Pirate guns to you head

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah, I liked the part about snipers from moving ships.

[Zkribbler]

Hey...one took out Admiral Horotio Nelson, remember?

[MichaeltheGreat]

At 40 meters, more or less, with both ships moving at speeds of less than half a knot, in seas that weren't significant enough to affect the stability of a third rate line of battle ship.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
At 40 meters, more or less . . .

40 meters...with a musket?? What a shot!

Nowadays, with rifling, a steadycam tripod and laser sights, I'll bet we can do even better.

[BlackCat]

If it's pirates, I would say cool down and let them go. There are a very high probablilty that the hostages will be released unharmed.

That said, I too suggest that they hit hard on any pirate without hostages - no mercy.

Pirates isn't crazy polical/religious freaks that murders randomly.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


40 meters...with a musket?? What a shot!

Hardly. Effective musket range against a one foot target for typical smoothbore muskets at the time was 100 meters, and muskets used by Marines were typically much better maintained and more accurate. There's also no indication that Nelson was hit "intentionally" other than several people firing at a couple of obvious officers. "Musket shot" in naval artillery parlance was the same as one cable length, or 200 yards, which was considered the maximum effective range for an aimed shot by a musket.

Nowadays, with rifling, a steadycam tripod and laser sights, I'll bet we can do even better.

Not at the speeds of modern ships - a steadycam tripod wouldn't do **** in terms of stabilizing a rifle shot from a moving ship to a target on another moving ship.

A laser sight is irrelevant, too, since the bullet travel time at effective engagement ranges allows for all sorts of movement from time of shot to time of impact. A steady hosing from a couple of .50 cal HMGs would do the trick, though.

[Zkribbler]

I believe effective musket range was closer to 50 yards and that rifle range was closer to 200 yards. But the French tended to eschew rifles for the faster loading muskets.

If an M1A1 Abrams can fire accurately while running open terrain, I'll bet we can rig a system to fire accurately from a moving ship.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I believe effective musket range was closer to 50 yards and that rifle range was closer to 200 yards. But the French tended to eschew rifles for the faster loading muskets.

Rifles weren't used by Marines, period, during the Nelsonian era.

The "Brown Bess" was good for about 80 yards, and it was effectively a piece of ****, handled by common soldiers whose emphasis in training was on the use of the bayonet and firing en masse. Marine tactics (as well as maintenance of their weapons in sea conditions) emphasized the need for rapid, effective marksmanship. A musket wouldn't hit every time at 100 yards, but you wouldn't want to spend much time downrange at even 200 yards distant if a good marksman was firing at you. 40-50 wasn't a big deal at all.

Lethal rifle range in the early days (Dan'l Morgan, etc.) could exceed 300 yards, but depended greatly on the condition of the piece - lead shot fowled the grooves, barrels warped due to overheating and the "floating" barrel concept not being invented, and a zillion other reasons.

If an M1A1 Abrams can fire accurately while running open terrain, I'll bet we can rig a system to fire accurately from a moving ship.

Sure we can - we can obliterate any vessel from miles away. The question you raised was sniper (i.e. small arms) fire.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Sure we can - we can obliterate any vessel from miles away. The question you raised was sniper (i.e. small arms) fire.

Big shell vs. small bullet. But same general concept.

[Straybow]

Banana: the Frigate should have followed them into Somali waters and reported the ship's position to the Somalis. IIUC, it is against the Law of the Sea to refuse to respond to a vessel in distress when it is possible to do so, and territorial waters do not relieve the captain of this responsibility.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So let the pirates use the crew as hostages so they can continue to get away with piracy, kidnapping and murder? That's a better solution.

Pirates holding hostages isn't different from bank robbers hostages. I hope you are not advocating blasting into a bank and let the hostages rot.

Did you criticise the Russian Special Forces for storming a theater in Moscow where Chechen terrorists held a whole bunch of people hostage?

[Dr Strangelove]

How about putting squads of marines armed with machineguns and sniper rifles on ships passing near Somalia? US navy ships would be stationed to intercept ships approaching Somali waters, and would offer such ships a marine escort through the waters. The marine crew would then set up posts on both sides of the ship, and when the priates aproach they would let them have it.

Do the Somali pirates strike during the day or the night? I they strike at night it might be necessary for the teams to be equipped with auxillary radar, something that would pick up the small ships the pirates use.

[Flip McWho]

Big shell vs. small bullet. But same general concept.

I wonder if you can apply that concept to say a cruise missle. Something you can fire from a few hundred k's away thats got a guidance system as well as being like a bullet so it only gets one person.

In the end you'd be able to fight a war by having satellites patrolling the enemy territory offering a group of 'soldiers' sitting in a room the opportunity to target enemy soldiers and then guide the bullets home.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow
Banana: the Frigate should have followed them into Somali waters and reported the ship's position to the Somalis. IIUC, it is against the Law of the Sea to refuse to respond to a vessel in distress when it is possible to do so, and territorial waters do not relieve the captain of this responsibility.

What Somalis? It's not like they have a government or anything.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Pirates holding hostages isn't different from bank robbers hostages. I hope you are not advocating blasting into a bank and let the hostages rot.

Sure it is, unless you have ships on every street corner where you live. Piracy is a very specific, geographically focused problem, with unique tactical attributes. These pirates are ranging further and further from their shores and safe havens in order to board ships, because most civilian shipping has gotten the clue that you don't want to sail particularly close to Somali waters.

Did you criticise the Russian Special Forces for storming a theater in Moscow where Chechen terrorists held a whole bunch of people hostage?

I may have criticized some details of their tactics, but not the general principle.