Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/3/2002 12:32:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 12:50:26 PM EDT by dpilko]
Six small power boats, believed to be local pirates, came aggressively alongside U.S. Navy Underway Replenishment Oiler in the Persian Gulf. After firing flares as a warning but to no avail, the (mostly) unarmed ship opened fire with a .50 MG. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/03/navy.pirate.attack/index.html[/url] "Those on deck said it appeared the men on the small boats tried to surrender, but the Diehl's gunner kept firing as the ship moved ahead. The small boats then sped off." Hahahahahaha The USNS Walter S. Diehl (T-AO193) is part of the Military Sealift Command and does not really look like a warship at all, check out the Navy fact file page on it: [url]http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-tao.html[/url] [IMG]http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/tao198.gif[/IMG] Too bad they didn't call in a few F/A18E's from a nearby carrier to strafe and sink all of em. I found this story to be funny as hell; there weren't too many details about it on CNN though. I'd love to know how badly the pirate ships were damaged though.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 12:38:08 PM EDT
LOL thats Hilarious!!! Too bad we don't have BATTLESHIPS anymore!! [:(!]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 12:40:08 PM EDT
Note to self: "Don't try to take on someone who has a .50 cal"
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 12:55:07 PM EDT
I don't buy this "pirates" assumption. Compared to other Persian Gulf cargo vessels, this thing would look like a floating Taj Mahal. No rust on the hull, spotless battleship grey paintjob, the tell-tale white-with-black-shadow numbering on the bow, etc. Hell, it was probably flying a US flag. Unless you are a complete dickhead, you'd know that this vessel wasn't a run of the mill cargo ship, and no pirate would attack a US Navy vessel. It just doesn't make sense. Looks to me like an attempt at another "USS Cole" to me. Except this time the rules of engagement have changed.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 12:55:08 PM EDT
Kickass!!
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 12:59:44 PM EDT
Oh we know how to deal with Pirates. [url=]www.realultimatepower.net[/url]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 1:03:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 1:03:53 PM EDT by SigBlueStar]
[shock] [50]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 1:11:06 PM EDT
Ma Duece comes through again.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 1:23:17 PM EDT
I hope those 50 caliber slugs hit something besides sea water. I would have loved to have seen the look on their cute little pirate (more likely terrorist) faces. Some people are just too stupid to be allowed to live. Watch-Six
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 1:24:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 1:32:33 PM EDT
Ahhh, nothing better than getting kissed by Ma Deuce!!!Hope she got a few!
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 1:36:30 PM EDT
Pirates my eye. I hope that gunner nailed a few.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 1:47:20 PM EDT
The small boats then sped off."
View Quote
But, I thought to get the 72 virgins you had to die in a jihad. Why leave? Get killed-get the virgins. [IMG]http://www.colute.net/cwm/contrib/aahmed/tongue.gif[/IMG]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 2:05:06 PM EDT
LOL That is to funny!! [50][:D]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:38:08 PM EDT
This is discouraging,now Im going to have to give up my ass'pirations of be coming a pirate[shock]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:47:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2002 9:43:13 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:47:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 4:50:52 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Originally Posted By Dominus: I don't buy this "pirates" assumption. Compared to other Persian Gulf cargo vessels, this thing would look like a floating Taj Mahal. No rust on the hull, spotless battleship grey paintjob, the tell-tale white-with-black-shadow numbering on the bow, etc. Hell, it was probably flying a US flag. Unless you are a complete dickhead, you'd know that this vessel wasn't a run of the mill cargo ship, and no pirate would attack a US Navy vessel. It just doesn't make sense. Looks to me like an attempt at another "USS Cole" to me. Except this time the rules of engagement have changed.
View Quote
It has been my personal experience that Pirates ain't too bright. A favorite target of pirates are drug boats and many are not rusty pieces of ocean scrap. And many of them are anything BUT experts on military vessels. To properly understand pirates, think "LA Gang Members in Boats."
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:51:53 PM EDT
Can't believe it travels unescorted. I agree with Dominus. Those pigs knew what they were after.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:52:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dominus: Looks to me like an attempt at another "USS Cole" to me. Except this time the rules of engagement have changed.
View Quote
I hope you're correct about the ROE having been changed but I just cannot believe that to be true. The United States has not cared about killing a few mere service personnel for along time.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:53:56 PM EDT
Probably pirates. I think that the terrorists are just a little better motivated than these guys were. I notice that the article implies that an American serviceman kept firing even after the guys "tried to surrender." That's just what we need. I can just envision the headlines: "American Serviceman Slaugthers Sojourners" "Navy Neophyte Nukes Non-Combatants"
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:54:47 PM EDT
I go with the dumbass pirate theory. It just seems too strange that this many boats would attempt a HALF ASS terrorist attack. If they wanted to hit the ship, they would have pursued till their death. That's the way their business is done.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:58:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:09:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf:
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By Dominus: Looks to me like an attempt at another "USS Cole" to me. Except this time the rules of engagement have changed.
View Quote
I hope you're correct about the ROE having been changed but I just cannot believe that to be true. The United States has not cared about killing a few mere service personnel for along time.
View Quote
Sub, brother, that's a bitter thing to say. I understand the reasons that mAy have made you say that. Nevertheless, She's our ship. Now, folks like us gotta get the conn.
View Quote
raf, I've long hoped and through many political changes that our service people would actually matter to some party or leadership. Best I can tell none have cared since WW II.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:12:24 PM EDT
I know it's probably a dumb question, but... Could a TOW missile launcher be ship-mounted for defense against boats?
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:16:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:17:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: I know it's probably a dumb question, but... Could a TOW missile launcher be ship-mounted for defense against boats?
View Quote
Not very good for ships. Moving launch platform, moving target. The launch platform shouldn't move at all (parked vehicle or tripod), and boats move a [i]lot[/i] on the sea. Not only are boats faster than tanks, they also have better maneuverability and they move with the waves. Just holding the sighting system on target would need the best computer-playing geek you have on board.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:22:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:27:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:30:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:33:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless: How about a claymore like device on the side of the boat?
View Quote
Even more problems with that. 1. How do you trigger it? 2. How do you mount it? 3. How big (more importantly heavy) is it? 4. How do you preclude charge cook-off and mass detonation in the event of a fire? 5. Even if the charge works and kills the boat, the explosion of the target vessel (attacking small boat) would still do significant damage to the ship because of the incompressability of water.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:35:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
Originally Posted By Renamed: I know it's probably a dumb question, but... Could a TOW missile launcher be ship-mounted for defense against boats?
View Quote
Not very good for ships. Moving launch platform, moving target. The launch platform shouldn't move at all (parked vehicle or tripod), and boats move a [i]lot[/i] on the sea. Not only are boats faster than tanks, they also have better maneuverability and they move with the waves. Just holding the sighting system on target would need the best computer-playing geek you have on board.
View Quote
I know... I was just thinking that the same factors must make it very difficult to connect with a direct fire weapon like a .50 BMG. How about some sort of homing missile? Wouldn't a hot boat engine present a good IR signature against the cold water? Or how about some sort of armed RPV? Or mini-torpedos? [:D]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:39:35 PM EDT
What time was this "attack"? If it was at night and the BG's could only see the outline of the ship........... As far as it traveling alone, that's its job. It refuels re-arms other ships. To do that it has to move about. Put 2 Marines on board. Tell them they are responsible if anything bad happens that could have been prevented by rifle fire. Why doens't it have a Mk-19 launcher or 2? Or Goalkeeper, Phalanx or whatever the state of the art radar controlled gatling gun system is?? Now if the had some manual controls on that bad boy...............
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:41:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
Originally Posted By Renamed: I know it's probably a dumb question, but... Could a TOW missile launcher be ship-mounted for defense against boats?
View Quote
Not very good for ships. Moving launch platform, moving target. The launch platform shouldn't move at all (parked vehicle or tripod), and boats move a [i]lot[/i] on the sea. Not only are boats faster than tanks, they also have better maneuverability and they move with the waves. Just holding the sighting system on target would need the best computer-playing geek you have on board.
View Quote
I know... I was just thinking that the same factors must make it very difficult to connect with a direct fire weapon like a .50 BMG. How about some sort of homing missile? Wouldn't a hot boat engine present a good IR signature against the cold water? Or how about some sort of armed RPV? Or mini-torpedos? [:D]
View Quote
Or just put on a radar directed gun. (Torpedos kill aircraft carriers and submarines very effectively but are not particularly effective against small craft.)
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:43:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 5:46:16 PM EDT by cluster]
OK When are we going to start a [b] RIFLE FUND [/b] to show our apprecation to our very own smiley, Currently on patrol..? [50] all his freinds back home are cheering him on [beer] [beer] [beer] [beer] [beer] , but the media makes NO news of this. Could it be that our very own AR15.COM smiley is on a covert op? edited to add*************** MUST be a covert OP. I just noticed the dark glasses to conceal his true identity... I am so proud [marines]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:47:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:14:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless: It seems like there should be a better plan than firing guns from a moving bobbing boat at fast little bobbing boats (admittedly it is a .50)
View Quote
Forgetting for a moment what could be done, the Coast Guard seems to do a pretty good job with human directed fire from .50 cal's in their drug interdiction role.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:18:50 PM EDT
Ships Ahoy
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:20:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:12:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
Originally Posted By Renamed: I know it's probably a dumb question, but... Could a TOW missile launcher be ship-mounted for defense against boats?
View Quote
Not very good for ships. Moving launch platform, moving target. The launch platform shouldn't move at all (parked vehicle or tripod), and boats move a [i]lot[/i] on the sea. Not only are boats faster than tanks, they also have better maneuverability and they move with the waves. Just holding the sighting system on target would need the best computer-playing geek you have on board.
View Quote
Ever heard of a TOWCobra AH-1 attack helicopter?Seems to me a fast moving chopper that can launch TOW missiles at 150 knots would be a bit more unstable launch platform than a large slow moving ship. "T"ube launched "O"pitically tracked, "W"ire guided!
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:31:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NHRAMark: Ever heard of a TOWCobra AH-1 attack helicopter?Seems to me a fast moving chopper that can launch TOW missiles at 150 knots would be a bit more unstable launch platform than a large slow moving ship. "T"ube launched "O"pitically tracked, "W"ire guided!
View Quote
Ever seen them launch a missile attack? They're hovering, not flying along at 150 knots.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:42:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 8:43:04 PM EDT by Redmanfms]
Originally Posted By Aimless: Um, flip a switch?
View Quote
Not that simple.
I don't know.
View Quote
Exactly.
I don't think that would be a big deal. I don't know the range of claymores but even a big one wouldn't be a big deal on the side of a big boat, I wouldn't think.
View Quote
So you're talking about a standard claymore? That involves even [i]more[/i] problems than a large claymore-type device.
Is there enough powder in a claymore to damage the ship, doesn't a lot of the force come from the charge being a shaped charge? I suppose if the fire alarm goes off they could automatically pop off and fall in the water. (As you may have guessed I know jack about claymores etc.)
View Quote
I don't know that much myself, but explosives arrayed along the hull (that big thing that keeps the water out) of a ship seems like a really bad idea.
Would a claymore blow up a little boat? It's basically just a giant shotgun blast that does the killing, not the explosion. I suppose there could be a risk of explosives on the attacking ship going off, but no more so than machinegunning it.
View Quote
When I wrote my first response I was operating under the assumption that you were talking about a much larger device, like a claymore on steroids. A regular claymore would most likely be nearly useless on a ship. The kill radius is pretty small, layers of material and cheap body armor would insulate the crew fairly well, and the explosive force wouldn't be able to disable a Kodiak far enough away to prevent an explosive charge from blowing a hole in the hull of the ship to be protected.
It seems like there should be a better plan than firing guns from a moving bobbing boat at fast little bobbing boats (admittedly it is a .50)
View Quote
It seems to have worked pretty effectively in this case. The Coast Guard uses .50s (and smaller and larger weapons) to stop drug running speed boats.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:55:07 PM EDT
I'd rather be a ninja then one of those dastardly pirates "arrrgghhhh"
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:24:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: The United States has not cared about killing a few mere service personnel for along time.
View Quote
Oh yeah? Then why the soul-wrenching angst pouring from everyone about the 7 Special Ops guys that died in the incident with the Chinooks in Afghanistan? I think you're wrong.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 10:21:11 PM EDT
There might be temptation to say that we should have allowed them to surrender to the Navy ship. That way, the idea goes, we could have siezed the bad guys and turned them over to NIS for interrogation. However, this bathtup admiral thinks the situation was handled exactly as it should have. When you're a lightly armed ship, with hostile boats around, the last thing you want to do is give up your head of steam. Do that, and you lose manueverability and the advantage of your speed. Imagine the Diehl stopped in the water. Cole II, anyone? (Even though the boilers would already be warmed up, it takes a while to get going)
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 10:24:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 10:24:43 PM EDT by Tate]
There was a general, who was involved in organizing the "Red Cell" exercises in the 80's, who was on the radio this week advocating starting up simulated terrorist attacks on Navy bases again, but it doesn't sound promising. Actually repelling attacks is so disruptive and could reflect on someone's career and screw up that plumb civilian consulting job down the road.
View Quote
Not a general - Navy Amiral Lyon - heard it myself - good piece on NPR - basically he said that our military is **totally** unprepared for terrorists - even post 09/11. Easier for us to just bury our heads in the sand and pat ourselves on the backs and say "we're ready". F*ucking sickening. A ring-knocking, good-old-boy, pc bullsh*t filled system that refuses to step on anyone's toes - making mistakes that will be paid for with our servicemen's blood.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 11:27:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dominus: I don't buy this "pirates" assumption. Compared to other Persian Gulf cargo vessels, this thing would look like a floating Taj Mahal. No rust on the hull, spotless battleship grey paintjob, the tell-tale white-with-black-shadow numbering on the bow, etc. Hell, it was probably flying a US flag. Unless you are a complete dickhead, you'd know that this vessel wasn't a run of the mill cargo ship, and no pirate would attack a US Navy vessel. It just doesn't make sense. Looks to me like an attempt at another "USS Cole" to me. Except this time the rules of engagement have changed.
View Quote
"Pirate Assumption" Another USS Cole? I dont think so because if they were trying to go Kamikazi a guy with a .50 would discourage them from killing themselves. And if you are in the buisness of stealing why would you steal from POOR people? If a ship is rusty and run down do you think it will have valuables on board? I think your assumptions dont make any sense.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 5:59:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By Aimless: It seems like there should be a better plan than firing guns from a moving bobbing boat at fast little bobbing boats (admittedly it is a .50)
View Quote
Forgetting for a moment what could be done, the Coast Guard seems to do a pretty good job with human directed fire from .50 cal's in their drug interdiction role.
View Quote
That's a good point. Does the Coast Guard actually disable the boats, or do the bad guys generally just give up when they realize they're under fire?
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 6:33:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By shotar: I vote for pirates, Terrorists would have tried to ram through the fire.
View Quote
Nah. Terrorists have big balls right up to the point when a potential victim pulls out a bigger gun than they have. Pussies. That's what they are. My guess is neither pirates nor pussies were willin' to die that day for whatever motivated them to attack.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 6:41:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: "Navy Neophyte Nukes Non-Combatants"
View Quote
Abandon all aggravating alliterations! ;)
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 6:42:08 AM EDT
Large, grey, and underway....MSC hauling the beans, bullets, and fuel. Have spent time in this mode and I have a classmate on the USNS Ericsson (T-AO 194) he is qualified Master and sailing as XO....armament consists of Ma Duece,M-14s and 9mm. You mission is to refuel the other platforms and it takes a lot of fuel for surface ships and aircraft. And there are several hot spots around the globe that have active pirates. Malaysia, carribean, etc. Remember the Mayaguese? Gerald Ford sent the marines to take it back. Pirates and commerce raiding has been used against countries' merchant marine since before the U.S. became a country. From a ship driving standpoint...you maintain course...you are passing thru a restricted waterway. And you must keep an eye on other traffic...a collision at sea will ruin you day. The Straits are busy...many ships, etc. So here come the bad guys in inflatables....1)go to GQ 2)call for assistance (F-18, F-14, or whatever...you will take an S-2 Viking or helo-something in the air to maintain a presence) 3) warn them off (flares) man Ma Duece and M-14s 4) hope a local friendly surface asset shows (Arleigh Burke can, etc.) 5) if they threaten...fire a few .50 cals over their heads (shot across the bow)...hey all seamen understand this concept..even if done by a lightly armed merchant 6) if they keep coming...open fire on them directly. 7) keep HQ advised 8) dont get distracted and run into other vessel traffic (see above). Remember guys, the U S Navy has very little concept of fighting terrorists and conducting operations in the littorals...shallow water-coastal areas. In 1942 German U-Boats slaughtered over 400 merchant ships along the US east coast...may within sight of tourists on the beach. The US Navy was prepared for the big gun naval battle, "crossing the T" etc. Adm King as CNO had no clue of convoy protection, coastal ops, etc. And in the Cold War era...they trained for years to take on the Russian Bear in the North Atlantic. Remember when Iraq used mines in Desert Storm? we had to use British minesweepers (duh?) We now have a full anti mine fleet. Our navy is having to relearn coastal ops....guys in small boats that want to kill you, port security, etc. And all our seaports are going thru threat assessment now....cause one container ship carries up to 6000 40 foot containers. All the things we buy at WallyMart arrive in the US by container ship. And you can sneak a lot of bad stuff in that way.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 6:44:24 AM EDT
Oh, and one more thing. About the .50s capabilities to stop a charging slicky: Never underestimate the effectiveness of a mounted .50 going cyclic. In this type of situation, it was mounted high shooting low. It was also firing into water. Why is that important to know, you say? Simple, you "walk" the fire into the target by watching the spray kicked-up by the misses. That was a deadly situation for the attackers and they were smart enough to realize it.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top