Arming merchants

[Clio]

Spindler tells us that the interception of the Ss Woodhall in Nov 1915 was the first indication the Germans had of the arming of merchantmen and crewing by naval gunners. Does anyone know when the British first started arming merchantmen ?

[horatio2]

Clearly there were firm plans to arm merchant ships from before the outbreak of war.

A relation was serving as 2nd Officer in SS ESKIMO, plying the Hull - Christiania route when the war started. The ship was immediately diverted to Liverpool for conversion and was commissioned as HMS ESKIMO on 9 December 1914. I am certain the same practice applied to many merchant ships, whether commissioned or used as DAMS.

[centurion]

Earlier than you might think

"Even before the war the British government publicly took steps toward the arming of merchantmen. On 17 March 1914 Winston Churchill told the Commons that forty merchant ships had each been armed with two 4.7-inch guns. He claimed that by the end of the fiscal year 1914- 1915, on 1 March 1915, seventy ships would be so armed. In Bailey and Ryan's account, "these formidable weapons would be mounted in the stern so that they could be fired only at a pursuer, and the vessels so armed were or would be ships engaged exclusively in carrying food to Britain. They would not be permitted to fight enemy surface warships and would be under instructions to surrender when overtaken by such foes." Presumably such an armament would be intended for use against lightly armed auxiliary cruisers, but it was bound to call the status of British merchantmen into question. Admiral Fisher, perceiving this, wrote to Prime Minister Asquith on 14 May 1914 that "the recent arming of our British merchant ships is unfortunate, for it gives the hostile submarine an excellent excuse (if she needs one) for sinking them." [bailey and Ryan, pages 10-11] "

" the interception of the Ss Woodhall in Nov 1915 was the first indication the Germans had of the arming of merchantmen" - obviously German Naval Intelleigence didn't read Hansard.

[Michael Lowrey]

Clio,

Actually, British Vessels Lost at Sea 1914-18 tells a different story. While Woodhall was the first armed merchant ship sunk by U-boat, a number had previously engagaed armed merchant ships. For example, the amed steamer La Rosarina (8332 grt) was chased by U-boat and saved by (presumably its oen) gun on April 17, 1915. There are two more cases in May 1915 as well.

Best wishes,

Michael

[John Gilinsky]

The right of self-defense is well recognized internationally. Secondly most if not all merchant ships until the mid-19th century were armed with some if not several cannon or guns if only to protect themselves from pirates. Consequently the whole question of armed and unarmed is a legal point far more than a substantive principled one!

John

[centurion]

John

As we see in another thread,the Germans applied their own interpretations to the rules - shooting a British skipper of an unarmed merchantman who attempted to ram a U boat that stopped his ship!

[Clio]

I've only ever read a couple of clauses from the 1909 Treaty of London (articles 33 and 50 to be precise) and I've never read the whole thing but it seems to me that until both sides breached the letter as well as the spirit of the Treaty, whenever convenient. On the other hand I don't even know whether Britain was ever a signatory in the first place..

Presumably if an armed merchant opened fire on a U boat in British coastal waters, this would be classed as self defence within the terms of the Treaty and not a breach of condition re Article 33 stop and search powers ...?

[John Gilinsky]

Clio: There is the law and then there is ways and means! I have not consulted the Treaty of London for years so offhand I am not familiar with the positivist legal position on such a point. Naval strategists were quite aware due to the seeming overwhelming prepondence of the Royal Navy that a war against commerce or merchanat ships (read British and British imperial) would be foregone in any future major European war thus merchant ships attracted a good deal of attention from all angles: legal, physical, naval architectural, etc.....For the British one of the ways to counter fast highly armed enemy raiding surface cruisers was to go to the fastest ships afloat: arming larger and larger merchant passenger ships. The laws (international or otherwise) reflected rather than created this political reality. Read about Fisher's views of the 1899 Hague Peace Conference on what he thought of moderation and peace in naval armed conflict!

John

Toronto

[Clio]

Hi Centurion

Could you please give me the title of the Bailey and Ryan work as I would like to explore the legal status of armed merchantmen re submarine interceptions further ?

[ionia]

The legal position re arming merchant-ships in 1914 seems to be clear:

"But though only properly commissioned vessels incorporated into the fighting navy and flying its flag may exercise the rights of war, belligerent merchant-ships may try to escape and even forcibly resist when called upon to surrender. .......The steps, therefore, which have recently been taken by the British Admiralty in co-operation with British ship-owners for the arming of merchant-ships, are perfectly in accordance with these rules. The vessels are armed only for defence and resistance to capture and are not intended to commit unprovoked acts of hostility. So long as that is the case they remain in exactly the same position as any other merchant-ship......."

"The Law of Naval #Warfare", by J.A. Hall, Barrister and Lieutenant RNVR, written in 1913 and published 1914. The Preface indicates that it was intended for the guidance of Naval Officers.

[ionia]

Spindler tells us that the interception of the Ss Woodhall in Nov 1915 was the first indication the Germans had of the arming of merchantmen and crewing by naval gunners. Does anyone know when the British first started arming merchantmen ?

Churchill, as First Lord, announced the policy of the defensive arming of merchantmen in Parliament when introducing the 1913 Naval Estimates. It is, therefore, impossible that the German Government would not have been aware of the policy. By the outbreak of war thirty-nine merchant ships had been armed.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

The concept of Armed Merchant Cruisers had growm up in the 19C; before the war Cunard recieved government funds to build Lusitania and Mauritania and strngthened then to be fitted with guns, in WWI Otranto was amongst Craddock's forces in the chase for Graf von Spee. Merchant ships were armed before there were war ships so "defensively arming" them was hardly radical!

[centurion]

Armed Merchant cruisers are not the original subject of this thread. Both sides armed civilian ships and then used them as naval ships - note NAVAL ships not armed merchantmen plying their trade shipping goods etc. Otaranto was part of a Royal Navy force under the white ensign she was not then a mechantman. but officially a warship and part of the Royal Navy not the Merchant Navy. The original question was about armed Merchant Navy ships.

[centurion]

Churchill, as First Lord, announced the policy of the defensive arming of merchantmen in Parliament when introducing the 1913 Naval Estimates. It is, therefore, impossible that the German Government would not have been aware of the policy. By the outbreak of war thirty-nine merchant ships had been armed.

See post 3 of this thread!

[centurion]

Hi Centurion

Could you please give me the title of the Bailey and Ryan work as I would like to explore the legal status of armed merchantmen re submarine interceptions further ?

My info taken from the sites below

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika02.htm

http://www.gwpda.org/1916/merchant.html

[joseph]

From 'History of the Royal Naval Reserve' published serially in the columns of Lloyd's List and Shipping Gazette.

In 1912 the admiralty appointed a committee to consider the question as to the necessity or advisability of arming merchant ships, and to the surprise of many this committee decided it would be a sound and feasible scheme. Accordingly Rear Admiral H H Campbell was ordered to carry out the necessary arrangements, the proviso being that all the guns should be mounted aft, so that they could only be used to assist in a vessel's escape, thus precluding any suggestion that they were mounted for aggressive purposes. Officers of the Royal Naval Reserve at Liverpool, Southampton and London were in charge of the actual arrangements and the training of the men who were to act as gunners. The Admiralty offered to any company accepting the scheme an indemnity against any loss or expense that they might incur through their ships being detained or handicapped in time of peace on account of their armament. Sir Owen Phillips (Lord Kylsant), gave the lead with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and the liner Aragon was the first ship to be armed in April 1913. The Standard Armament was 2 4.7 inch guns, quite a number of the ships, especially those engaged on the food services, were similarly armed.

Regards Charles

[centurion]

Many years ago I read an account that suggested that some companies/skippers privately purchased armament for their ships. In those days of laisse faire it appeared that if you had the dough and phoned that nice man at Vickers you could have something like a 3 inch gun delivered and installed with some basic training on how to lay it. Any one know if there is any truth in this?

[John Gilinsky]

I only say this half-jokingly: you mean to say that there were quite possibly + ocean-going African Queens? Obviously considering the fears of British shipping owners between 1900 to 1914, technological "hysteria" (common these days too!), the related arms race overall and specifically naval including faster dreadnoughts(read battlecruisers which the RN was partial to prior to Jutland at least), naval doctrines of European and American strategists focusing on commerce raiding, imperial envies,etc....private or corporate arming of private property to add reassurance even in peacetime to prepare for a surprise attacks (part of the naval doctrines by the way) was pretty strong. I am curious if Lloyd's reduced the insurance premiums on tripe A rated modern built steamships of any kind passenger, passenger/cargo or cargo ships if they could prove that they were "defensively armed." Does anyone know this last point?

John

[Clio]

Thank you for these responses

All told they reinforce my conclusion that by 1914/15 both sides were blatently twisting the provisions of the Treaty of London to suit their own purposes

[Clio]

My salient question being that within the provisions of the 1909 Treaty(as it was understood in 1909) did the arming of a merchant ship de facto change the status of that vessel in the eyes of international maritime law ?

It is difficult to address this question because it is essential to sieve out material fact from propaganda

[ionia]

My salient question being that within the provisions of the 1909 Treaty(as it was understood in 1909) did the arming of a merchant ship de facto change the status of that vessel in the eyes of international maritime law ?

It is difficult to address this question because it is essential to sieve out material fact from propaganda

The Declaration of London does not prohibit nor even refer to the arming of merchant ships. Of course, if the gun is used then under Chapter VIII, Article 63, "Resistance to Search", the vessel is liable to comdemnation but this is irrelevant given the circumstances. The legal position was as outlined in my earlier post.

[ionia]

I had better clarify my last post (as to what I meant by 'irrelevant') by pointing out that the Declaration of London covers neutral shipping and not that of belligerents (although neutral cargoes on vessels flying the flag of a belligerent are referred to) and that an armed neutral merchant vessel might be a rare bird.

[Clio]

Today I have spoken to a barrister friend who specialises in maritime law. Last week I gave him a copy of the 1909 Treaty of London. He interprets that the arming of a merchant vessel would have indeed altered the legal status of that vessel and rendered it ultra vires to any protection previously afforded by the Treaty.

[ionia]

Today I have spoken to a barrister friend who specialises in maritime law. Last week I gave him a copy of the 1909 Treaty of London. He interprets that the arming of a merchant vessel would have indeed altered the legal status of that vessel and rendered it ultra vires to any protection previously afforded by the Treaty.

It would be appreciated if you could specify which article of the Declaration of London provides protection to a belligerent's merchant ships.

[Toms girl]

I have an account that on the first day of the war a German fishing boat sent a message

"We have important information information for you" the "Undaunted" approached and the boat fired on the "Undaunted" the Captain remarked this man is either increadable brave or increadable stupid. The German boat continued to fire and was eventually sunk. The crew were picked up (approx 29 men), by I belive the Shannon which was too small to hold prisoners, who were all transfered to the Undaunted and housed in the forepeak. As she returned to port she hit a German mine and this killed all but one of the prisoners. He was put aboard the Linnet and as she moved away a shell from the Undaunted exploded on the deck of the Linnet and killed two guards and the last survivor. So it seems that some non military ships were armed although to little avail.

Margarette