Random Thoughts On Piracy Summit (I have to talk about guns a little ;) May 1, 2012
Posted by Chris Mark in Industry News, Piracy & Maritime Security, Risk & Risk Management.Tags: Anti Piracy, armed security, Chris Mark, combating piracy week, Maritime Security, markconsultinggroup.com, Scout Sniper, security, weapons
add a comment
In reflecting upon the Piracy Europe even in Hamburg that I attended last week, I was struck by a few things that were said and proposed. The speakers were generally very good although the material is getting a bit old at this point. With piracy at near 2007 levels, security vendors are scrambling to convince shipping companies that they are still needed. Selling on Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) seems to be the new way of business development.
With regard to the security vendors, there appeared to be two distinct perspectives on how to stop pirates. Neither seemed appropriate. One company had a rep get up and show a picture of himself with a Barrett .50 cal SASR (special application scoped rifle) (shown in the pic above with the very skilled, handsome and smart USMC Sniper..yeah its me). The intimation was that if you have larger guns, you have more ‘firepower’ and thus better security. This is a very simplistic way of thinking about security and demonstrates one of the challenges of maritime security. Security is not about technology…it is about people, strategies, and tactics. Tools (such as weapons) are useful but only if employed correctly. You can read the whitepaper “weapons and tactics in the prevention of piracy” here. This “goons with guns” approach was not well received and quite frankly, I felt it perpetuated what the attendees think of American security…knuckle-dragging, goons with guns. Blackwater is alive and well in the minds of most of those who attended the event. (more…)
Realities of Precision Marksmanship from a Ship… January 26, 2012
Posted by Chris Mark in Piracy & Maritime Security, weapons and tactics.Tags: Chris Mark, mark consulting group, realpolitik, Scout Sniper, sniper
2 comments
This is an excerpt from the post Realpolitik, Piracy and Armchair Quaterbacks. It is intended to supplement the previous post Snipers on Ships…
The article was referring to piracy within the Gulf of Aden and specifically off of the coast of Somalia. In the article, the author writes:
“All we need to do (emphasis added) is declare that for ships on the high sea, a 300-yard radius around the vessels is a limited access zone. Anybody closing in farther without permission will be assumed to be hostile. First, warning shots will be fired across their bow; if this will not do, shoot to kill.
True, this means that merchant ships will need some armed marshals, as do many flights. However, given that the ships are tall and the pirates need to mount them from their small boats, a few armed guards can do the job.”
Here is where theory and practice diverge and armchair quarterbacking takes over. It is easy to be an armchair quarterback (or in this case ship’s crew) when it is not your own very expensive ship on the line or your own life on the line when the RPGs start flying. I can say from personal experience that it is less fun being shot at in real life than the movies may suggest. Additionally, the article ignores the much larger socio-political aspects of piracy.
To understand the feasibilityof what the author suggested let’s dissect what he is saying a little more closely. He states that a 300 yard radius should be imposed around the ships.
In Somalia pirates are attacking ships using small skiffs that often travel over 40 knots (~46 mph). Their skiffs are small, lightweight and agile. The pirates attack ships using multiple boats and primarily carrying RPG-7 rocket propelled grenades, PKM machine guns, and AK-47 assault rifles. They have little fear and are very aggressive. In short, these guys are armed to the teeth and very capable.
On a 30ft x 8ft target moving at 9 mph the US Army gives the RPG 7 a hit probability of 22% at 300 meters, 51% at 200 meters, and 96% at 100 meters. If one considers that the bridge or rudder of ship is the target and doubles the size of the target listed in the Army study, it is fair to say the hit probability doubles, as well. This means that at 300 meters, the pirates have a 50/50 chance of hitting the bridge or rudder and doing serious damage to the ship. If a pirate gets within 200 meters of the ship, their chance of a hit increases statistically to 100%. The answer, according to the author, is to “…fire warning shots across their bow; if this will not do, shoot to kill.”- If they get within 300 meters. The author then goes on to say that: “a few armed guards can do the job.”
As a former Marine sniper with combat experience, I would consider myself competent with a number of different weapons systems. I also have experience guarding ships in Somalia. I can say with absolute confidence that firing: “…warning shots across their bow..” and then: “…shoot(ing) to kill…” at a moving target on the open ocean 300 meters away is a lot easier for action stars like Matt Damon or Sylvester Stallone in thier movies than it is for real people in real situations. In fact, what the author is proposing is very difficult. To demonstrate some of the challenges, let us take a quick look at what is involved.
Consider that you are on a ship which is travelling 10 knots (creating a wind that affects the shot that this article will not address). Consider that you now also have to keep your sights on a very small skiff travelling at 50 knots at 300 meters all while the ship and the boats are bouncing on the ocean swells. Assuming the skiff is traveling parallel with your own boat its relative speed is 40 knots. At 40 knots, the skiff is travelling at almost 67.5 feet per second or the length of a football field every 4.4 seconds. This means that with a .300 Winchester Magnum round travelling 3050 feet per second, a shooter would need to lead the boat 24.25 feet on a stable platform to account for the speed of the boat and the .36 seconds it takes the bullet to traverse the 300 meters (accounting for decease in velocity for you math geniuses). This basic calculation does not account for the vertical movement of the ship or boat or the relative movement between the ship and the boat nor does it account for any wind that may be present. Assuming your target is a person and is 1.2 feet across it is in the ‘hit zone’ for only .013 of a second when travelling at 40 knots. This means that your lead ‘cushion’ is only .9 feet or 10.8 inches. In short, if you lead more 25.04 feet or less than 23.36 feet, you have missed your target completely. If your lead is perfect and you have miscalculated the distance of your target by only 10 meters, you have also missed your target.
Suffice it to say that shooting at a small, high speed target while on a moving platform is more than difficult. It is extremely difficult. Couple this with the fact that the pirates are masquerading as fishermen and you have compounded the issue because nobody wants to make a mistake and hurt an innocent person.
COTS Technology & Security December 1, 2011
Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.Tags: Chris Mark, Maritime Security, Remington 700, Scout Sniper, Scout/Sniper, SPS tactical, USMC, weapons
add a comment
Back in the1990’s I was a qualified Marine Sniper. In the good ‘ole days of the USMC, we fired the M40a1 (don’t laugh jerks 😉 . It was basically a Remington 700 action chambered for 7.62 x 51mm NATO (.308) with a Win M70 (pre64) trigger, a Unertl fixed 10 power scope with a MilDot reticle and a McMillan monte-carlo stock (I sound like a computer geek…it hash 500 gigibits of RAM..;). The A1 was introduced in the 1970’s and we had to learn the rifle inside and out for Sniper School. The rifle was guaranteed to shoot 1 MOA (or roughly 1 inch groups per every hundred yards for the non shooters). 1″ at 100 yds, 2″ at 200 yds, and so on. I though the 14 lb rifle was the apex of engineering and was proud to carry that heavy bastard. Back in the 1990’s there were a number of companies that could make an M40 replica for around $3,000US or about $4,500 today, when adjusted for inflation. Back in the day as a young Marine, I could never afford a precision rifle as they all ran upwards of $3,000 in 1993 dollars.
Last year I purchased a Remington M700 SPS Tactical .308 for $599US. I figured that for $600 even if it shot only 1.5 MOA it would be fun to shoot. I put a $350US Nikon tactical scope on top and took it to the range to break it in. This rifle has a Remington XMark pro adjustable trigger, a 20″ barrel and Hoag over-molded stock. I had read good reviews about the rifle but imagine my surprise when, after breaking it in, it was shooting 3/8 inch 3 shot groups at 100 yds from a bipod! (see the pic at top..that is 3 shots) This is only a 7.5 lb rifle. I could NEVER get my M40 to shoot better than about 3/4 inches off a sand bag.
The moral of the story is that while warfare is not good for much, manufacturers really begin to focus on improving technology that can be used on the battlefield. A person today can purchase a rifle for less than $1,000 that shoots better than my M40 did “back in the day”. We see these improvements not only in rifles but in body armor, camoflage, communications equipment, optics, and other areas. The military is increasingly looking at Commercial Off the Shelf Technology or COTS. Looking at what the modern soldier, sailor, and Marine carries today really puts into perspective how much has changed.
So what does this have to do with Maritime security? Security often requires firearms, optics and other technology.Today, it is possible to outfit guards with very reliable, very accurate firearms at reasonable prices. The same can be said for optics. It is possible to purchase good Gen 2 night vision in the US for about $2,000US and Gen 4 for less than $4,000 US. Night vision technology even in the 1990’s was prohibitively expensive. Even thermal imaging technology can be had for less than $8,000.
On the flip side, it should be noted that the “bad guys” can also get their hands on better gear today then they could even 5 years ago. It is important to stay ahead of the curve and ensure that if you hire guards they have appropriate kit and are adequately trained to use the equipment.
