Should we have privateering? Instead of attacking convoys with submarines to sink them and their cargo, should surface ships be allowed to capture convoys and their cargo? Did this happened in WW2?
Privateering
- Thread starter MinhowMinhow
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
According to Wikipedia, privateering ceased to be thing during the 19th century. Prussia was the last nation to consider it (during the Franco-Prussian war), but without notable results.
See also: Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law
See also: Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law
- 2
In WWI the German surface raiders did capture ships and used them as coal transport to refuel. Source:
Since it happened in WWI and not that much had changed, I suppose it could happen in WWII as well. Many German merchant ships were trapped in neutral ports during the war and could not be captured by the allies. Whilst the Germans tended to just sink ships as there were escorts which would hunt them down if they lingered around.
As previously commented above, privateering and issuing formal letters of marque by one country against another was outlawed by most major naval powers in the mid 19th century.
As for the second part of your question on whether surface ships should capture cargo/convoys and whether this applied to WWII, I think this would be impractical to implement on a large scale during 20th century naval warfare. Germany did use auxiliary cruisers (armed merchantmen usually) during both World Wars to raid Entente/Allied supply lines. But were generally less successful than U-boats. They were slow with poor fire control capabilities since they weren't purpose built warships. If they were caught by a real warship it was hardly a fair fight. Germany 11 numbered Hilfskreuzer (HSK) designated ships during WWII, compared to the 1,162 U-boats built.
Some of the most successful type of raider were SS Kronprinz Wilhelm from WWI and Atlantis and Pinguin and Kormoran from WWII.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Many of the ships and supplies they captured were scuttled to the bottom of the ocean but some were captured and prize crews would attempt to sail them to Bordeaux in occupied France during WWII. They did loot basic provisions when possible, but transporting captured ships/supplies back to Germany would be a calculated risk. Sending a prize crew and ship to attempt to go back to Germany would need to be supplied as well. Those supplies could be better kept with the raider itself, since resupply from other German ships or subs could be interrupted or intercepted. Most surface raiders operated far from Germany, reaching all over the globe . With the technological advances in air power and radar in WWII, trying to capture prize ships or deliver supplies intact back to Germany was certainly harder than during WWI. Also sticking around after attacking a convoy would be quite dangerous due to the possibility of surface reinforcements arriving or air attack.
On a slightly related note, depending on the account you read, Daniel Gallery, who commanded the Hunter Killer group that captured U-505 was almost court martialed for his actions due to the risk involved in capturing and towing a German U-boat 1,700 nautical miles for 2 weeks across the Atlantic Ocean. It's much safer to just sink an enemy vessel than to try to capture it.
As for the second part of your question on whether surface ships should capture cargo/convoys and whether this applied to WWII, I think this would be impractical to implement on a large scale during 20th century naval warfare. Germany did use auxiliary cruisers (armed merchantmen usually) during both World Wars to raid Entente/Allied supply lines. But were generally less successful than U-boats. They were slow with poor fire control capabilities since they weren't purpose built warships. If they were caught by a real warship it was hardly a fair fight. Germany 11 numbered Hilfskreuzer (HSK) designated ships during WWII, compared to the 1,162 U-boats built.
Some of the most successful type of raider were SS Kronprinz Wilhelm from WWI and Atlantis and Pinguin and Kormoran from WWII.
SS Kronprinz Wilhelm - Wikipedia
German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis - Wikipedia
German auxiliary cruiser Pinguin - Wikipedia
German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran - Wikipedia
Many of the ships and supplies they captured were scuttled to the bottom of the ocean but some were captured and prize crews would attempt to sail them to Bordeaux in occupied France during WWII. They did loot basic provisions when possible, but transporting captured ships/supplies back to Germany would be a calculated risk. Sending a prize crew and ship to attempt to go back to Germany would need to be supplied as well. Those supplies could be better kept with the raider itself, since resupply from other German ships or subs could be interrupted or intercepted. Most surface raiders operated far from Germany, reaching all over the globe . With the technological advances in air power and radar in WWII, trying to capture prize ships or deliver supplies intact back to Germany was certainly harder than during WWI. Also sticking around after attacking a convoy would be quite dangerous due to the possibility of surface reinforcements arriving or air attack.
On a slightly related note, depending on the account you read, Daniel Gallery, who commanded the Hunter Killer group that captured U-505 was almost court martialed for his actions due to the risk involved in capturing and towing a German U-boat 1,700 nautical miles for 2 weeks across the Atlantic Ocean. It's much safer to just sink an enemy vessel than to try to capture it.
- 3
Privateers employed by a Minor would be reasonable, IMO. It wouldn't be any different from a surface raider except there's a chance that equipment, resources, or ships could be captured. Certainly isn't historical or authentic but that doesn't mean it's unrealistic. It could be meaningful for an independent minor country that can't build a real navy but can employ surface raiders in a small war against another minor country. Problem is in HOI4 small wars are not the focus and tend to turn into big wars.
I could see, for example, Siam allied with Japan using privateers against Allied convoys in the Bay of Bengal or the South China Seas. It could capture ships and materiel that might be significant additions to it's resources.
I could see, for example, Siam allied with Japan using privateers against Allied convoys in the Bay of Bengal or the South China Seas. It could capture ships and materiel that might be significant additions to it's resources.
Last edited:
Do we know if the game keeps track of what material/supplies is actually in each specific convoy during a naval battle?
While I agree it could certainly be meaningful for minors, I wonder would there be limits on how much could be captured at a time? It could be quite powerful if you could say set a fleet of ships to "Convoy Capture" instead of "Convoy Raid". Maybe it would be a percent value like Maintenance Companies on land?
While I agree it could certainly be meaningful for minors, I wonder would there be limits on how much could be captured at a time? It could be quite powerful if you could say set a fleet of ships to "Convoy Capture" instead of "Convoy Raid". Maybe it would be a percent value like Maintenance Companies on land?
That's a very interesting question. Does the Supply and Convoy system keep track of what's on each convoy? It has to partly since it knows when there is a resource shortage, determines import/export routes, and keeps track of Lend Lease equipment deliveries. If and what is captured would be a die roll since there would be a large amount of luck in determining if a ship or it's cargo is captured intact, like the U-505 situation.
If the convoy has an escort then the privateers most likely wouldn't attack at all. In the Siam example privateers could attack convoys whose escort was sunk or damaged by Japanese NAV or patrols, or in zones where insufficient convoy escorts have been assigned.
As usual, the devil is in the details. Might be an idea for a future DLC or HOI5?
Last edited:
A few points here:
1.) The main reason this wasn't done historically was a combination of practicality and international law. Major navies were more concerned with following laws against seizing neutral cargo (which consisted of a large chunk of merchant shipping), while their rivals didn't have many vulnerable transports. A scenario in which a navy both has control over a seazone to safely board ships and bring them back to harbor (since they're always going to send off a distress call) and also enemy shipping present there to capture in the first place is extremely unusual (usually contested waters are hugely-dangerous, such as the Central Mediterranean or various sections of the Pacific).
2.) On occasion, ships were captured by hostile navies, but other than coal (which isn't really used in WWII for ships), actually acquiring cargo wasn't so much the point. On the one hand, raiding either ships or land bases for ammunition occurred on rare occasion in WWI, while in WWII the more common convention was putting prisoners onto a captured ship (which sometimes would be exchanged with the opposing navy) so you didn't have to store them on your own ship, or leave them overboard in lifeboats (which was the norm in more violent situations, and for the last few years of the war). "Honorable" conduct in naval warfare got a lot less common as the war progressed, and this stopped happening.
3.) Coal versus oil is not a minor difference. Capturing ships and moving coal is feasible, if difficult. Refueling off of a captured ship is not realistic by comparison, and refueling at sea was already a hugely-complicated affair for using dedicated oil tankers, let alone siphoning fuel out of a merchant ship.
4.) While ships did surrender, if someone was going to seize the ship then captains would be more likely to scuttle the ships than let them be captured. Not all ships could do this, but its worth keeping in mind (unfortunately merchant ships cover a massive range, so while its easy to just look at convoys as "Liberty Ships" even late WWII represents a huge range of civilian cargo ships, oil tankers, dedicated troop transports, and seized civilian craft like liners, barges, or fishing boats).
Tl;dr, its possible but the circumstances for it to happen are fairly-unusual and improbable, requiring someone to run shipping past hostile-controlled waters. Most historic examples of this were either troop transports or heavily-escorted convoys (i.e. Operation Pedestal), and technically represent contested waters rather than hostile-controlled ones.
1.) The main reason this wasn't done historically was a combination of practicality and international law. Major navies were more concerned with following laws against seizing neutral cargo (which consisted of a large chunk of merchant shipping), while their rivals didn't have many vulnerable transports. A scenario in which a navy both has control over a seazone to safely board ships and bring them back to harbor (since they're always going to send off a distress call) and also enemy shipping present there to capture in the first place is extremely unusual (usually contested waters are hugely-dangerous, such as the Central Mediterranean or various sections of the Pacific).
2.) On occasion, ships were captured by hostile navies, but other than coal (which isn't really used in WWII for ships), actually acquiring cargo wasn't so much the point. On the one hand, raiding either ships or land bases for ammunition occurred on rare occasion in WWI, while in WWII the more common convention was putting prisoners onto a captured ship (which sometimes would be exchanged with the opposing navy) so you didn't have to store them on your own ship, or leave them overboard in lifeboats (which was the norm in more violent situations, and for the last few years of the war). "Honorable" conduct in naval warfare got a lot less common as the war progressed, and this stopped happening.
3.) Coal versus oil is not a minor difference. Capturing ships and moving coal is feasible, if difficult. Refueling off of a captured ship is not realistic by comparison, and refueling at sea was already a hugely-complicated affair for using dedicated oil tankers, let alone siphoning fuel out of a merchant ship.
4.) While ships did surrender, if someone was going to seize the ship then captains would be more likely to scuttle the ships than let them be captured. Not all ships could do this, but its worth keeping in mind (unfortunately merchant ships cover a massive range, so while its easy to just look at convoys as "Liberty Ships" even late WWII represents a huge range of civilian cargo ships, oil tankers, dedicated troop transports, and seized civilian craft like liners, barges, or fishing boats).
Tl;dr, its possible but the circumstances for it to happen are fairly-unusual and improbable, requiring someone to run shipping past hostile-controlled waters. Most historic examples of this were either troop transports or heavily-escorted convoys (i.e. Operation Pedestal), and technically represent contested waters rather than hostile-controlled ones.
- 3
- 1