Maritime Warfare

[oldpop2000]

We have to understand that maritime warfare is not just a bunch of modified merchant ships sailing around trying to interrupt trade. That style is very ineffective despite the number of ships sunk or capture. You have examine the percentage of ships sunk by this method as a ratio of the ships that have sailed. Submarines are far more effective trade warfare than surface ships, whether merchants or warships. Maritime warfare also involves interrupting the movement of supplies between ports and operations like the Mediterranean and the North African Campaign.

I like to call it Logistics warfare, it gives it a wider view and its a better way to understand it. The game doesn't consider it, just AMC's and that's why I don't use them. They waste funds.

[dorn]

Aug 2, 2019 14:46:28 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

We have to understand that maritime warfare is not just a bunch of modified merchant ships sailing around trying to interrupt trade. That style is very ineffective despite the number of ships sunk or capture. You have examine the percentage of ships sunk by this method as a ratio of the ships that have sailed. Submarines are far more effective trade warfare than surface ships, whether merchants or warships. Maritime warfare also involves interrupting the movement of supplies between ports and operations like the Mediterranean and the North African Campaign.

I like to call it Logistics warfare, it gives it a wider view and its a better way to understand it. The game doesn't consider it, just AMC's and that's why I don't use them. They waste funds.

I completely agree with this as this type of maratine warfare can limit even larger surface fleet of opponent. Even if in 1945 Japanese surface fleet would be 2 times the USN, they operational status would be much worse as they would be unable to operate at time and location they would need hence even in this hypotetical scenario, USN could choose when and where hit enemy. So enemy would have only possibilities to split forces and be anihilated slowly or concentrate forces in area with good supply and completely sacrifice rest.

[dorn]

Jul 31, 2019 13:36:46 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

A) warships

Their need long range, good organization of supply ships. They are dependent on intelligence as was proved in WW1. They need to operate in open spaces Ocean, change operational area. As time progress they get better range, with aircraft better scouting ability but aircrafts have effect that they need to operate in areas without their coverage. As time progress they can get better intelligence report but on other side their position after revealed are quickly shared between enemy. So they always struggle to be effective as they are expensive but their speed can help them only till they are intercepted by some faster ship.

Comment: Warships have some distinct disadvantages. A. They are far more easily recognizable than a transport that can be modified to look like almost any transport. Their aircraft for scouting cannot be disguised or hidden in the holds like a transport and they will not have anywhere near the range unless designed for the purpose. Most transports can be modified to have about a 12 to 16,000-mile range. Cruisers like the Graf Spee and others do have superior firepower but against merchant ships that firepower is virtually wasted. They are more expensive to build and operate. For a navy such as the Kriegsmarine it would have been better to have used them during the Norway operation instead of sending them to sea. Merchant ships converted to AMC generally have more cargo space and hence can carry more mines and fuel.

Stealth and secrecy are the keys to success in trade warfare. Warships, even if built for the purpose cannot really provide that stealth.

Here is an article on German surface raiders in WW1. We can compare with statistics the effectiveness of each type of raider. This might give us some insight as to which one is more effective. www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-i/surface-raiding-ships-world-war-one.html

I will go through it slowly as you give information in much higher pace than I am able to read and answer.

So the conclusion is that the surface warship is the less ideal tool for trade warfare as it does not have stealth, it has lower range and supply to AMC (larger cargo hold). It has firepower and armour but as soon as both is used it means failure for the raider. It has speed but mainly combat speed which is again useless except emergency and at that time raider is trying be saved.

So I would think about what ideal warship for commerce raiding is with expectation it cannot hide.

Speed - economical cruising speed with ability high speed to escape (higher than cruisers) in case it is found by enemy warship

Firepower - minimal to sink enemy merchant shipping with reasonable fire control

Armour - none as they cannot save against warship and is not needed against merchants

Cargo space - as large as possible to increase supplies and fuel

Others - floatplane, seaworthiness

This seems as ideal surface warship for commerce raiding. Question is how much does it cost and if it is possible to build in reasonable tonnage. But still it looks more like armed merchant cruiser just only being built for that purpose from the scratch.

EDIT: There is another important thing. Surface warships commencing raiding needs to operate alone. There is only disadvantages operating together as there is higher risk all would be lost by one action of enemy.

But I think it can still be effective. Not as submarines but in case that submarines has not enough range and trade warfare is commenced through the globe, it is only viable strategy. And to hunt them enemy need large force to protect trade. If such ships can be built cheap, than it is more about organization than expenses and even several merchants sunk per raider can be effective as destroying more resources than costs of resources for raider. Other thing is that a lot of effort is needed to hunt such raider as only warship are able to sink such powerful raider.

If we look at surface raiders in WW1 there were some of them quite effective others quite ineffective. All surface raiders operating alone seems to be effective to some degree hampering only by fact that they were warships so not cheap.

The solution could be to build ship hybrids before war when they would be used for commerce but have been already prepared for war duty. It can be done by Navy participating on building costs and may be even operating costs during peace time.

Still it is more thinking without any ability to reasonable confirm hypothesis.

We should not forget one important thing and it is difference of threats doing trade warfare. If you have only submarines, enemy can completely focus on that threat which easier countermeasures. If they are different threats enemy needs to adapt it is much more difficult for him to divert resources in all areas as it is usually answer to some action and has time delays.

[dorn]

Jul 31, 2019 16:56:05 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

B) armed merchant cruisers

At the beginning of 20th century it seems as cheap possibility to fight maritime warfare. As time progress however it is more and more difficult to hide. But still they can be effective in some way forcing enemy to dispatch ships to hunt them.

Comment – The Armed Merchant Cruiser were used by the British for convoy protection, but they were of limited value. Most were ocean liners and were later used as troopships. We tend to confuse Armed Merchant Cruisers with Auxiliary cruisers which in fact were the ships sent out to do trade interdiction. The game seems to do this. The ships that were used for raiding were Auxiliary Cruisers. These were converted merchant ships. There is a difference.

I agree. I think this was the cheapest way to go as auxiliary cruisers still need to be hunt down by other auxiliary cruisers or warships. What can be done better is that during construction of some merchants during peace times there would be some subsidy to adapt merchant for possible future task.

Question is if surface raiders will be used, if it has some sence to use auxiliary cruisers. They can even be used to resupply submarines which can increase their range and time of mission.

[oldpop2000]

From one of my sources. For ten modified civilian merchants, those ten sank 890,000 tons, second only to the U-boats. They easily sank more than Scharnhorst and Gneisenau which sank only 22 ships between them. Here is a quote from my source about their effectiveness.

Raiders disrupted trade flow and broke up timetables, forced Allied navies to dedicate extra cruisers and destroyers to patrol sea lanes. The Allies also had to use additional aircraft for patrol duties. All of these ships and aircraft were assets that could have been used in combat theaters such as the Mediterranean or North Atlantic. Finally, occasional intelligence finds, most notably that of the Automedon, were highly useful to the Axis cause. Overall, the raiders performed admirably and achieved remarkable results.

While I agree that they were more successful than warships, did they really affect the war effort? I have my doubts, but when you are a weak economic power and naval power, you have to do what you can. As a comparison, U-boats sank 2779 ships for a total tonnage of 14.1 millions tons. 

[dorn]

Interesting.

It seems to that surface raiding is good if that nation has ability to fight enemy surface fleet.

Neverthless it is still more limited to merchants in far areas so without the possibility to attack military supplies in forward bases. Again it can be done by submarines only.

[oldpop2000]

Aug 3, 2019 13:02:57 GMT -6 dorn said:

Interesting.

It seems to that surface raiding is good if that nation has ability to fight enemy surface fleet.

Neverthless it is still more limited to merchants in far areas so without the possibility to attack military supplies in forward bases. Again it can be done by submarines only.

The actual numbers don't tell the story. Maritime warfare or logistics warfare has many different aspects to it, not just how many merchant are sunk. The real story is did you close ports, destroy docks and shipyards along with completely disrupting any movement of men and material to another operational area. Example is the British mining of Rotterdam. This was the best port for the German to import Swedish Iron ore which they needed. The main Swedish iron-ore field was in the north where the ore was shipped via Narvik and via Lulea. Narvik was ice-free. The iron ore was shipped in to Rotterdam and the coal and coke for Swedish exited that port. In 1943 the British mined that port and the whole shipping had to be moved to Emden which stressed the inland transportation. Eventually the British mined the Baltic and the U-boat training area in the Gulf of Danzig had to be moved.  The stories of mining operation both in the Baltic, North Sea, Japan, and the Mediterranean show that just sinking merchants isn't the whole story and in fact, mining and stopping or interrupting the movement of supplies to a combat area is more vital. Rommel and Africa Korps can attest to that.

[oldpop2000]

In my research, I see a distinction between attacks on merchant shipping and commerce raiding. The former is essentially mining and blocking passages in seas whereas latter is direct attacks on the enemy merchant shipping. This latter is thought to be a course of action, as I have stated, by a weaker fleet. Research shows that this latter raiding can extend conflicts but importantly pushing up marine insurance rates and freight costs. This was an aspect that I had thought about but did not really consider but it does have its affects. Sometimes, certain economic activity must be abandoned and all this will increase inflation in a nation and make it difficult to conduct the war. So, commerce raiding can have a strategic significance especially for island nations.

Another quick note about the configuration and acquisition of commerce raiders. The ship to be purchased and configured for raiding has to be of general style so that it's appearance can be changed throughout is voyage. The Goldenfels which was the merchant ship that was the basis for the German Raider Atlantis was of that configuration. Also, navies have purchase those ship from the commercial companies, they can't just take them. That is important in the costing of the project.

[oldpop2000]

The maps that I have inserted are from the British Admiralty book titled "Seaborne Trade" from WW1. I believe that these trade routes and the information would be the same for both wars. I am still looking through this three volume set for trade route map of the Mediterranean Sea. A picture is worth a thousand words and I believe these maps should be useful.

[oldpop2000]

One last map that I finally found that I feel is good information 

[dorn]

oldpop2000

Quite interesting discussion.

There are nice maps showing clearly that surface raiders has chance only in areas with relatively good weather and area far from operation of warships.
It is not true for large warships as Bismarck, Scharnhorst but such large warships are completely uneconomical for surface raiding.

[dorn]

Aug 1, 2019 20:38:40 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Comments:

Assessing which nations are susceptible to blockade is complex. It involves physical geography, economic geography, political geography, just to name a few. Here are some general facts. Trade warfare has always been a central part of any navy’s mission throughout history. Both a weak and strong fleet perform such strategy. The difference is the weaker fleet will attack the enemy’s maritime trade and the stronger will generally protect. I think that 20th century history shows this to be true.

Attacks on maritime trade are generally more effective against island nations but not as much against continental nations especially those with good connections to neighboring countries. The objectives of attacks on trade are generally traffic reduction, in a given sea or ocean for a specified time. This means interfering or interdicting enemy maritime trade. There are two methods of determining the effectiveness. The first is by the reduction in traffic and second is expressed in the number of ships sunk or total tonnage sunk.

Hampering means a reduction in transport volume by 25 to 30 percent. Curtailing means a reduction of 30 to 60 percent. Interruption means a reduction of 80%. Maritime trade reduction must be accomplished over a large area and against all maritime trade. Ships at sea, in ports, almost everything including railroads are included.

An example would be the efforts of the Italian fleet attacking the Pedestal convoy. The Italian navy was almost out of fuel but failed due to lack of support from the Italian Air Force. This example should be a wakeup call for the game. Naval and land-based air must work together to succeed.

I hope this small amount of information is helpful.

There is one thing that change trade warfare through history and completely change strategical view on trade warfare. And it is industrial revolution changing land transportation.

Till railroads the main means of transportation was through ships as it was the easist way to transport large quantities over large distances with minimal costs. With invetion of railroads it change everything. You have transportation network which has usually large throughput that was enough and higher speed with reasonable costs. This means that you are not dependent on sea routes if land routes (railroads) exists. This completely change effect of blockades and trade warfare on sealanes as their importance decreases at time where reasonable high capacity land route was available.

As railroad capacity increased through the time connected even areas far away, deny access from trade is even more difficult. 

It changed strategic view on several continental powers and give them advantege compared to past. The main advantage of British Isles giving them advantage of military position as fortress remain but the advantage of superior trade possibilites through the world diminished as moving trade from English to Europe was no more easier than by land. This create areas especially in Europe where exact sea connection to sealanes around the globe was not important as such goods could be transported from port to any part of continental Europe.

[oldpop2000]

Aug 9, 2019 11:17:08 GMT -6 dorn said:

oldpop2000

Quite interesting discussion.

There are nice maps showing clearly that surface raiders has chance only in areas with relatively good weather and area far from operation of warships.
It is not true for large warships as Bismarck, Scharnhorst but such large warships are completely uneconomical for surface raiding.

Those are good maps. The surface raiders stayed in the South Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, and the Indian Ocean because as you said, there were less British and French warships patrolling but consider this. There was a lot of raw materials and food that was in South America that was needed by the Allied nations. India was the same as was Australia so you go where the merchant fleet is going. Plus, with Italy in the war and the route through the Mediterranean Sea to the Suez canal almost shutdown, those ships had to go around the two tips of both Africa and South America. As to the warships like the larger battleships, there were the only surface ships that could deal with the convoys by standing off and sinking ships without any real threat until the advent of the Escort carriers. I suspect that range had a lot to do with it also. The pocket battleships used diesels so that had a better range. I am going to see if I can research the natural resources and food stuff from below the equator areas.

[oldpop2000]

Here is another map in one of my books titled "The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery". It shows the submarine cables and bases which is important for trade lanes and maritime warfare. I am still researching the natural resources that were traded and shipped from the two main South American countries. Those would be Brazil and Argentina. Coffee would be high on the Brazilian list, I am certain.

[oldpop2000]

I've provided an accurate list of food supply from and official British government. . As you can see the list of food supply shows the imports and home production. Now what does this have to do with maritime warfare? Because it was food supply that was the most important in the area of maritime trade. If the country became short of food, then inflation would increase and the nation's desire to continue the war would falter. As you can see, some of the food was mostly imported like cereal, sugar, cocoa and chocolate, fruit, cheese and butter. Argentina and Brazil both provided much of these imports as did the US and those nations also provided coaling bases for the merchant fleet and British Navy. Another important food for the English was tea, from the Indian subcontinent and SE Asia plus China. Argentina was a provider of beef. The story goes on. The merchant fleet also provided timber which had been reduced by the British prior to the Age of Steam and Iron. Just some interesting facts to consider.