Q Ships

[jester]

I was just wondering, what is the likelyhood of having Q ships in the Twilight World. Much like the WWI vessels that were armed and manned by naval crews, but sailed looking like steamers and sailing vessels of the day. Then when the submarine surfaced, the crew went into action and guns were brought out from colapsing cargo containers and false deckhouses to be trained on the now surfaced and vulnerable submarine.

And in the Twilight world, these could be used to deal with pirates, or even to hide the fact that the vessel is on an armed mission or is just an armed cargo vessel, or that the PCs are on an operation and don't want to be unarmed but they also do not want to draw undue attention to themselves being overtly briming with weapons.

[Matt Wiser]

I believe that Chico and company have the Russians using the old German tactic of disguised commerce raiders. Similar to a Q-Ship, but the prey is different. Instead of being a sub-hunter, the raider hunts for unescorted merchant ships and either sinks or seizes them as prizes and sends them off to a friendly port. Many of the camo tricks (false paint schemes, flying a neutral flag, concealed guns and torpedo tubes, etc.) are the same either way. The Germans sent only nine raiders to sea in WW II, but they sank or captured 890,000 tons of merchant shipping (including victims of raider-laid mines), and one raider, KMS Kormoran, sank an Australian light cruiser as well. The Soviets in the 1950s probably had studied the possiblity of raiders, but nothing of their naval plans for WW III has been released, and given the current Russian leadership, those files aren't going to be released anytime soon.

[Targan]

The Germans sent only nine raiders to sea in WW II, but they sank or captured 890,000 tons of merchant shipping (including victims of raider-laid mines), and one raider, KMS Kormoran, sank an Australian light cruiser as well.
And was itself sunk in the same battle. The wreck of HMAS Sydney was finally found earlier this year deep beneath the India Ocean off the coast the State where I live. It was a big event here in Australia and the Germans' use of disguised raiders is a sore point in this country. The Sydney was lost with all hands but the Kormoran's crew made it to life boats and were captured on the Western Australian coast. Think less of me if you like but I would have shot the entire German crew as spies or pirates. Dressing up a custom built raider (the Kormoran was laid down at the start of the war and was specifically designed to be a disguised warship) is a dirty trick and I wouldn't have shown a shred of mercy to the crew. The Sydney was the pride and joy of the Royal Australian Navy until it was sunk.

[jester]

Thats something to consider!

That old derelict ship you see actualy turns out to be a Russian Q ship who is sitting in port only to gather intel?

[headquarters]

And was itself sunk in the same battle. The wreck of HMAS Sydney was finally found earlier this year deep beneath the India Ocean off the coast the State where I live. It was a big event here in Australia and the Germans' use of disguised raiders is a sore point in this country. The Sydney was lost with all hands but the Kormoran's crew made it to life boats and were captured on the Western Australian coast. Think less of me if you like but I would have shot the entire German crew as spies or pirates. Dressing up a custom built raider (the Kormoran was laid down at the start of the war and was specifically designed to be a disguised warship) is a dirty trick and I wouldn't have shown a shred of mercy to the crew. The Sydney was the pride and joy of the Royal Australian Navy until it was sunk.

thats pretty hard liner Targan ?

It wont do to start comparing war crimes - it is the war that is the crime.

[Mohoender]

And was itself sunk in the same battle. The wreck of HMAS Sydney was finally found earlier this year deep beneath the India Ocean off the coast the State where I live. It was a big event here in Australia and the Germans' use of disguised raiders is a sore point in this country. The Sydney was lost with all hands but the Kormoran's crew made it to life boats and were captured on the Western Australian coast. Think less of me if you like but I would have shot the entire German crew as spies or pirates. Dressing up a custom built raider (the Kormoran was laid down at the start of the war and was specifically designed to be a disguised warship) is a dirty trick and I wouldn't have shown a shred of mercy to the crew. The Sydney was the pride and joy of the Royal Australian Navy until it was sunk.

For my part, I won't think bad about you for that especially as the allies would have had the right to do it. privateer war had been banned after WWI and Nazi Germany was not respecting the international regulation on that matter: they were indeed spies or pirates commiting war crimes.

On the other hand, I find wiser to consider that they were obeing orders. The allies assumed a similar position as it is proven by the Nuremberg Trial. Nazi leaders were prosecuted, convicted (death or imprisonment sentences) or relaeased (Hjalmar Schacht). Admiral Raeder (commanding the surface fleet) was among them and sentenced to life imprisonment. Admiral Donitz (commanding the submarines) was condemned to only ten years but submarines warfare remain legal. For info Schacht was a banker who finally opposed hitler and had spent at least a year in concentration camps (Ravensbruck and Dachau). Nothings perfect.

Targan, I understand your position but that would imply to execute every soldier involved in illegal action (that will be a lot if not all). We do (martial courts) but when we know the true responsible people, it's always better to spare lives. Moreover, martial courts often sentence to death soldiers who are not guilty of much. The French strike leaders of 1916 (I believe) were executed and obviously they were right. However, the high ranking officers (Marshall Foch, Petain...) were praised as heroes and still are. I consider them to be war criminals as I can't find any justification in killing your own soldiers needlessly by sending them over and over on pointless assaults. I'm not the one saying that as trench warfare as it was conducted in WWI is widely regarded today as pure insanity. Hopefully, for that matter, time as changed and I even have American friends dreaming of getting after Bush for war crimes (not for invading Irak but for being responsible for 35000 U.S. casualties, plus tortures, Guantanamo..., and why not financing terrorism).

[jester]

Targ;

I remember that and was waiting with baited breath.

And I am torn. Technicaly, you are right and valid. And I lean towards you that way. But also give credit where credit it due. Did not the kraut crew even with the disadvantage they had <that all pirates have> when they faced the crew of the Syndney?

Sadly when naval warfare comes, a major factor is "LUCK" and it does not always go to the victor.

However, there is nothing wrong with pulling for your country and your countrymen!

[jester]

Ah but the generals were following protocol! Tradition my freind. We must preserve order for the sake of order. Right or Wrong be damned!

It is the institution that is at stake after all, and that must not be challenged.

Then again, maybe I have read "Billy Budd" or watched "Paths to Glory" one to many times. Ah, I know, it was my watching "Breaker Morant" last weekend! Thats it.



For my part, I won't think bad about you for that especially as the allies would have had the right to do it. privateer war had been banned after WWI and Nazi Germany was not respecting the international regulation on that matter: they were indeed spies or pirates commiting war crimes.

On the other hand, I find wiser to consider that they were obeing orders. The allies assumed a similar position as it is proven by the Nuremberg Trial. Nazi leaders were prosecuted, convicted (death or imprisonment sentences) or relaeased (Hjalmar Schacht). Admiral Raeder (commanding the surface fleet) was among them and sentenced to life imprisonment. Admiral Donitz (commanding the submarines) was condemned to only ten years but submarines warfare remain legal. For info Schacht was a banker who finally opposed hitler and had spent at least a year in concentration camps (Ravensbruck and Dachau). Nothings perfect.

Targan, I understand your position but that would imply to execute every soldier involved in illegal action (that will be a lot if not all). We do (martial courts) but when we know the true responsible people, it's always better to spare lives. Moreover, martial courts often sentence to death soldiers who are not guilty of much. The French strike leaders of 1916 (I believe) were executed and obviously they were right. However, the high ranking officers (Marshall Foch, Petain...) were praised as heroes and still are. I consider them to be war criminals as I can't find any justification in killing your own soldiers needlessly by sending them over and over on pointless assaults. I'm not the one saying that as trench warfare as it was conducted in WWI is widely regarded today as pure insanity.

[Mohoender]

Ah but the generals were following protocol! Tradition my freind. We must preserve order for the sake of order. Right or Wrong be damned!

It is the institution that is at stake after all, and that must not be challenged.

Then again, maybe I have read "Billy Budd" or watched "Paths to Glory" one to many times. Ah, I know, it was my watching "Breaker Morant" last weekend! Thats it.

I agree but that was a century ago and we don't have to go with the dogmas anymore. Moreover, I'm a pragmatic idealist, I understand and accept the weight of reality but I'm always happy when a tiny bit of justice slips into it:D .

In France everyone knows about "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" (Freedom, Equality and Franternity) but fewer people know about what should govern our government actions : In the name of the people, for the people and by the people. Politicians worldwide are getting on my nerves but, as a result, I read our constitution (thanks them). However, my position is valid only for France but when I have American friends telling me that they are affraid of their government, I don't like it. (Oops, I'm getting too much in politics again I do a post about that).

[Targan]

Targan, I understand your position but that would imply to execute every soldier involved in illegal action (that will be a lot if not all).
Not all. Just the bastards involved in allowing the pride of the Australian fleet to pull alongside for a routine cargo check of a freighter only to have it suddenly uncover hidden gun turrets and torpedo tubes, run up a German flag and rake the Sydney from end to end. For that war crime yes, I'd kill the whole gwerman crew. And not shed a single tear for them.

And as you well know, "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defence in a war crimes trial. Is not and should not be. Even in basic training I had sufficient explanations given to me to know an illegal order when I hear it.

[Targan]

Ah, I know, it was my watching "Breaker Morant" last weekend!Breaker Morant is an excellent film. One of my favourites. Can't recommend it highly enough. One of my ancestors was a member of the Bushveldt Carbineers from Australia and died in the Boer War.

[Mohoender]

Not all. Just the bastards involved in allowing the pride of the Australian fleet to pull alongside for a routine cargo check of a freighter only to have it suddenly uncover hidden gun turrets and torpedo tubes, run up a German flag and rake the Sydney from end to end. For that war crime yes, I'd kill the whole gwerman crew. And not shed a single tear for them.

And as you well know, "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defence in a war crimes trial. Is not and should not be. Even in basic training I had sufficient explanations given to me to know an illegal order when I hear it.

I understood it well. And I was not saying that the German put "the following orders" as a defence. In fact the Ally Command obviously considered it to be the case and they went for the true responsible people. A 18-20 years old kid follow orders blindly when properly given by a higher authority and that might be another crime to hold him entirely responsible. I understand your point and, as someone else said, you are right to support your own but you are considering revenge. As an individual that is perfectly respectable but comming from a government (even in war time) it is murder. As we agreed upon some times ago, Australia is a democracy, they have acted as such and i think all Australians should be proud of such things (also, I'm sure you are).

[Targan]

Revenge? Yes. I think revenge is good. I deliberately stoke the fires of anger for wrongs committed against me, even years ago, so that I don't become weak and just 'let things slide'. Any chance I have for revenge I will take because I think it is right.

[jester]

Well, revenge in some cases is propper. think of it this way,

"We do wrong, or wrong someone."

And out of revenge we get a smack down in whatever form it maybe.

What is wrong with that? Negative reinforcement is the response for a negative action. We grow up with that very thing from the time we crawl.

A penalty for doing wrong.

We as children reach for a piece of candy in the store that does not belong and we get our hand slapped.

We drive wrecklessly or over the speed limit and we get pulled over and a ticket and fine and whatever other PENALTY is issued. Are they not forms of revenge, or negative reinforcement and do they not alter how we conduct ourselves in the future?

And if I will, I'll end this rant with a quote from Red Dawn

"All that hate will burn you up boy."

"Nah it keeps me warm."

[Mohoender]

I have that movie but at the end it kind of burn them all. I remember an old saying stating something like "Go for revenge, fine, but start digging two graves first".

I like retaliation better and I much prefer Sun Tzu's approach that I would define as such : the best way to win a war is not to have to start it in the first place.

[kato13]

I think Sun-Tzu's philosophy is to avoid battles not to avoid war. From my interpretation he considered war to be quite necessary to the state. If an advantage could be had by war, he would have certainly suggested taking it.


"It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on." - Sun Tzu

[headquarters]

Not all. Just the bastards involved in allowing the pride of the Australian fleet to pull alongside for a routine cargo check of a freighter only to have it suddenly uncover hidden gun turrets and torpedo tubes, run up a German flag and rake the Sydney from end to end. For that war crime yes, I'd kill the whole gwerman crew. And not shed a single tear for them.

And as you well know, "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defence in a war crimes trial. Is not and should not be. Even in basic training I had sufficient explanations given to me to know an illegal order when I hear it.

The resistance fighters in Europe and Asia that were out of uniform but still making attacks ?
The crews of British and American bomberplanes that openly followed the strategy of bombing enemy civillians en masse to terrorize the enemy population to give in ?
Or even the use of nuclear weapons ?

All easily defined as major war crimes by standards that were apllied then as today .

I believe the Q-ships are a British denomination actually -they had several -albeit not as clever or succesful as the Germans.Then again there was more allied shipping to attack.. The Germans called them merchant raiders /Hilfskreuser or some such .

Anyways -had I lived back then or had relatives onboard I would have probably chimed in with you targan-but as I live blessedly far removed from such things I take another -the opposite stand .

(My party is condemned to death in absentia by MilGov for warcrimes etc ..they figure on MilGovs deck of villain cards as the most wanted rebel/bandit leaders in the CONUS.hehe They even compete to "improve "their ranking some times ..anyways -thats neither here nor there )

[Mohoender]

I think Sun-Tzu's philosophy is to avoid battles not to avoid war. From my interpretation he considered war to be quite necessary to the state. If an advantage could be had by war, he would have certainly suggested taking it.


"It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on." - Sun Tzu

Agree, he would have loved the cold war :). In fact, I should have used "not to fight it" instead of "not to start it".

[headquarters]

I think that armed merchant ships ,armed trawlers ,auxilliary cruisers -that sort of thing would be th ename of th egame in a T2K naval warfare setting .

Lack of resources would force multicapable ships to be what was deployed -ships that can take a cargo,trade,fight or at least have some capability -like the old armed merchantmen of 200-300 years ago .

Specialized ships with sophisticated weapon systems would be culled from the fleets as lack of spareparts,experts,fuel etc begins to take its toll.

There are a few on our site -a couple of canadian Q-ships I think and of course -the SeeAdler-the most famous merchant raider of all .(Some people say it was the CSS ALABAMA though)

Not so much for luring submarines in though -more to gain the advantage over targets of opportunity or to conduct offensive operations against enemies that seem to be less capable.

as always -all my writing is -in my humble opinion

[Matt Wiser]

The Raider crews in both world wars generally fought honorably. Only one, Capt. Helmuth von Rucketshell (Widder and Michel) was tried as a war criminal (for leaving survivors in their lifeboats in the mid-Atlantic, and firing on lifeboats in two cases). Convicted and given 7 years by the British, died in prison of heart disease just before he was to be released on health grounds. The other raider skippers were examined by the British and U.S. Navies, but were cleared of any wrongdoing, especially when captains and officers of ships captured by raiders testified on the Germans' behalf. The Germans were sailors first and formost, and treated their captives as humanely as possible, given the circumstances.

Usual method of seizing a ship was to come in close, and if in daylight, drop the disguises (and any false flag) and raise the German flag, and then reveal the guns. If the prey stopped, a boarding party was sent over. If not, fire was opened to stop the ship and knock out any guns. If the target vessel had cargo valuable enough to send back to Occupied France, the Germans would put a prize crew aboard, along with prisoners, and sail her for France. If the ship was too badly damaged, or was too close to an Allied base, she'd be sunk, but not before everything of value was taken off (food, charts, any documents, booze-for the Raider's wardroom, mail-for intelligence examination, etc). They were under orders to avoid fights with warships, but if they were cornered, it was a fight to the finish. One Raider, Komet, had fights on three occasions with British Armed Merchant Cruisers. Two were shot up enough to be sent packing, and the third, HMS Voltaire, was sunk. The Sydney-Kormoran fight was unique-the only time a raider sank a cruiser, but at the cost of the raider herself.

[Raellus]

I can see "disguised" armed merchantmen being used to sink or capture legit merchantment. It doesn't seem like it would take too much effort to fit a SSMs and/or ASTs and their requisite guidance systems to a merchant vessel. A smallish large-calibre naval gun like a 40mm twin Bofors or OTO-Melara 76mm gun wouldn't be too hard to install and conceal either, not to mention small autocannons and hand-held SAMs for self defense.

Using such vessels for ASW wouldn't work so well. Subs don't have to surface to attack like they used to. That was pretty much the only time they were vulnerable to armed merchants.

Small fishing trawlers could be fitted with towed sonar arrays, though, to assist dedicated (naval) ASW vessels. A large merchantman could carry a couple of ASW choppers too.

[jester]

In the T2K world however, such assets will be rare. However, I have wondered if a submarine would turn on on my lil Garmin Fish Finder. It picks up kelp, fish and other obstacles so I would imagine so.

As for raiders, yes, as well as smugglers who disguise themselves as a fishing vessel or similiar.

[Marc]

It seems difficult that these type of ships could operate efficiently before the beginning of the nuclear exchange, with airpower and global detection systems still in use. It could not be the same that in World War I or II, with German corsair ships playing their role since the first stages of the conflict. In the Europe depicted in the Twilight World, sea traffic seems nonexistent, so, soviet corsair ships will have little to do. But a world of infinite chances would be opened to any survivor merchant ship and its crew operating in zones less affected by the Twilight conflict. In these zones the sea traffic would still exist and a ship and its crew could became an important piece in the mechanics of any country or city-state.

And playing with my imagination, probably if the crew would be able to keep the ship working and safe from any government hands they will live a comfortable and profitable life. Charisma, savoir-faire, and the knowledge of commerce and local politics would be their better weapons. They could act as commerce raider for an independent patron or a government, as a free or contracted trader, as a pursuer of other traffic raiders... Or do all these things at the same time...

And if I were the captain, no matter my country of origin, I would try to forget about US, Soviet Union, Western Europe and all those old names that have passed to history in a silly and homicidal conflict... after all, the world has changed...

Ahhh!! And, following my imagination exercise and linking with the "French ORBAT" threat, my imaginary captain would do well in keep his eyes wide open for the possible arrival of the french fleet. Better keep them at a distance. They could mean the end of my independent life.

Mmmmmm... I think I have a new plot for a Twilight campaign...:)

[headquarters]

It seems difficult that these type of ships could operate efficiently before the beginning of the nuclear exchange, with airpower and global detection systems still in use. It could not be the same that in World War I or II, with German corsair ships playing their role since the first stages of the conflict. In the Europe depicted in the Twilight World, sea traffic seems nonexistent, so, soviet corsair ships will have little to do. But a world of infinite chances would be opened to any survivor merchant ship and its crew operating in zones less affected by the Twilight conflict. In these zones the sea traffic would still exist and a ship and its crew could became an important piece in the mechanics of any country or city-state.

And playing with my imagination, probably if the crew would be able to keep the ship working and safe from any government hands they will live a comfortable and profitable life. Charisma, savoir-faire, and the knowledge of commerce and local politics would be their better weapons. They could act as commerce raider for an independent patron or a government, as a free or contracted trader, as a pursuer of other traffic raiders... Or do all these things at the same time...

And if I were the captain, no matter my country of origin, I would try to forget about US, Soviet Union, Western Europe and all those old names that have passed to history in a silly and homicidal conflict... after all, the world has changed...

Ahhh!! And, following my imagination exercise and linking with the "French ORBAT" threat, my imaginary captain would do well in keep his eyes wide open for the possible arrival of the french fleet. Better keep them at a distance. They could mean the end of my independent life.

Mmmmmm... I think I have a new plot for a Twilight campaign...:)


It is a beautiful backdrop for a campaign- a bunch of people with different cool skills traveling around in a sea of endless possibilty on a ship of their own
making friends and enemies and having adventure all the while .No wonder half a score TV shows are about this..

Currently our campaign follows these line -I call it "the high seas campaign".Party is out on a Q-ship if you like -converted vintage yacht ,with a main quest of funding and killing someone high up in the enemy ranks,along the way they encounter all sorts of side missions and NPCs etc etc .

It would please me greatly if any of the craft in the shipping section of our site could be used in your campaign .

www.thebigbookofwar.50megs.com

[Marc]

Moltes grÃÂ*cies HQ!

No need of your link. I had your site bookmarked long time ago (before entering this forum). :) Nice to meet you here. I will visit your shipping section.

[headquarters]

[QUOTE=Marc]

Ahhh!! And, following my imagination exercise and linking with the "French ORBAT" threat, my imaginary captain would do well in keep his eyes wide open for the possible arrival of the french fleet. Better keep them at a distance. They could mean the end of my independent life.

QUOTE]

well ,not if it was the LeCLerc..:D

[Mohoender]

well ,not if it was the LeCLerc..:D

The Leclerc is a tank (the best in the world according to our politicians:rolleyes: ); HQ? That doesn't work well at see anyway. If you mean the Charles de Gaulle ok I understand it.;)

By the way Marc, if you have a workable ORBAT for Spain I would love it. Some around here had already made some good job on that (something on operations in Italy) but I would love to see another point of view. T2K depict, with almost no details, Guardia Civil as something close to barbarians, I'm not sure about it. I would like to have your opinion on Spain in T2K.

[headquarters]

The Leclerc is a tank (the best in the world according to our politicians:rolleyes: ); HQ? That doesn't work well at see anyway. If you mean the Charles de Gaulle ok I understand it.;)

By the way Marc, if you have a workable ORBAT for Spain I would love it. Some around here had already made some good job on that (something on operations in Italy) but I would love to see another point of view. T2K depict, with almost no details, Guardia Civil as something close to barbarians, I'm not sure about it. I would like to have your opinion on Spain in T2K.

oops..I was going for that super expensive aircraft carrier that does 2 km/hr at max speed ..

[General Pain]

It is a beautiful backdrop for a campaign- a bunch of people with different cool skills traveling around in a sea of endless possibilty on a ship of their own
making friends and enemies and having adventure all the while .No wonder half a score TV shows are about this..

Currently our campaign follows these line -I call it "the high seas campaign".Party is out on a Q-ship if you like -converted vintage yacht ,with a main quest of funding and killing someone high up in the enemy ranks,along the way they encounter all sorts of side missions and NPCs etc etc .

It would please me greatly if any of the craft in the shipping section of our site could be used in your campaign .

www.thebigbookofwar.50megs.com

Since when have we ever met anything that can be remotly called friends????

....except the police who uses rubber bullets????

[General Pain]

thats pretty hard liner Targan ?

It wont do to start comparing war crimes - it is the war that is the crime.

I'm staying out of this quasi-political debate......:p

[Mohoender]

oops..I was going for that super expensive aircraft carrier that does 2 km/hr at max speed ..

You forgot to say that it is nuclear powered and that the original flight deck was too short for the E-2C that we already bought. Oops the tailor wasn't good. looool:D :D :D :D

[Marc]

The Leclerc is a tank (the best in the world according to our politicians:rolleyes: ); HQ? That doesn't work well at see anyway. If you mean the Charles de Gaulle ok I understand it.;)

By the way Marc, if you have a workable ORBAT for Spain I would love it. Some around here had already made some good job on that (something on operations in Italy) but I would love to see another point of view. T2K depict, with almost no details, Guardia Civil as something close to barbarians, I'm not sure about it. I would like to have your opinion on Spain in T2K.

Mmmmm... I have not a workable ORBAT for Spain, but I will work on it. Sounds interesting.

The paper of Spain in the Twilight war...well, who now? After all, Catalonia (where I live) becames independent...:D . I still remember the surprise when we looked at the Europe map of the v2.2 rulebook, in the Barcelona store where we discovered the existence of Twilight:2000!!!! Seriously, like the Spanish Orbat, the situation of the Iberian Penisula deserves a new thread. I will try to propose you several "what ifs" in a new thread. And I will suggest a friend of mine (which I hope I will manage to make him register in this forum) to help me. He surely will enjoy the exercise.

About the Guardia Civil and the barbarians, I think that when Chadwick's team wrote the few notes about Spain that can be read in the V2.2 rulebook (and in Mediterranean cruise") they asked a catalan or a basque about the qüestion.:rolleyes:

[headquarters]

Since when have we ever met anything that can be remotly called friends????

....except the police who uses rubber bullets????

you could..if you wernt such scary,homicidal,greedy drunkards (and pimps)

[headquarters]

Since when have we ever met anything that can be remotly called friends????

....except the police who uses rubber bullets????


since when have I EVER had hostile NPCs use rubber bullets ?

I am thinking hard to find someone you might have made friends with ..hmmm..that USN deserter you helped out by springing his girlfriend out MIGHT have become a friend if you hadnt treated his girl like you were drunken,amphetamine crazed Baader-Meinhof members with desperate prospects imminent..

Oh well..not long until next session .Maybe you can make some friends then...??

:D :D :D

[General Pain]

since when have I EVER had hostile NPCs use rubber bullets ?

I am thinking hard to find someone you might have made friends with ..hmmm..that USN deserter you helped out by springing his girlfriend out MIGHT have become a friend if you hadnt treated his girl like you were drunken,amphetamine crazed Baader-Meinhof members with desperate prospects imminent..

Oh well..not long until next session .Maybe you can make some friends then...??

:D :D :D

I doubt it....

on another note:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29871

[headquarters]

I doubt it....

on another note:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29871


I know..

But dont let fear of rejection hold you back from trying to start a friendship!!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I know this is old but I'm still reading through many of the threads here. I don't often bother to comment on new threads let alone old ones but this made me change my mind.

Not all. Just the bastards involved in allowing the pride of the Australian fleet to pull alongside for a routine cargo check of a freighter only to have it suddenly uncover hidden gun turrets and torpedo tubes, run up a German flag and rake the Sydney from end to end. For that war crime yes, I'd kill the whole gwerman crew. And not shed a single tear for them.

And as you well know, "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defence in a war crimes trial. Is not and should not be. Even in basic training I had sufficient explanations given to me to know an illegal order when I hear it.
Sir, you are completely wrong in your description of events and the actions of the crew of the Kormoran. Further, the Kormoran was not built as a raider, it began life as the freighter Steiermark in 1938. She was taken up by the Kreigsmarine and converted to armed merchant status sometime in 1939-40, entering Kreigsmarine service as the Kormoran in 1940.
The crew of the Kormoran should be congratulated for accomplishing such an audacious act, if the roles had been reversed then Australians would be proclaiming the Australian sailors as heroes. The reason the loss of the Sydney rankles so much is that it was considered utterly unthinkable for a commerce raider to sink a major warship let alone a cruiser. Because the entire Sydney crew were lost, there was no explanation of events except for what the crew of the Kormoran could provide and no Australian wanted to hear that an armed raider had done the impossible and sunk a light cruiser that was also the pride of the RAN.

The action occured as follows
Sydney was patrolling the Western Australian coastline, Kormoran was in the region resupplying after attacking merchants in the Indian Ocean. She was reported as a suspicious vessel and Sydney was directed to investigate. The captain of the Kormoran (KorvettenKapitan Detmers) was aware that a RAN warship was in the region and he was keen to avoid a confrontation. Maintaining the disguise as the Dutch freighter Straat Malakka, the Kormoran sent messages to the maritime control office in Perth stating that they were being tailed by a suspicious ship. The maritime control personnel replied that the Dutch had nothing to worry about because it was an Australian warship. Detmers knew it was the Sydney and that he could not outfight her.

Sydney was trying to establish the identity of the Kormoran, she was in the right place with the right look for the Straat Malakka but she could not display the correct Flag Of The Day for identity confirmation. The captain of the Sydney, Captain Burnett, was relatively inexperienced for his command and dithered. His actions cost not only his life, but his ship and, inexcusably, his entire crew. He continued to radio naval command in Perth for information and directions regarding his treatment of the "Dutch" freighter. He was suspicious enough to request further orders but not suspicious enough to maintain proper distance or to cover the Kormoran with Sydney's guns.

Kapitan Detmers realized he could not avoid the Sydney and prepared to bluff his way out of a confrontation. However, Captain Burnett's dithering meant the encounter was stretching out longer than desired and the Sydney was getting closer to the Kormoran all the while. Knowing his ship could not stand up to close range fire from Sydney's guns, Detmers ordered his ship to make ready for combat while Sydney was within 1600 metres. Kormoran crew recall seeing below decks crew from Sydney up on deck to have a look at the "Dutch" ship. They also stated that Sydney did not appear to consider the "Dutch" freighter a threat as many of her guns were unmanned. With the Sydney closing to 1000 metres or so, Detmers order the Kreigsmarine flag to be raised and the gunshields dropped so as to attack the Sydney.

Kormoran's gunners, already having trained many of their guns on critical points of the Sydney, opened fire. In the opening minutes, they hit A & B turrets, the bridge, the combat control centre and the onbord seaplane whose fuel caused a major fire. Kormoran took hits from Sydney's X & Y turrets and sustained major damage but she followed up with a torpedo attack on Sydney which caused serious below waterline damage. Further attacks by both ships were made but the main damage was done. Most of Sydney's command/control staff were dead or injured in the opening minutes. Both ships limped off with Sydney presumed to have sunk through damage while the Kormoran was scuttled.

Before it's even said, I am not playing up the Germans at the expense of the Australians. I am fourth generation Australian, every generation having served in either Colonial military or Federal military forces (all three services). The Germans pulled off something considered impossible, luck certainly had something to do with it. Inexperience and a lack of aggressive action by Burnett also had a lot to do with it but the audacity, skill & luck of the Germans should not be twisted to make them out to be piratical scum because some Australians don't want to accept that they accomplished the unthinkable.

[Targan]

I stand by every word I wrote.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I stand by every word I wrote.
Then I pity you, an obsessive need for revenge upon people who have had no personal impact upon your life would see the only warcrime (the murder of prisoners) of this event being committed by you.

Kormoran committed no warcrimes, the actions as described in your post simply did not happen, the Sydney did not pull alongside for a cargo check, Kormoran ran up its battleflag at the same time as it uncovered its guns and the captain of the Sydney displayed an appalling lack of judgement and aggression. As revealed by communications transcripts to naval headquarters in Perth, he was inclined to believe that Kormoran was legitimate.
He should never have approached as close as he did (Sydney's guns outranged the Kormoran's), he should have sent the seaplane to scout the Kormoran while sending a boarding party to her.

The fact is, the Australian captain screwed up and as a consequence, he lost his life, his ship and his entire crew.

[kato13]

Of course not a definitive source but here is a wikipedia link in case anyone is interested (i was)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_between_HMAS_Sydney_and_HSK_Kormoran

Guys I already have one potential flame war brewing so lets stick to the facts if we can. This actually is pretty OT but I will let it continue since I trust you guys.

[Targan]

Then I pity you, an obsessive need for revenge upon people who have had no personal impact upon your life would see the only warcrime (the murder of prisoners) of this event being committed by you.

The fact is, the Australian captain screwed up and as a consequence, he lost his life, his ship and his entire crew.
Dude, I don't know you and I don't want to cause unnecessary tension here so I'm not going to post what my initial reaction to these comments was. I just have this one question - are you deliberately trying to insult me and piss me off?

That last quote about the Sydney's captain, if you value your health you really should refrain from repeating that on any occasion in any RSL club, at a gathering of RAN personnel or pretty much to any Australian on ANZAC Day.

[Legbreaker]

We'll probably never know exactly what occured on that day over sixty years ago. It was a terrible loss for all involved and although I wouldn't put it past the German survivors to embellish the truth a bit, the Australians are likely to have stuffed up somehow for the ship to be lost.

Of course phenomenal luck on the German part could have had a lot to do with it too. A lucky hit in a critical location in the opening moments could well tip the balance in the raiders favour....

Of course I am a little biased here. Although I'm an Australian ex serviceman and member of the RSL, I was in the army and we all know just how useless the navy really is!

;)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

A few things here, my apologies to all if this is seen as going off topic but I did believe it relevant as one of the initial aspects of this thread was about the ability of a raider to survive and mention had been made of the successes of various raiders during the World Wars including the Kormoran. Targan's description of the battle was incorrect and I sought to redress that.

The opening shots of the Kormoran's light guns hit the bridge and the fire direction centre of the Sydney. Without these, Sydney lost it's command and control before she began to fight. The fire control centre in particular was seen as a weak point in the design and had been armoured in other ships of the type although on Sydney it had been left unarmoured. That was some incredible luck for the Kormoran undoubtedly. When her larger guns began to score hits on Sydney, she hit A turret in a spot that wrecked it with one shot, skill or luck, who knows but they scored hits and that's all that counts. Both ships were taken out of the fight, it was a hollow, nasty victory for both sides.

Targan, piss you off? It was not my intent but I cannot understand the need for revenge on the crew of the Kormoran when the events as portrayed to justify their murder are demonstrably wrong. I really do pity anyone who wants to initiate violence just for the sake of feeling better. If you wish to continue to believe an incorrect version of the event then so be it and I will speak of it no more but I will never accept revenge as a justifiable excuse to kill someone based on ignorance of the facts.
If you wish, I can met you, you can punch me in the mouth and then I'll buy you and me a whisky or three and I'll call you a f**king arsehole for giving me a fatlip. We can get drunk and fall over and forget what the hell we were arguing about and then agree with Legbreaker that the navy really isn't as good as the army.

As for Captain Burnett, he screwed up, plain and simple. As I first stated, he should never have allowed Sydney to get so close to Kormoran. Australians at the time did not want to believe that the Germans might actually have been telling the truth about the loss of the Sydney, many theories were concocted as to how they could possibly have done it including the Germans having the assistance of a Japanese submarine and some even more outlandish tales.
However with the finding of both ships it was revealed by the latest board of inquiry in Australia that most of what the Kormoran survivors had said was correct.

I was a member of a few RSL clubs across Australia as I moved around the nation and have discussed the loss of the Sydney with a few members and several navy personnel. Not one of them has ever threatened my health because I see Captain Burnett as ultimately responsible for the loss of the Sydney.

[Mohoender]

Hello guys, it seems that the "Foster" is starting boiling around here. I'm entirely foreign on that subject but if I may, I'll try to ease things a bit.

If you really want to know about what happened, I would advise you to go and try to have access to the military archive (I don't know how that work in Australia, here they are in free access with only the need to ask). You might get more. Also I'm sure there are plenty of good books, authors are always running after their income and, therefore, they leave little room for neutrality.

I understand all of you and can understand why you seem a bit tense on that. I understand Targan's point. Also I disagree with his will for revenge as I already told him (no need to get back on that). I understand the others point as well but don't be too arsh. Funny enough that both of you seem to express things from your heart.:D As a result, the Whisky idea seems to be a good one. If I ever come to Australia, I'll offer you a beer instead (I don't like whisky, hé hé). If you come to France I'll do that too.;)

I know of the events of course but I don't know all the details. However, what I'm sure off is that facts of that type are never one sided. I'm sure that the loss was a terrible one, especially at the time. I'm also sure that sailors from both country were highly skilled and fought with bravery (On that matter, I would praise them both, don't throw the bottle, No! No!:D ).

From what I know of the battle, the fact that all hands on the Sidney were lost would suggest me that they did their best to save the ship and remain on board until it was too late (One more point for their bravery).

About revenge, that was not carried out by Australia at the time (In my opinion people who were alive at that time remain the only one with a full right to claim it; no offense Targ). From my point of view the fact that the German sailors finished the war as POWs is a strong point toward Australia's Grandeur.

One thing is very true on Targan's side: the type of war carried out by the Kormoran had been banned before 1914 and privateers were no more than pirates. As a result, they could have been all executed as such. Again Australia should be proud of how it reacted as, if they were not innocent, I hardly see any justification to kill young men obeing orders. Unless you are willing to execute many soldiers from all sides in all wars.

However, in a way, revenge had been carried out as Erich Raeder (the man behind these orders) was sentenced to life imprisonment at Nuremberg (one of the charge was his use of privateer war, and he was condemned for conspiracy, crime against peace, war crime and crime against humanity). You can criticize the fact that he was released for health reason in 1955 (he died in 1960) but again that's not for us to judge (IMO).

An interesting point is that Karl Dönitz was only sentenced to 10 years for war crimes (and war crimes only). He died in 1980 and the sentence seems fair to me as the allied were also carrying out submarine war (that was not illegal).

[O'Borg]

Whilst the actions of the Kormoran were sneaky, underhanded and devious, I don't doubt they were any less so than a lot of other things that both the Axis and Allied powers did.
(Compare Operation Chariot or most other Commando raids)

IMO, much of the fault has to lie with the Captain of the HMAS Sydney for failing to take proper precautions when approaching a ship acting suspiciously and failing to give proper recognition signals in wartime.

[Mohoender]

Whilst the actions of the Kormoran were sneaky, underhanded and devious, I don't doubt they were any less so than a lot of other things that both the Axis and Allied powers did.
(Compare Operation Chariot or most other Commando raids)



Not false but, on naval matters, the allies have not been guilty of piracy.

[headquarters]

Not false but, on naval matters, the allies have not been guilty of piracy.

the allies operated q ships -in fact a British term if I recall correctly - some with French crews Mohohender!

disguised guns aboard merchant ,and dubious flag/symbols to confuse the observer ships etc that were used to try and lure enemy u boats and warships to approach and then open fire on them .

Also , the raid on the German prisonship Altmark in Norwegian waters ( neutral at the time ) has legal implications and could be deemed piratical.

It is my understanding that the rules state that the colours flown should clearly identify nationality and that unmarked warships/disguised warships posing as civillian craft are in fact in breach with conventions - unless they signal intent.

[Mohoender]

HQ you are right but we are not talking about the same thing. Allied Q-ships were used as protection against military vessels (subs...). This was perfectly legal. Of course, Germany never depended on atlantic see lane for its survival. Consequently the allied had no reason to use Q-ships against merchant ship but who care.:D

The German ships, however, were commerce raiders and they were intended to chase and capture merchant vessels. That is privateering and this was banned in 1856 at the congress on maritime law in Paris.

Despite that congress, Germany, France and England used privateer ships during WWI. As a result, Germany was never charged for that after the end of the conflict. Such charges would have had to be brought against Britain and France as well, and that would have been silly, don't you think?;)

On the other hand, during WWII, Germany was the only country to use merchant raiders and, therefore, it was the only country to be charged with it. Military Vessels attacking merchant ships is an entirely different thing. That is perfectly legal (and still is) as long as you don't attack neutral ships. Actually, you can attack and sunk neutral ships as well: "Oops sorry we made a mistake". That stand as long as you are the winner. If you lose the war that quickly becomes a crime again.:D Donitz had been charged with war crime because he ordered the German U-boot to leave no surivors. Several allied subs had the same type of habits (where would you put the survivors anyway?) but the allies won! Moreover, the Nazi crimes were so important that nobody was really paying attention to the ones comited by the allies.

As a conclusion, you can't use civilian motor boats armed with Cal.50 to attack a cargo (that's a crime!!) but you can gladly use a nuke to wipe out an ennemy merchant convoy (that's a perfectly legitimate act of war). :rolleyes: :D

[O'Borg]

I was reading the Wikipedia entry on the use of False Flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Naval_warfare) during war, and it seems it was considered acceptable practice by both sides that as long as the false flag was lowered and the national flag raised before engaging in combat.
The Kormoran cut things rather fine, but no more so than the HMS Campbeltown did at St Nazaire a few months later.

If the situation regarding the Kormoran and the Sydney was reversed and an Australian Q-Ship had suckered an unwary German light cruiser, I'm sure the Aussies would be treated as national heroes.

[headquarters]

but in the action in question here ,the Germans skillfully did what the allied q ships were unable to do ,lure a powerful warship in and then at the last minute hoist battle ensign and open fire.

This can no more be a war crime then the allied attempts of the same in the Atlantic .If the wwar ships is a u boat or a destroyer doesnt really mater as far as I can judge .


HQ you are right but we are not talking about the same thing. Allied Q-ships were used as protection against military vessels (subs...). This was perfectly legal. Of course, Germany never depended on atlantic see lane for its survival. Consequently the allied had no reason to use Q-ships against merchant ship but who care.:D

The German ships, however, were commerce raiders and they were intended to chase and capture merchant vessels. That is privateering and this was banned in 1856 at the congress on maritime law in Paris.

Despite that congress, Germany, France and England used privateer ships during WWI. As a result, Germany was never charged for that after the end of the conflict. Such charges would have had to be brought against Britain and France as well, and that would have been silly, don't you think?;)

On the other hand, during WWII, Germany was the only country to use merchant raiders and, therefore, it was the only country to be charged with it. Military Vessels attacking merchant ships is an entirely different thing. That is perfectly legal (and still is) as long as you don't attack neutral ships. Actually, you can attack and sunk neutral ships as well: "Oops sorry we made a mistake". That stand as long as you are the winner. If you lose the war that quickly becomes a crime again.:D Donitz had been charged with war crime because he ordered the German U-boot to leave no surivors. Several allied subs had the same type of habits (where would you put the survivors anyway?) but the allies won! Moreover, the Nazi crimes were so important that nobody was really paying attention to the ones comited by the allies.

As a conclusion, you can't use civilian motor boats armed with Cal.50 to attack a cargo (that's a crime!!) but you can gladly use a nuke to wipe out an ennemy merchant convoy (that's a perfectly legitimate act of war). :rolleyes: :D

[Mohoender]

HQ you are right.

Actually, that's a good point and the charge was brought on the fact that this ship (and several others) attacked merchant ships before. The Kormoran had sunk 10 merchant ships before it was scuttled. My mistake on that point.

I don't know if the following statement is true but I find it interesting:

In 1999, an Australian Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade stated that: "[t]he statement of differing views [on the fate of HMAS Sydney] has become a dialogue of the deaf rather than a fruitful exchange within the norms of historical discourse."

O'borg, you are right but privateering was, nevertheless, forbidden and it is considered a very different thing. As HQ pointed out, using Q-ship is fair when used against combat vessels (and even more fair when used against submarines). However, the use of such ships against merchant ships has to be considered an act of piracy and was ruled as such (That charge was brought against Raeder not for that specific battle but because he issued the order that brought these ships to be uses as merchant raiders: a total of 12 ships).

An other point is that the Kormoran was a very well armed ship with a firepower similar to that of Sidney, especially at short range as it was the case.

[Matt Wiser]

Given that the fight was opened at around 1,500 yards, the raider was well-suited to win a knife fight at that range. The Australian Captain and the Bridge Watch probably had time to say "What in the Hell?" before the first 5.9" salvo slammed into the bridge. The German gunners were expert shots, and Kormoran had an ace up her sleeve: right after Capt. Detmers declared himself as a German warship, his torpedo officer launched torpedoes from both deck mounts and an underwater tube (similar to a U-Boat's). The two fish from the deck mount missed. The underwater one did not. Accurate 5.9" fire, plus 37-mm, 20-mm and machine-gun fire ripped the upperworks of Sydney to shreds, and killed the two forward 6-inch turrets. If Sydney's after fire control hadn't been on the ball and landed a salvo that ripped into Kormoran's engine room, the Germans would have not only followed Sydney to send her down, but would have picked up survivors. The Germans were sailors, and as far as raider crews were concerned, the war stopped when a ship was clearly sinking and one then followed the sailor's code. Only Von Rucketshell violated that on Widder's cruise, but he behaved more honorably on Michel's first deployment (SOLANT, IO, then on to Japan).

[Targan]

If the situation regarding the Kormoran and the Sydney was reversed and an Australian Q-Ship had suckered an unwary German light cruiser, I'm sure the Aussies would be treated as national heroes.
Except that Australia didn't operate Q-ships like that and I doubt we ever would. Cowardly tactics in my opinion.

And as for that previous crap about it being a war crime to shoot the crew of the Kormoran, it wouldn't be a war crime because the Kormoran's crew were pirates. I'd be happy to drop the hammer on scum like that.

I've exercised a great deal of self control in this thread this week. This debate could go on talking about the Sydney vs Kormoran battle for a year but I won't be changing the way I feel about the matter.

[Badbru]

Except that Australia didn't operate Q-ships like that and I doubt we ever would. Cowardly tactics in my opinion.



Perhaps you might be interested to read up on "The Krait" then. Correct, it wasn't a Q-ship but it was used to disguise the deployment of commandos to Singapore harbour wherein they padled canoes to place limpet mines on the hulls of, mostly, merchant ships in Japanese occupied Singapore harbour.

[Targan]

Perhaps you might be interested to read up on "The Krait" then. Correct, it wasn't a Q-ship but it was used to disguise the deployment of commandos to Singapore harbour wherein they padled canoes to place limpet mines on the hulls of, mostly, merchant ships in Japanese occupied Singapore harbour.
I know something about those Z Force missions. One of the men involved, Jack Sue, lives in the same city as me. Not quite the same thing in my opnion.