Avast there! Prepare to be boarded!

I’m currently reading the autobiography of Lord Cochrane, the British seaman who was the primary model for Patrick O’Brian’s Jack Aubrey character. As a frigate captain, Cochrane spends much of his time capturing enemy ships and taking them in to port as prizes. At some point in history, navies stopped boarding enemy ships and started sinking them. Millions of tons of cargo freight were sunk in the two World Wars, for example. But I would think that it would actually be easier to board and capture a modern ship because the smaller crews made possible by steam/diesel powered craft would be insufficient to resist boarding and the overwhelmingly superior armament that could be brought to bear by the capturing vessel would make any resistance futile. So here are my questions:

  1. When did navies stop boarding commercial ships and taking them as prizes?
  2. Why?

I think you answered your own question. Moden weapons makes boarding extremely dangerous for the boarders. The trend in warfare is away from troops as cannon fodder.

Last US boarding and capture I know of was by a US Carrier capturing a German sub in WWII. Adm. Daniel Gallery has written about it in a couple of his books. IIRC this was the first US capture of an Enigma machine, but long after the British had captured them.

I’ll take a stab at it. The captured ship would have to be crewed by members of the capturing vessel, or from another vessel travelling with the capturing vessel. Generally, ships have the number of sailors they need to be fully staffed 24/7 and they would not be able to surrender a crew to ferry duty.

But let’s say you have the ship and have put her crew somewhere. You’ve installed your own crew. How do you get it back home? An escort would be in order. Both the captured vessel and the escort would be in constant danger of detection and destruction.

What if you’re a solo submarine? You’d have to leave your patrol area to take the ship home. How many freighters will get through while you’re playing nursemaid to a war prize?

What it comes down to is this: Your job is to deny the enemy the supplies, materiel and men aboard the freighter. While it might be nice to have the goods yourself, that is secondary to the denial of those goods to the enemy. So it makes more sense to sink her.

Well, I’m not convinced that boarding would be that dangerous. Let’s assume you’re in a heavily armed frigate. Let’s also assume it’s heavily manned as a privateer, so that gets rid of the prize crew objection.
You tell the captain of the merchant ship you’re trying to capture “Surrender or I blow you out of the water. Any resistance and I blow you out of the water.” I think most captain and crew would surrender at that point.

Getting the captured ship home in one piece is tricky, but probably no more so than getting it to its destination in the first place.

I think the question of boarding and seizing enemy merchant vessals is related to the subject of prize money. I know that as late as the American Civil War, the crews of Union blockade vessels got prize money based on the value of whatever runners they caught. I believe the practice of paying capture bonuses ended in the late 19th century, about the same time that most seafaring nations signed treaties promising not to license privateers. Apparently it was felt that the profit motive was too corrupting to “civilized” warfare.

One of the U-Boat captains in WWII was famous for capturig merchant ships. I don’t know how he did it, though. Perhaps he called for another boat to bring a crew and escort it home?

Of course, there’s alway’s the problem brought up in U-571…“Cap’n, the labels are in German! We don’t know how to work this thing!”
On another note, the physically largest, most powerful commerce raider ever launched never sunk a merchant ship…although it did sink the British navy’s pride and joy…

[sup]That would be the Bismark, BTW. Hitler was too proud of it to risk it against other warships…[/sup]

Basically, navies got out of the habit.

Between the Napoleanic wars and World War I there were very few naval wars. The Russians never had either enough navy or enough merchant marine for the British to chase around the high seas during the Crimean conflict. The Mexicans had no significant navy or merchant marine when the U.S. decided to go settle the southern boundary of Texas as far south as they wanted. Germany had not developed a serious navy when they invaded France–and the battle was confined (pretty much) to land. Neither the Austrians nor the Italians were naval powers when the Italians achieved their independence. When Great Britain decided to impose control on various countries (such as China), it found that they generally did not have modern, European-style navies and their merchant marine tended to be confined to fisheries. The conflict between Spain and the U.S. did not last long enough for any serious commerce raiding to begin. The several wars in South America that spilled out onto the high seas also tended to be coastal conflicts as none of those nations had developed large shipping fleets. When Japan decided to challenge Russia’s Pacific interests, the outcome was decided (as in the case of the U.S. and Spain) in a very short period of time and involved only the navies.

The one war where there was significant merchant marine activity over several years was the U.S. civil war. In that conflict, both types of raids on the merchant marine were carried out. The U.S. boarded and captured C.S.A. shipping (blockade runners) (as well as one notorious incident involving Britain). The C.S.A. sent out a few commerce raiders who tried taking prizes, but as a result of a shortage of crew and hounding by the U.S. Navy, they wound up usually simply destroying the U.S. merchant ships. (Whalers were favorite targets because they brought both necessary oil and income to the Union.) By the time of the next war large enough and long enough to involve attacks on merchant shipping, WWI, a number of changes had occurred.

One big change was steam. Unlike the floating barracks that were used in the Napoleanic wars, warships were built lean and narrow for speed and carried armor to protect against high-powered guns. In addition, the boilers and coal bunkers took up a lot of room in the ships, themselves, where the old sailing ships were like empty barns waiting for men and supplies to be wedged into each nook and cranny. Johnny L.A. is right that ships’ crews (and the room to house them) shrank immensely between 1815 and 1915.
(You’ll notice that the way in which warships fought changed during that same time. It was rather rare before 1820 for a warship to be sunk in battle (and extremely rare for one to be sunk deliberately). The whole method of battle was to overwhelm the opponent with modified infantry tactics, then take the captured ship home to use, yourself. This method was used regardless whether your opponent was a naval or a merchant opponent. With the development of armor for warships, and the response of larger guns firing higher-speed projectiles, far more ships were sunk in battle and the tactics changed to sink them from a distance without boarding.)

So for 100 years, warships got more heavily armed and more cramped for smaller crews. During that time, few commerce-raiding wars occurred, so that the concepts of boarding were left outside most tactical plans. When a major war did resume, what was the primary weapon of choice to attack merchant ships? The submarine. A tiny little pig boat that was smaller than nearly any of its victims with quarters so cramped that most “barracks” were simply converted places among armament or machinery where hammocks could be slung. Where could a prize crew hope to fit? Of course, the WWI submarine was in no position to launch a boarding party, anyway. With a deck down on the water line, coming alongside a merchant vessel (thus placing your torpedoes out of action) was a rather foolish thing to do–especially since the merchant vessels immediately began to sprout cannon of their own so that the threat of a cannon could wind up being a stand-off.

At the beginning of WWI, the British imposed a blockade on northen Europe in which they simply placed a heavily armed cruiser within hailing distance of German ships and ordered them to sail to a British port or be sunk. Since the British could use the Channel and the North Sea as funnels to net German traffic, they did not need to waste crews on prizes–a short jaunt of a day or less brought them to the British port and they could be back on station fairly quickly.

The Germans, however, had to contend with British sea lanes fanning out into the Atlantic (and around the world). They chose to go after British shipping where they could find it, but at the extended reaches of their voyages, they had to settle for sinking the British traffic since they could not keep enough prize crews to make it worth their while. (The Germans began the war with a squadron of cruisers destroying British shipping in the Indian and Pacific oceans, but they were destroyed by a British fleet within four months of the war’s outbreak and the Germans concentrated on submarines after that.) A prize crew would have done the Germans no good in getting the captured prize back to Germany, anyway, since the British would simply sail a cruiser up to it in the North Sea and take it away from the Germans before they could get home.

Once the pattern was set in WWI, there has been no attempt to reverse that trend.

Doesn’t anyone remember the USS Pueblo, captured off North Korea in 1968. It was basically a spy ship, with minimal defenses, and gave up without much, if any, of a fight.

The Captain, IIRC, was court martialed for this. In the Vietnam era, I think the US was tired of suicide missions, and he was subsequently aquitted.

My guess is that the change came with the change from sail to steam and the reasonably concurrent change from wood to iron or steel ships.

My understanding of prize taking (mainly obtained from reading Aubrey/Maturin, Hornblower, and other naval historical fiction) was the basic idea was that you took a prize by combining two activities. First you would shoot away the enemy’s masts and rigging so that she was unmaneuverable. Then you would ram her and have your sailors and marines climb aboard her and subdue the enemy’s crew. At any point before the crew was actually subdued and imprisoned, the enemy ship could strike her colors and surrender, avoiding further causualties.

Alternatively, if you disabled her and didn’t want to board, you could just manuever broadside to her bow or stern (where her broadside guns couldn’t reach) and repeatedly rake her with cannon fire until she surrendered.

The key thing was that, in many instances, neither naval cannon fire nor ramming would severely damage the hulls of the ships. However, once steam propulsion came to the fore, you couldn’t easily stop a ship without doing severe damage to the internally located boilers and machinery. In doing so, however, you would most likely cause fatal damage to the iron or steel hull of the ship.

If you can’t stop a ship with gunfire, the only way to stop her to board would be to ram her. Doing this in an iron ship is a bad idea, with the probability of a loss of seaworthiness of both the raming and the rammed vessel.

Adding to all of this is most likely the change from smooth-bore naval cannons to high-powered, rifled turret guns.

As Tom mentioned above, these changes happened in the period between the Napoleanic Wars and World War I, when there were few major naval wars. The U.S. Civil war occured just on the cusp of many of these changes, resulting in the many unique naval battles of that conflict (e.g. Monitor v. Merrimac, etc.).

I’m open to correction on this, but I thought that Cmdr Blucher was investigated (Court of Inquiry) because of the “confessions” extorted from the crew by the North Koreans and their failure to destroy secret documents (after Bucher was denied the self-destruct devices he had requested when he took command), but that there was no court martial. (My memory is really hazy on this.)

Every account I’ve read of US naval battles through the Civil War mentioned that any captured enemy ship, and its cargo, became the property of the victorious crew. There was a defined scale for the percentage each man would get, with the captain getting the richest.

The money even the lowliest swabbie would make could potentially set him up for life, or at least the visit to the pub when they got back to shore.

When the regulations were changed, it was much easier to decide to simply sink the damn thing.

The practice of capturing enemy ships during wartime was known as privateering. It was generally abolished by the Declaration of Paris in 1856. However, the last attempt to use privateering as a means of warfare was by the Confederacy during the American Civil War.

We can rule out humanitarian reasons. Obviously, capturing a ship is generally less lethal than sinking it, which is the military policy which replaced privateering. In my opinion, the replacement of sails by engines may have led to the decline of privateering. You could carry a larger crew on a sailing ship than you could on a steam ship (because of the amount of space that was needed for fuel). Smaller crews meant there were fewer extra men available for taking prize ships back to port.

Please pardon another WAG. My theory is that the main idea is to deny the enemy the cargo that the ships carry. During war, I’d guess that the cargoes were military in nature. Sure oil and gasoline would be useful to a captor. And foodstuffs could be a nice prize as well. But what of guns, ammunition and vehicles? In a modern war (or let’s say WW2, when the last real naval battles were fought – with apollogies to the British for slighting the Falklands) war materiel would not necessarily be useful to the captor. For example, the British used the .303 rimmed cartridge and the Yanks used the .30-06 rimless cartridge. A shipload of 7.92mm Mauser ammunition would have been of limited use. Ditto the mausers themselves. A German or Japanese truck or tank might be useful to some; but to a well-organized army with relatively efficient supply lines the vehicles would be a headache. When they broke down, where would you get parts to repair them? As for guns, they certainly wouldn’t be distributed to the troops. In WW2 the Americans had the finest battle rifle up to that point: The M1 Garand. The Gewehr 98 used by the Wehrmacht was a fine rifle; but it was bolt-action and was (as can be seen by the designation) a 40-year-old design. Many of the Japanese rifles were junk. The Nambu pistol? Forget it. Some were said to be as dangerous to the shooter as to the target. A P.08 (“Luger”) or a Walther P.38 would make a nice trophy, but the .45 had more knock-down power and was frankly a better design. (I used to have a P.08. Jammed a lot.) In any case, the attacking vessel had little if any idea what the target was transporting.

So my conclusion is that there is great risk involved in taking a freighter, for limited return. Also, submarines (which sank more Japanese shipping than surface ships and aircraft) didn’t want the enemy to know where they were. A crew waiting to be boarded has time to broadcast a lot of intelligence. A well-placed torpedo will cut the time considerably. Even if a radio signal went out, the sub wouldn’t be there when the “cavalry” came.

Again, the primary goal of interdiction is to deny the supplies to the enemy. You’ve got Liberty ships being launched every day, so you don’t need the enemy ship. You’ve got your own vehicles and weapons, and those of the enemy are pretty much worthless to the war machine/effort. Sinking a vessel denies the materiel to the enemy, minimizes the risk of detection, and eliminates the risk to a boarding party.

Recommended book: The Price of Admiralty, by the Jesse Ventura of historians, John Keegan.

He does a really good job of describing the evolution from man-killing, fairly easy to float–and steal–sorts of ships to armored, lead-ballooned, salvageable only for design secrets and intelligence, ship-killers, (with a healthy dose of death from above) via the expansion of the theory of the projection of naval power, all in the form of leaden one-paragraph sentences, not unlike this one.

The guy is still the most cogent military Istorian of this age, and readily available in quality paperback, which is refreshing.

Damn! Self-destruct devices!!! Would they just burn the codes, or would they blow up the whole fucking ship?

I probably can’t tell you how I know, but…

A common piece of equipment among the TS crowd is a sledge hammer. Just the thing for rendering certain equipment unusable. Then again, I suppose they could’ve just tossed it overboard.

I went back and looked up some info on the Pueblo. One of the points that came out in the Court of Inquiry was that guys were hauling bags of code documents up to be thrown over the side, and a point of contention was the exact number of bags that they had succeeded in dumping before they were overrun.

Blucher wanted both types of devices for destruction. The articles were not explicit, but he seemed to want small incendiaries to get the code books going and a larger device to punch a hole in the hull of the ship. Blucher estimated that if he had tried to sink the ship, it would have taken 2 1/2 hours to get it to go down.

You don’t need enough explosive to blast everyone to smithereens, only enough so that they could take to the lifeboats and then sink the ship in a matter of minutes.

I don’t think this is right. Since privateers were primarily motivated by profit, they would naturally want to take ships, not sink them; however, my extensive research on the subject (I’ve read all the Horatio Hornblower novels) leads me to believe that government warships were not above taking prizes, both enemy warships (which were often refitted for service in the captor’s navy) and enemy merchant ships. Professional naval crews did get prize money, and some of them got rich that way. I suspect that privateering was ended because prize-taking had became impractical or had been abandoned (for the reasons already so ably outlined in this thread), not that prize-taking ended because privateering was abolished.

The Gulf War had several boardings of Iraqui freighters.

Note: Boarding a merchant ship is a much different proposition than boarding a warship.

Any and all naval blockades, and many trade sanctions, have boardings of vessels . Mostly to search, but sometimes to seize the vessel, if it is in violation of the blockade.

Naval vessels could be boarded in the old days, because the weapons were short ranged, relative to the speed of the ship. You had to get pretty close to shoot muzzle-loading cannon at somebody, maybe close enough to board. Nowadays, naval combat is an over-the-horizon affair. You can’t get close enough to board, because the enemy is destroyed before you ever get in visual range. They’re dead before you see 'em.

But, merchant ships are un-or-lightly-armed. So, they get boarded.

Privateering was outlawed, because it encouraged independent piracy, & civilian atrocities.
Hijack: Modern pirates operate in the Philippine Islands today. Japanese merchant ships are their favorite prey. It is rumored that some of these “pirates” are state sponsered, coming from Thailand, certain other Southeast Asian nations, and Red China.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The point I was trying to make was the privateering was prize taking. Which I’ll admit is not a hundred percent accurate; technically a privateer is a privately owned ship issued a letter of marque to capture ships for prize money during wartime. I suppose a government owned ship capturing ships for prize money might not legally qualify as a privateer. But the two types of ships are obviously performing the same function in a
strategic sense.

And while we’re on the subject, here’s some more information. From a legal standpoint, if a Royal Navy ship captured another ship all of the prize money belonged to the King (who owned the capturing ship). But to encourage officers and crewmen to capture enemy ships, it became an unbreakable custom for the King to “donate” his prize money back to the men on the ship. The money was divided into eighths; one eighth went to the admiral who commanded the fleet, two eighths went to the captain (who also got the admiral’s eighth if he had an independant command), there were three seperate groups of other officers each of which divided an eighth, and the final eighth was divided by the crew. After 1808, the proportions were altered somewhat but the system was generally unchanged. The prize money was divided among the officers and crews of all ships which were within sight of the prize ship when it surrendered.