Neutral ships in Convoy

[BasilY]

Sneak into a convoy early 41. Have my gun sight lined up against a juicy tanker only to see a star-and-stripe on top. Dis-engage. Now this is 500m in good weather. It will be very difficult for a sub to distinguish a belligerent from 1000+ meter away and in bad weather. Which brings to my three questions...

1. Is a neutral merchantman historically safer as a part of a belligerent convoy or sailing alone?
2. If a neutral merchantman is sunk while in a protected convoy, can her government protest the sinking? It can almost be safely assumed that the ship is carrying contraband cargo (i.e. materiel of war) as defined by the laws of war.
3. Should and will a uboat commander refrey from attacking neutral merchantman protected in a convoy by the Royal Navy?

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by BasilY

Sneak into a convoy early 41. Have my gun sight lined up against a juicy tanker only to see a star-and-stripe on top. Dis-engage. Now this is 500m in good weather. It will be very difficult for a sub to distinguish a belligerent from 1000+ meter away and in bad weather. Which brings to my three questions...

1. Is a neutral merchantman historically safer as a part of a belligerent convoy or sailing alone?

The British experience in World War I was that ships in convoy had a much better chance than ships sailing alone. Allied codebreaking and convoy rerouting in World War II allowed many of the convoyed ships to evade U-boats completely, while ships sailing alone would sail right into them.

The U.S. experience with U-boats in the Atlantic and Caribbean in 1942 confirmed the relative safety of traveling in convoy.

2. If a neutral merchantman is sunk while in a protected convoy, can her government protest the sinking? It can almost be safely assumed that the ship is carrying contraband cargo (i.e. materiel of war) as defined by the laws of war.

Under the Hague Conventions governing submarine warfare, a neutral ship in a convoy escorted by belligerent warships was considered a legitimate target.

3. Should and will a uboat commander refrey from attacking neutral merchantman protected in a convoy by the Royal Navy?

Silent Hunter III does not distinguish between the sinking of neutral ships sailing in convoy (which historically were legitimate targets) and the sinking of unarmed, well-lit neutral ships sailing alone (which were not legal under the Hague conventions).

You will pay a renown penalty in either case, so I would leave all neutral merchant ships alone. FWIW, sinking a hospital ship in GWX will deduct 10,000 renown points from your score.

Pablo

[BasilY]

Thank you very much for the info. The historic data certainly support that a ship under a belligerent flag is safer in a convoy then sailing alone. I am just curious as to whether a ship under a neutral flag, said, Irish or Swedish (and american before 1941), are safer in a convoy than sailing alone.

In Convoy,
Pro, generally safer, if sink, surviving seamen more likely to be rescue.
Con, Legit target

Sailing Alone,
Pro, can't legally be attack, can sail faster, less time in danger zone
Con, can be searched, cargo seized, can be mistakenly attacked by over-zealous uboats.

[Pablo]

Hi!

I think the answer is probably out there, but it would require a huge amount of digging through archived records - maybe a PhD project in International Relations or National Security Studies. You would need to track a significant sample (or all) of the sailings of neutral merchant ships from all ports during the war, and get the following information from each sailing, such as:

• Was the cargo subject to seizure or destruction under the Hague Conventions?
• Did the ship's captain illuminate his ship at night, or did he sail blacked out? Did he change practice during the voyage?
• Did the ship sail in convoy at some part of each voyage, or was it always alone?
• If the ship did not reach port, do we know for sure that a U-boat sank it?
• Was the distance traveled between ports a factor?
• Was the relative success of U-boats in the area a factor?

Pablo

[the.terrabyte.pirate]

I guess a good place to start would be asking "How many neutral ships sailing alone were sunk by german u boats?"

Quite frankly, if you're neutral and sailing through contested waters and you're not lit up like a Xmas tree, then you deserve what you get.

[Jimbuna]

Also, remember that if you sink a neutral in-game, all vessels of that country will treat you as an enemy for the next 24 hours.

[Tchocky]

I returned to Wilhelmshaven with a red face many times for this.

Yeah Tchocky, just blast through that convoy, nothing bad could happen.

:p

[BasilY]

Originally Posted by the.terrabyte.pirate

I guess a good place to start would be asking "How many neutral ships sailing alone were sunk by german u boats?"

Quite frankly, if you're neutral and sailing through contested waters and you're not lit up like a Xmas tree, then you deserve what you get.

I know for a fact a number of Irish ships were sunk during the war by uboats. One or two were sunk while "light up like chrismas trees", weather conditions not known. I am sure some Spanish, Portugese, Irish ship owners during the war had to make similar decisions, just wonder what their decisions were.

Curiously, I never (I think) met a Spanish/portugese ship in SH3. Did anyone?

I think some neutral american ships travel amongst convoys (pre 41).

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by BasilY

Curiously, I never (I think) met a Spanish/portugese ship in SH3. Did anyone?

You should do, there are 29 Portuguese and 32 Spanish vessels scripted in GWX2.1

[U56]

Curiously, I never (I think) met a Spanish/portugese ship in SH3. Did anyone?

My present patrol square is CF91, met one Spanish medium cargo at night, all nicely lit up.

Regards