Modern incarnation of a commerce raider

One purpose of merchant raiders that doesn't seem to be considered is the diversion of warships away from the war zone to protect shipping, and the reduced efficiency of convoying ships to provide an escort. Without even sinking anything the presence, or rumor of the presence of raiders in an area can have a negative affect.
 
One purpose of merchant raiders that doesn't seem to be considered is the diversion of warships away from the war zone to protect shipping, and the reduced efficiency of convoying ships to provide an escort. Without even sinking anything the presence, or rumor of the presence of raiders in an area can have a negative affect.

This is what submarines are for. Its just a vastly superior alternative.
 
This is what submarines are for. Its just a vastly superior alternative.

Submarines are expensive, raiders are cheap. Submarines have to be operated by experienced personnel, raiders do not.

The achievements of submarines in post-WW II conflicts by minor powers have been small or minimal due to many reasons. Argentinian only success was the dedication of some of RN's forces for ASW effort. Egyptians had seven Whiskey -class subs but seemingly failed to use them, spec ops support or mining would have probably been best use for them. Pakistani Navy managed to sink one Indian frigate.

I wonder if investments in various unconventional naval operations would have served some of the nations better?
 
Last edited:
Submarines are expensive, raiders are cheap.

No, no they are not. That is the single biggest miscomprehension here, none of the alternatives listed in this thread would be cheap. We're talking expensive suicide boats and anyone who have looked at the problem in the past 60 years have realized this. The response time is too quick and their ability to survive is nonexistent. Submarines negate both these issues and carry the additional benefit that they require a much more comprehensive and expensive set of systems to defend against. Imagine all the effort that has gone into things like SOSUS, sonbouys, passive listening systems, sonar, countermeasures, specialized weaponry, dedicated ASW ships and the fact that even with all these things, modern submarines still routinely find ways of tricking them during wargames and exercises.

If you want something that have your opponents consume a massive amount of resources to counter and is still hard to defend against, then submarines are your go-to answer.
 
Last edited:
No, no they are not. That is the single biggest miscomprehension here, none of the alternatives listed in this thread would be cheap. We're talking expensive suicide boats and anyone who have looked at the problem in the past 60 years have realized this. The response time is too quick and their ability to survive is nonexistent. Submarines negate both these issues and carry the additional benefit that they require a much more comprehensive and expensive set of systems to defend against. Imagine all the effort that has gone into things like SOSUS, sonbouys, passive listening systems, sonar, countermeasures, specialized weaponry, dedicated ASW ships and the fact that even with all these things, modern submarines still routinely find ways of tricking them during wargames and exercises.

If you want something that have your opponents consume a massive amount of resources to counter and is still hard to defend against, then submarines are your go-to answer.

If we're talking minor powers during Cold War, as specified by OP, subs are prohibitively expensive, whether in terms of acquisition, operation or personnel, to operate in any effective capability. If we're talking First World countries against Second World countries or vice versa operating in a conventiona war, then the subs are answer.
 
If we're talking minor powers during Cold War, as specified by OP, subs are prohibitively expensive, whether in terms of acquisition, operation or personnel, to operate in any effective capability. If we're talking First World countries against Second World countries or vice versa operating in a conventiona war, then the subs are answer.

Even for smaller developing world nations, submarines are infinitly preferable to surface raiders when it comes to the ability to actually pose a valid threat that will make an opponent think twice. Even old whiskey class diesels will represent a threat to be taken seriously and will require much more significant amount of resources to counter compared to a surface raider that will only require a patrol aircraft with eyeball mark I to spot and a single armed aircraft to kill.
 
You can build something powerful enough in order to be sure you will instantly destroy your target,
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose, aren't you trying to capturing the ship and cargo?

Merchant raiders are the armed ships that disguise themselves as merchant vessels, commerce raiding is the act of preying on enemy merchant shipping. And that can be done my the regular navy.
 
Capturing them? No. Todays ships are often so large that the loss of one is almost disastrous. Imagine a chartered vessel carrying the equipment of an armored regt, being sunk while tensions rise in Korea or the Near East. That equipment was needed, now that regt. is simply infantry. It could also be simply a valuable cargo, such as a supertanker. Sinking one has a lot more impact today than what it was in WWII.
 
Could a modern Q-ship be disguised as a research vessel?

It would have legitimate reasons for an on-board workshop to repair helicopters and submersibles, to have an eclectic crew with a range of skills, and it could pick the right helicopters and submersibles to be quickly armed and disarmed as the situation demands.

rSS8oOn.jpg


They also make some money by producing new data on weather, ocean conditions, and sea-life. But when night falls, they lower the flag of science and hoist the jolly roger.
 
Could a modern Q-ship be disguised as a research vessel?

It would have legitimate reasons for an on-board workshop to repair helicopters and submersibles, to have an eclectic crew with a range of skills, and it could pick the right helicopters and submersibles to be quickly armed and disarmed as the situation demands.

rSS8oOn.jpg


They also make some money by producing new data on weather, ocean conditions, and sea-life. But when night falls, they lower the flag of science and hoist the jolly roger.

IMO they'd be suspect from the beginning. The SU had a long history of using them and fishing vessels for intelligence gathering, best IMO to keep to merchantmen. There is also the fact that no one but wealthy nations can afford such thnggs.
 
Even for smaller developing world nations, submarines are infinitly preferable to surface raiders when it comes to the ability to actually pose a valid threat that will make an opponent think twice. Even old whiskey class diesels will represent a threat to be taken seriously and will require much more significant amount of resources to counter compared to a surface raider that will only require a patrol aircraft with eyeball mark I to spot and a single armed aircraft to kill.

Nah, for North Vietnam, for example, junks transporting stuff and some VC frogmen were infinitely more useful than a Whiskey getting sunk on it's first cruise. For Egypt Whiskeys did no good, although they could have been used for mining and spec ops support.
 
The Advent of radio and long-range Maritime reconnaissance spelt the end of the Commerce raider.
The Graf Spee and are the German Commerce Raiders we're able to achieve success because they operated out of the range of Allied reconnaissance flights. Radio reports from their victims allowed Allied Naval units to eventually hunt them down.
A modern-day Commerce Raider would not last long
 
Because doing so would be violating international law. The 1856 Paris Convention which all major maritime powers have agreed to outlaw privateering.
This is in the vein of what troubles me. I don't see a use for raiders except in declared wars, because using them undeclared is effectively asking to be bombed into oblivion.
Good point , can torpedo tubes be easily concealed ?
Can they be used against enemy warships too at close range ?
Two words: underwater tubes.

Some WW2-era raiders had 'em. I imagine a modern raider could use any sub torpedo the raider's country could get its hands on.

Easy communication & the prevalence of video, IMO, makes raider ops much harder now. How hard is it to put your GPS coords, & video of the attacker, online when being fired on? That makes finding the raider, & identifying her, much easier than it was even in WW2.

That said, could raiders use RPVs for recce &/or attack? Could it use robots (akin Roomba?) to rapidly repaint the hull to evade detection?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
The Advent of radio and long-range Maritime reconnaissance spelt the end of the Commerce raider.
The Graf Spee and are the German Commerce Raiders we're able to achieve success because they operated out of the range of Allied reconnaissance flights. Radio reports from their victims allowed Allied Naval units to eventually hunt them down.
A modern-day Commerce Raider would not last long
Maritime recon planes can be shot down and most countries only have a handful of them anyway
 
Top