Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Defending Against Pirate Attack

When I was the Weapons Officer on my last ship, we had a ship's self defense plan in case someone was stupid enough to try and board the ship from a small craft. Basically, it consisted of:

- Small armory of hand guns, shotguns, flak jackets and encrypted radios.

- A 50 cal mount on both sides of the ships with a small magazine of ammo.

- People trained in small arms and basic defense tactics.

- When any intrusion was spotted, a security alert would be called away over the intercom.

- The team would get dressed, grab a weapon and a radio and take care of business.

This was not a very complicated system and I have no idea why these merchant ships don't do something like this. It cannot be about money because they pay way more in insurance and potential loss of profits from a hostage situation.

No Navy Man here, but i appreciate hearing about the training.

yep, the insurance companies will likely run-away, poste haste, without the promise of profit. imho, the insurance companies function on profit, but not security, and safety of the insureds.

i mean, if insuring ships isn't profitable, why make the investment??

what we need is a multi-national taskforce of armed boats, patrolling the oceans, and "locking-down" the pirates. If the pirates can make a profit, why shouldn't they??

on the other hand, pirates cause insurance rates to rise to unprofitable levels...

and the next step is......?

Some ports will not allow an armed ship to dock believe it or not..

If I were the captain of a merchant ship, I would implement some kind of ship's defense plan like this. And it would have nothing to do with insurance or company profits. It would be because I would want to defend myself and my crew from scumbags and send a message to them to leave us alone. The more these countries, now including us, comply with these jackasses, the more emboldened they will be to keep doing it.

I would be interested to learn more about this. We pulled into many non military ports and we were of course packed with weapons. I wonder if it has to do with whether the weapons were locked away when you pull in. Another great example of how weapons control only benefits the criminals

Even if this were true, I guarantee you that there would be at least one "unadvertised" cache on my ship!

RHIB boats would be a good idea on a merchant ship

perhaps even if they had a locked armory on board while in port, and a reaction team delegated to respond while out to sea incase of a security threat.

make a treaty with countries to allow the ships to be armed in a case like this so they can protect themselves while in international waters, but the guns must be locked up when reaching the shore of a foreign country?

Would you care to try that when you had been disarmed because of an international treaty? Sounds like a good plan if it weren't for that treaty.

"what we need is a multi-national taskforce of armed boats, patrolling the oceans, and "locking-down" the pirates. If the pirates can make a profit, why shouldn't they??"


Why depend on governrment for security? (or anything else for that matter)

I guess I just don't understand why everyone seems to want to run to the government for everything. They consistantly fail at everything they do. And the cost is always enormous for no more results than ya ever get.

To me this piracy thing is just like every other criminal activity. Arm yourself, be prepared, shoot to kill. Simple, direct and effective and if everybody did it we'd have far fewer problems in the world.

I was in the Navy and we practiced security alert drills non-stop or at least it seemed like it.
I think merchant ships are going to have to do something. One way would be to keep several full time watches posted around the ship along with cameras. These pirates are going up the side of those ships with a grapple!! I would think that you could keep an eye out for that. It would be alot easier to deal with if you saw it coming.
International treaty or not you have to be able to defend yourself from ongoing attacks!
I've sailed the same same seas and I don't see how you can police such a big area with just a few ships.

Root of the problem is this behavior was not nipped in the bud at inception and it has blossomed into a thriving Somalian business. I think an example has to be made of them or this will be more out of control then it is now with shippers not travelling thru the Suez anymore.

this is it. the UN, or the insurance carriers, or SomeOne, Somewhere, contracts with Service Providers to provide service.

in the contract, the agreement is to negotiate until negotiations fail, and after that, begin to control the Pirates. Yes, control them.

I agree!!

Yes, but you were a warship. Merchants operate under different (and nutty!) rules.

Archerhunter:

I agree that many people are too dependant on the government. The liberals want to make us so dependant on the government that we can no longer stand on our own so that they can enslave us. So in most domestic situations, a new government program is the wrong answer.

But piracy on the high seas is an entirely different situation. We don't need any multi-national force to deal with those Black Beards. The U.N. or anything else that might be created hasn't got the nuts to do what needs to be done. We have a navy and there are marines on our navy ships. Send in the Marines with orders to kill every one of them. They will take care of those high seas slime balls.

I suppose that there are some lilly livered and jello spined politicians that will criticise them for doing what they are trained to do. Those spineless politicians can sit in a corner and sulk all they want. I prefer to see some Jar Heads restoring respect for the U.S. right to defend its' citizens.

KC

Semper Fi

Fer sure.. We had a monthly 'repel borders' drill on the sub.. On the Redfish we actually carried a couple of .50 cal submachine guns that dropped into a pivot on each side of the sundeck. That, along with a locker holding about 10 Thompsons and a half dozen Browning 1911s was the gamut. . The Razorback, with the Guppy conversion, had no such provision for the .50s, so they hadda make do with the Thompsons.

In an emergency, we'd just axe the lines, back off under battery and take her down.. Grapple hooks don't do didley on subs..

Merchants aren't armed since many ports will not allow an armed merchie into the docks.. That crap needs to change, IMHO..

I don't know why these ships don't take the time to travel as a "convoy" with a military or armed escort of some kind. As an outsider looking in, I would simply tell any Country that prohibits my ship from having arms, ok, no big deal, we just won't be bringing stuff you need to your ports, sorry...When you change your policy for our benifit and security, we will consider delivering the goods you NEED.

if Somalia is where most of the current Pirates reside, then SS Hillary Clinton needs to offer a politically correct solution to the problem.

Yes! Somalia is being Politically Corrected!!!

otherwise, the cattle-trader, the Hillbilly Herself needs to excuse herself and go home.

let the next best alternative deal with the issues.

Weapons can be defined in several way, I understand that a current defense is high pressure water hoses.
Could anyone object to a high flow pump for offloading bunker oil, or maybe some other more flammable material?
In an emergency they could be used in the same way as high pressure water pumps.
Also, a few flares to warn the pirates to stand off might be helpful.
I can see how an accident could happen if a flare landed in a pool of something that burned easily, but hey, accidents happen.

So then throw the .50 cals into the ocean before docking...still cheaper than paying a ransom.

That can only work if everyone on the crew can trust everyone else to keep their mouths shut.

With multinational crews that's just not going to happen.

Crew a ship where everyone is kin - brother or cousin - then maybe.

- Tom