PFF Posted 7 September , 2013 Share Posted 7 September , 2013 If the HMS Lusitiana had rammed U-20, would she have survived the ramming? {During WW II the US Borie rammed a U-boat but was so damaged she sank} Lusitiana link at http://www.lusitania.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Mills Posted 8 September , 2013 Share Posted 8 September , 2013 If the HMS Lusitiana had rammed U-20, would she have survived the ramming? {During WW II the US Borie rammed a U-boat but was so damaged she sank} Lusitiana link at http://www.lusitania.net/ RMS Lusitania was a well constructed vessel built to Admiralty specifications. In that the RMS Olympic rammed and sank the U103 in May 1918 and suffered little damage in the process other than a twisted stem, I think it is fair to say that if Lusitania had seen the U-Boat and had she been in a position to ram it that she would have suffered no substantial damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 8 September , 2013 Share Posted 8 September , 2013 If the HMS Lusitiana had rammed U-20, would she have survived the ramming? {During WW II the US Borie rammed a U-boat but was so damaged she sank} Lusitiana link at http://www.lusitania.net/ The captain of a North Sea, Railway Company ferry was executed for ramming and sinking a UBoat in WW1. The ferry, a much smaller vessel than the Lusitania. survived Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrecktec Posted 8 September , 2013 Share Posted 8 September , 2013 Never heard that before, do you know the ferry company and the captains name? Merchant Marine masters were given a bonus for sinking a U-boat so it seems strange being executed for sinking a dangerous enemy submarine Cheers Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Mills Posted 8 September , 2013 Share Posted 8 September , 2013 Never heard that before, do you know the ferry company and the captains name? Merchant Marine masters were given a bonus for sinking a U-boat so it seems strange being executed for sinking a dangerous enemy submarine Cheers Ron Hope this link will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fryatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrecktec Posted 8 September , 2013 Share Posted 8 September , 2013 Oh I thought he meant the British killed him. Thanks for Simon Cheers Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James A Pratt III Posted 14 September , 2013 Share Posted 14 September , 2013 The Lusitania was so big that if she rammed the U-20 it would have barely scratched the paint. The Borie was a old destroyer ramming the U-boat was not a good idea. I know it looks good in war movies but there are other cases where destroyers rammed U-boats and were badly damaged in both world wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe R Posted 14 September , 2013 Share Posted 14 September , 2013 HMS Fairy rammed and sank UC75 on 31 May 1918. HMS Fairy sank due to damage sustained in the collision. Another example of a bad idea. Respectfully, Joe R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 14 September , 2013 Share Posted 14 September , 2013 Oh I thought he meant the British killed him. Thanks for Simon Cheers Ron I, perhaps,should have mentioned the Captain, Charles Fryatt of the Gt. Eastern SS Brussels, was captured and executed bythe Germans as a francs-tireurs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 14 September , 2013 Share Posted 14 September , 2013 Lusitania was built, with Government grants, to be converted to an Auxillery Merchant Cruiser (AMC) in time of war and was apparently still registered as such,or so the UBoat Captain seemed to think, but I understand, never received her armament. If she had been carrying guns and classed by the Admiralty as a defensively armed merchant (DAM) ship would the fact that she was armed have made her a legitimate target under international law. If a DAM was not legally a legitimate target in international law did Germany regard the Captains of DAMs as francs-tireurs like Captain Fryatt of the Brussels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Mills Posted 14 September , 2013 Share Posted 14 September , 2013 The Lusitania was so big that if she rammed the U-20 it would have barely scratched the paint. The Borie was a old destroyer ramming the U-boat was not a good idea. I know it looks good in war movies but there are other cases where destroyers rammed U-boats and were badly damaged in both world wars. Another example of a small ship ramming and sinking a U-boat is the HMS Garry. HMS Garry was a River class destroyer of about 600 tons, so the effect on her hull after ramming a submarine (UB110 on 19th July 1918), as opposed to the effect on the much larger Lusitania would have been far more traumatic. Garry made it back to the Humber by the skin of her teeth, with the bow almost completely submerged, and it seems likely that only the calm conditions saved her. Even so, it is another example of a smaller vessel ramming a submarine and getting away with it -- just! As a little aside, Garry's commanding officer was Lieutenant Commander Charles Lightoller RNR, who was also the second officer on the Titanic, although he was not on the bridge at the critical time when the ship hit the iceberg. SM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 14 September , 2013 Share Posted 14 September , 2013 Lusitania was built, with Government grants, to be converted to an Auxillery Merchant Cruiser (AMC) in time of war and was apparently still registered as such,or so the UBoat Captain seemed to think, but I understand, never received her armament.Schwieger didn't even know what ship she was until he read the name as she listed over - she was just a 'big steamer' to him when he fired. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 15 September , 2013 Share Posted 15 September , 2013 Schwieger didn't even know what ship she was until he read the name as she listed over - she was just a 'big steamer' to him when he fired. Regards, MikB You are correct but I have read somewhere that at some stage he, or the German Navy in their defence quoted a 1914 or 15 copy of "Janes" or the "Lloyds List" to justify the sinking. My post was not so much about the sinking of the Lusitania but asking about the legal status of ships built with Government funds to be AMC's in time of war, DAM's and the status of their Captains as francs-tireus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rtra Posted 26 September , 2013 Share Posted 26 September , 2013 There still seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the classification of some merchant ships being "listed" as Auxiliary Merchant Cruisers (AMC). It is correct that there is such a list in which a government states which ships might be requisitioned by them in time of war. This list does not mean that the ships listed will actually be taken over by the navy. When a ship is so transferred to active service she ceases to belong to the company and becomes a Royal Naval vessel with a naval crew. Many of these ships were used as patrol and escort vessels or used on convoy duties. They were lightly armed. usually a 4.7" gun mounted on the deck, some may have been used as troop and/or hospital ships. The Lusitania was not requisitioned and remained in civilian service until she was sunk. In this case she carried out her normal role with Cunard, she was not used by the British Admiralty neither was she armed. On the other hand both the Mauretania and the Aquitania had been handed over to the Admiralty where they were used as troop ships taking soldiers out to the eastern Mediterranean and Gallipoli. The Mauretainia, commanded by my grandfather between June and September 1915 served as a Hospital ship. Both these ships returned to Cunard after the war. There was considerable reluctance on behalf of the Navy to use these leviathans. They were too large, needed a huge crew and the fuel costs were enormous. There was some justification, however, in using them as troopships and readers may remember that the QEII was also used as such during the Falklands war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeCeeCee Posted 26 September , 2013 Share Posted 26 September , 2013 Schwieger didn't even know what ship she was until he read the name as she listed over - she was just a 'big steamer' to him when he fired. Regards, MikB And how many 4 funnel liners of that size were steaming around the Atlantic about that time? I don't believe the Lusitania was anonymous as Schwieger claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rtra Posted 27 September , 2013 Share Posted 27 September , 2013 TeeCeeCee I tend to agree with you. Although the Mauretania and Aquitania both had four funnels and which, unlike the Lusitania, had been requisitioned as Troop snd Hospital ships they were nowhere near at the time. The entry into the Irish Sea was a good place to be for U-Boats as there was a lot of traffic coming and going in that area, an excellent place for a submarine to lie in wait. Further, the arrival of the Lusitania would have been expected as she had been making the trip from New York each month since the outbreak of war. My own view (based on family knowledge at the time) was that Germany suddenly found itself at the centre of a huge outcry after the sinking. We tend to forget that at this time the U-boat threat was something new and considered by many as unacceptable and cowardly, not the done thing at all. Schwieger actually said that as he was watching the Lusitania sailing away from him when he suddenly saw the ship turn towards him! So he had the ship under observation long enough to realise what it was. The result was that Germany cried foul and attempted to claim that the Lusitania was a heavily armed merchant ship carrying contraband cargo which would harm the German military operations in Flanders. Consequently they launched a PR offensive to try and justify their actions. Later this was shown to be a complete fabrication the result of which has still convinced some people that the Germans may have been speaking the truth! At the time this focussed everyone's mind on the implications for what had happened and the new threat that submarine warfare presented. We were to experience this in the Second War during the Battle of the Atlantic when the U-boat offensive very nearly did bring Britain to its knees! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Mills Posted 27 September , 2013 Share Posted 27 September , 2013 TeeCeeCee I tend to agree with you. Although the Mauretania and Aquitania both had four funnels and which, unlike the Lusitania, had been requisitioned as Troop snd Hospital ships they were nowhere near at the time. Mauretania and Aquitania were not requisitioned as troopers and/or hospital ships until after Lusitania had been sunk. For the most part they had been laid up, although Aquitania had a brief stint as an AMC in August 1914 but was found to be unsuitable and quickly released from government service. White Star's Olympic wasn’t requisitioned for military service until September 1915 while Britannic was not strictly speaking complete, but she was nevertheless seaworthy so her completion as a hospital ship only took a little over a month in November/December 1915. None of these four-funnelled vessels were in military or commercial service in May 1915, but it’s unlikely that any U-boat skipper would have been familiar with their individual movements. When Schwieger saw a large four-funnelled steamer through his periscope that morning for all he knew it could have been any of these vessels; it was only when he saw the brass letters on Lusitania’s bow as she was sinking that he was able to positively identify her. Of course, these were only the British four-stackers. If you include the CGT liner France then it could to a certain extent muddy the waters as this vessel had served as both an AMC and a troopship by the time that Lusitania was torpedoed, although it’s admittedly unlikely that this vessel would ever have been off the coast of southern Ireland. However, it should not be forgotten that even before the attack Schwieger had identified his target as a passenger vessel. After America entered the war it gets more interesting, as several other four-funnelled liners would regularly cross the North Atlantic serving as troop ships under the American flag. These were the German vessels interned in American ports and included HAPAG’s Viktoria Louise and NDL’s Kaiser Wilhelm, Kronprinz Wilhelm and Kronprinzessin Cecilie. NDL’s Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse had been scuttled in August 1914 after being found by the British off the coast of North Africa, although more relevant in this case the Kronprinz Wilhelm had been active in the south Atlantic and then briefly in the north Atlantic before being interned in the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in America shortly before Lusitania was torpedoed. Most likely Schwieger would have had no knowledge of the specific movements of any of these vessels. For all he knew the vessel could have been the Mauretania, Aquitania, Olympic or maybe even Britannic or the France. It could conceivably have been the Kronprinz Wilhelm – admittedly less likely – but in the end it was the Lusitania that was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 28 September , 2013 Share Posted 28 September , 2013 And how many 4 funnel liners of that size were steaming around the Atlantic about that time? I don't believe the Lusitania was anonymous as Schwieger claims. Simpler to believe in bloody-minded ignorance. Whether or not tonnages sunk were being formally recorded, it's easy to imagine the standing such a sinking would give him among his mates down the bierhalle. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Mills Posted 28 September , 2013 Share Posted 28 September , 2013 There still seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the classification of some merchant ships being "listed" as Auxiliary Merchant Cruisers (AMC). It is correct that there is such a list in which a government states which ships might be requisitioned by them in time of war. This list does not mean that the ships listed will actually be taken over by the navy. When a ship is so transferred to active service she ceases to belong to the company and becomes a Royal Naval vessel with a naval crew. Many of these ships were used as patrol and escort vessels or used on convoy duties. They were lightly armed. usually a 4.7" gun mounted on the deck, some may have been used as troop and/or hospital ships. As I understand it, although will be happy to be corrected, any ship on the British registry could be requisitioned by the government in times of national emergency, usually serving in supply or trooping capacities. One of the earlier AMCs was White Star's Teutonic (1889), which could be fitted with 4.7 inch QF guns. Teutonic and her sister ship Majestic were built by the White Star Line without any initial financial input from the British Government, although the owners did receive an annual operating subsidy from the Admiralty. On the other hand Lusitania and Mauretania would not have been completed without government investment at the building stage, much of the money being advanced to Cunard in the form of a loan which still had to be repaid. Not every liner on the British registry was equipped with specially strengthened decks to take gun mountings, so I expect that the available list of AMCs would have been quite a short one -- although I would love to see it. Insofar as Britain and the Empire was concerned the critical factor when it came to the mercantile marine was its carrying capacity, particularly in times of war, so when the White Star Line was sold to the American IMM combine in 1902 the British Government only agreed to the sale going ahead on the condition that the White Star ships remained on the British registry and available for national service if the emergency warranted it. EDIT: Second paragraph edited for clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Mills Posted 3 November , 2013 Share Posted 3 November , 2013 You are correct but I have read somewhere that at some stage he, or the German Navy in their defence quoted a 1914 or 15 copy of "Janes" or the "Lloyds List" to justify the sinking... I came across this on line a few days back and thought that the actual images reproduced in the 1914 Janes might be of interest. In that a single silhouette is used to illustrate Aquitania, Lusitania, Mauretania, Britannic and Olympic, plus the fact that on the day Lusitania's own funnels were painted black, there are grounds to suggest that Schwieger might not have known that he had the Lusitania in his sights when he fired his torpedo. U20's war diary only records that he had sighted a large four-funnelled "passenger steamer", which in theory could have been any of the five listed vessels. S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
healdav Posted 3 November , 2013 Share Posted 3 November , 2013 TeeCeeCee I tend to agree with you. Although the Mauretania and Aquitania both had four funnels and which, unlike the Lusitania, had been requisitioned as Troop snd Hospital ships they were nowhere near at the time. The entry into the Irish Sea was a good place to be for U-Boats as there was a lot of traffic coming and going in that area, an excellent place for a submarine to lie in wait. Further, the arrival of the Lusitania would have been expected as she had been making the trip from New York each month since the outbreak of war. My own view (based on family knowledge at the time) was that Germany suddenly found itself at the centre of a huge outcry after the sinking. We tend to forget that at this time the U-boat threat was something new and considered by many as unacceptable and cowardly, not the done thing at all. Schwieger actually said that as he was watching the Lusitania sailing away from him when he suddenly saw the ship turn towards him! So he had the ship under observation long enough to realise what it was. The result was that Germany cried foul and attempted to claim that the Lusitania was a heavily armed merchant ship carrying contraband cargo which would harm the German military operations in Flanders. Consequently they launched a PR offensive to try and justify their actions. Later this was shown to be a complete fabrication the result of which has still convinced some people that the Germans may have been speaking the truth! At the time this focussed everyone's mind on the implications for what had happened and the new threat that submarine warfare presented. We were to experience this in the Second War during the Battle of the Atlantic when the U-boat offensive very nearly did bring Britain to its knees! They even brought out a medal to commemorate the event. Then claimed it was all someone else's fault! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeCeeCee Posted 3 November , 2013 Share Posted 3 November , 2013 Published in 1907, a painting of the Lusitania as an AMC: https://archive.org/stream/royalnavy00swinuoft#page/n537/mode/2up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now