Ships to begin taking armed guards against Somalian pirates.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

Oooor you could simply hire four people who are trained professionals who dedicate their entire careers to handling and using firearms instead of splitting their time between firearms and running the ship...

**WARORK93**

youbedead wrote:They should just call this guy

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hardberger.html

Get out of my head!

But I agree with the OP...its about bloody time...

**mattyrm**

schadenfreude wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:Mercenaries are not the answer. The crew of most merchant ships is about 20 sailors. Arm and train the ship's crew. For $100,000 a ship can buy a dozen M16, a dozen shotguns, 2 dozen bullet proof vests, and a half dozen fixed 50 caliber machine guns, toss in a mortar, and still have money left over to train the crew. With a bit of formal training the ship's crew would actually be better marksmen than the pirates. If pirates attempt to board the ship the lead pirate skiff would be carrying a half dozen pirates with no cover within their skiff going up against a dozen sailors behind hard cover with their enemy in a superior elevation. Attacking uphill against an entrenched opponent while outnumbered 2:1 won't end well for the pirates.

I disagree with some of this, as not everyone can be a soldier, so the same applies here.

Not everyone would display an aptitude for weapons training, much less a willingness to shoot people. That's why basic training for decent soldiers is far longer than a week, it's 32 weeks for RM commando's, but even regular grunts such as the USMC have a basic 13 week boot, or basic army infantry is about 9. And for that reason, because its not merely showing you how to shoot and work a firearm and a doing a bit of running. Its methodically drilling a human until they become comfortable with the idea of killing another of their species, and not everyone can achieve this, that's why you have a training bleed (people opting out of training not due to injury)

Sure, some of the crew would display an aptitude for it, and could indeed become competent with a firearm after only a week or two of training, but not all of them, and this needs to be taken into account.

Only about 60% of the crew needs to take up arms to provide a dozen armed sailors as a response team. The other 8 or so will still be needed to operate the ship, which means there should be at least 4 quality marksmen within the crew (Going off an average of 20% of a crew=good marksmen) The level of training needed for sailors to defend a ship is vastly different than the level of training needed before sending RM commandos into Mogadishu. I never touched a weapon when I was in boot camp (The firing range at great mistakes was closed for revocations when I went in). Most of the fire arms training that the navy does is outside of boot camp. Merchant marine sailors don't need the physical fitness requirements of royal marines to defend a static position. A huge chunk of merchant marine sailors are former navy sailors, and merchant marine sailors that have no stomach for violence have no business being on ships going through pirate infested waters. The crews of these ships are a lot tougher than most people give them credit for, and while they will not be ready to storm Mogadishu like they are a bunch of royal marines can you honestly tell me that merchant marine sailors are incapable of defending an entrenched position with a superior elevation and numerical superiority?

Nah of course not mate, as I said, I agreed with some of what you said, and sure many of the crew would show an aptitude for weapons training and violence and be able to defend the ship, I was merely saying that, as Melissa pointed out, its probably easier to pay a few professional blokes to do it, stagger their pattern so you always have 2 guys on watch 24 hours a day, and then leave the crew to work the ship properly. That's what is currently happening, as I know at least 7 ex RM lads currently working maritime security, and they are crying out for more blokes (my missus has banned me, and I'm not scared of the Taliban, but the long haired colonel puts the gaks up me!) I think that some of the crew could do the job obviously, but I think that it is probably a better system to have professionals doing it and sailors and killers stick to dedicating themselves in their entirety to their respective jobs.

**dogma**

mattyrm wrote:
Nah of course not mate, as I said, I agreed with some of what you said, and sure many of the crew would show an aptitude for weapons training and violence and be able to defend the ship, I was merely saying that, as Melissa pointed out, its probably easier to pay a few professional blokes to do it, stagger their pattern so you always have 2 guys on watch 24 hours a day, and then leave the crew to work the ship properly.

There's also the issue that the crew generally has little incentive to defend the ship once its been boarded.

Basically, the choice is cooperate and be ransomed (or be left alone while cargo is seized), or don't cooperate and be shot at.

**mattyrm**

dogma wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
Nah of course not mate, as I said, I agreed with some of what you said, and sure many of the crew would show an aptitude for weapons training and violence and be able to defend the ship, I was merely saying that, as Melissa pointed out, its probably easier to pay a few professional blokes to do it, stagger their pattern so you always have 2 guys on watch 24 hours a day, and then leave the crew to work the ship properly.

There's also the issue that the crew generally has little incentive to defend the ship once its been boarded.

Basically, the choice is cooperate and be ransomed (or be left alone while cargo is seized), or don't cooperate and be shot at.

I think it would be a piece of piss to defend a ship me like, I think I could do it with only one other bloke.

Cargo ships are pretty sizeable, pirate vessels aren't. And when we used to do target practice off the back of the flight deck I could hit a balloon in the water a few hundred yards away prone without too much trouble as the swell of bigger ships is pretty minimal, all it would take is to slot the two guys who looked the most motivated and squared away, and Im pretty sure the remaining pirates would sharpish feth off before they got within 200 yards of the ship.

No sense getting slotted when there are ships out there that don't have snipers on the deck.

Take a few RPGs along and that job would be a barrel of giggles, Id probably do it for free on my RnR!

**Frazzled**

schadenfreude wrote:Mercenaries are not the answer. The crew of most merchant ships is about 20 sailors. Arm and train the ship's crew. For $100,000 a ship can buy a dozen M16, a dozen shotguns, 2 dozen bullet proof vests, and a half dozen fixed 50 caliber machine guns, toss in a mortar, and still have money left over to train the crew. With a bit of formal training the ship's crew would actually be better marksmen than the pirates. If pirates attempt to board the ship the lead pirate skiff would be carrying a half dozen pirates with no cover within their skiff going up against a dozen sailors behind hard cover with their enemy in a superior elevation. Attacking uphill against an entrenched opponent while outnumbered 2:1 won't end well for the pirates.

Grandpa Frazzled is laughing his one eyed Mechant Marine head off at that one. You would never arm the ship's crew. This is not the love boat, or the US Navy. Scurrilous dogs they be arrr!

**CptJake**

schadenfreude wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:Mercenaries are not the answer. The crew of most merchant ships is about 20 sailors. Arm and train the ship's crew. For $100,000 a ship can buy a dozen M16, a dozen shotguns, 2 dozen bullet proof vests, and a half dozen fixed 50 caliber machine guns, toss in a mortar, and still have money left over to train the crew. With a bit of formal training the ship's crew would actually be better marksmen than the pirates. If pirates attempt to board the ship the lead pirate skiff would be carrying a half dozen pirates with no cover within their skiff going up against a dozen sailors behind hard cover with their enemy in a superior elevation. Attacking uphill against an entrenched opponent while outnumbered 2:1 won't end well for the pirates.

I disagree with some of this, as not everyone can be a soldier, so the same applies here.

Not everyone would display an aptitude for weapons training, much less a willingness to shoot people. That's why basic training for decent soldiers is far longer than a week, it's 32 weeks for RM commando's, but even regular grunts such as the USMC have a basic 13 week boot, or basic army infantry is about 9. And for that reason, because its not merely showing you how to shoot and work a firearm and a doing a bit of running. Its methodically drilling a human until they become comfortable with the idea of killing another of their species, and not everyone can achieve this, that's why you have a training bleed (people opting out of training not due to injury)

Sure, some of the crew would display an aptitude for it, and could indeed become competent with a firearm after only a week or two of training, but not all of them, and this needs to be taken into account.

Only about 60% of the crew needs to take up arms to provide a dozen armed sailors as a response team. The other 8 or so will still be needed to operate the ship, which means there should be at least 4 quality marksmen within the crew (Going off an average of 20% of a crew=good marksmen) The level of training needed for sailors to defend a ship is vastly different than the level of training needed before sending RM commandos into Mogadishu. I never touched a weapon when I was in boot camp (The firing range at great mistakes was closed for revocations when I went in). Most of the fire arms training that the navy does is outside of boot camp. Merchant marine sailors don't need the physical fitness requirements of royal marines to defend a static position. A huge chunk of merchant marine sailors are former navy sailors, and merchant marine sailors that have no stomach for violence have no business being on ships going through pirate infested waters. The crews of these ships are a lot tougher than most people give them credit for, and while they will not be ready to storm Mogadishu like they are a bunch of royal marines can you honestly tell me that merchant marine sailors are incapable of defending an entrenched position with a superior elevation and numerical superiority?

You are still training 100's of people (all members of all crews) vice hiring 10's that just cover the company's ships during transit. That eats profit. Also, even if you could train the crews to some level of proficiency, you could not keep up that level of proficiency as their daily tasks don't allow the level of sustainment training needed. Unless you increase crew size, which then takes away the benefit you thought you would gain from not hiring security.

I think part of this is why even land based companies like WalMart hire security guards vice just train the cash register lady.

**Mechanized Space Corps**

Governments should actually have a duty to start defending ships flying under their flags, instead of forcing companies to hire mercenaries! Perhaps the threat of facing actual trained soldiers would deter them enough to make em go bug some poorer countries that can't afford to do this.

**CptJake**

Mechanized Space Corps wrote:Governments should actually have a duty to start defending ships flying under their flags, instead of forcing companies to hire mercenaries! Perhaps the threat of facing actual trained soldiers would deter them enough to make em go bug some poorer countries that can't afford to do this.

Perhaps the US, Canadian, UK, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Netherlands, and several others that do have a naval presence in the area and have stopped some pirates may be proof that you offered solution may be over simplified.

Over 25,000 ships transit the Gulf of Aden each year. Dats a lot! And since the pirates are kind of linked to a specific geographic area due to where they are based, it would be difficult for them to up and move to where they could bother 'poorer countries'. Add in that they are coin motivated, not sure 'poorer countries' would make a nice target set for them.

**DickBandit**

WarOne wrote:The other thing to consider however is if you don't take security or cannot wait to train/afford your own. Companies lose millions while individuals lose their freedom. Further, a company that employs a shooter risks huge liabilities versus ones who are rented.

Do you think a Somali pirate who gets injured by a company owned marksmen could then sue the company for injuries?

Can't sue me if you're dead...

**dogma**

mattyrm wrote:
No sense getting slotted when there are ships out there that don't have snipers on the deck.

That's when you get into worries about escalation. In essence, snipers are effective at defending ships, so everyone has snipers on their ships, so the pirates change tactics; maybe by tangling screws or something similar.

Honestly, the solution in place is pretty sound. Keep military vessels around to hunt pirates, and sort of accept the losses as a cost of business; basically how we've dealt with pirates for centuries.