"Somali piracy: EU forces in first mainland raid" Topic

link

EU naval forces have conducted their first raid on pirate bases on the Somali mainland, saying they have destroyed several boats.

The EU recently agreed to expand Operation Atalanta [ link ] to allow forces to attack land targets as well as those at sea… The attack was carried out overnight and, according to the European forces, no Somalis were hurt during the action. The multinational forces used helicopters in conjunction with two warships to leave five of the pirates' fast attack craft "inoperable".

Perhaps I ought to make some Somalis…

Finally, they are taking some positive action!

Appears someone has been reading my posts.

Yes, would love to see some Somalis, in the usual poses, as well as some riding in a small boat, with weapons drawn (don't forget the obligatory RPG man).

Some climbing up the side of a vessel would be nice too, for boarding/repelling actions.

Don't understand the need to not "hurt" the pirates……..

Some climbing up the side of a vessel would be nice too, for boarding/repelling actions

Really? I would have thought those are ok for dioramas, but pretty limited for wargames purposes. Better to have one at the bottom, perhaps a platform for a figure halfway up and one at the top.

You might want to look at this too: link

£6.99 GBP for a PDF download. It's a pretty detailed and solid construction (I've made a few of their buildings), albeit a bit fiddly in places! You can even put your own name[s] and port on the ship, so Bolognesia can now have its own shipping fleet :-)

It's 600mm long in OO (about 1/87), so in 1/100 that should scale out at about 522mm long by 96mm wide, so big enough for a few of these:

I think it's worrying that it's private contractors – mercenaries by a nicer name – who are doing the on ship defence.

My 'solution' would two small warships at each end of a corridor. Small detachments of marines are embarked on ships as they pass through the corridor and disembarked at the other end.

Groups of 4 men with snipers rifles and GPMGs would be enough at first – if it does lead to escalation then larger forces could be employed, even convoys if it got really serious.

They could also check the ship for contraband at the same time – wouldn't find all but they could do a quick search.

Using ships to patrol the area is hardly cost effective and reminds of the error made in both WW1&2 of trying to hunt for subs rather than guarding the prey…

Skarper 15 May 2012 5:02 a.m. PST wrote:
I think it's worrying that it's private contractors – mercenaries by a nicer name – who are doing the on ship defence.

I am ALWAYS amazed at the folks who do not understand the difference between Private Security and Mercenaries. They are NOT the same.

This raid was conducted by EU Military forces, not private contractors.

VR
James Mattes

> I am ALWAYS amazed at the folks who do not understand the difference between Private Security and Mercenaries. They are NOT the same.

It is also a VERY thin line at times. The private security used in Iraq being a case where the line was stretched nearly to the breaking point.

Good. It's about time.
-Kle.

Oops, sorry, just been pointed out that OO is 1:76 (HO is 1:87).

Therefore in 1/100 that should scale out at about 450mm long by 83mm wide.

The containers scale out at 24mm wide (so 3 across)

Well this is just wonderful. I just finished painting my Gazelle and Puma helicopters the other day. Now the French go and use new helicopters in the area. I just can't keep up.

Okay Geoff, when are you making these new Helicopters available??????

Don't understand the need to not "hurt" the pirates……..

It might be a translation error. Perhaps they meant to say their deaths were swift and painless.

Still better than they deserve, but you take what you can get.

Someone was reading 'Those in Peril" by Wilbur Smith!

when are you making these new Helicopters available

I know, you need NH90s…

Way over due!

Viz the coaster, I'm not sure where the containers would go. She isn't designed to carry them. No room on deck, and the hatches aren't strong enough even if flat and fitted for boxes. She's just a generic small bulk/general cargo coaster. Nice looking model though.

"They could also check the ship for contraband at the same time – wouldn't find all but they could do a quick search."

Skarper, by what right would they search a vessel on the high seas? Because they're armed and they want to? In any case, define contraband.

Re: "not hurt" – some one may have been reading their colonial campaign histories. At least with the British in the NW frontier, they sent in a strong column when the locals had been causing too much trouble – at which point all the locals took off for the hills. The columns then proceeded to burn & blow up the empty local fortified villages & withdrew. This left the locals with the need to apply themselves to rebuilding their village & farms rather than raiding into India.

It worked for at least a couple of generations under the Raj. Replace village with speed boat and it all looks very familiar.

Viz the coaster, I'm not sure where the containers would go. She isn't designed to carry them. No room on deck, and the hatches aren't strong enough even if flat and fitted for boxes. She's just a generic small bulk/general cargo coaster. Nice looking model though.

Yep, all very true. You'd need to modify the top deck to make it look like something capable of carrying containers, good enough for a wargame simulation at least.

These guys managed:

But I concur that the smallest 'proper' container ship is at least 4 times that size.

Edit: 4 times the size of the cargo ship, not 4 times the size of the ship shown above :-)

In any case, define contraband.

Surely tricky in international waters?

A search would be a condition of getting the protection. It's unfair to order soldiers (or Marines if you must) into a situation where they could not check for explosives or other threats. And you don't want them escorting drugs or slaves either.

I really don't want to get into a slanging match and derail the thread…so will just briefly clarify my points and leave in peace.

1] I saw the raid was an EU forces thing but the article also mentioned some 'private contractors' on ships.

2] They obviously want to stress the strike didn't kill anyone – because they would be numerous hostages and also innocent or at least less guilty civilians mingled in with the pirates. Children, sex-slaves etc.

I don't approve of the raid and think other methods could be used to protect the ships and their crews from attack.

As to the merceneries/private contractors the difference is clear…if they're on 'our' side they're private contractors, if on theirs they're 'mercenaries'.

Very similar to the difference between 'occupied' and 'disputed' or 'terorists' and 'freedom fighters'.

" am ALWAYS amazed at the folks who do not understand the difference between Private Security and Mercenaries. They are NOT the same. "

Vojvoda, I'm always amazed that people do not, or will not, understand that mercenaries are exactly what private military contractors are. People who act as military personnel but who are not a part of any nation's regularly embodied armed forces are mercenaries, no matter what they call themselves. A Brit commissioned into the Sultan of Oman's Navy isn't a mercenary, legally if not morally, as he is commissioned by a government and is enlisted with that country's armed forces. However, a Brit employed by the Sultan of Oman on a private contract on an armed basis to carry out tasks that involve the use of arms, is. A person carrying arms and carryiong out military activities who is not formally engaged as a member of a country's armed forces is a mercenary, even if he is a citizen of that country. Whether or not he once was enlisted in a country's armed forces is irrelevant, if he isn't at the time of his service.
I'm quite sure that mercenaries would far prefer to be called something less obvious, like Private Military Contractors, or Security Contractors; I should imagine that "Hired Guns" may seem a bit unattractive, as an occupation as well. I'm sure that prostitutes would far prefer being called "sex workers" as well, but that doesn't change what they are either.
There is an interesting older article here:
link

link

I do think it would be difficult to define them other than a legally sanctioned (i.e. generally recognised by the governing body) or accepted form of mercenary.

Pirates are somewhat less valuable to civil society than liver flukes. NATO took out 5 of their assets used in the conduct of their undesirable activities (good) with no civilian or forces casualties (good). All of this we can universally applaud.

They did not kill any pirates (regretable) but I'll trust the on scene commanders to make that call.

Way to go NATO!

Given that the pirates are often the pawns of local 'warlords' with little freedom to do anything else I'm heartened none were killed in this attack.

The only legal justification for killing pirates would be to protect ships' crews from being taken hostage. Proper rules of engagement need to be enforced (I admit I'm not clear who would/could enforce these ROE) which is evidently difficult even with US/NATO armed forces and certainly more problematic with 'mercenaries'.

To be honest, in the absence of one or more of the world's navies stepping up and providing proper protection to the ships at risk, I can't blame them for employing merceneries.

Finally, I'm curious what kind of a game this would make. Can't really see many options for the pirates…maybe a scenario with all the players on one side and the pirates run by GM/AI might be instructive.

I suspect there are old laws on the books, to permit the searching and seizure/sinking of suspected pirate vessels.

If not, they should be easy enough to draft.

Back in the day, there were also bounties for capturing/killing pirates, and their captains. Leaders were more valuable than ordinary pirates. Blackbeard's head was cut off, and hung from the bowsprit, so it could be proved he had been killed, and Maynard and his other sailors could collect their bounty.

Essentially, the pirate hunters were mercenaries, ex-pirates, and/or private security troops, if you like. Regardless of what they were called, they were quite efficient, and quickly scattered the pirates to the four winds, from their bases in the Caribbean.

Inspecting suspect vessels, burning/sinking them whenever encountered, and/or hanging the pirates from the nearest yard arm are all valid tactics.

Worked 300 years ago, and will work today, assuming the leadership will make the decision to take some action.

Once word gets out that the West is playing hardball, the pirates will quickly seek other methods of making money. If not, they will be "retired" prematurely.

That will certainly work much better than the current system of "catch and release", where they get stopped occasionally, treated with kit gloves, and given a stern warning, which is invariably ignored.

Lots of things that 'worked' 300 years ago [or 100 or even 10 years ago] were amoral and unjust.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I'm quite sure that mercenaries would far prefer to be called something less obvious, like Private Military Contractors, or Security Contractors; I should imagine that "Hired Guns" may seem a bit unattractive, as an occupation as well. I'm sure that prostitutes would far prefer being called "sex workers" as well, but that doesn't change what they are either.
------------------
never really understand the negative connotation of mercenary – esp given that most of them are ex forces folk who left with good reports and by leaving are in effect at least creating some vacancies for other people. I doubt that in Afghanistan the UK and US could sustain the extra starin if they had to provide CP teams etc for all the FO bods, NGO staff etc. As to what they would like to be called – well from what I read pacifists and lefty tree huggers might see even soldiers in the army as trained killers or hired guns but that doesn't make them right

Mako, they were usually issued letters of marque by whichever government hired them, effectively letting them attack pirate ships without fear of prosecution. However we do know that several of those were ex pirates, engaged in a little piracy on the side, or turned to piracy later.

The traditional definition of a mercenary usually has them working for the highest bidder, irrespective of the moral of the action, and subject only to a better offer. Perhaps that is what defines the difference?

The traditional definition of a mercenary usually has them working for the highest bidder, irrespective of the moral of the action, and subject only to a better offer. Perhaps that is what defines the difference?
-----------------------

yes – I don't see the guys working for G4S or Blackhawk going to work for the Taliban whatever they were offered. Given that most of us go to work for money I still find the definition some people use one I don't agree with (given that last week I was on strike I am not doing it purely for the love of country)

Does anyone make small powered pirate craft in 15mm? Could be great for recreating this sort of raid or playing out a boarding action with a larger cargo ship with a PMC detachment on board….

"Finally, I'm curious what kind of a game this would make"-Skarper

I would like to see something along the lines of the helicopter raid from Apocalypse Now.

Ref the RN at least the Rules of Engagement would be British criminal law I'd think – Criminal Law Act 1967 S3(1)
(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

This would be the law under which matters in Ulster were dealt with for instance or indeed the Stockwell Shooting (since whats important is what is the persons mind i.e. they thought he had a bomb in the latter case)

Skarper, by what right would they search a vessel on the high seas? Because they're armed and they want to? In any case, define contraband.
-----------------------
The right?

Preamble to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
High Seas
Article 100
Duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy
All States shall cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State.

Article 110
Right of visit
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;

(ie if they have reasonable grounds that engaged in piracy can board – anyone engaged in such duties in that part of the world with all the intell and surveillance material they have who cannot come up with reasonable grounds, deserves to be in charge of rowing boats on the Serpentine)

and finally
Article 95
Immunity of warships on the high seas
Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.

So such boarding action is completely covered as long as you have the reasonable grounds (which most of us could probably write up from our computers "known area of pirate operations, type of boat commonly used, intelligence indicates……, nervous/suspicious behaviour when contacted by radio etc, reason given for presence in area not credible' etc

Nema problema as they used to say in the Balkans.

"Lots of things that 'worked' 300 years ago [or 100 or even 10 years ago] were amoral and unjust".

I submit that piracy is as well.

While I'm a big fan of fantasy/historical pirates for the ages of olde, for gaming purposes, I really have no tolerance for the real ones.

As for the small boats, I picked up some HO scale plastic ones awhile back. Can't recall if they have motors on the back, or not, but they are small, so should work well as little motorized skiffs.

I think they may be produced by ROCO, but if not, then one of the other plastic tank and infantry manufacturers, like Roskopf.

Could use some seated 15mm crew figures for them, e.g. one controlling the outboard motor, others sitting, and some firing weapons from a seated position. Bases need to be small, so they can fit inside the boat, for any standing figures.

I'd suggest no bases at all for the seated figs.

I doubt the Methods of 300 years ago of bounty for captured/killed pirates would resort in the same problems you had in America with Indian scalps. Unscrupulous sorts just killing local men and saying they are pirates for the reward.

Though I think a shoot on sight policy would work to stop them, as in armed crews shooting any armed men approaching vessels. The reason this problem resurfaced is the chance of a high pay off is greater the the small chance of being caught or killed. As soon as the latter two become the most likely outcome it will stop and they will look for easier money. Drug trade most likely.

Sorry. I mean I doubt the methods would work.

We're gunna need a bigger boat…

Great photo Geoff!

Make coastal somalis accountable for piratical actions.Its how the Ottomans kept internal banditry down.These people will understand the concept.Eventually the local infrastructure will learn to disassociate itself from the rogues and will contain the problem.

GNREP, I think that you misread the original post. Skarper suggested searching vessels that were being protected for contraband. I asked by what right would "security contractors" or military personnel, search the vessel that they were guarding for contraband.

I can't see that "working for the highest bidder" necessarily defines the difference between a "Contractor" and a mercenary. Even mercenaries can choose who to work for on grounds of self interest that aren't necessarily financial. I doubt that working for the Taliban would bring a good pension with it.

Chouan:
And you were answered:

unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;

It is a fine line, and probably depends on your own position. Freedom Fighter or Terrorist. Mercenary or Contractor. Should only the side you are not on be allowed them?

If the respective navies cannot protect your ship, and cannot or will not place authorised military forces on board to protect you, what do you, as a company, do to protect your crew?

…reasonable ground for suspecting that the ship is engaged in piracy…

Probably not hard to defend the right to search, but what is contraband if they are in international waters? (Genuinely, I'm not familiar with maritime law)

Lion in the Stars, why would a vessel engaged in piracy or slave trading engage Nato or EU military personnel or armed guards under those conditions? I urge you to read the original post to gain an understanding of my reply.
I would suggest that there would need to be a good relationship between the crew and the armed guards if they are to be effective. What would be the effecton the mutual respect and cooperation necessary, if the armed guards, supposedly there to protect the crew, then search the crew's quarters?
Contraband on the high seas, in international waters is virtually impossible to define, which is why I thought it a curious thing to have your armed guards look for. Contraband is something that is being smuggled, ie. is being brought illegally into a country, whether it be alcohol or wood or anything else. How would a military contractor be able to decide that a bottle of brandy in the Second Mate's cabin is or isn't contraband?

OK – I used 'contraband' which has a legal definition and might cover such things as chewing gum smuggled into Singapore or rice smuggled into South Korea.

What I meant was a list of things like weapons, humans trafficked for illegal purposes, explosives, drugs…that kind of stuff.

The EU/NATO security teams would have a list of things the ship's captain would have to certify were not on board and the security guards would have a right/duty to search for.

A few cases of Scotch or some pirated DVDs could be overlooked as irrelevant.

BTW – I think the broadest use of the 'mercenary' label to apply to the French Foreign Legion, Gurkhas or even to ROK troops in Vietnam is loaded and unfair.

But I think PMC do fall in the grey area, while not being mercenaries under the Geneva convention Protocol I. I wasn't familiar with this definition when I made my post above and was going by a looser definition of what is generally understood by the term mercenary.

…why would a vessel engaged in piracy or slave trading engage Nato or EU military personnel or armed guards…

Ah, but they do… and have…

A French warship: link

And this one: link

And a Spanish one: link

What would be the effecton the mutual respect and cooperation necessary, if the armed guards, supposedly there to protect the crew, then search the crew's quarters?

Presumably they would be in breach of the terms of their contract. If their primary motive is, as seems to be suggested, financial, a breach of contract terms could see them not get paid…

Chouan 15 May 2012 8:05 a.m. PST wrote:
" am ALWAYS amazed at the folks who do not understand the difference between Private Security and Mercenaries. They are NOT the same. "

Vojvoda, I'm always amazed that people do not, or will not, understand that mercenaries are exactly what private military contractors are. People who act as military personnel but who are not a part of any nation's regularly embodied armed forces are mercenaries, no matter what they call themselves.

Then I guess the 1000s of U.S. Department of the Army Civilians, and governmental contractors that deploy on a regular basis are mercenaries as well?

VR
James Mattes

Skarper, by what right would they search a vessel on the high seas? Because they're armed and they want to?

Generally, that's what everything reduces to, yes.
-Kle.

Chouan
Point taken – I'd agree that it wouldn't be in the role of either the military or PMCs to check a vessel first acting as some kind of surrogate customs officers before they escort a vessel.

I think the whole line between state and private is increasingly blurred anyway – in the UK you have the Civil Nuclear Constabulary who main role is protection of 'civil nuclear licensed sites and safe-guarding nuclear materials, nuclear site operators (ie sites owned by plcs like British Nuclear Fuels)' at the same time as RAF airfields (at least the one near me) are guarded by civilian security firms (or at least were unless the MPGS do it now).

Similarly MOD Police guard defence contractors premises – meanwhile PMC's provide CP teams to British police and other LE officers training the Afghan National Police. And prisons and prison transport services are run by G4S (yes the same company as guards our diplomats and trainers) and Serco etc.

As said if Govts are not prepared (which basically they are not) to put on board security teams on ships, then entirely logical that shipping lines will employ PMCs (utilising in effect the same personnel who might have been in a service security team but who have either been made redundant or jibbed the Marines or whatever for better pay). The ex-boyfriend of a colleague of mine did exactly that – 3 years ago in 42 Commando, then working as a bodyguard in Iraq for a PMC and now a shipboard security team – and only a young guy.

Given the pay on offer from PMCs not surprising that there are the problems of retention, and of course there is the bigger one of manning in the first place even in a period of high unemployment (with heavy recruitment of CW citizens probably papering over the problem to a a degree though they do a great job – though are Fijians, South Africans, Kiwis, Ghanaians etc in the Army mercenaries too irrespective of whether they are CW citizens?)- certainly about 2-3 years ago the Royal Marines were apparently about 540 people short – which is basically a whole unit. Problem being of course that the pool of young people who want to get up at 6 in the morning, take orders, be in danger and get regularly drug tested is a pretty small one relatively, compared to those who want to be in a band or be famous.

"Problem being of course that the pool of young people who want to get up at 6 in the morning, take orders, be in danger and get regularly drug tested is a pretty small one relatively, compared to those who want to be in a band or be famous."

The Royal Marines have a band..

But I couldn't name a single member :-)