Talk:Q-ship/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Q-ship is a decoy vessel disguised as a merchant or non-military ship, but actually bearing concealed weapons. Q-ships were used by the British in World War I and World War II to lure and occasionally destroy German U-boats.

A Q-ship would typically ply the merchant shipping lanes, clearly marked as a civilian vessel, and occasionally flying neutral colors. When a U-boat surfaced to fire upon the ship, the Q-ship crew would run up the white ensign and open fire on the enemy submarine. Unfortunately, this tactic met with only partial success. Often, submarines would torpedo the ships from a distance, or approach them so cautiously as to negate the Q-ships advantage.

One of the earliest Q-ships to successfully destroy an enemy submarine was a converted fishing vessel extravagantly titled "His Majesty's Armed Smack Inverlyon". Despite the grand title, the ship in question was simply an unpowered sailing craft fitted with a tiny 47mm cannon. In 1915, the Inverlyon encountered a small UB I type U-boat while masquerading as an active fishing vessel near Great Yarmouth. The submarine, christened "UB-4", was commanded by Leutenant zur See Karl Gross. When it approached the Inverlyon, presumably with the intention of boarding the smack and sinking it, the British crew opened fire. The submarine upended and sank, killing the entire German crew.

Sources:

http://www.ku.edu/~kansite/ww_one/naval/ub4.htm

I've corrected the U-boats link to U-boats, to link to the U-boat entry, in the above, as I assume that must be where it should link to. Silverfish 20:31, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've capitalised and linked "Royal Navy" Epeeist smudge 11:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bond's Q

I've added reference to James Bond's Q -- Kschang77 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not really relevant to the subject at hand. The Bond agents are referred to by letter, and it is highly dubious there is any connection. --Eyrian 07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'Q' in the James Bond stories just refers to his job title; Quartermaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.27 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Q-ships and the Hague Conventions

I don't know where this can be added into the article, but Q-ships were a violation of the laws of war, namely Article 2 of Section 7 from the Hague Conventions of 1907, namely "Merchant ships converted into war-ships must bear the external marks which distinguish the war-ships of their nationality." I feel this should be added into the article, perhaps in the lead, but I was wondering about consensus on this matter before adding it, and where in the rest of the article it can be elaborated upon.

--Jadger 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent addition to the article, probably under a new heading "Q-ships and international law". --Eyrian 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

the external marks which distinguish the war-ships of their nationality means the appropriate flags, which have to be raised before attacking, though not necessarily very long before. A warship with the profile of a merchant ship, raising war flags at the last moment, is a legitimate ruse de guerre. Mesoso 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

and do you have any evidence that the war flags were raised before attack EVERY single time? please cite a source that says they weren't a violation of the Hague convention.

--Jadger 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, YOU must cite a source which says they were a violation, since YOU are making the assertion.

IF ever war flags were not raised before attack, that makes not raising war flags, (i.e. not using the external marks which distinguish the war-ships of their nationality,) on that particular (hypothetical) occasion, a war crime, not the use of a boat with a civilian profile.

Mesoso 13:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki article on the Baralong Incidents states that during the second one the British ship flew the U.S. flag throughout the entire operation (during which it sank U-41).Historian932 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume that if, as the article states, the "ruse" sometimes included pretending to abandon ship, it was against the rules of war, since it shows the willingness to manipulate the boundary between military and civilian/humanitarian realms for strategic purposes (I also recall seeing somewhere that Royal Navy personnel were dressed in civilian clothes, which would also be a violation if they didn't change the instant hostilities began [which is unrealistic in every case]).

But of course it would be better if someone could produce some reasonable-looking citation for the claim(s), at which point there is no doubt that mention of it belongs in the article. (Btw I read once that Churchill, who was ViceLord of the Admiralty during WWI, claimed that one of the reasons this strategy was adopted was that it was known that it would force the Germans to begin attacking ships without surfacing, which would inevitably lead them to sink neutral American shipping accidentally, which would serve the purpose of influencing American popular opinion in favor of entering the war against Germany. Sounds a little bit like genius-in-hindsight but can't be ruled out imo.)

--Historian932 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

re Qships and WW1 - apart from just sinking U-boats the Q-ships were initially used to foil the execution of the prize regulation. In the treaties, U-boats had to stop a suspect ship, read freight and insurance papers, and get a team on board to find contraband. In case of a violation the U-boat had every right to sink the ship, usually after letting the crew get into the lifeboats. The introduction of the Q-ships was intended to render the prize regulation impossible, for Germany. A U-boat surfacing before the hidden guns of a Q-ship was usually doomed, since already a few MG bullets at the right place would have sunk it.

There were two major arguments for the Q-ships, apert from sinking some U-boats tactically, with this new uncertainty the boats could not be sure anymore whether the merchantman was a neutral, or an enemy's camouflaged armed auxiliary cruiser, so the admiralty strategically hoped in due course U-boats would now sink any merchants without initially stopping and sarching them, thus violating the prize regulation, and make Germany the bully in the eyes of the world, with the side effect of luring the USA into the war.

It did not work out this way since U-boat commanders stubbornly held fast to the prize regulation even within the periods of the unrestricted U-boat warfare, often helping the crews to reach the coast, sometimes even in towing them. The merchant's crews were ordered not to talk about this by the british admiralty, since this would have spoilt the propaganda war, both sides. Indeed norwegian crews of contraband ships getting goods to England's coast, suffered this "fate" several times. There were much more ships sunk per month during the restricted war following the prize regulation, than within the days of the unrestricted war. So even if Q-ships managed to sink U-boats, their major task had not been a success.

HTH N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narsinha (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Trawlers as bait

I can't remember what the scheme was called, but the British used a ruse in which an unarmed trawler would act as bait, although unarmed it was linked to a submerged submarine by telegraph and it would be this submarine that would sink the attacking sub. Does anyone know if an article exists detailing this ruse as its worth at least a 'see also' link.KTo288 09:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The method is referred-to as the 'Trawler submarine trap' in my reference and on two occasions it resulted in the sinking of U-boats. British C class submarines were used, C24 sinking the U40, and later C27 torpedoed and sank U23, both sinkings occurring in 1915. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.27 (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Armed merchantmen?

Hey, just a quick question...there is a separate article on armed merchantmen - is that the same thing as a q-ship? If not, what's the difference? Applejuicefool (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A Q-ship is a ruse - it's not obviously armed until it removes the panels hiding the gun and raises its flag. An armed merchantman isn't attempting to deceive, and makes no particular effort to conceal its weapons; indeed, having them obvious to discourage attack is desirable. It is still (probably) freighting cargo around, unlike a Q-ship, whose only role was to lure in the enemy. Riedquat (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted there is another methodology of arming merchant vessels to consider called Commerce raiding. Q ships were disguised as merchant ships to lure in potential attackers of shipping such as U boats. Commerce Raiders on the other hand were disguised as merchant vessels of opposing or neutral nations so that they could attack enemy shipping and then evade pursuit under the disguise of a peaceful merchant vessel, the distinction being that Q ships used disguise to protect merchant shipping while raiders used disguise to try and disrupt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.76.40 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is said that the Prince Charles went into action against U-36 flying the Red Ensign as she was not a commissioned ship. Officer from U-36 declared that if Prince Charles had fallen to them then her ‘civilian crew’ would have been shot as francs tireur. It would be interesting to discover the status of Q-ships under international law of the day. The MN civilians, including her Master, Capt Frank Norman Moncrieff Maxwell, received cash awards from the Admiralty.Adeligneumann (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly successful?

"Despite some spectacular actions and a great deal of romanticization, Q-ships were not particularly successful "

Ummmm... let's see 1939 were the "Happy Times" for the submarines of Germany because there was no defense.

"destroyed 14 U-boats and damaged 60, at a cost of 27 Q-ships lost out of 200".

I'd say, given the amount of cargo and men lost at sea from those fierce hunters, that this strategy was EXTREMELY successful. Germany couldn't just throw another sub together, just like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well , in ww1 the german uboat proven to be a powerfull enemy, not just to merchant shipping but also to armed vessels. Thousand died victims of uboats attacks on merchant vessels and several hundred perished in uboat attacka against warships, for the british the Q-Ship was a partial limited succes to at least stop and damage the german threat but it proven not to be the final weapon for victory. The convoy tactics finally proven to be a defensive countermeasure. But even with them, the british didnt managed to destroy the submarine menace.The surrender of germany alowed the victory at sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fighting pirates in Gulf of Aden=

I removed a comment saying that 'it has been suggested that Q-ships be deployed in the Gulf of Aden to fight pirates' because I can't find any evidence that anyone has suggested it and the comment didn't specify WHO had suggested it - making it look a bit like the guy who wrote the comment just thought it might be a nice idea. DixDaxDox (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Evidence should be provided. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Q Ships in Fiction

Cmdr. Edward Beach's classic book "Run Silent Run Deep" describes an encounter with a Japanese Q-ship. "Of all things, to be taken in by a Q-ship!" I don't recall if that scene is part of the movie version.

204.124.82.48 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Ed Barnard, Cannon Falls MN

Unsourced Materials

The following unsourced materials have been moved from the article. They all lack sources; some are dubious; some are at best only tangentially relevant to the article; some are more like Wiktionary definitions than WP material. They are here in case anyone thinks they can source them properly and find a suitable home for them, most likely not in Q-ship. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

===Related terms===

The term "Q-car" (or "sleeper") has subsequently been used to describe cars that have much higher than average performance (often through extensive modification) but look like a conventional, uninteresting family transport.

During the Rhodesian insurgency in the 1970s government forces used heavily armed vehicles disguised as civilian trucks to tempt guerrillas into ambushing them, also calling them "Q-cars".

A Q-train looks outwardly like an ordinary rail train, but is staffed by British Transport Police to combat trespassing and vandalism on railway routes.

The Q carrier is a design which has not yet been used. It is basically a light carrier with removed hangars and a deck which can split open. The hangar space will be replaced with rows of AA defences. From outside, it will look like a carrier without planes, a tempting target for aerial raiders. However, when the enemy squadron begins its assault, the decks would part and an AA storm would occur, destroying the raiders. This weapon also has a psychological value as enemy assaults on carriers would be more cautious and an genuine empty carrier may be passed up for fear of it being a Q carrier.

---

"Without sinking enough ships to justify the strategy"

I don't have the sources in front of me and I know I can't just add my own ideas. But to say "the Q-ships didn't sink enough submarines to matter" is clearly not a complete analysis. As long as the Germans knew there were Q-Ships they were required to be much more circumspect in their attacks on "defenceless" merchant ships, forced to expend torpedos instead of gun ammunition etc. A complete analysis would have to consider not only the U-boat casualties caused by Q-ships, but the merchant ship casualties avoided because of the presence of Q-ships. (But I admittedly don't know what those figures are, if they exist, or how they could even be estimated.) 209.197.173.106 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)