We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying something like:
Makes a change for chandlers to be held to ransom instead of their customers.
Why were they half-wits ?. More importantly - why didn't the British Navy intervene and blow the silly somalians out of the water ?. They watched it happen and did nothing - apparently because if they had arrested the pirates, they could have claimed asylum and all because Tony Bliar and his dopy socialists signed us up for the Human 'Rights' act, without having called a referendum to see if we actually wanted to do this.
Because only a loony would go anywhere near that part of the world without being armed to the teeth.
This is a very good question.
They knew the area was subject to pirate activity and still they went without any armament or means of defence - crass stupidity!
The navy should have blown them out of the water and only picked up the Chandlers or their remains. On completion destroy the whole residue of pirates and their vessels. Didn't happen because we have evolved into a bunch of spineless beings led by cowardly politicians. Brittannia no longer rules the waves
In message , harry writes
Is there any particular reason you posted this here ?
Did they DIY ? e.g. make a raft of coconuts to effect their escape?
Or, should you have put [OT] before the subject, as is the convention when something is off topic
According to the news today they were 500 miles from the coast; you might reasonably expect that to put them out of reach of the small open fishing boats which seem to be used.
That is not a reasonable expectation at all, given how large an area the pirates were already known to be operating in. The Chanders were warned that their planned route put them at risk and they chose to ignore it.
Colin Bignell
Trying to resist heavily armed and experienced pirates is not generally a recommended course of action. It usually ends up with the victims being dead.
Colin Bignell
Perhaps because they were specifically told to avoid the area they were captured in?
There is a fear that if any navy does anything of the sort, the hostages being held in Somalia will be killed.
Much though I would like to lay all the ills of mankind at his door, Tony Blair was not even born when we adopted the universal declaration of human rights.
Colin Bignell
Actually, I think they did DIY. As the government couldn't afford to pay the ransom even if it were policy to do so, they had to raise it themselves. I wonder how much they'll get back for press exclusives and film rights?
Does anyone know why the ancient practice going back to WW1 if not before is not employed -- take the ships through in convoys -- much easier to protect? And why _aren't_ the ships armed to the teeth? Employing a dozen mercenaries must be cheaper than paying ransoms.
Chris
I don't think many yachts have 30mm auto canons fitted, which is the sort of thing they would need to fight off the pirates before they were in small arms range.
In which case, as I said: loonies.
Well, I wouldn't say half-wits, but I remember at the time they had been warned *NOT* to set sail for Tanzania from the Seychelles due to pirate activity ...
There are some, mostly for Middle East customers, fitted with gatling cannons. However, the Somali pirates have already taken millions in ransoms and could, if they wanted to, equip their boats with heavy weapons too.
My point was, though, that when people have tried to repel pirates anywhere in the world, they usually end up being killed, either in the firefight or in retribution.
Colin Bignell
I know that's why you need the canons. You either kill them or they kill you. You aren't going to win by having a shotgun in the cabin.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Nightjar saying something like:
What's needed are a few "Q" ships. What jolly fun could be had, blowing the scum out of the water.
In Somalia, pirate activity is regarded as normal free market activity and an accepted way of earning a living.
Due to the various hostage risks in Somalia, including charity aid workers, it is not practical to blow every pirate ship up because it could provoke revenge hostage taking & retribution. Pirates generally target commercial shipping, because that is simpler and more lucrative due to a company being involved rather than mere private individuals. This is one reason why they can and will intercept ships hundreds of miles from the shore re commercial gain.
Whilst government (may) have not paid ransom, commercial entities have therefore the "never pay" has been undermined.
The advice not to go anywhere near Somalia was ignored, probably due to the incorrect and rather naive belief "they will not intercept us in a simple old yacht" based on what they see rather than what a pirate sees. Perhaps such beliefs will now be adjusted, so there is one positive benefit to the incident (globally).
I am not sure how you would legally outfit your water borne carriage with suitable armaments, never mind strengthen it to handle the recoil. A 0.5-calibre firing HE would be quite adequate, but there would need to be at least two, chain fed, with suitable ammunition and manned 24/7 to permit protection before you come in 7.62mm range. Merchant shipping was not armed during the initial parts of war, or later on, because it was not particularly effective. The exceptions being decoy ships with essentially ground based howitzers fitted to put a hole in a surfaced submarine (which surfaced to use their deck gun rather than waste torpedo's). It gets complicated arming ships re rules of engagement, liability, port authorities and so on. Arriving in NJ or London carrying a 0.5-calibre over your shoulder will gain you a lot of interest and not necessarily friendly :-) Then again, if Texas were closer to the shore you might get asked "nice grouping bud?".
Hope they get a good meal soon, none the less.
I can see that being the case for smaller boats, but wonder how they manage to stop cargo ship sized craft. I would have thought they could just carry or, and keep the crew out of visibility to protect from small arms fire.
A general purpose machine gun would be more than enough I would have thought, accurate over 2500 feet. You would be hard pushed to do much damage with an AK47 at a quarter of that range.
The holes left in some ships by RPGs suggest that a GP machine gun is probably inadequate. Several of them might work, but the cannon is a better option, especially if its got the new time of flight detonators to explode the shells where the target is.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.