Highly Theoretical--Commerce Raiding!

German Kriegsmarine 1935-1945.
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Highly Theoretical--Commerce Raiding!

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

So, we all probably believe that the best commerce-raiders were disguised merchantmen, but, a question--what do you think of a Mogami or a Prinz Eugen class 8-inch cruiser as a commerce-raider???

Comparisons, anyone???? :D :D :D

Best,
~D, Still EviL and Still Here..... :D
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
Tiornu
Contributor
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:56 pm

Re: Highly Theoretical--Commerce Raiding!

Post by Tiornu »

Prinz Eugen is unsuited to the role due to her temperamental machinery. Both ships have nominally sufficient range, I suppose.
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

Hi Tiornu, a fair statement and worthy of your reputation. My question is two-fold--First, would any WWII crusier be a worthy commerce-raider? Secondly, if a WWII crusier wasn't up to the challenge, then why not one of the big displacement, long-range destroyers???

(Sorry for all of the hyphens----) :D :D :D

I'm thinking in terms of the Pacific War and the unchallenged American supply convoys.

Very Best,
~D, the EviL
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

well, any reliable big ship....after all, the Emden was "only" a heavy cruiser.....that's the difference between WWi and WWII - its the detection net that a raider has to avoid. Range and resupply is ONE thing, but the means at your enemy's disposal to find you are many and various compared to WWI - really long-range maritime recce aircraft, proper radio communications, reliable intercontinental data traffic, and of course radar in-theatre. So am tempted to say its not the ship its the captain that makes a successful raider...
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Tiornu
Contributor
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:56 pm

Post by Tiornu »

The traditional high-seas raider concept was plummeting toward obsolescence. The introduction of steam propulsion struck the first blow in the 19th Century, greatly shrinking the autonomy of any warship. Then in the 1890's, new armor made it possible for a fast ship to be protected against cruiser-caliber guns, which can only be bad news for the raider as the outrun-or-outgun gambit became much more difficult. Then those rickety wingy-thingies appeared, and by 1939 they were a practical weapons system in addition to their scouting ability. Radar and communications intelligence were the final nails in the coffin.
You will note that, after the Bismarck operation, German warships never pulled off another high-seas raiding cruise. I believe one cruise was planned for a pocket BB, but torpedo damage scrubbed the operation. Why the change? Well, Bismarck's loss is only part of the story. Though it's often forgotten, the Germans lost about six other ships in that operation--supply ships that the RN hunted down via code-breaking and SigInt. The situation became so extreme that Prinz Eugen was almost lost to a lack of fuel--wouldn't that be embarrassing?
The Japanese would face similar circumstances in the Pacific but with a greater demand on range and a greater premium on supply ships. (Japan had a much greater need for sea-going oilers than the Germans did!) In addition, Japanese cruisers actually had a job to do, where German cruisers were almost superfluous. So the Japanese would be risking much more in a more difficult situation. I don't believe there would be much gained by using cruisers to do a submarine's job.
If the Japanese did decide to try sometihng along those lines, my first candidate would be Oyodo. Just off the top of my head.
User avatar
derGespenst
Associate
Posts: 776
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
Location: New York City

Post by derGespenst »

Phylo,

For the record, Emden was a light cruiser. And, arguably the Kaiser's most successful commerce raider was a sailing ship, Seeadler!
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

I stand corrected on the size, ta! :wink: I know the Seeadler sunk perhaps the higher tonnage - but as the whole parallel aspect of commerce raiding is tying up your enemy's naval units as well as doing concrete damage, vessels like the Emden and the Kormoran tied up more naval assets of comparative size and capability in the search for them.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Guys,

I would suggest that a variety of threat was most important.

Commerce raiding ties down far more naval resources than it uses, because the defender has to cover innumerable possibilities, whereas the attacker has only one mission.

If raiding is done by one class of ship then it requires only one solution. Multiply the variety of threat and you multiply the resources required to counter it.

If one looks at the South Atlantic, for example, with the Graf Spee known to be in Montevideo in 1939, the British sent capital ships (battlkecruisers and an aircraft carrier) to deal with her. In later years they only needed older or lighter cruisers and armed merchant cruisers (AMCs) to deal with merchant raiders. By 1943 Britain was already converting AMCs into troop and landing ships due to the reduced threat. By the end of the war control of these waters had been largely delegated to minor navies such as the Brazilian, Italian and French.

However, whichever surface threat is used, all would have ultimately have been vulnerable to the growth of air power and convoying.

I would suggest that the Prinz Eugen and Mogami classes were too heavy to make ideal raiders. Speed and a relatively light armament were the essence of raiding rather than heavy armament and protection, as the intended prey were un- or underescorted escorted merchantmen. Any brush with an armed enemy warship was a failure of the raider's function. Therefore speed was more important than protection.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

Hi Sid, I have to admit that Tiornu's idea of the Oyodo as a commerce reaider is one of the best I've heard for WWII. A ship with a good Anti-air and surface armament, aside from being of little use otherwise to the IJN--a one off! That of course, depends on how heavily guarded the American Pacific supply convoys were.

Hmm, American Pacific Supply Convoys--I don't think anyone has ever done a comprehensive study of them! It may be that a Mogami was needed, depending upon the strength of their escorts.

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi CDtheE,

The most vulnerable area was probably the South-East Pacific. Down the west coast of Latin America there was no convoy system because there was virtually no threat. The USA covered this huge area with only two or three of its oldest light cruisers and a similar number of its older inter-war destroyers. They also provided convoy escorts on the Panama-Australia route, though I suspect other US warships being deployed to the South-West Pacific often accompanied them.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

Hi Sid, so suppose we provided them with a threat?! Excluding submarines, what do you think would have been the best surface commerce raider that the IJN could provide? :shock: :D :shock:

We Feldgrauians can speculate about a worse war than actually happened..... :wink:

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
Carl Schwamberger
Contributor
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:41 pm

Post by Carl Schwamberger »

Initially such raiders would have been effective. As with the British in the Atlantic an efficient search and destroy system would have eventualy eliminated them. The loss of Japanese cargo vessels used to supply the raiders earlier in the was would have done its small bit in the eventual destruction of Japans cargo fleet.
User avatar
krichter33
Enthusiast
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:34 am
Location: U.S.A.

Post by krichter33 »

Actually the Seeadler wasn't that successful. It sunk about 30,000 tons of shipping but became famous because of the fact it was a sailing ship. The most successful commerce raider of all time would have to be Nikolaus Burgraf und Graf zu Dohna-Schlodien. He was Captain of the Mowe, a regular armed merchant ship. During two voyages he sunk about 180,000 tons of shipping during WWI. Captain Karl von Muller of the light cruiser the Emden sunk about 100,000 tons during WWI. Then you got others like Captain Kohler of the Karlsruhe, sunk about 77,000 tons before his ship exploded. And the famous Captain August Nerger of the Wolf. He sank about 114,000 tons, however about 75,000 of those were with mines, so they really don't count directly. He became famous for going on the longest voyage up to that date, over 400 days.
In WW2 the most successful captain was Helmuth von Ruckteschell. While commanding the Michael and the Widder he sunk about 157,000 tons of shipping. Then you got Bernhard Rogge of the Atlantis, who sunk about 146,000 tons, and also had the longest voyage at over 600 days. Felix Kruder of the Penguin sunk about 132,000 tons, not including mines, and Otto Kahler of the Thor sunk about 96,000 tons. There were a few more with lesser tonnage as well. Such as Gumprich with 80,000 tons, Detmers with 75,000 tons, including a light cruiser the Sydney, and Kurt Weyher with about 60,000 tons. Then of course you have Theodore Krancke of the pocket battleship Admiral Scheer. Though not really an auxillary cruiser, he sunk about 113,000 tons during his voyage...
Last edited by krichter33 on Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Klaus Richter
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Klaus, thanks for that, I keep finding different figures for them all, and was always interested how the Scheer actually racked up against the Pinguin and the Atlantis.

Then again, going back to the other side of commerce raiding - do you have anything anywhere that accounts for the numbers of ships actually tasked to each hunt? I can't find anything counted up like that across a given time period.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
krichter33
Enthusiast
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:34 am
Location: U.S.A.

Post by krichter33 »

The numbers change here and there depending upon the source. Usually it's because some of the sources include mines, while others don't.
Klaus Richter
Post Reply