Is a merchant ship a warship? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Basket

Senior Master Sergeant
3,712
1,884
Jun 27, 2007
So is a merchant ship a warship and therefore legal to sink?

If a merchant ship evades a warship then it is resisting boarding then could be classed as a combatant.

If a merchant ship had a 4 inch gun manned by military personnel then is it a warship?

If it is told to ram a submarine then is it a warship?

If it is told to radio a warning then again is it a warship?

If it carries what maybe war material then is it a warship?

The legal definition of Prize Rules or what a merchant vessel is certainly up for grabs and the use of Q Ships means that a merchant ship could be genuinely mistaken for a warship and following prize rules to be suicidal.

So sinking merchant vessels without warning would be perfectly legal if the ships are seen as combatant.
 
I think I am right in saying that Merchant Ships were allowed to have one large gun at the stern so they could run away, plus light defensive weapons such as AA guns.

Ramming a Submarine was seen as an acceptable from of defence from a Merchant Ship. In WW1 there was a huge amount of publicity in the way the Germans treated the captain of a merchant ship that escaped from a submarine by ramming and damaging it. Later on he was captured by the Germans and shot I think under the guise that he should be treated as a spy as he had taken aggressive action against a submarine whilst being a civilian.

If I remember correctly his name was Captain Smith and he commanded a rail ferry. There is a large plaque to him in Liverpool St Station, London.
 
Running from a battle is probably the most non combatant action that one could take.
If it carries war materiel then it's carrying contraband. Appropriate legally authorized action could be then taken by the warship.
A merchantman not notifying its respective power would be treason during wartime. All nations expect their freighters to do this which is why the Kido Butai sailed so far north.
This is from a naval authority who is just one of the many voices inside my head.
 
Last edited:
So

1- is a merchant ship a warship

2- therefore legal to sink?

3- If a merchant ship evades a warship then it is resisting boarding then could be classed as a combatant.

4- If a merchant ship had a 4 inch gun manned by military personnel then is it a warship?

5- If it is told to ram a submarine then is it a warship?

6- If it is told to radio a warning then again is it a warship?

7- If it carries what maybe war material then is it a warship?

The legal definition of Prize Rules or what a merchant vessel is certainly up for grabs and the use of Q Ships means that a merchant ship could be genuinely mistaken for a warship and following prize rules to be suicidal.

So sinking merchant vessels without warning would be perfectly legal if the ships are seen as combatant.

1- No, these are two complete different classes!

2- Depends on situation mainly, but Warships are prior to engage and eliminate.

3- It should be escorted to nearest Friendly / Neutral spot for boarding, if resist this, a warning shot should be fired, if resists for third time, treated as hostile warship.

4- again depends! if it uses hostile flag and Military personnel are from hostile, then treat as a warship, but if it uses a neutral flag and manned by a 3rd party personnel, Requesting Air / Naval reinforcement is advised. (Show Superiority)

5- No, it is not a warship! Warship has its own definition. in this case, it should be treated as a hostile ship! not a warship!

6- Again no, but in this case, You can fire warning shots! or do a boarding without permission of ship's Captain.

7- Again NO!!! If you found anything onboard, you must capture ship and bring it to a friendly port to unload material / equipment onboard.

however, personnel of Non Military Ships (Auxiliary Warships (AuxW) and Armed Merchant Cruisers (AMC) included) are listed as Civilian POW's!
 
These rules remind me of the rules of cricket or football, they depend on some sort of Corinthian spirit not a determination to win at any cost. Captain Langsdorff on the Graf Spee observed the rules purely because they were the rules, there was no referee to make him or give him a red card. Since the Graf Spee was pursued and attacked anyway I cant see what incentive there was for anyone to follow these rules of engagement.
 
These rules remind me of the rules of cricket or football, they depend on some sort of Corinthian spirit not a determination to win at any cost. Captain Langsdorff on the Graf Spee observed the rules purely because they were the rules, there was no referee to make him or give him a red card. Since the Graf Spee was pursued and attacked anyway I cant see what incentive there was for anyone to follow these rules of engagement.

Of course. The rules in war often get lost, by all sides, because when SHTF and they're shooting at you, you do what you need to do.

To take Hemingway out of context -- when it comes to any "rules of war", isn't it pretty to think so?
 
Langsdorff was employee of the month material and that no lie. Fat good it did him.

They were told to be nice and follow prize rules for PR reasons. So don't want no Lusitania early doors. Especially off South America where your fan club might be.

Soon as you have a gun you is armed and locked and loaded. Be that 18 inches or a little pop gun. So I would say that orders to ram or radio or run away is not giving the captain of the merchant ship the opportunity to surrender and so not giving the enemy ship the opportunity to resolve peacefully.

The Hilfskreuzer would tell an allied vessel to stop but the merchant ship be on the radio QQQ and so it be big gun time. The vessel will be under attack and probably not be in good shape afterwards. Which would stop it been taken as a prize or its cargo from been looted.

The legality of Q Ships is one of interest to me as they be a major cause of the German navy in ww1 switching to unrestricted submarine warfare as the U-Boots would have no idea if they were facing a merchant ship or an auxiliary cruiser.
 
Langsdorff was employee of the month material and that no lie. Fat good it did him.

They were told to be nice and follow prize rules for PR reasons. So don't want no Lusitania early doors. Especially off South America where your fan club might be.

Soon as you have a gun you is armed and locked and loaded. Be that 18 inches or a little pop gun. So I would say that orders to ram or radio or run away is not giving the captain of the merchant ship the opportunity to surrender and so not giving the enemy ship the opportunity to resolve peacefully.

The Hilfskreuzer would tell an allied vessel to stop but the merchant ship be on the radio QQQ and so it be big gun time. The vessel will be under attack and probably not be in good shape afterwards. Which would stop it been taken as a prize or its cargo from been looted.

The legality of Q Ships is one of interest to me as they be a major cause of the German navy in ww1 switching to unrestricted submarine warfare as the U-Boots would have no idea if they were facing a merchant ship or an auxiliary cruiser.
Langsdorff went above and beyond what was required by the laws of the time, my father was in the RN hated Germans but admired Langsdorff. The last sentence of your post that I put in bold emphasises the point I made, having rules in an unlimited war that was being fought to obtain unconditional surrender doesnt and cannot work. You cannot starve someone to death in a legally correct way, same with a nation. You also cannot expect someone who is starving to death to die rather than break a rule.
 
Is the merchant ship carrying munitions? Troops? War supplies?
It is a very well informed U Boat captain that knows what constitutes "war supplies" in the WW2 era, Is that wood to make a cabinet or a Mosquito? In 1940 one British "secret weapon" was the Dowding system of what we now call CaC, so anything concerned with telephones and radios are "war supplies" almost everything was something to do with the war in some way.
 
Oddly allowing a merchant crew to man the lifeboats in the middle of the south Atlantic is probably as much of a death sentence than giving them the MP40 two step. One is legal and the other isn't.

The use of radio was bad for Hilfskreuzer as it has now given your position away. Any allied ship was fair game as even ivory back scratchers could be considered military use items if your squint long enough.
 
It is a very well informed U Boat captain that knows what constitutes "war supplies" in the WW2 era, Is that wood to make a cabinet or a Mosquito? In 1940 one British "secret weapon" was the Dowding system of what we now call CaC, so anything concerned with telephones and radios are "war supplies" almost everything was something to do with the war in some way.

That's sort of what I am getting at.
 
The legality of Q Ships is one of interest to me as they be a major cause of the German navy in ww1 switching to unrestricted submarine warfare as the U-Boots would have no idea if they were facing a merchant ship or an auxiliary cruiser.

This is the crux of the matter. I don't think their legality was a settled matter in WWI, though I could well be wrong. I'm unsure if they were legal in WWII. But your point about Q-ships influencing the decision to return to USW in Feb 17 is intriguing. Is this a hunch you have, or have you read some good source stuff?

If the latter is the case, I'd be interested in any links you could provide.

If it's only your hunch, it still doesn't seem out of bounds of reason, and I'm not trying to prick you. I'd just be very interested to read anything you've got on it.
 
It depend on the Q Ship being a reason or excuse. Whether it was to justify which is a difficult one.

A U-Boot main weapon was not torpedo but the deck gun. So you got to the surface and blasted away. A U-Boot is not armoured or particular robust so a relatively small gun can do quite a bit of damage if the merchant vessel is armed.

Causing a U-Boot to use only torps is in many ways a mission kill as they have limited supply and have to RTB after the last one is fired.

One aspect is that a submarine cannot take shipwreck crew on board. This violates prize rules as the raider cannot guarantee the safety of the ship wrecked crew.

To me, a warship is any vessel acting under military command. Regardless.

Even if that is calling in any suspicious activity as that could be considered a threat.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back