Q-ship

posted on March 11th, 2013, 3:33 pm

I knew all that Myles, I know my history pretty well, I was going by US History, and during WWII especially before the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanses, the US was in an undeclared naval war with Germany. The US Navy escorted the merchant ships they sent to England to defend those fleets.

Just alittle Historical Infirmation:

http://www.answers.com/topic/u-s-naval-operations-in-world-war-ii-the-north-atlantic#ixzz2NFCtK3Uf
Oxford Companion to US Military History:
U.S. Naval Operations in World War II: The North Atlantic

Top
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US Military History Companion
During World War II (1939–1945), Germany attempted to isolate Great Britain by severing the North Atlantic sealanes by submarine warfare. Initially, the Kriegsmarine Untersee‐Waffe commander, Adm. Karl Doenitz deployed submarines into England's southwestern approaches, where they nearly crippled Allied shipping. The effectiveness of this operation increased substantially when France and the Low Countries capitulated in spring 1940, giving the Germans U‐boat bases on the Atlantic. During the war's first two years, German submarines sank more than 1,200 Allied ships and severely hampered England's supply systems.

In the fall of 1941, with U.S. Lend‐Lease supplies to Britain in jeopardy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered U.S. naval warships to begin escorting Allied convoys. On 4 September, after evading a torpedo from a German submarine, the destroyer USS Greer launched a depth charge attack against the U‐boat. Roosevelt then ordered the navy not to wait until attacked but to shoot German submarines on sight. Eight weeks later, after several other confrontations, a German submarine sank the USS Reuben James. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. naval forces were fighting in a major if undeclared naval war with Germany in the North Atlantic.

After the United States entered the war in December 1941, U‐boats began patrolling off the American East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, where they unleashed Operation Paukenschlag (Drumbeat) to destroy American shipping. In four months the Germans sank more than 360 ships, including the destroyer USS Jacob Jones. Caught off guard, the U.S. Navy had failed adequately to protect commercial coastal vessels, which were often gunned down by surfaced U‐boats using East Coast city lights to silhouette their targets.

Because U.S. naval forces were spread thin across the Atlantic and Pacific, the chief of naval operations, Adm. Ernest J. King, decided against using a coastal convoy system. Instead, in what was later called the “Bucket Brigade,” merchant captains were advised to sail close to America's shorelines by day and to dash into the nearest harbor at night.

The British criticized King for not providing proper antisubmarine warfare (ASW) defenses. After carefully convoying ships across the Atlantic and into American waters, the U.S. Navy was allowing too many merchant ships to fall prey to the enemy along the coast. Upon transferring several British ASW escort ships to the U.S. Navy, Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill suggested that America inaugurate a coastal convoy system.

In May 1942, after continued losses, King did institute such a system, and assigned land‐based airplanes and blimps to patrol along the Atlantic seaboard. As these pressures increased, the U‐boats withdrew from East Coast waters and reconcentrated in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, where they sank another 160 ships.

During the fall of 1942, Doenitz ordered his submarines into the mid‐Atlantic, which was free of Allied air cover. Here, in an area called the “Black Pit,” the Germans in their continuing assault against convoys instituted Rudel taktik (wolf pack tactics). Initially, these attacks on convoys by groups of submarines were quite successful. However, by the summer of 1943, improved ASW tactics, better training, and new technology began extracting a toll on the U‐boats.

The Battle of the Atlantic was ultimately a conflict of attrition: numbers of vessels sunk versus new ships constructed, and numbers of U‐boats sunk versus new submarines constructed. As time passed, the Allies amassed great quantities of merchant ships, war vessels, ASW weapons, and sophisticated equipment. Improved radar, sonar, and radio direction‐finding systems, coupled with extensive use of airpower, slowly turned the tide of war against the U‐boats.

Intelligence gathered from ULTRA and the decoding of U‐boat and other German radio transmissions allowed the rerouting of convoys around the wolf packs. Destroyers equipped with radio direction finders located U‐boats, drove them underwater, and dropped depth charges on them. Airborne and shipborne radar was significant in spotting surfaced submarines. U.S. patrol planes flying over the Bay of Biscay used radar to find and attack surfaced U‐boats transiting in and out of French ports.

In addition to these technical advances, organizational reforms aided the U.S. Navy's effort. During the spring of 1943, Admiral King consolidated all ASW research, training, weapons procurement, and strategy under one command, the Tenth Fleet. Under his authority, the Tenth Fleet coordinated and streamlined all Atlantic operations.

A turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic occurred in the spring of 1943, when the U.S. Navy began using long‐range, land‐based aircraft and escort carriers to patrol the mid‐Atlantic. Planes such as PBY Catalinas and B‐24 Liberators provided extensive convoy coverage across the “Black Pit.” Flying from Iceland, a B‐24 Liberator (with depth charges aboard) could enter the mid‐Atlantic and patrol above Allied vessels for nearly four hours. Many of these planes successfully attacked and destroyed U‐boats. On occasion, patrolling aircraft forced U‐boats into deep water dives, where for extended periods they were unable to threaten the convoys. In May 1943 alone, the Germans lost more than forty submarines.

American hunter‐killer groups, typically composed of one escort carrier and three destroyers, substantially enhanced the U.S. Navy's ability to defend the convoys. Often, in the mid‐Atlantic, after forcing U‐boats to crash‐dive, carrier planes dropped homing torpedoes on the submarines. One particular success occurred on 4 June 1944, when the crew of the escort carrier Guadalcanal captured U‐boat 505 on the surface, along with all of its codebooks and sophisticated equipment.

In part because of these successes. Germany was unable to block the men and material necessary for the invasion of Normandy and the D‐Day landing. By war's end, Doenitz's U‐Waffe was depleted. While his submarines sank more than 2,700 Allied ships, they also lost nearly 800 U‐boats and 28,000 sailors. Yet there were no spectacular, Midway‐style decisive battles for the U.S. Navy in the Atlantic as there were in the Pacific. Instead, for U.S. naval forces, the battle consisted of endless days of searching for elusive U‐boats and once one was found, of launching a prolonged attack upon the submerged enemy.

After the war, because most documents remained long classified, a myth of the highly successful U‐boat campaign developed. However, newly declassified documents have indicated that because of torpedo and other technical problems, U‐boats were much more vulnerable to ASW attacks than previously thought. The evidence also reveals that the submarines destroyed only a very small percentage of the ships crossing the Atlantic. This new evidence, however, has not distracted from the difficulties and the bitterness of one of history's longest and most complex naval campaigns.
[See also Antisubmarine Warfare Systems; Submarines; World War II: Military and Diplomatic Course; Strategy: Naval Warfare Strategy.]
Bibliography
Samuel Eliot Morison, The Battle of the Atlantic: September 1939–May 1943, Vol. 1, 1947; and The Atlantic Battle Won: May 1943–May 1945, Vol. X, 1956.
Dan Van der Vat, The Atlantic Campaign: World War II's Great Struggle at Sea, 1988

Q: Did Germany attack American ships before the US declared its involvement in World War 2?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Germany_attack_American_ships_before_the_US_declared_its_involvement_in_World_War_2#page1

A: Yes. The United States navy began escorting convoys of merchant ships across the Atlantic well before Pearl Harbor. There were clashes between German submarines and American destroyers. I believe some of our ships were actually sunk by the Germans.Michael Montagne Answer Yes, and they sunk the Destroyer Reuben James (DD245) in 31 Oct 1941. (Before Pearl Harbor and the entrance of U.S.A. in the war.)http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Germany_attack_American_ships_before_the_US_declared_its_involvement_in_World_War_2#page2

Q: What was the system of defense the Allies developed against U-boats?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_system_of_defense_the_Allies_developed_against_U-boats#page1

It's a 10 page (10 part) answer, but I'll give the link and also the first page:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_system_of_defense_the_Allies_developed_against_U-boats#page2
A: The main means of defence developed against U-boats was the convoy system ? groups of merchant ships in close formation under the protection of one or more escort war ships.During the Second World War, the submarine menace revived, threatening the survival of island nations like Britain and Japan which were particularly vulnerable because of their dependence on imports of food, oil and other vital war materials. Despite this vulnerability, little had been done to prepare sufficient...

U.S. Merchant Marine in World War II
http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html

(Just like with the stock A2's first Klingon Campaign Mission, Star Trek uses alittle roots in real history at times. The Cardassians wiped out the Federation Reserve Fleet that was docked in the Pearl Nebula... Historical Reference: The Japanese pretty much wiped out the US's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. [Does the Pearl Nebula reference Pearl Harbor?]
I actually like it when Star Trek and other TV Series include aspects of real life history, and right here it was fun to include some historical data.)

posted on March 11th, 2013, 4:19 pm

I knew all that Myles,
<epic snip>

what was the point of that incredibly long copypasta, it doesn't even mention qships? i'm struggling to see what point you're trying to make. you sound as if you're rebutting a point and disagreeing with one of mine, but for the life of me i cannot figure out what you're trying to say.

qships were irrelevant in ww2 (for all allied nations), both the UK and US had zero success with them. the entire idea was abandoned by both. convoys and lots of escorts ended up being the solution in ww2. we basically bug spammed them with corvettes/frigates/destroyers.

posted on March 11th, 2013, 5:30 pm

Why not just make the unrefined materials in freighters volatile, so they have a short-range explosion if the ships die like Latinum used to?

Not enough range to hurt other freighters if it's killed before you can react, but capable of being used as a Fire ship if you can get it right next to the enemy before it dies. Don't need weapons for that and doesn't even need to have damage as the effect.

posted on March 11th, 2013, 7:04 pm

@Myles: Q-Ships are in fact armed merchant ships, that us all Q-ships were in WWI and WWII. They don't have to use the name Q-ship to talk about them, they can stick with the words "Merchant Marine", "Merchant Ships" or any other word that means the exact same thing, especially when they mean the same thing. Haven you ever heard teachers, people in the military or anyone use the words interchangeably? Well doesn't matter, I'm going to go by what I've heard from teachers and other people such as friends and family that actually served in the military (or still do).

http://macsmilitary.com/sgtmacsblog/british-secrets/merchant-marines-naval-armed-guard-and-q-ships/
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/65256131/q-ships-undercover-national-warfare-by-merchant-marine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensively_Equipped_Merchant_Ships

posted on March 11th, 2013, 7:24 pm

Why not just make the unrefined materials in freighters volatile, so they have a short-range explosion if the ships die like Latinum used to?

Not enough range to hurt other freighters if it's killed before you can react, but capable of being used as a Fire ship if you can get it right next to the enemy before it dies. Don't need weapons for that and doesn't even need to have damage as the effect.

that would mean dilithium and tritanium are explosive, which most would accept is silly. dilithium is a crystal used for regulating a reaction, not for fueling it. the energy stored in dil wouldn't be high. tritanium is just a metal.

@Myles: Q-Ships are in fact armed merchant ships, that us all Q-ships were in WWI and WWII.

you are mistaken. q ships are merchant ships with concealed arms designed for combating uboats. the bold bit is an important part of the definition. other merchant ships were given concealed weapons, but these weren't called qships, they were called (among other things) merchant raiders. see here. merchant raiders weren't used to combat subs, they were used to attack enemy merchant ships.

also your links, link 1 is one guy's blog. not exactly starting with your best. link 2 is just the abstract of an article, and the abstract doesn't contribute to this discussion. link 3 isn't about q ships. q ships were crewed by trained navy personnel. DEMS were crewed by civilians. DEMS was more widespread.

posted on March 11th, 2013, 7:52 pm

I know all about q-ships Myles. I learned about them in school and also from people in the military, the number one fact you keep forgetting about Q-ships and even merchant ships is that they both carried cargo. My great grandfather served in a Q-ship, I've seen it in some old photos. They are exactly the same thing, and nothing you will say will change that because what you'd say goes against not just family but historical evidence.
I don't have to standby and have you tell me I'm mistaken about something that I have had family serving aboard such vessels back during WWII.

posted on March 11th, 2013, 8:30 pm

I know all about q-ships Myles. <snip>

oh, my mistake, you "know people" and have "seen photos". in the face of such strong evidence i withdraw my contest to you. sarcasm aside, saying you know people or have seen photos doesn't count as evidence. you're anonymous on the internet, so forgive me if i don't wish to accept your assertions, that I have no way to verify aren't fabrications.

or if we can throw such evidence around, maybe i'll call up my uncle in law who served on the q-ship HMS Hatton Garden in ww2. he agrees with everything i say, hence i am right.

posted on March 11th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Well my relatives served on American Q-ships, and I never fabricate anything, telling the truth is far more valuable.
I hate to say it though but I think I found one of the ships in the picture with my great grandfather, at least one of her names match, but the ship was renamed, the Anacapa.
http://wonderduck.mu.nu/military_history/the_pacific_q-ship

Then there's this one, it was in two of the stories I heard.
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/1476.html

One serious question, how do you know if they didn't carry cargo from different destinations? They had to lure a submarine to the surface to get it to even attack or launch an attack. A ship not carrying cargo as much as it was still a tempting target wouldn't turn the tide in the favor of the country using the submarine (in this case Germany and Japan during WWII). Sometimes you got to apply logic to it, that's how one my World History teacher describd it in 11th grade.

posted on March 11th, 2013, 9:15 pm

One serious question, how do you know if they didn't carry cargo from different destinations?

a serious answer: i haven't said anything about whether q ships carried cargo or not. i have no idea if they did or not, that's not key to their role of destroying submarines.

posted on March 11th, 2013, 10:14 pm

Je_mezu24, you seem to have your nomenclature mixed. The term Q-ship specifically refers to merchant vessels that have been refitted with concealed weapons, for surprise deployment in case of attack. This term does not include more conventional armed merchantmen whose weapons were not hidden. It never has in any of the reference material I've read that discuss Q-ships. In fact, the references you yourself cite support the definition that Myles has been using.

posted on March 11th, 2013, 11:20 pm

@MadHatter: It doesn't exactly support what Myles is sayin, and according to what my great grandfather said and those I've known that were in the military, Q-ships were always merchant vessels refitted with hidden small outdated guns that couldn't take on any major cruiser, destroyer or battleship if they encountered them, but they were good enough against submarines that they forced to surface so those subs wouldn't waste a torpedo on a worthless merchant ship, the tactic if Q-ships was to defend merchant vessels carrying cargo and much needed supplies to England to support the allies and the same can be said about the War in the Pacific. Sometimes these ships had naval officers and sailors aboard with better training for the weapons they carried (hence my great grandfather serving aboard one).

What I've cited actually supports both, especially since it only came up with the terms I've been talking about with Q-ships.any ways, Myles obviously totally misunderstood my first/original post to this discussion.
This was my original post:

Wouldn't a civilian ship like a mining freighter or colony ship be like a Q-Ship? It could carry minimal weapons to defend its self, especially if it has a defensive escort.

I think in history some Q-Ships may have been escorted as well or had a defensive force/floatalia close by if it really was out gunned and out numbered. Maybe one Q-Ship wouldn't stand a chance but how about 2 - 4 more all concentrating their fire on a single target; say the most dangerous one? (Of course this is just a guess.)

My original post actually refers to cargo and mining ships in Star Trek Armada II and not how they are/were in history. Except obviously Myles misunderstood the last part of my original post, because it doesn't just apply to Q-ships but merchant ships as well. Both had escorts and usually weren't traveling alone after all, No captain would be foolish enough to be out on the seas by themselves with the threat of being attacked by German (Nazi) submarines.

Of course if no one didn't know, my whole original post was totally related to the use of and the idea of Q-ships directly in STA2 and FleetOps along with if the ide of Q-ships was to be implemented into FleetOps, if it would work that way in mods as well (now more than ever with the introduction of the new trading system [The Trade Dock] makes Q-ships sound practical).

I don't understand why Myles has to take it so out if proportion, especially since what I've been saying is what I learned in school about Q-ships, family that served or heard about it from my great grandfather, saw his pictures, and hearing it from those in the military that learned about it more so studying military history. I just don't get why I don't have the right to go by what I was taught?

posted on March 12th, 2013, 8:59 am

Q-ships were always merchant vessels refitted with hidden small outdated guns that couldn't take on any major cruiser, destroyer or battleship if they encountered them, but they were good enough against submarines that they forced to surface so those subs wouldn't waste a torpedo on a worthless merchant ship,

are you kidding me? this is what i've been saying since the start. you haven't understood this until now.

now we've gone full circle i'm gonna end this here. back on topic:

i vote no for qships in fleetops. i vote no for armed civilian ships in general.

posted on March 18th, 2013, 1:30 am

Why not just make the unrefined materials in freighters volatile, so they have a short-range explosion if the ships die like Latinum used to?

Not enough range to hurt other freighters if it's killed before you can react, but capable of being used as a Fire ship if you can get it right next to the enemy before it dies. Don't need weapons for that and doesn't even need to have damage as the effect.

that would mean dilithium and tritanium are explosive, which most would accept is silly. dilithium is a crystal used for regulating a reaction, not for fueling it. the energy stored in dil wouldn't be high. tritanium is just a metal.

About that, The Tritanium damaging ships makes sense, as it would become shrapnel, refined or not.

I'm not 100% sure about Dilithium, but what I think is that the ship has an Matter/Anti-Matter Reactor, the ship being destroyed would lose Anti-Matter containment, causing it to react with the ship. The Dilithium would focus the reaction, causing it to become even more destructive.

Just my thought. The Tritanium makes sense, but I dont know abot the Dilithium.

posted on March 18th, 2013, 10:13 am

About that, The Tritanium damaging ships makes sense, as it would become shrapnel, refined or not.

here's a picture of some iron ore:


it's basically rocks. even if we assume that the tri ore is already close to refined, hell let's even assume that the freighter is carrying around fully refined tri, this metal would be no more explosive/damaging than the bulkheads and metal that the freighter itself is already made of.

I'm not 100% sure about Dilithium, but what I think is that the ship has an Matter/Anti-Matter Reactor, the ship being destroyed would lose Anti-Matter containment, causing it to react with the ship. The Dilithium would focus the reaction, causing it to become even more destructive.

windmills dilithium does not work that way. when a ship dies the AM it stored will react with all surrounding matter (ie the ship/pieces), there will be an uncontrolled M/AM reaction, which is the basics of a photon torpedo. this is how a M/AM reaction usually happens. Dilithium crystals are used to deliberately slow this and stop it from being an explosion, allowing the power to be used for flying, instead of just blowing up. the presence of dilithium (refined or unrefined) would do nothing to enhance the power of a M/AM explosion, all the boom comes from the M/AM, not the crystal.

posted on March 18th, 2013, 6:07 pm

* shrugs* Meh, just a thought. Wanted to share and see.