Ethics and Passenger Liners

[SteamWake]

I was on my way to a photo recon mission last night and blundered accross a pair of un-escorted passenger liners.

I sank them both because of A.) Its a game and I want the tonnage, and B.) Maybe they were carrying troops.

But before I ordered the men into general quarters I gave some thought to the ethicicy of attacking unarmed passanger liners regardless of whoms flag is flying.

Like to hear some of your thoughts on this.

[AVGWarhawk]

Sink'em:yep:

[flintlock]

I'm in a warship designed to sink ships.

If it's flying a Japanese flag, it gets sunk, period.

It's a game.

[mookiemookie]

They were used as troop ships. Sink 'em.

[Hans-Ulrich Rudel]

I came across a convoy once in sh3 GWX and there were two of them at 40,000 tonn each, I kid you not, anyway of course I sunk them, one of them blew up, so I figure it was carrying ammo. the way i see it if it sinks as a red icon it is well sunk!! I did+notice that there were no 40K liners in the historical section of sh3 GWX, hmm!!??:damn:

[Cujo]

After sinking the Huge European Liner, I checked the multitude of life boats. They were all filled with troops. I did stop short of machine gunning them all.

[mookiemookie]

After sinking the Huge European Liner, I checked the multitude of life boats. They were all filled with troops. I did stop short of machine gunning them all.

And somewhere, the ghost of Mush Morton sheds a solitary tear... :lol:

[Safe-Keeper]

It's a game.No ****:o?!

Seriously, though, to nitpick, it's not a game, it's a simulation, and those require a certain degree of immersion and suspension of disbelief. If people want to play according to their morals, let them. If people want to vent their anger or just simply have fun massacring shipwrecked sailors in life-boats, let them.

[Ducimus]

If we were talking a real life scenario. Unless its a ship that is clearly against the Geneva conventions to sink, i would sink it without a second thought or hesitation.

The Passenger liners are nothing more then troop transports, carrying enemy infantry and ground personal to where they can kill frinedly infantry and ground personal, and that simply cannot be allowed if you can prevent it. ( Theres always a risk of it being a POW transport (which did happen in one incident) but you have no way of know this. )


Naturally the Machine gunning question will come up. I wouldn't. For three reasons:

1.) It could be determental to the moral of the crew

2.) The sea will probably take care of them anyway

3.) Even if the sea doesnt finish the job, they've been effectivly put out of action regardless. They are logisticaly out of the picture for the time being unless some massive rescue effort takes place to continue them to their final destination. The chances of which id say are slim.

All of the above are null and void if im fired upon. if im fired upon by stubborn enemy personal who choose to continue the fight, i would most definatly mow them down. However the chances of them being able to do so, id say are also slim, because unless theres a need to take a prisioner, i woudlnt bring my boat that close to the surviving personal anyway. I wouldnt want any of my crew on deck to be unnessessarily subjected to possible small arms fire.

Now in game terms:

Id just sink the damn ship and crank up the TC and try and get away from all the "Ship spotted" spam that can get annoying as hell.

[sqk7744]

http://www.compuglobalhypermeganet.tv/images/sh4/LoveBoatSinks.gif
(Sorry, couldn't help it)

But this is a great morality question. I definitely would sink any Meatball or Rising Sun flagged vessel out there. -The Japanese would extend the same quarter.

But on a flip-side we have to keep the Oryoku Maru in the back of our minds.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2003/winter/hell-ships-1.html

~"It is well that war is so terrible; else we would grow too fond of it.” -Robert E. Lee

[SteamWake]

Another reason not to "machine gun" them is that a large amount of enemy resources and time trying to rescue them.

Resources and effort that could not be directed towards the allies :up:

Good discussion so far. I feel vindicated :p

[AVGWarhawk]

Another reason not to "machine gun" them is that a large amount of enemy resources and time trying to rescue them.

Resources and effort that could not be directed towards the allies :up:

Good discussion so far. I feel vindicated :p

Can I just chew them up in the screws?:smug:

[Mud]

all you shoot is 01010101010101010101 , and I got no probs with that.

Mud

[DeePsix501]

I agree 100% with Ducimus, his reasons would be the same as mine. The only thing I wouldn't attack would be a hospital ship.

[Cujo]

all you shoot is 01010101010101010101 , and I got no probs with that.

Mud

Yea but it could be 10101010101010 (Women and Children)

[tater]

The IJN and IJA commandeered all the liners for troop transports. Sink 'em and MG the lifeboats—the troops if they survive will fight to the death even after it is clear they have lost, they die now, or they die later.

tater

[sqk7744]

Can I just chew them up in the screws?:smug:


Gotta love that 4 Diesel Cuisinart :arrgh!:

[mookiemookie]

I just passed the part in Silent Victory where Mush machine gunned the troops and I found it interesting that even some of his contemporaries found what he did to be distasteful.

[Ostfriese]

It's a game. No human beings, no dolphins, no whales, no fishes, no plankton, no Spongebob, no ship and no aircraft will ever be harmed as a consequence of players' actions. In Silent Hunter IV I don't shoot torpedoes at ships, I shoot pixels at other pixels.

It's useless to debate about real life, because SH IV simply isn't real life. And for some strange coincidence a person who heartlessly destroys lots of pixels looking like a passenger ship may in real life be the nicest and friendliest guy you've ever met.

[flintlock]

"It's a game." No ****:o?! Hmm. Let me see if I may spell it out a little for you.

The OP asked for one's opinion on sinking passenger liners in a thread titled "Ethics and Passenger Liners." With this in mind, do you see the correlation between the two, and hence my comment about it merely being a game?

to nitpick, it's not a game, it's a simulation Although SH4 certainly qualifies to be categorized as a simulation, it remains a game no matter how you spin it.


and those require a certain degree of immersion and suspension of disbelief. As does any well designed title (game, simulation or otherwise), at least if you wish to enjoy any appreciable degree of immersion.


If people want to play according to their morals, let them. Agreed, people should play as they wish, but morals? What do morals have to do with anything here?

Again, it's just a game. It's designed for entertainment and for a casual, relaxing and enjoyable way to spend a little free time. It's not meant to be some abstract and excruciating soul searching dilemma that has one struggling with the philosophical and moral arguments of targetting some pixels on a screen representative of a ship.

[Mud]

all you shoot is 01010101010101010101 , and I got no probs with that.

Mud
Yea but it could be 10101010101010 (Women and Children)

I didn't see any women and children yet in SH4 maybe they are implented in the US version?

Mud

[tater]

Well, to be fair I didn't buy SH3 because I had no desire to sink allied ships, even virtually. I'm the same way flying planes in sims (I guess I've attended too many 8th AF luncheons to talk to the vets for that :) ).

On the RL side, the japanese asked for, and gave, no quarter. They got their wish, the war in the Pacific was fought with particular ferocity. Look at the Battle of the Bismark Sea. Bomb the ships, then churn the water red with your .50 cals.

tater

[Bilge_Rat]

sink 'em, SINK THEM ALL!!!


muahahahahah (evil laugh)


:lurk:



regarding Morton, it was a different time, a different place and he was'nt the only commander in WW2 who was overly enthusiastic about his work.

[Bill Nichols]

From the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:


SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK
Classes of vessels exempt from attack
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(a) hospital ships; (b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports; (c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including: (i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war; (ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations; (d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection; (e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers; (f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected; (g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection; (h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment; (i) vessels which have surrendered; (j) life rafts and life boats.
Conditions of exemption
48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:
(a) are innocently employed in their normal role; (b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and (c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.
Loss of exemption
Hospital ships 49. The exemption from attack of a hospital ship may cease only by reason of a breach of a condition of exemption in paragraph 48 and, in such a case, only after due warning has been given naming in all appropriate cases a reasonable time limit to discharge itself of the cause endangering its exemption, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
50. If after due warning a hospital ship persists in breaking a condition of its exemption, it renders itself liable to capture or other necessary measures to enforce compliance.
51. A hospital ship may only be attacked as a last resort if:
(a) diversion or capture is not feasible; (b) no other method is available for exercising military control; (c) the circumstances of non-compliance are sufficiently grave that the hospital ship has become, or may be reasonably assumed to be, a military objective; and (d) the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or expected.
All other categories of vessels exempt from attack 52. If any other class of vessel exempt from attack breaches any of the conditions of its exemption in paragraph 48, it may be attacked only if:
(a) diversion or capture is not feasible; (b) no other method is available for exercising military control; (c) the circumstances of non-compliance are sufficiently grave that the vessel has become, or may be reasonably assumed to be, a military objective; and (d) the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or expected.


Also, see:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture; (b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces; (d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system; (e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

:know:

[Teh_Diplomat]

^ Indeed, if there's no Red Cross on the Ship, it's going to rest with Davey Jones.

[tater]

The USN sank hospital ships if they were not also lighted. Course the japs used 'em as troop transports lighted or not.

[Mud]

A hospital ship was not a ticket for a free ride for sure , the AHS Centaur is a good example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Centaur

Mud

[nattydread]

I think its easy to assume there were no Japanese pleasure cruises to Tahiti during the war. If a cruise ship was sailing in contested waters it was transporting war goods and personel.

If it was sailing up and down the coast of Japan it may have been a pleasure cruise, but I doubt it. I dont think anyone would have bought tickets even if they were offered.

[Deep6]

I think its easy to assume there were no Japanese pleasure cruises to Tahiti during the war. If a cruise ship was sailing in contested waters it was transporting war goods and personel.

my thoughts exactly, put a spread of fish into them :rock:

[nattydread]

The USN sank hospital ships if they were not also lighted. Course the japs used 'em as troop transports lighted or not.

this is true.

[LukeFF]

I did+notice that there were no 40K liners in the historical section of sh3 GWX, hmm!!??:damn:

The largest ship sunk by a U-boat was the 42,348-ton Empress of Britain.

http://www.uboat.net/allies/merchants/ship/643.html

[nattydread]

From the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:


SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK
Classes of vessels exempt from attack
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(a) hospital ships; (b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports; (c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including: (i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war; (ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations; (d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection; (e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers; (f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected; (g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection; (h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment; (i) vessels which have surrendered; (j) life rafts and life boats.
Conditions of exemption
48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:
(a) are innocently employed in their normal role; (b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and (c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.
Loss of exemption
Hospital ships 49. The exemption from attack of a hospital ship may cease only by reason of a breach of a condition of exemption in paragraph 48 and, in such a case, only after due warning has been given naming in all appropriate cases a reasonable time limit to discharge itself of the cause endangering its exemption, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
50. If after due warning a hospital ship persists in breaking a condition of its exemption, it renders itself liable to capture or other necessary measures to enforce compliance.
51. A hospital ship may only be attacked as a last resort if:
(a) diversion or capture is not feasible; (b) no other method is available for exercising military control; (c) the circumstances of non-compliance are sufficiently grave that the hospital ship has become, or may be reasonably assumed to be, a military objective; and (d) the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or expected.
All other categories of vessels exempt from attack 52. If any other class of vessel exempt from attack breaches any of the conditions of its exemption in paragraph 48, it may be attacked only if:
(a) diversion or capture is not feasible; (b) no other method is available for exercising military control; (c) the circumstances of non-compliance are sufficiently grave that the vessel has become, or may be reasonably assumed to be, a military objective; and (d) the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or expected.


Also, see:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture; (b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces; (d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system; (e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

:know:



Hmmm, so do ships slow when fired upon because they are submitting to searches by our subs? I can understand this option if we had boarding parties, but why would Japanese merchants slow for us?

I dont remember hearing much about U-boats sending boarding parties, but US subs did it against small Japanese coastal vessels, fishing boats, etc.

[tater]

^true. That would be a cool option to add to make more interesting missions. Board a small ship, maybe find useful papers, etc. Of course it exposes you to possible air attack, etc.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

A very interesting discussion. If I was an American submarine commander back then, I'd try to determine from my periscope whether or not the liner was being used for troop transport or for civilian transport. For example, I'd think:


Where is it, map-wise? Is it near a known point of conflict?
Is the vessel escorted? If so, how heavily?
Would it be possible to disable the liner without sinking her?Anyway, thats my personal opinion in relation to this. If I was on a submarine, thats what I'd think :)

[Torpex752]

I had a strange encounter after sinking one of the troop ships. All the little boats were floating about and I decided to shoot AROUND them, deliberately not hitting the boats with people in them. Suddenly a couple of the boats were empty! LOL So then I sunk the empty boat! :arrgh!:


Frank
:cool:

[Grothesj2]

Sink them. Pure and simple. If you have qualms about it, ought to have qualms about every other merchie becuase many were used to transport POWs and were unknowingly sunk.

[Strikor]

I sink them. There's no way to tell if they're full of troops or not but one thing is for certain: sinking one leaves the enemy without a nice, big troop transport. That could save a lot of friendly lives. That's just the way submarine warfare was back then. Sure you might blast a nice cruiser now and then but the primary goal is to disrupt enemy supplies by sinking merchant ships.

As for women and children, if you look closely on the fishing boats they sometimes have women on them. Of course, I sink those too and first noticed this when one was thrown to the deck by a 4" HE blast. While obviously less important than a troop transport, all those troops need to eat something.

[rizZO_77]

Germans did board and search ships at the very start of the war, adhering to the so called "prize rules".

[Ayari]

Another reason not to "machine gun" them is that a large amount of enemy resources and time trying to rescue them.

Resources and effort that could not be directed towards the allies :up:

Good discussion so far. I feel vindicated :p

Can I just chew them up in the screws?:smug:

Good idea, save the gun ammo for junks and fishing boats:|\\

[joea]

Germans did board and search ships at the very start of the war, adhering to the so called "prize rules".

The surface raiders could and did do that but did the u-boats stip and search as well?

[Grothesj2]

Germans did board and search ships at the very start of the war, adhering to the so called "prize rules".

The surface raiders could and did do that but did the u-boats stip and search as well?

Looking at Uboat.net it seems they did at least earlier in the war. A number of neutral vessels were said to have been boarded, found to be carrying contraband and sunk. WW1 also seen this happen a lot before the advent of unfestricted sub warfare.

[Subnuts]

Everyone needs to remember the rules of engagement.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105111&page=1&pp=20

[E.Hartmann]

Kill it! Its flying a Enemy Flag, your at war, its a ligit target. I also improve the fgunnery of my guys by sraying down the life boats as well. :rock:

[swash]

unrestricted submarine warfare

c'est la guerre:arrgh!: