Looks like my friends the Dutch have felt the bat of clue.
The Netherlands plans to deploy 50 vessel protection detachments (VPDs) to protect vulnerable ships from Somali pirates in 2012, ten times the number deployed so far this year. The Dutch cabinet is thus taking the advice of an inter-ministerial commission formed to study the issue.... and the reason they have to do that? Simple. The world's naval powers - led by the US - refuse to do one of the most basic missions of naval power; the protection of merchant ships.
The Netherlands has deployed five VPDs so far in 2011 and plans to deploy more in the coming months. If the 50 planned for next year are not sufficient, more may be drawn from the reserves or private security personnel given military status.
We lack the will to do what needs to be done.
That being what it is - BZ to the Dutch! Hup Holland Hup!
(NB: the pic if of another German/Estonian VPD).
Hat tip Lee.
We don't really lack the power. Yes, we are scarce on resources and thus it is a difficult problem to patrol the area, but the real issue is we lack the political will to do the basics. The fact that the Marines that took down the pirated vessel this past spring had to wait for the orders to go all the way up to DC tells you all you need to know about the chain of command, the trust and confidence held in the FOUR STAR COMBATANT COMMANDERS and the fear of perception. Could we wipe out oodles of pirate lairs (like Krauthammer I prefer "lair" to "camp")? Yep. We could kill lots of bad guys rather easily. But the hue and cry from the liberals is something this nation is afraid of. It is not power, it is will.
ReplyDeleteHoly Goldmember is that an MG-42?! Beautiful! Since we're bringing back WWII weapons to fight pirates, how about someone mounts a quad .50?
ReplyDeleteYou beat me to it, AOD. Convoys are next.
ReplyDeleteAnd what cows our U.S. Government? We are no longer the world's leading nation in defense of our sovereign rights, we have fallen to bastions of lawyers regulating compliance with UN laws that erode our soverein rights.
ReplyDeleteThe surest, swifist route to preservation of our constitution is voting out the "lawyer-political complex" now infesting D.C.
Yep. After WWII, the Germans retooled it fm 8mm Mauser (323, natch) to 7.62x51 NATO (.308, natch) and tweeked it a bit. It still is the same ..... and is as good as it gets. Danes and others use it as well.
ReplyDeleteIt's called an MG-3 if I'm not mistaken. Slightly retooled MG42. Amazing indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe Netherlands are a barrel of contradictions.
there are enough platforms to patrol the coastline but not the whole damn IO~
ReplyDeleteThere are enough US sailors to assign to a new Naval Armed Guard unit to protect US flag merchant ship specifically those contracted with the US govt like MSC, TRANSCOM and US AID.
and to put a finer point on this unless and until the President say go after the pirates wherever they hail from, the US military cannot step up their actions. The failure to act lies IN the White House, and a certain extent in JSC which heretofore did NOT see piraacy as a major problem,
ReplyDeleteNot a fan of beltfed small arms for CQB. Howsabout a new FN Model D? For the unwashed, the Model D is a BAR with quick-change barrel. Leave 'er on Slow Automatic (@350 rds/minute) and she'll do anything you need.
ReplyDeleteMG34/42 burns through ammo too fast. Hot gun, anyone?
Personally, I'd like to see AC-130's making runs up and down the Somalian coast.
ReplyDeleteHistorian, what is the difference between MG42 and its cousin the M240G? And who brings a belt fed machine gun into CQB? the only USN CQB on surface ships occurs from boarding operations / Force Protection, and they are using AR derivatives or shotguns / pistols...
ReplyDeletePersonally, I want volume fires when I am shooting at a small boat. Our analysis shows greater lethality from rapid fire vs. heavier caliber. Example: M240G / MiniGun vs .50 believe it or not...
Then what you want is a GECAL50, a .50 minigun! The best of both worlds!
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG3
ReplyDeletejust look at list of users... good weapons age well...
"<span>MG34/42 burns through ammo too fast. "</span>
ReplyDeleteIt does not. It "Delivers desired effects in a rapid manner."
Silly goose.
<span>
</span>
<span></span>
Badger, it is unethical to get me this excited this morning...
ReplyDeleteRepeating rifles/machine guns/powered Gatling guns - all burn ammo faster, and kill enemies faster than their precedessors. Have fun winning wars with single shot musket!
ReplyDeleteAlso it burned thru GI's at Omaha beach like hell... It is good to remeber what such weapons are capable of.
ReplyDeletethat would be a risky if any LCS were around, one accidental discharge in wrong direction could sink our own ship (yes, thats a bit exaggerated but only a bit!)
ReplyDeleteEstonians? You can't trust those guys. ;)
ReplyDeleteJake Holman would say the original BAR worked fine. But, Lt. Collins would say a Lewis gun in 30.06 with the 97 rnd drum would be tops for deck pintles =-X . Somali's would probably think it was a flamethrower.
ReplyDeleteLINCO wants a water cooled .50 because he admits to being both nostalgic and a fan of bigger is better.
On topic - I spent a little time on a buddy's 240 that had a topcover and feedtray converted for MG42 belts. That made for fun and easy shooting.
<span><span>"</span><span>private security personnel given military status"???</span></span>
ReplyDelete<span></span>
<span>Why do journalists always cater to the proletariat?</span>
<span></span>
<span>Is it too passe to just say "grant letters of marque to privateers"? That would be so much more eloquent. </span>