Q Ships

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

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. 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).

[O'Borg]

I was reading the Wikipedia entry on the use of False Flag 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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by O'Borg

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]

Originally Posted by Targan

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]

Originally Posted by Badbru

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.

[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 .

Originally Posted by 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.

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. 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).

[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).