destroying sampans

[Aktungbby]

Anyone know what was done in reality?

NittoMaru#23 and after discovery by Halsey's escort of Doolittle Raiders, USS Nashville, but not before it radio'd the task force's position and severely altered the plan! by a critical 10 hours early and 170 nautical miles.

[Roger Dodger]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Roger Dodger! after almost a year of silent running!

Thank you fer thinkin' of me. -- Eyore

Got stuck on building Greek or Roman cities or Dungeons (Dungeon Keeper II), and some new (old) old games. So much to do, so little time.

I'm going to have to scrape off the barnacles and get back to the Pacific Theater.

God bless Electric Boat!

[jcope]

I guess what I was asking is does anyone know what the policy was? I know some of them were sunk, and many were bad guys, but I wanted to know what the Navy's directives were if possible.

[Threadfin]

Originally Posted by jcope

I guess what I was asking is does anyone know what the policy was? I know some of them were sunk, and many were bad guys, but I wanted to know what the Navy's directives were if possible.

There was no policy per se, at least in the early part of the Pacific War. In essence, submarine policy was a fluid thing, and it was mostly through the patrol report endorsements by the senior staff members that skippers took their guidance. And conversely, any lack of censure for these actions could be viewed as official acceptance of the practice.

In truth though it was up to the skipper on the spot whether he chose to engage trawlers, junks, sampans and fishing boats.

Later in the war, there was indeed a directive from a senior staffer, stating in effect that 'we are not at war with the people of' ... and I can't find the quote, but I know it's in Silent Victory, maybe Bouganville, or some southwestern Pacific nation or island, which in effect began to pull the reigns on this type of warfare.

Personally, I do not engage these types of craft.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Threadfin

Later in the war, there was indeed a directive from a senior staffer, stating in effect that 'we are not at war with the people of' ... and I can't find the quote, but I know it's in Silent Victory, maybe Bouganville, or some southwestern Pacific nation or island, which in effect began to pull the reigns on this type of warfare.

Personally, I do not engage these types of craft.

The directive you are thinking of was from Admiral Christie in 1944. He wrote ."The destruction of small sailing vessels is regretted. We are not at war with the inhabitants of the Netherland East Indies and Philippines Islands. The destruction of their craft does enemy little or no harm and is forbidden."

The complicating factor in all this is that the Japanese pressed literally thousands of small craft into service for supply purposes as the war wore on. Barges, sea trucks, lighters, tugboats, luggers, schooner, sampans, canoes, rafts. Although their cargo capacity was meager, these craft could hug the coast by night and hide up creeks and estuaries by day. These resting spots could be quite elaborate, with caches of food and fuel, equipment for repair and extensive camoflauge netting to protect them from eyes of recon planes.

The Japanese also exploited the thousands of small craft native to the combat zones of Southeast Asia. They hired or impressed the kisties, lundwins, and Tavoy schooners of Burma, the tongkangs, Tamil lighters and twakows of Malaya, and the praus, trading ketches and lambo sloops of the East Indies. The Chinese junks were particularly prized as it could haul up to 800 tons and with the addition of diesel engines, make 10 knots.

The usually light wooden construction of such craft rendered them extremely vulnerable to small-arms fire, so the Japanese preferred their own barges when available. But there can be little doubt that the emperor's legions seized local shipping as needed, no matter how light.

So it all adds up to a mixed bag. There was no offical US policy and skippers often disregarded these anyway. But there can be no doubt that a good portion of the small fry you stumble across in the Pacific are working for the Japanese, whether they want to or not.

[merc4ulfate]

Sink them all. They either contain materials for the enemy or are being used as scouts so sink them all. If there are survivors ... well you have a 50 caliber on board so put it to use.



"Execute against Japan": The U.S. Decision to Conduct Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
Joel Ira Holwitt 2009

Page 170-172 talks about the decision and severity of unconditional warfare against the Empire of Japan. Enemy combatants whether in the water swimming or ashore with guns the ready are still all combatants until they are dead. Mush Morton knew this, lived this and died observing this. The enemy is the enemy whether he is holding a gun or his breath while swimming.

Placard inside Mush Mortons boat were these words found in several places,

Shoot the sunza bitches

When the Wahoo returned to Pearl with it broom help high a flag on the aft periscope said

Shoot the sunza bitches

Unlike the day we live in when the military is taught to be a gentle as a pussy cat ... unrestricted warfare agasint an enemy meant ...

SHOOT THE SUNZA BITCHES

Words expressed in this post are not meant to be used as by words but simply quotes from text used in a book to describe actual events and usage.

Cited works:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Urh...0japan&f=false

[Threadfin]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

The directive you are thinking of was from Admiral Christie in 1944. He wrote ."The destruction of small sailing vessels is regretted. We are not at war with the inhabitants of the Netherland East Indies and Philippines Islands. The destruction of their craft does enemy little or no harm and is forbidden."

Yes, that's it. Thanks very much.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by merc4ulfate

Sink them all. They either contain materials for the enemy or are being used as scouts so sink them all. If there are survivors ... well you have a 50 caliber on board so put it to use.



"Execute against Japan": The U.S. Decision to Conduct Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
Joel Ira Holwitt 2009

Page 170-172 talks about the decision and severity of unconditional warfare against the Empire of Japan. Enemy combatants whether in the water swimming or ashore with guns the ready are still all combatants until they are dead. Mush Morton knew this, lived this and died observing this. The enemy is the enemy whether he is holding a gun or his breath while swimming.

Placard inside Mush Mortons boat were these words found in several places,

Shoot the sunza bitches

When the Wahoo returned to Pearl with it broom help high a flag on the aft periscope said

Shoot the sunza bitches

Unlike the day we live in when the military is taught to be a gentle as a pussy cat ... unrestricted warfare agasint an enemy meant ...

SHOOT THE SUNZA BITCHES

Words expressed in this post are not meant to be used as by words but simply quotes from text used in a book to describe actual events and usage.

Cited works:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Urh...0japan&f=false

Mush Morton also was denied the CMH, to which he was arguably entitled. O'Kane believes it was because of the Buyo Maru incident. It did not strengthen Morton's case that the majority of the Buyo Maru survivors (and casualities) were Indian POWs.

Morton was a brave man and an outstanding submarine commander. He was also well off the mode in his attitudes, even for 1941-1945, even for the US Navy of that time. Even Dick O'Kane, who idolized Morton, seems at times to get a little bit uncomfortable when recording Morton's attitudes. From the accounts I have read, Morton does not seem to have been either typical or the ideal submarine commander.

You can roleplay SH4 as a Mush Morton kind of guy. That's your option. But you don't have to adopt his viewpoint to play the game like an authentic US sub skipper.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

You can roleplay SH4 as a Mush Morton kind of guy. That's your option. But you don't have to adopt his viewpoint to play the game like an authentic US sub skipper.

In strong contrast to Mush Morton, you have Slade Cutter of the Seahorse. Cutter recalled his officers "loved gun action." Having sunken several unarmed trawlers, Cutter had become sickened by the slaughter and decided not to attack any others. Another trawler came into sight and Cutter declined to attack. Later he said, "One of my officers came to me with our operation order, which said something like "You shall sink all vessels encountered by torpedoes or gunfire." He argued that these boats were feeding the Japanese and might be serving as aircraft and submarine warning patrols. So I said, 'Oh hell,' or something to that effect and ordered battle stations surface. Another Japanese trawler went down. No survivors." All this was too bloodthirsty for Cutter. He never authorized another gun attack on small craft.

So, policy on fishing boats, sampans and native ships really seemed to settle on the skipper on the spot.

[BigWalleye]

It is true - or at least a widely held belief - that some sampans and fishing boats were spotting for the Japanese and radioing reports. (I don't recall - do sampans/trawlers in SH4 ever have visible radio masts?) It is also true that some small craft were pressed into service by the Japanese as supply haulers. And some of the fishing vessels were helping to feed the Japanese. So a case could be made for attacking small craft as a way to harm the enemy and protect your own boat. But a majority of the small craft, particularly in the Philipines and Pacific islands, were likely to be just civilians trying to feed their families by the only means they had.

Whether these consititute a legitmate target or not was, as Dread Knot said, up the the skipper on the spot. YMMV.

[Dread Knot]

Ultimately, the biggest killers of these small ships being used in the Japanese supply chain weren't submarines, but aircraft. Early in the war aerial attacks were possible only during daylight hours, when these boats were generally laid up in coastal hideouts. But the introduction of airborne radar enabled Allied pilots to seek out the little craft during their nocturnal treks out in the open, when they were most vulnerable. In 1943 the Americans began stripping down B-24 heavy bombers to install a full complement of detection gear. The resulting SB-24D, or "Snooper" had an impressive array of radar equipment for locating small craft in the dead of night. Barge hunting became an around the clock exercise for Allied airmen. Eventually the US turned out 1,500 of the Mitchell B-25H or G with a 75mm cannon in it's nose for use in the Pacific. One shot could obliterate a barge or schooner. The Allies also ravaged small ships with everything from single seat P-39s to four engine B-17s. In addition, PT-Boats operating at night unquestionably exacted a gruesome toll from the small craft scurrying about the combat zones.

So, if you want to pass on sinking those small fry, rest assured that somebody will eventually take care of them.

[Sailor Steve]

I normally only sink boats like that if I think they've seen me. If I can dive in time and am reasonably certain I haven't been spotted I usually leave them alone.

One of the things I've discovered in my World War 1 research is the number of u-boat commanders who attacked and sank whole British fishing fleets. On the other hand they pretty much universally put the crews in lifeboats and scuttle the trawlers with dynamight charges or shells after they were abandoned.

[Threadfin]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

But you don't have to adopt his viewpoint to play the game like an authentic US sub skipper.

Agreed. Good post.

[Aktungbby]

I think my two posts set the trend; anything that may benefit the enemy either by feeding the enemy population or reporting the position of your vessel... is to be eliminated- W. T. Sherman: "War is Hell" and this is how you shorten it ultimately. I recall that a few trawlers caused U-boats difficulty from time to time : U-boats sunk by trawlers (at least partial credit): U-111, U-343, U-452, U-551, U-731, and U-732. http://www.uboat.net/allies/ships/trawlers.htm " The Royal Navy maintained a small inventory of trawlers in peacetime, but requisitioned much larger numbers of civilian trawlers in wartime. The larger and newer trawlers and whalers were converted for antisubmarine use and the older and smaller trawlers were converted to minesweepers.
In September 1939, while 140 newly requisitioned trawlers were fitting out for antisubmarine" BOTTOM LINE: Altogether a proper military target...at all times!

[talon1981]

Good Post