www.ditl.org

Of note would be that the Bofor was replaced by the 3"/70 Mark 26 gun. Seems both the UK and US thought they could do better. Since the 3in has stuck, maybe we should keep to what's on our ships as of now.

Deepcrush wrote:Do those pirates have any ships that won't sink if they get chewed up by a couple of 50cal?

Not many, but the motherships like the one the French caught are a good deal more solid than the glorified rowboats with outboards most of them use. They'd have to be to get 500 miles out into the Indian Ocean. Better safe than sorry

Besides, how good are the 40mm up close?

The L/70 depresses to -20, so it should be all right. You'd probably need some lighter weapons to support them though, in case some of the smaller ships manage to get in close.

Deepcrush wrote:Of note would be that the Bofor was replaced by the 3"/70 Mark 26 gun. Seems both the UK and US thought they could do better. Since the 3in has stuck, maybe we should keep to what's on our ships as of now.

The 3" replaced the Bofors in late WW2 because we had to disintegrate Kamikazes, not just shoot them down. The Bofors is fine for the sort of work we're talking about.

Not many, but the motherships like the one the French caught are a good deal more solid than the glorified rowboats with outboards most of them use. They'd have to be to get 500 miles out into the Indian Ocean. Better safe than sorry.

The 3" replaced the Bofors in late WW2 because we had to disintegrate Kamikazes, not just shoot them down. The Bofors is fine for the sort of work we're talking about.

Good points, no argument from me.

The L/70 depresses to -20, so it should be all right. You'd probably need some lighter weapons to support them though, in case some of the smaller ships manage to get in close.

This is what worried me. But in truth, the 3in is what is mounted on the USCGC as of now. USCGDs (Yes I know they're on loan from the USN but they've been on loan since Vietnam so I count them as being part of the Coast Guard) have the 5in along with all the other jolly joy that comes on destroyer class ships these days.

Deepcrush wrote: But in truth, the 3in is what is mounted on the USCGC as of now. USCGDs (Yes I know they're on loan from the USN but they've been on loan since Vietnam so I count them as being part of the Coast Guard) have the 5in along with all the other jolly joy that comes on destroyer class ships these days.

The mountings you're thinking about are far too complicated for Q-ships. They're great for warship - rapid traverse, high RoF, automatic loading, etc, but they take up a big chunk of the ship, and have to be designed into it. The Bofors can be more or less dumped on the deck, bolted down, and targets will fall when hit.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me.

So then Q-ships with 50cal and Bofors?

I knew something was bothering me.

Seafort, I'm wondering how you can not condemn Q-ships? After all, they're not showing their weapons openly; the entire idea is for them to be "wolves in sheep's clothing".

I'm not terribly familiar with international law, but, wouldn't something like that violate the Geneva Conventions? I'm just curious.

I'm pretty certain there's nothing about a ship having hidden weapons on board. I think the trouble comes when you try and go to ports from other countries.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Seafort, I'm wondering how you can not condemn Q-ships? After all, they're not showing their weapons openly; the entire idea is for them to be "wolves in sheep's clothing".

I'm not terribly familiar with international law, but, wouldn't something like that violate the Geneva Conventions? I'm just curious.

Nope, although they have to be careful about the letter of the law. They usually sailed under the Red Ensign, with the heavy guns concealed, but they were all on counterweights, so they could reveal the weapons and run up battle ensigns very quickly. Only after that was done were they allowed to open fire.

I still think it would be easier to just put a bunch of cutters, frigates and destroyers out there. Any boat not cleared comes over a preset line... chum.

Yeah, but they're easy enough to spot as being warships, so pirates aren't exactly going to go anywhere near them. Unless you plan to escort every cargo ship going through that region, I think Q-ships are still the best method. Not only would it actualy take down pirates, but it would act as a deterence method. Pirates are going to start thinking twice about boarding ships if there's the chance there'll be a few squads of US marines waiting for them.

True enough.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Seafort, I'm wondering how you can not condemn Q-ships? After all, they're not showing their weapons openly; the entire idea is for them to be "wolves in sheep's clothing".

I'm not terribly familiar with international law, but, wouldn't something like that violate the Geneva Conventions? I'm just curious.

Nope, although they have to be careful about the letter of the law. They usually sailed under the Red Ensign, with the heavy guns concealed, but they were all on counterweights, so they could reveal the weapons and run up battle ensigns very quickly. Only after that was done were they allowed to open fire.

So, it's okay for a seagoing vessel to conceal their weapons and true identifying marks until attacking? Interesting.

Planning on getting a house boat Tsu?