Prize rules - Page 2

rudewarrior · 11-03-21, 01:44 PM

I knew about the U-96 incident from reading Das Boot. Didn't know about the Nicholas Cuneo. Always good to read about those individual stories.

The Germans were pretty much looking for any excuse to get to unrestricted warfare. However, the political situation created fluidity and openings.

I looked back through some of my notes and research. As far as Prize Rules abrogation goes, originally, ships eligible to be attacked without warning were escorted ships, those that refuse inspection, and troop/military transports. Of course, naval ships were always eligible for attack.

In the first hours of the war there was some confusion. War was declared and the uboats didn't know for 1-1/2 hours, since it wasn't communicated to them. Then there was an assumption that the war/political situation was reversible, and there was a question of whether they had to wait to be engaged before they could act.

Although prize crews are great because you get a free ship and some contraband, it would cause uboats to become operationally ineffective all the time as you had to offboard crew over operational time. In addition, during the stoppage, uboats were vulnerable on the surface.

From here, they started stripping parts away. Ships that fired on the uboat could be sunk (no brainer). This was a result of regular merchants who had small caliber defenses firing on the uboat and Q-ships. Ships that notified enemy of the uboat presence could be sunk, because enemy were showing up during the inspection boarding process. This also included small private vessels tooling around the British coast.

Somewhere in there they decided any ship that endangered a uboat, e.g. ramming, was eligible.

Any issue that created an issue with uboat safety created an opening to abrogate.

About 3 days before they declared a blockade around Britain, they announced they were abandoning the Prize Rules in the North Sea. Then they declared the blockade around Britain saying anything darkened was eligible for attack. In the middle of Oct 1939, they stopped boarding the ships and just examined the papers. Turns out there is no provision for armed merchants in the Prize rules and they declared them eligible around this time as well.

The lettered zones were a bit curious. Basically, they were trying to make the enemy believe that mines were sinking the ships. This is speculation, but I think the idea was make it a plausible idea that mine deployment was resulting in merchant ships being sunk. I think they were trying to achieve a few different things with this. One was immediate tactics and making the British think that it was a mine at that particular instant vs. a uboat, so the uboats would have some cover/distraction in shallow waters. I think they were also trying to create a political situation that had a couple of pieces to it. I think they were trying to embarrass the British by pointing to their mines as being unsafe for themselves, but also any merchants that would be coming in the area. This would supposedly help deter individual merchants from coming to this war zone, thus helping to strangle supply. Also, it would theoretically start deterring the British from using mines for the same reason. They used this system for the first 8 months of 1940 then replaced it with a blanket blockade. Once the French coast opened up, tactics shifted from the North Sea to the North Atlantic, specifically west of the British Isles. The blockade eventually extended west to encompass Iceland and the coast of Greenland. This was because there was a strategic advantage to attacking convoys in the Atlantic vs. operating in shallow waters around Britain with mines floating in the water and aircraft buzzing around.

At this point, it didn't change very much until the end of the war. They were taking over more countries and the conditions I previously posted were pretty much the norm.

The whole concept of stopping ships for inspection pretty much came to an end with the Laconia incident in September '42. Basically, uboats that were clearly assisting in a rescue operation were attacked by B-24 Liberators. By this point, it was pretty hard to justify not firing on a ship that looked suspicious, and the conditions that justified surfacing and inspecting the ships records were pretty restrictive.

Then they just started losing, and were pretty much fighting from a defensive crouch the remainder of the war.

The only caveat to this is how passenger ships were treated. They were in a separate category depending on whether they were armed, in a convoy, or a certain size. This was due to the sinking of the SS Athenia.

A lot of info, and I haven't bored you too much with this post.

John Pancoast · 11-03-21, 02:39 PM

Amazing isn't it; "It's Tuesday, what are rules today Captain ?" "I'm not sure, but let me consult the book (heavy thud sound)" Need a crewmember just to keep track of all that.

FUBAR295 · 11-03-21, 04:13 PM

John,

Aren't you glad I turned you on to this mod!

Rudewarrior,

I just love the confusion of orders that can occur with you mod.

Makes everything more immersive.

John Pancoast · 11-03-21, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUBAR295

John,

Aren't you glad I turned you on to this mod!

Rudewarrior,

I just love the confusion of orders that can occur with you mod.

Makes everything more immersive.

Nah, mod is one my favorites ! But I would have torn my hair out trying to keep it all straight in real life.

Mister_M · 11-04-21, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Pancoast

Amazing isn't it; "It's Tuesday, what are rules today Captain ?" "I'm not sure, but let me consult the book (heavy thud sound)" Need a crewmember just to keep track of all that.

Kongo Otto · 11-04-21, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudewarrior

In addition, during the stoppage, uboats were vulnerable on the surface.

At 17th September, 1939 Royal Nayv submarine HMS Seahorse unsuccessful fired a spread of three torpedoes at U-36, which had stopped to question a neutral steamer.
U-36 was then sunk in December 1939 with all hand lost by a torpedo from HMS Salmon.

Mister_M · 11-04-21, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

At 17th September, 1939 Royal Nayv submarine HMS Seahorse unsuccessful fired a spread of three torpedoes at U-36, which had stopped to question a neutral steamer.

Wow ! How did they miss ?

John Pancoast · 11-04-21, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_M

Wow ! How did they miss ?

Easy; a subs draft isn't very deep and it's a small target to begin with. Also, I don't know, but maybe English torpedoes suffered the same problems German and U.S. ones did.

rudewarrior · 11-04-21, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_M

Wow ! How did they miss ?

From the rest of the U-36 entry at uboat.net that Kongo Otto cited:

Quote:

The U-boat was lucky to escape harm, as one of the torpedoes passed directly underneath her. (Sources: Dr. Jürgen Rohwer, Herbert Ritschel)

I seem to remember reading an account where a uboat had stopped to refuel and had multiple torpedoes pass under her keel. Hardegan maybe? I'm pretty sure it was either in Gannon Operation Drumbeat or Hickam Torpedo Junction.

Regardless, there are any number of reasons to miss a stationary target.

Mister_M · 11-04-21, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Pancoast

Easy; a subs draft isn't very deep and it's a small target to begin with. Also, I don't know, but maybe English torpedoes suffered the same problems German and U.S. ones did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudewarrior

Regardless, there are any number of reasons to miss a stationary target.

The Murphy's law ...

ivanov.ruslan · 11-05-21, 10:32 AM

Yes, sometimes the targets are too flat-bottomed and very mobile

11-03-21, 02:39 PM	#17
John Pancoast Ocean Warrior Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Minnysoda Posts: 3,211 Downloads: 501 Uploads: 4	Amazing isn't it; "It's Tuesday, what are rules today Captain ?" "I'm not sure, but let me consult the book (heavy thud sound)" Need a crewmember just to keep track of all that. __________________ "Realistic" is not always GAME-GOOD." - Wave Skipper

11-03-21, 04:13 PM	#18
FUBAR295 Krusty Krab Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Decks awash in the North Atlantic Posts: 1,450 Downloads: 493 Uploads: 0	John, Aren't you glad I turned you on to this mod! Rudewarrior, I just love the confusion of orders that can occur with you mod. Makes everything more immersive. __________________ Good judgment comes from experience. Unfortunately, the experience usually comes from bad judgment.

11-03-21, 01:44 PM	#16
rudewarrior Sonar Guy Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Middlebury, VT, USA Posts: 378 Downloads: 165 Uploads: 2	I knew about the U-96 incident from reading Das Boot. Didn't know about the Nicholas Cuneo. Always good to read about those individual stories. The Germans were pretty much looking for any excuse to get to unrestricted warfare. However, the political situation created fluidity and openings. I looked back through some of my notes and research. As far as Prize Rules abrogation goes, originally, ships eligible to be attacked without warning were escorted ships, those that refuse inspection, and troop/military transports. Of course, naval ships were always eligible for attack. In the first hours of the war there was some confusion. War was declared and the uboats didn't know for 1-1/2 hours, since it wasn't communicated to them. Then there was an assumption that the war/political situation was reversible, and there was a question of whether they had to wait to be engaged before they could act. Although prize crews are great because you get a free ship and some contraband, it would cause uboats to become operationally ineffective all the time as you had to offboard crew over operational time. In addition, during the stoppage, uboats were vulnerable on the surface. From here, they started stripping parts away. Ships that fired on the uboat could be sunk (no brainer). This was a result of regular merchants who had small caliber defenses firing on the uboat and Q-ships. Ships that notified enemy of the uboat presence could be sunk, because enemy were showing up during the inspection boarding process. This also included small private vessels tooling around the British coast. Somewhere in there they decided any ship that endangered a uboat, e.g. ramming, was eligible. Any issue that created an issue with uboat safety created an opening to abrogate. About 3 days before they declared a blockade around Britain, they announced they were abandoning the Prize Rules in the North Sea. Then they declared the blockade around Britain saying anything darkened was eligible for attack. In the middle of Oct 1939, they stopped boarding the ships and just examined the papers. Turns out there is no provision for armed merchants in the Prize rules and they declared them eligible around this time as well. The lettered zones were a bit curious. Basically, they were trying to make the enemy believe that mines were sinking the ships. This is speculation, but I think the idea was make it a plausible idea that mine deployment was resulting in merchant ships being sunk. I think they were trying to achieve a few different things with this. One was immediate tactics and making the British think that it was a mine at that particular instant vs. a uboat, so the uboats would have some cover/distraction in shallow waters. I think they were also trying to create a political situation that had a couple of pieces to it. I think they were trying to embarrass the British by pointing to their mines as being unsafe for themselves, but also any merchants that would be coming in the area. This would supposedly help deter individual merchants from coming to this war zone, thus helping to strangle supply. Also, it would theoretically start deterring the British from using mines for the same reason. They used this system for the first 8 months of 1940 then replaced it with a blanket blockade. Once the French coast opened up, tactics shifted from the North Sea to the North Atlantic, specifically west of the British Isles. The blockade eventually extended west to encompass Iceland and the coast of Greenland. This was because there was a strategic advantage to attacking convoys in the Atlantic vs. operating in shallow waters around Britain with mines floating in the water and aircraft buzzing around. At this point, it didn't change very much until the end of the war. They were taking over more countries and the conditions I previously posted were pretty much the norm. The whole concept of stopping ships for inspection pretty much came to an end with the Laconia incident in September '42. Basically, uboats that were clearly assisting in a rescue operation were attacked by B-24 Liberators. By this point, it was pretty hard to justify not firing on a ship that looked suspicious, and the conditions that justified surfacing and inspecting the ships records were pretty restrictive. Then they just started losing, and were pretty much fighting from a defensive crouch the remainder of the war. The only caveat to this is how passenger ships were treated. They were in a separate category depending on whether they were armed, in a convoy, or a certain size. This was due to the sinking of the SS Athenia. A lot of info, and I haven't bored you too much with this post.

11-05-21, 10:32 AM	#26
ivanov.ruslan The Old Man Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Pleven,BG Posts: 1,577 Downloads: 901 Uploads: 0	Yes, sometimes the targets are too flat-bottomed and very mobile