]

I gotta feeling it would be cheaper to arm the crew than to secure c-wire. But hey, why not both? I imagine it would have to be wire made to stand up to salt spray. I don't know if the MILSURP is up to it. Possibly. Also I imagine that it would have to be heavier gauge or it would get thrashed and all tangled up in the wind.

That would be a cool looking boat.

But that may be a problem. That might attract more attention to the boat then it normally would have gotten. Like rendering military courtesy to an Officer while in sector.

Would that add considerable weight to a commercial vessel? I doubt it would be much of the total percentage but it may be worth more in cargo and overhead than to not have the wire at all.

Of course I am still all for putting an AK or two on ships, but C wire would be cool too. I guess some businesses aren't really that serious about protecting their crews though. Then there are the members of this forum who think that if AKs were put on ships the rifles would all of a sudden start firing on their own and killing the crew instead of pirates. But, that's anti gun nutters for ya.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Those South Korean kids who used to pwn you in Quake 2 have real guns now, pirates have no clue what they're getting themselves into.

 

[rjh01]

Of course I am still all for putting an AK or two on ships, but C wire would be cool too. I guess some businesses aren't really that serious about protecting their crews though. Then there are the members of this forum who think that if AKs were put on ships the rifles would all of a sudden start firing on their own and killing the crew instead of pirates. But, that's anti gun nutters for ya.

It is not enough to put guns on ships. You also need
1. Extra crew for lookouts and to man the guns.
2. Training for the crew. No good them not knowing how to use the guns.
3. The crew must be willing to kill on sight. Not everyone can do that.

The other issue is how accurate is a gun on board a ship?

 

[Quad4_72]

It is not enough to put guns on ships. You also need
1. Extra crew for lookouts and to man the guns.
2. Training for the crew. No good them not knowing how to use the guns.
3. The crew must be willing to kill on sight. Not everyone can do that.

The other issue is how accurate is a gun on board a ship?

1. You would not need extra crew for lookouts. Simply utilize existing crew to either pull look out shifts or set up a rotation to have someone scan the horizon every 15 minutes or so. It really would not be that difficult. We pull much more extensive security in the Army with less people all the time.

2. Training could take place in less than a days time.

3. I think there would probably be plenty of people willing to kill a pirate attempting to climb aboard and take them hostage. If not, those people obviously do not need to be in charge of using the weapon. If there is no one on the ship willing to defend themselves, they are screwed, and rightfully so.

4. You would not have to be terribly accurate if a pirate ship was approaching. They are usually in crappy little boats that offer zero cover. In all likeliness, they would immediately break off pursuit at the first bullets fired in their general direction and try to find a ship that did not have individuals willing to defend themselves, the easy targets. If they still attempted to board, even after being fired at in a boat which offers no cover, they would then have to figure out a way to board the ship while being shot at at point blank range from high ground. If whoever is defending the ship has not been able to deter them by then, they deserve to be taken hostage.

 

[Ziggurat]

4. You would not have to be terribly accurate if a pirate ship was approaching. They are usually in crappy little boats that offer zero cover.

Indeed. You're shooting from an elevated platform downwards at your enemy. You've got the hull of the ship for cover, they've got nothing. Your platform is pretty stable, theirs is not. You're at a huge advantage, IF you're armed and willing to shoot.

And you don't even need to shoot to kill. Hitting the motor is good enough.

 

[BenBurch]

I'm thinking HUGE capacitors... You touch the railing and your heart explodes.

 

[egslim]

I used this article to find some information about pirate-attacks: http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/marine/articles/64432.aspx

1. You would not need extra crew for lookouts. Simply utilize existing crew to either pull look out shifts or set up a rotation to have someone scan the horizon every 15 minutes or so. It really would not be that difficult. We pull much more extensive security in the Army with less people all the time.

Pirates usually attack at night or in the early morning. It's very hard to spot a low-profile speed-boat under those conditions.

Consider the difficulty British merchants/escorts had during the early years of WWII to visually spot German submarines attacking from the surface at night - and it was not for lack of trying. They eventually solved it with the introduction of radar, but those pirate-boats make far worse radar reflectors than an all-metal conning tower.

2. Training could take place in less than a days time.

To learn how to targetshoot with a machinegun, yes. But pirates attack from multiple directions. While you shoot at one, another may board you from the other side.
So you also have to learn how to perform a coordinated defense, and possibly close quarter fighting. At night.

Of course these sailors neither signed up nor get paid to risk their lives in a gunfight. Nor will they be motivated by the fact that pirates tend to be murderously vicious towards crews that offer lethal resistance.

3. I think there would probably be plenty of people willing to kill a pirate attempting to climb aboard and take them hostage. If not, those people obviously do not need to be in charge of using the weapon. If there is no one on the ship willing to defend themselves, they are screwed, and rightfully so.

You miss the point.

We don't send lots of expensive warships to Somalia to protect a few dozen poor Filipinos from being taken hostage. We do it to protect the ships and the cargos.
Small crews of poor Filipinos are merely the cheapest way to get a ship and its cargo from A to B.

Quite frankly, if you believe you have a cheap, easy solution to protect merchants effectively against Somali pirates, there are two possibilities: Either your idea is so brilliant it escaped everyone in both the shipping-industry and the navies involved, or something escaped you.

 

[Quad4_72]

I used this article to find some information about pirate-attacks: http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/marine/articles/64432.aspx


Pirates usually attack at night or in the early morning. It's very hard to spot a low-profile speed-boat under those conditions.

Consider the difficulty British merchants/escorts had during the early years of WWII to visually spot German submarines attacking from the surface at night - and it was not for lack of trying. They eventually solved it with the introduction of radar, but those pirate-boats make far worse radar reflectors than an all-metal conning tower.


To learn how to targetshoot with a machinegun, yes. But pirates attack from multiple directions. While you shoot at one, another may board you from the other side.
So you also have to learn how to perform a coordinated defense, and possibly close quarter fighting. At night.

Of course these sailors neither signed up nor get paid to risk their lives in a gunfight. Nor will they be motivated by the fact that pirates tend to be murderously vicious towards crews that offer lethal resistance.


You miss the point.

We don't send lots of expensive warships to Somalia to protect a few dozen poor Filipinos from being taken hostage. We do it to protect the ships and the cargos.
Small crews of poor Filipinos are merely the cheapest way to get a ship and its cargo from A to B.

Quite frankly, if you believe you have a cheap, easy solution to protect merchants effectively against Somali pirates, there are two possibilities: Either your idea is so brilliant it escaped everyone in both the shipping-industry and the navies involved, or something escaped you.

OR, shipping companies think weapons on ships are too much of a liability, which comes from the anti gun nutter rhetoric that guns will all of a sudden go off and kill everyone.

By the way, the article you linked to is FAR from academic. Let us take some excerpts:

Present day pirates are using the best of modern technology to assist them in their piracy attacks. Equipped with the most modern and automatic weapons such as AK-47 rifles and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs),

Are you serious? The "best" of modern technology? Equipped with the most "modern" weapons such as the AK47 or RPG? The design of these weapons has not changed in over 50 years. These are the same weapons that have been used for decades in that part of the world. It is a silly statement to make and a reflection of the author's lack of knowledge of firearms.

Then I especially enjoyed this part:

Moreover, the ships don’t have any kind of weapons on board, nor does the crew have any members trained for defending themselves. Also, as pirates generally board at night, when more than half of the crew is taking rest, it is really difficult to keep a close watch on all the areas of the ship by the small number of crew members who are on duty. This makes a merchant ship extremely vulnerable to piracy activities, especially in Somali waters.
Thus, technically, a merchant ship in Somali waters is a sitting duck, waiting to be hit by the pirates. Unless and until any substantial step is taken to fight the growing piracy activities in Somalia waters, merchant ships will always remain an easy target for the modern day pirates.

The end of your article states that the ships are sitting ducks BECAUSE they are not armed and not trained to defend themselves, exactly the point I am making that needs to change.

If they attack from multiple directions, shoot from both sides. The pirate ships are so incredibly vulnerable to an attack that they would have no choice but to turn around. If they did not turn around, it would be suicide. And at night, night vision goggles have became incredibly cheap:
http://www.google.com/products/cata...n+goggles&cid=14047339765147379689&os=reviews

​

​

 

[egslim]

OR, shipping companies think weapons on ships are too much of a liability, which comes from the anti gun nutter rhetoric that guns will all of a sudden go off and kill everyone.

No "OR". That would be in the first category: You believe you see something all the intelligent people in charge of shipping companies, plus those running the navies involved missed.

Are you serious? The "best" of modern technology? Equipped with the most "modern" weapons such as the AK47 or RPG? The design of these weapons has not changed in over 50 years. These are the same weapons that have been used for decades in that part of the world. It is a silly statement to make and a reflection of the author's lack of knowledge of firearms.

Most people have a mental image of pirates with cutlasses and muskets. The author explains today's pirates use machineguns and rocketlaunchers, which are the most modern in comparisson - compared to a cutlass the difference between an AK47 and an F2000 is insignificant.

More to the point, these pirates are untrained, probably illiterate, undisciplined, poor and without reliable logistics. They need weapons that are simple to operate and maintain, with little maintenance required, cheap and widely available. The AK47 and RPG are best for the job.

The end of your article states that the ships are sitting ducks BECAUSE they are not armed and not trained to defend themselves, exactly the point I am making that needs to change.

The problem is to cut costs cargo-crews have been reduced to the minimum necessary to sail the ship. These people neither have the time to take on time-consuming additional duties, nor the motivation to risk their lives in a gunfight.

Of course a ship can be effectively protected against pirates if you add a dozen armed and trained guards to keep watch. The reason this doesn't happen is because it's too expensive.

You claimed it would be enough to distribute some weapons among the crew, with a day's training so they know how to use them. And you specifically said extra crew is not needed.
If you admit existing crews would need to be reinforced by professional armed guards to succesfully defend against pirate-attacks, then we agree.

 

[Quad4_72]

No "OR". That would be in the first category: You believe you see something all the intelligent people in charge of shipping companies, plus those running the navies involved missed.


Most people have a mental image of pirates with cutlasses and muskets. The author explains today's pirates use machineguns and rocketlaunchers, which are the most modern in comparisson - compared to a cutlass the difference between an AK47 and an F2000 is insignificant.

More to the point, these pirates are untrained, probably illiterate, undisciplined, poor and without reliable logistics. They need weapons that are simple to operate and maintain, with little maintenance required, cheap and widely available. The AK47 and RPG are best for the job.


The problem is to cut costs cargo-crews have been reduced to the minimum necessary to sail the ship. These people neither have the time to take on time-consuming additional duties, nor the motivation to risk their lives in a gunfight.

Of course a ship can be effectively protected against pirates if you add a dozen armed and trained guards to keep watch. The reason this doesn't happen is because it's too expensive.

You claimed it would be enough to distribute some weapons among the crew, with a day's training so they know how to use them. And you specifically said extra crew is not needed.
If you admit existing crews would need to be reinforced by professional armed guards to succesfully defend against pirate-attacks, then we agree.

No, I don't think that professional armed guards are needed. I still maintain that existing crew could defend the ship with rifles. Even if you didn't want to keep watch 24/7 or take on additional tasks, you could still keep the rifles around as a contingency that you DO see the pirates approach before they have actually boarded the vessel. In which case members of the crew could simply run to where the rifles are kept, grab them, pull the chraging handle back, aim, and fire.

If the crews DID want to utilize guard rotation at nights, they would be that much safer.

 

[egslim]

No, I don't think that professional armed guards are needed. I still maintain that existing crew could defend the ship with rifles. Even if you didn't want to keep watch 24/7 or take on additional tasks, you could still keep the rifles around as a contingency that you DO see the pirates approach before they have actually boarded the vessel. In which case members of the crew could simply run to where the rifles are kept, grab them, pull the chraging handle back, aim, and fire.

If the crews DID want to utilize guard rotation at nights, they would be that much safer.

Your position is completely disconnected from the modern reality of maximum economy for merchant crews.

You get what you pay for: A crew that will sail its ship from A to B, but not one that's likely to defend it against armed assault.

Of course that could be remedied with larger, better trained and equiped - in other words, more expensive crews. For shipowners that's a trade-off between higher operating costs for all ships, or risk having a few of them taken. Currently most apparently prefer the latter.

 

[Quad4_72]

Your position is completely disconnected from the modern reality of maximum economy for merchant crews.

You get what you pay for: A crew that will sail its ship from A to B, but not one that's likely to defend it against armed assault.

Of course that could be remedied with larger, better trained and equiped - in other words, more expensive crews. For shipowners that's a trade-off between higher operating costs for all ships, or risk having a few of them taken. Currently most apparently prefer the latter.

Yes they do prefer the latter, hence my argument that it would be relatively easy to defend the ship with a small arms room and minimal training. But there are too many nutters who think that guns will go off at random times and kill everyone so they don't want to take the risk.

 

[I Ratant]

The five surviving pirates are to be tried in South Korea.
I'd have thought they would tried to escape using ammunition boxes chained to their feet for floatation.
Nothing like -never being seen again- after capture to remove some of the luster from the profession.