Role of a Merchant Marine in a Modern War

Zach Z.

New Member
Howdy, I've come across an interesting question in my Naval Science Course at the Texas Maritime Academy. What roles would a Merchant Mariner and a Merchant Marine Fleet have in a modern war?

The Navy Lieutenant who teaches this to us basically said that the role of a Merchant Mariner is to step back, stay in convoy formation, stay quiet, and load and unload cargo. Personally I think that there is more to it than that, I'm in training to become a Licensed 3rd Engineer and the role of the Merchant Fleet has become an item of interest for me.

So what all can the Merchant Marine do in a modern war to help out? Can ships do more than sit in convoy formation and hope to God that their escorts are having a good day? What dangers does your average merchant mariner face if a war goes hot and the merchant marine is singled out as a target and what would it take to make a nation's Merchant Fleet to become a target?

Can anyone answer this for me?
 

My2Cents

Active Member
The role of the Merchant Marine Fleet in wartime is to move cargo quickly and safely (as practical) from point A to point B. Those ships and their cargo are too valuable (or should be if they are going in harm’s way) to risk playing destroyer or anything else.

Imagine what the Normandy Invasion would have been like without the merchant marine to get all the material and personnel across the Atlantic needed to set it up. Or any other battle for that matter. As the old saying goes – “Amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics.” Well, the Merchant Marine Fleet is LOGISTICS, pure and simple.
 

Zach Z.

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
But Merchant ships have the right to arm themselves with like a CIWS to remain a noncombatant, because that weapon is deemed a self defense system. When is a merchantman considered a combatant though? I've been taught that a merchant ship can be considered a combatant once it has mounted offensive weaponry. Couldn't a Ro-Ro(Roll on Roll off) vessel be considered a combatant if it's carrying an armored battalion to drop off though? Because that's not really a very defensive measure.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
But Merchant ships have the right to arm themselves with like a CIWS to remain a noncombatant, because that weapon is deemed a self defense system. When is a merchantman considered a combatant though? I've been taught that a merchant ship can be considered a combatant once it has mounted offensive weaponry. Couldn't a Ro-Ro(Roll on Roll off) vessel be considered a combatant if it's carrying an armored battalion to drop off though? Because that's not really a very defensive measure.
I am not an expert on marine law, but, based on the current problems off Somalia and the arguments over just putting armed guards on the ships, your defensive systems will likely have to be limited to chaff launchers at most if you want to maintain a non-combatant status. CIWS is definitely out because it can be converted to local control for offensive purposes.

Non-combatant status in wartime is tricky, but at a minimum:
  1. You have to be flagged in a non-involved country.
  2. Not traveling in a convoy with combatants.
  3. Not travelling to or from any of the combatants. This can be modified if working for certain organizations like the UN or ICRC (Red Cross) and are displaying their identification. Examples would be hospital ships and refugee evacuation. 3rd party inspection regimes may also be set up for purposes of allowing food and medicine through, subject to the lack of active disapproval by the combatants.
  4. Unarmed. Being visibly armed like with a CIWS obviously violates this. But some interpretations argue that possessing any weapons on board, including a single (1) pistol, violates the unarmed requirement. That is why there were so many arguments over allowing armed guards against the Somali pirates.
  5. Not carrying war related materials. This is a tricky one, because it usually requires hands on inspection. Carrying weapons (#4) or operating in a such manner (#2) to resist such an inspection would probably be accepted in the courts as mitigating circumstances for not attempting to ascertain this status before attacking a ship. That is why a CIWS is out, as well as traveling in convoy.
In the case of the unarmed Ro-Ro from your Merchant Marine (fails #1), in a convoy (fails #2), with an armored battalion on board (fails #4 and #5, and probably #3), it is obviously is not a non-combatant.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Have a look at the RFA and USNS while are Effectively Naval auxiliaries but civilian manned and run. In near history the Ships Taken Up From Trade (STUFT) provides an example of who merchant navy ships may used.

Then there are some countries whose Coast Guard enforcement vessels are build (in sorts) and manned to civilian regulations. Weird but true.


To focus on just carrying cargo on trade routes ignores a lot. In fact most Naval forces would be hard pressed to escort more than on convoy.
 

1805

New Member
Have things changed that much, look at the Falkland the RN called up tankers, Ro-Ro and liners for a full range of activity.

Modern weapons are more flexible, it would be quite possible to fit a merchant vessel with very capable weapons. Or even old concepts like the old Q/P ships to combat piracy?
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Have things changed that much, look at the Falkland the RN called up tankers, Ro-Ro and liners for a full range of activity.

Modern weapons are more flexible, it would be quite possible to fit a merchant vessel with very capable weapons. Or even old concepts like the old Q/P ships to combat piracy?
Fitting anything beyond MANPADS and self defence systems would be quite a challenge on most merchant ships given space, power supplies and structure.


Power is a big issue as most merchant vessels only have sufficient gen sets to operate with only one on stand by at full prescribed load (real load may he higher when cargo systems are considered).


Sorry the Q ship option really is not a goer for piracy from my perspective as it has a number of issues under UNCLOS and platforms with a good surveillance capability (not necessarilly loaded to thegills withguns and missiles) appear tobe a better option.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Have things changed that much, look at the Falkland the RN called up tankers, Ro-Ro and liners for a full range of activity.

Modern weapons are more flexible, it would be quite possible to fit a merchant vessel with very capable weapons. Or even old concepts like the old Q/P ships to combat piracy?
Fitting anything beyond MANPADS and self defence systems would be quite a challenge on most merchant ships given space, power supplies and structure.

Power is a big issue as most merchant vessels only have sufficient gen sets to operate with only one on stand by at full prescribed load (real load may he higher when cargo systems are considered).
Besides the issues noted by Alexsa there is another big one – corrosion. Salt air and spray will eat up most modern weapons, and especially electronics, designed for use on land, you need navalized systems, or ones you can deploy from environmentally protected areas shortly before use (a couple hours at most, not days).

Not much point to formal Q-ships for use against the current crop of pirates. A squad with heavy weapons (MMGs, maybe an AGL, and a Carl Gustav. A missile launcher like the Javelin if you are in to overkill.) is sufficient. It is basically the same types of weapons as the pirates, but the merchant vessel is a stable firing platform, and those overpowered fishing boats the pirates use are definitely not, which should make them much more effective. Stay low and back from the edge until it is time to shoot and you are likely to achieve surprise.
 

1805

New Member
Agreed, I am not sure why you would want to fit anything more than MANPADS & Brownings now. Although none of the reasons you have suggested would stop major weapons being designed/fitted to merchant shipping. Battlefield weapons are fairly independent of power sources and the weapons could be navalised (many have naval/land versions now).

My main point was the rather patronising attitude of a peace time naval officer that merchant ships should be seen and not heard. In a serious conflict the merchant navy faces the same if worst ordeal as a navy. Perhaps he should look at a few shots of the Canberra in the Falklands, to understand the need.

The containerised nature of many modern weapons are quite an equalisor.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
My main point was the rather patronising attitude of a peace time naval officer that merchant ships should be seen and not heard. In a serious conflict the merchant navy faces the same if worst ordeal as a navy. Perhaps he should look at a few shots of the Canberra in the Falklands, to understand the need.
I don't think that was his point. He was explaining the difference between naval and merchant ship responsibilities so as to make it crystal clear that merchant ships are not front line combat vessels. He wasn't discounting the danger faced by merchant shipping in open hostilities, only explaining their responsibilities. As for "seen and not heard", don't you think by his saying "stay quiet" he might be referring to merchant shipping not doing anything to attract undue attention to itself?

I'm curious, what difference does it make that he's a "peace time" naval officer?
 

Zach Z.

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
I don't think that was his point. He was explaining the difference between naval and merchant ship responsibilities so as to make it crystal clear that merchant ships are not front line combat vessels. He wasn't discounting the danger faced by merchant shipping in open hostilities, only explaining their responsibilities. As for "seen and not heard", don't you think by his saying "stay quiet" he might be referring to merchant shipping not doing anything to attract undue attention to itself?

I'm curious, what difference does it make that he's a "peace time" naval officer?
By stay quiet I meant maintain operational security and radio silence.
 

1805

New Member
I don't think that was his point. He was explaining the difference between naval and merchant ship responsibilities so as to make it crystal clear that merchant ships are not front line combat vessels. He wasn't discounting the danger faced by merchant shipping in open hostilities, only explaining their responsibilities. As for "seen and not heard", don't you think by his saying "stay quiet" he might be referring to merchant shipping not doing anything to attract undue attention to itself?

I'm curious, what difference does it make that he's a "peace time" naval officer?

"Seen and not heard" was not really a reference to "stay quiet" more the general tone. I don't think anyone was suggesting merchant ships should be frontline warships, more that they should be able to defend themselves. In a full scale conflict, warships can be in short supply and if they can help defend themselves it would make sense. Since raised I have be thinking is this so unlikely...was the Falklands an extreme/perfect storm unlikely ever to re-occur?

I could see merchant ships having containerised platforms for ASW Helicopters, you could then have a much cheaper convoy escort with TAS (not far short of the original T23 & RFA Fort II concept)?

More likely if we had a return to the "Tanker War" this time with random SSM fired from shore....why not fit SeaRam or Phalanx?

Even Merchant ships as frontline ships, the RN employ AMC: (I just had to post is not to relevant para... it is just so heroic):

In the case of the Jervis Bay there is evidence from a convoy of ships, including that of the Commander of the Convoy, to that Captain Fegen could have, had he wished, turned to Southward with the remainder of the convoy in an endeavour to escape. Had he done so the Jervis Bay might well have got away unscathed but at the expense of more loss in the convoy. Rather than do this Captain Fegen turned boldly towards the enemy, and to certain destruction thereby giving the convoy greatest time in which to sail and escape. This was a brave decision, made without any apparent hesitation and I think fully merits [the] award of the Victoria Cross.

Also the Germans had merchant raiders, with quite a bit of success and I think Iranians used a merchant ships to lay mines?

My reference to "peacetime officer" is really base on the observations of Andrew Gordon, in his excellent work "Rules of the Game British Naval Command & the Battle of Jultand" In the conclusion he felt there seems to be a natural tendency, maybe inherent in the military, to often forget hard learnt lessons or find ways of ignoring them/considering them no longer relevant, the further they get from conflict.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
"Seen and not heard" was not really a reference to "stay quiet" more the general tone. I don't think anyone was suggesting merchant ships should be frontline warships, more that they should be able to defend themselves. In a full scale conflict, warships can be in short supply and if they can help defend themselves it would make sense. Since raised I have be thinking is this so unlikely...was the Falklands an extreme/perfect storm unlikely ever to re-occur?

I could see merchant ships having containerised platforms for ASW Helicopters, you could then have a much cheaper convoy escort with TAS (not far short of the original T23 & RFA Fort II concept)?

More likely if we had a return to the "Tanker War" this time with random SSM fired from shore....why not fit SeaRam or Phalanx?

Even Merchant ships as frontline ships, the RN employ AMC: (I just had to post is not to relevant para... it is just so heroic):

In the case of the Jervis Bay there is evidence from a convoy of ships, including that of the Commander of the Convoy, to that Captain Fegen could have, had he wished, turned to Southward with the remainder of the convoy in an endeavour to escape. Had he done so the Jervis Bay might well have got away unscathed but at the expense of more loss in the convoy. Rather than do this Captain Fegen turned boldly towards the enemy, and to certain destruction thereby giving the convoy greatest time in which to sail and escape. This was a brave decision, made without any apparent hesitation and I think fully merits [the] award of the Victoria Cross.

Also the Germans had merchant raiders, with quite a bit of success and I think Iranians used a merchant ships to lay mines?

My reference to "peacetime officer" is really base on the observations of Andrew Gordon, in his excellent work "Rules of the Game British Naval Command & the Battle of Jultand" In the conclusion he felt there seems to be a natural tendency, maybe inherent in the military, to often forget hard learnt lessons or find ways of ignoring them/considering them no longer relevant, the further they get from conflict.
Reference to the gallantry of WWII really is not relevant in the current context as the weapons, system, tactics and indeed the ships are different. In addition raiders, while tying up resources, never really did the damaged one by submarines for the effort involved.


As for the fitting weapons in containers, have served on both side of tbe nautical fence, this IS a major challenge. For a number of the options you suggest (helos) this is practical with time but at the expense of much of the ships carrying capacity and the decks have to be strong enough (most hatch covers will not take a naval helicopter in the MRH90 class.).


You cannot fit land based gem sets to ships with impunity. The sumps and others systems have to be suitable for on ships given these are dynamic platforms.
 

1805

New Member
Reference to the gallantry of WWII really is not relevant in the current context as the weapons, system, tactics and indeed the ships are different. QUOTE]

Guilty as charged...Its just whenever I read that story I feel I have to share it.
 

Strangelove

New Member
In 1914 the British Admiralty considered an all out economic war with Germany (shutting off the global systems of maritime communications, trade, insurance, etc, across the globe). Instead after only a few months they went for a more limited blockade strategy against Germany itself. Bear in mind that at that time Britain was the global superpower, with a much, much better grip on controlling the global maritime economy than the US has today.

Today's inter-linkeage, thanks to globalisation, is of course much more complex than 1914, while no nation state has comparable power to Britain during the 19th century. Full-blown economic warfare scared Britain back then, so the consequences would be unimaginable for the US today. It is more commonly used by the underdog: Germany in both world wars; possibly Iran today.

Howdy, I've come across an interesting question in my Naval Science Course at the Texas Maritime Academy. What roles would a Merchant Mariner and a Merchant Marine Fleet have in a modern war?

The Navy Lieutenant who teaches this to us basically said that the role of a Merchant Mariner is to step back, stay in convoy formation, stay quiet, and load and unload cargo. Personally I think that there is more to it than that, I'm in training to become a Licensed 3rd Engineer and the role of the Merchant Fleet has become an item of interest for me.

So what all can the Merchant Marine do in a modern war to help out? Can ships do more than sit in convoy formation and hope to God that their escorts are having a good day? What dangers does your average merchant mariner face if a war goes hot and the merchant marine is singled out as a target and what would it take to make a nation's Merchant Fleet to become a target?

Can anyone answer this for me?
 
Top