survivors? spare no-one!

[Crawlerz]

so i torpedoed a small destroyer. a couple of floaters remained after the ship sunk. and no, i don't mean dead bodies (DBs). by floaters, i mean rubber boats with some sorvivors. my question is - is there anything u can do with/to them? maybe pop the top and SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND! on them w/my .50 cal:shifty: ?:nope: or can they be picked up?

[vatek]

I spent about 15 minutes chasing one while blazing away with my deck gun, to no avail.

Was after I sunk my first enemy ship, too.

[GakunGak]

There's no way to shot down survivors as the devs predicted that many are the "Tony Montana" style in Die Hard skin....
Since you can't go Rambo on them, try to rescue them...:yep:

[switch.dota]

There's no way to shot down survivors as the devs predicted that many are the "Tony Montana" style in Die Hard skin....
Since you can't go Rambo on them, try to rescue them...:yep:
Can't do that either.

[GakunGak]

There's no way to shot down survivors as the devs predicted that many are the "Tony Montana" style in Die Hard skin....
Since you can't go Rambo on them, try to rescue them...:yep:
Can't do that either.
M2, but try to:
1. Maneuver very close to them at slow speed
2. Use binoculars and center at them
3. Under watch panel, select a circle button.

[vatek]

You can't rescue enemy survivors as far as I know.

[NefariousKoel]

I've destroyed their rafts with the 20mm.

[Major Johnson]

I remember seeing a show on the History Channel about WW2 subs and there was footage of someone actually shooting a Japanese suriviver in the water with a thompson on the single shot setting I believe. I think they said "1" of the reasons was that they couldn't take him prisoner (no room/they couldn't trust him) and it was better than leaving him to die a slow death. Pretty grissly footage I must say!

[acetoolguy]

This is a feature I liked at first but got pretty sick of soon. You sink a couple of liners and you have half an ocean of life boats bobbing up an down and your first office yelling "ship spotted" for each and every one. They make it hard to track other ships because of all the clutter on the map. I would welcome a mod to disable lifeboats and those other merchants floating in the sky.

[FIREWALL]

You can take out life rafts and life boats with deck gun. For some reason it shows life raft or life boat = 1 ton in Captains log.

[SteamWake]

I just want my crew to quit calling "ship spotted".

Its not a ship you dip.. its a liferaft !

While Im on a rant. Why in the heck to liferafts show up on sonar anyhow ?

[Packerton]

Actually I think that if they coulden take him prisoner and he was already dieing the most humane thing to do was to just end his suffering.

Its not a devilish thing to do or anything.

[AkbarGulag]

Have seen footage of American sailors using .50 caliblre weapons after naval encounters in WWII on surviving enemy combatants. In one such episode, it took the sailors around four hours to clear the sea of living japanese sailors.

[GTHammer]

Like Fire and Nefarious I took the time to sink one with my deck gun once...hard little buggers to hit though...I was hoping I'd send survivors catapulting through the air but alas...afterwards I would have rather had my 20 rounds of HE back...but I'll try anything once...or twice...:)

[vatek]

This is a feature I liked at first but got pretty sick of soon. You sink a couple of liners and you have half an ocean of life boats bobbing up an down and your first office yelling "ship spotted" for each and every one. They make it hard to track other ships because of all the clutter on the map. I would welcome a mod to disable lifeboats and those other merchants floating in the sky. I would think that the FO reporting ship spotted for lifeboats is more along the lines of a bug than a feature.

[acetoolguy]

I was referring to the whole lifeboat thing. I know it was a hot topic for a while in SHIII, and i thought it was cool at first but quickly got tired of it.

[kikn79]

I think it would be a cool option to be able to pick up survivors (you could have a maximum number you could carry) and it would give you extra renown when you get back to port. The downfall would be that you couldn't go to silent running due to the fact that you have to guard the prisoners. Kind of a give/take situation.

It would also be neat if they had "hell ships" in the game where the survivors could be allied POWs that you could rescue for even extra renown. It might make for some interesting game play if you couldn't just run completely away if you saw that there were allied POWs. You would have to stick around (within visual range, anyway) and wait for the escorts to leave before you could rescue.

I know it's a pipe dream, but would be neat NTL....

Chuck

[Crawlerz]

I think it would be a cool option to be able to pick up survivors (you could have a maximum number you could carry) and it would give you extra renown when you get back to port. The downfall would be that you couldn't go to silent running due to the fact that you have to guard the prisoners. Kind of a give/take situation.

It would also be neat if they had "hell ships" in the game where the survivors could be allied POWs that you could rescue for even extra renown. It might make for some interesting game play if you couldn't just run completely away if you saw that there were allied POWs. You would have to stick around (within visual range, anyway) and wait for the escorts to leave before you could rescue.

I know it's a pipe dream, but would be neat NTL....

Chuck
hhe, yeah... cool thought. btw, why would guarding the prisoners take away silent running? POWs sabotaging the craft by noise? or own crew noise? what do u mean?

[kikn79]

I think it would be a cool option to be able to pick up survivors (you could have a maximum number you could carry) and it would give you extra renown when you get back to port. The downfall would be that you couldn't go to silent running due to the fact that you have to guard the prisoners. Kind of a give/take situation.

It would also be neat if they had "hell ships" in the game where the survivors could be allied POWs that you could rescue for even extra renown. It might make for some interesting game play if you couldn't just run completely away if you saw that there were allied POWs. You would have to stick around (within visual range, anyway) and wait for the escorts to leave before you could rescue.

I know it's a pipe dream, but would be neat NTL....

Chuck
hhe, yeah... cool thought. btw, why would guarding the prisoners take away silent running? POWs sabotaging the craft by noise? or own crew noise? what do u mean?

Sure. Something like that. Just something so you might not want to take prisoners. Maybe an increase in breaking percentage due to sabotage? Lowered crew performance as they have to deal with the prisoners? Anything like that so that its not just easy renown....

Chuck

[vatek]

It would have to be a hell of a lot of renown to give up silent running for the remainder of a patrol. I would think most players would choose not to rescue survivors if it cost you the ability to survive against escorts...

[kv29]

Shooting at unarmed people floating in the sea is murder, even at war (one have to be really a wacko to enjoy doing this).

There is no need to do such a thing, not even for pious reasons, not while we have a chance to rescue them (which is very different from a case in which we really CANT do a damn thing to save someone from a certain death and is better to put a bullet on him rather than leaving him in pain)

Besides, in RL people in liferafts HAVE a chance of being rescued by other type of ships, or even reach the shore (Bligh and some other crewmen casted away from the HMS Bounty survived a 3600 nm travel in a small boat!), which should not be our concern.

All we want is their ships.

[DiveMonkey]

I think it would be a cool option to be able to pick up survivors (you could have a maximum number you could carry) and it would give you extra renown when you get back to port. The downfall would be that you couldn't go to silent running due to the fact that you have to guard the prisoners. Kind of a give/take situation.

It would also be neat if they had "hell ships" in the game where the survivors could be allied POWs that you could rescue for even extra renown. It might make for some interesting game play if you couldn't just run completely away if you saw that there were allied POWs. You would have to stick around (within visual range, anyway) and wait for the escorts to leave before you could rescue.

I know it's a pipe dream, but would be neat NTL....

Chuck

This is a cool idea. You could have them take up any extra crew spots you have on board...all spots full, no more prisoners!

I'd still want silent running to work, ("I said, put him in submission!")...repair times would be greatly increased while you have men guarding prisoners instead of manning their stations.

[kikn79]

It would have to be a hell of a lot of renown to give up silent running for the remainder of a patrol. I would think most players would choose not to rescue survivors if it cost you the ability to survive against escorts...

Exactly my point. You have to have some give and take. Real captains took risks to secure POWs as you didn't know what was going to happen when you got them aboard. As we don't really have any "real" danger associated with taking a prisoner, you need to have it affect something major so it's not just "free" renown.


This is a cool idea. You could have them take up any extra crew spots you have on board...all spots full, no more prisoners!


Excellent suggestion.


Chuck

[Reaves]

I just send a radio message so my good mate the Admiral can send some ships out to pickup the special cargo.

No POWS in my boat. My crew would just kill them. Especially after what happened to little Johnny. :roll:

[tater]

In general, the "all we want is their ships" is true, but when facing a suicidal enemy that elects to fight to the death (pointlessly), every one you leave alive at large is another that you must kill later. I've read many accounts of sinking in the PTO, and I'm always amazed that so many actually survived and were picked up.

Might as well kill them while it's easy to do so, and before they can kill some of your own. Note that I don't think this applies to a non-suicidal enemy.

[Reaves]

In general, the "all we want is their ships" is true, but when facing a suicidal enemy that elects to fight to the death (pointlessly)


Think what you would do if your country was being invaded. I'm sure plenty of French sacrificed themselves for the benefit of the Allied forces.

Many of the Japanese were of the opinion that they must stop the American's reaching japan to save their families. Misguided bravery maybe, but certainly not pointless when you think of what they were fighting for. Your home. :cry:

[Rose]

To respond to the OP: I have successfully sunk a few life rafts with my deck gun. I don't relish in it... merely wanted to see if it was possible.

[joegrundman]

Nice one Tater,

so germans machine gunning survivors of torpedoed american and british ships = bad, evil etc.

while americans machine gunning survivors of torpedoed japanese ships = good, worthy etc.

That's war for you, even 60 years later, it would seem.

[Reaves]

Nice one Tater,

so germans machine gunning survivors of torpedoed american and british ships = bad, evil etc.

while americans machine gunning survivors of torpedoed japanese ships = good, worthy etc.

That's war for you, even 60 years later, it would seem.

They're all evil!! Except Australians who did it..... :rotfl:

[DiveMonkey]

I've heard all this before in the IL-2 forums.
Than it was "should you kill the pilot while he's hanging in his chute?" Most pilots thought it dishonorable and wouldn't do it.

Others took the more practical stand "I kill him today! or he kills me tomorrow!"

I found what I thought was a middle ground, if over my territory I'd spare him in hopes he'd be captured.

Over his territory I'd kill him, knowing he'd most likely be back in the fight in a day or two. But than I'm only killing pixels ain't I! It is ironic we chose to play war games, hiding in ambush for hr's sometimes days so we can "without warning" kill as many pixels as we can. Than argue the morality of it all :oops: I've never been to war!...thank God or evolution or whatever, so I don't think I'm qualified to sit in judgment of what these men did 60 years ago...in the heat of battle!

As for American sub commanders ordering the shooting of survivors I've never seen any evidence of this. That's not to say it didn't happen, but someone claims to have seen video of it I'd like to see it...got link?

[TheSatyr]

It's a known FACT that Mush Morton on the Wahoo ordered his crew to shoot up the lifeboats of a transport they had just sunk. Too bad they killed more POWs than they did Japanese. His men even shot one that was trying to surrender since Morton didn't want any "Nips" on his boat.

[DiveMonkey]

It's a known FACT that Mush Morton on the Wahoo ordered his crew to shoot up the lifeboats of a transport they had just sunk. Too bad they killed more POWs than they did Japanese. His men even shot one that was trying to surrender since Morton didn't want any "Nips" on his boat.

http://www.warfish.com/patrol3con.html ...A good link that puts it in perspective. Much the same as shooting parachutes, all sides did it...but it was not common practice or policy...not for most anyway.

Both fiercely aggressive and competitive by nature, the intersection of Morton and the boats of BUYO MARU was a collision of personality and power. In the middle of fourteen hours of combat and faced for the first time with personal contact with the enemy, emotions ran exceedingly hot. Morton clearly viewed the men in the water as combatant soldiers only recently on their way to fight Americans in the jungles of New Guinea - a valid assumption based on the information available to him. General hostility became personified in those "troops". And the crack and whiz of rounds fired at WAHOO as they approached reinforced his assumptions. Morton's order to fire the first single round into the boats was both a challenge and a dare. The response of machine gun fire was like the opening kickoff to a football game. One Morton was determined not to lose.

[joegrundman]

The only perspective that that article provides is that of the contemporary US right, whose desperate need to burnish America's halo is matched only by the nationalistic of all other nations and empires, past and present.

Removing the patriotic, red-blooded man, 9-11 talk, what you have is that it was OK, because he was really, really angry and anyway the Japs attacked us first, didn't they.

This sort of thing could be used to justify almost any atrocity comitted by anybody.

My opinion is that you would not agree that an angry Iraqi, whose family members were bombed by the US in gulf wars 1 and 2, and who has recently blown up a Humvee full of GIs would be justified in his actions. Certainly not if he then shot those GIs while crawling from their burning car.

So I am left wondering if you believe atrocities are only atrocities if performed by non-Americans, and that if Americans "cross the line" somehow, it must be for natural human reasons.

I am not anti-american, quite the opposite. But the US conduct in wars of the past has not been blameless. Americans fought war using similar brutal methods to those that others used, and in the case of air raids, the UK and US worked at a whole level beyond what anyone else did.

Where America proved its moral worth was not in the conduct of the war, but in its conduct after the war, which was, in my opinion, a display of greatness of spirit without historical precedent.

[STEED]

I leave them alone to drift in the sea unless they are survivors from a destroyer which banged up my boat then are surface and mow them all down with my AA guns. :arrgh!:

[AkbarGulag]

It's just a shame the Americans didn't start carnage of some form two years earlier. Australia and New Zealand already had no illusions about the Japanese. They were coming :gulp: .

Havn't had an inclination to try and use guns on em, damn tricky to ram the little blighters though, those guys can really pull those oars!!

Anyone else noticed when the rafts are bumped together they make big ship hull sounds? like they are steel hulled 5,000 ton vessels or something :doh:

[AirborneCZ]

:down: :down: :down:

Im just really surprised how many of you is gunning down the survivors.

Your "simulation" of behaviour of US sub crews is much worse than behaviour of total majority of German U-boot crews in WWII

shame on you.


Read this article and think about yourself


http://uboat.net/articles/index.html?article=55

[Argus00]

Since it's a GAME, I've shot at absolutely everything that I could that floats/dives/flies/walks in the GAME - enemy, allied, neutral. Why? First off, because I could. Second, it's a GAME.

[tater]

Every japanese not killed at sea heading to the front (or heading home, had we had to invade---a certainty without the bombing campaign) would have been killed anyway, the only difference is that allied troops would have lost their lives doing so. That is 98-99% true since only 1-2% of japanese surrendered. Allied units surrounded could have bled the IJA very badly indeed, but they knew they'd still eventually lose, so they surrendered (Singapore, Hong Kong, Philipines, etc) to spare lives on both sides. For their trouble they were brutalized and murdered.

So churning the water seems pretty reasonable instead of digging them out of caves with TNT and napalm later at great loss of allied life (look at the bloodbaths the Marines faced doing such warm work).

At that point, the PTO became a "no holds barred" conflict for the most part. The Allies treated POWs well, but took very few POWs. It took "bribes" to the troops to even get them to accept japanese surrenders since they would frequently use surrender as a guise to kill our troops. Had large units surrendered more, it might have been different, but the numbers even trying were so low, the % of faked surrenders was high.

It's interesting to note that in the ETO POWs were usually taken in sizable groups, not individuals (at least by the US). This suggests that singleton surrenders might not have been worth the trouble to accept.

[DiveMonkey]

I'm an American! I'm not from Mars,...that means I have as much right as anyone else to inflict pain and suffering.

I'm also a realist, there's no such thing as a fair fight and the end justifies the means. We (the Allies) won the war because we inflicted more death and destruction faster than our enemy.

As for killing pixels...I'm a realist, it's a pixel...

[TheSatyr]

Regardless of whether it's a game or not,the lack of morals I find in people these days is a bit frightning. Makes it easier to see how some soldiers in Iraq can commit outright murder and rape. Somewhere along the line,morality got thrown out the window.

[kikn79]

The only perspective that that article provides is that of the contemporary US right, whose desperate need to burnish America's halo is matched only by the nationalistic of all other nations and empires, past and present.

Removing the patriotic, red-blooded man, 9-11 talk, what you have is that it was OK, because he was really, really angry and anyway the Japs attacked us first, didn't they.

This sort of thing could be used to justify almost any atrocity comitted by anybody.

My opinion is that you would not agree that an angry Iraqi, whose family members were bombed by the US in gulf wars 1 and 2, and who has recently blown up a Humvee full of GIs would be justified in his actions. Certainly not if he then shot those GIs while crawling from their burning car.

So I am left wondering if you believe atrocities are only atrocities if performed by non-Americans, and that if Americans "cross the line" somehow, it must be for natural human reasons.

I am not anti-american, quite the opposite. But the US conduct in wars of the past has not been blameless. Americans fought war using similar brutal methods to those that others used, and in the case of air raids, the UK and US worked at a whole level beyond what anyone else did.

Where America proved its moral worth was not in the conduct of the war, but in its conduct after the war, which was, in my opinion, a display of greatness of spirit without historical precedent.

From warfish.com:


One of the main issues surrounding the charge of war crimes has been body count. Upon returning to Pearl Harbor on February 14, 1943, Morton claimed killing "most of the troops" from BUYO MARU, estimated at between "1,500 to 6,000." And from the perspective of WAHOO's smoke clouded, emotionally charged bridge, it was a fair claim to make. No attempt was made to count heads in the water and Japanese transport ships were entirely capable of carrying large numbers of men. However, in DeRose's book, Japanese reports and first hand testimony reveals the true number of passengers lost and their nature. For BUYO MARU was not exclusively a troop transport but also a POW ship, loaded with 491 Indian prisoners of war. Along with a company of Japanese ordnance troops and crew, BUYO carried 1,126 men. And though the men of WAHOO assumed those left behind when they set off in pursuit of the rest of the convoy would be lost to the sea, Japanese rescue ships did arrive on the scene and take most of the survivors aboard. Head counts made en route to Palau indicated a total loss of 87 Japanese and 195 Indian prisoners (the disparity in numbers reflects a less-than-concerted Japanese effort to rescue the Indians).

If only 87 japaneese lost their lives, it is fairly obvious that it was not a "mass slaughter." They aimed for the boats and (according to O'Kane) did not single out any individual soldier which appears true in light of the total amount killed.

An example from Wiki on the sinking of the Yamato:

Only 280 of the Yamato 2,778-man crew were rescued from the sinking ship. Japanese survivors reported that U.S. aircraft temporarily halted their attacks on the Japanese destroyers during the time that the destroyers were busy picking up survivors from the water.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#_note-2)

I think that you'll find that the treatment of POWs was in general far better on the allied side of the war than from the axis powers. No where in America did any POW have the equivalent treatment of the Bataan Death March or have heads chopped off with a sword for not being able to stand.

How many allied officers were tried for war crimes? How many axis?

Chuck

[tater]

True, once taken as a POW by the Aliies, you were in good shape. I know many German POWs elected to stay in the US. The death rate for POWs held by the Japanese was over 40% I believe (compared to ~4% for those held by the Germans). To even get to that point you'd need to survive to even be considered a POW. Many were offed on the spot.

[DiveMonkey]

Regardless of whether it's a game or not,the lack of morals I find in people these days is a bit frightning. Makes it easier to see how some soldiers in Iraq can commit outright murder and rape. Somewhere along the line,morality got thrown out the window.

Yep! that's us. Morally bankrupt. Nothing like starting the day with a little rape, pillage, and plunder.

Personally I think we should take the gloves off. Carpet bomb a few cities just to get the point across. We're sick of your ****.

But that's just me...I think it foolish to let PC dictate combat strategy...I think it prolongs the suffering and costs lives.

[Oberon]

Be wary when near Jap survivors, some of them, particularly failed Kamikaze pilots, had a nasty trick up their sleeve. (http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/movies/jap_grenade)

[GTHammer]

Regardless of whether it's a game or not,the lack of morals I find in people these days is a bit frightning. Makes it easier to see how some soldiers in Iraq can commit outright murder and rape. Somewhere along the line,morality got thrown out the window.
Yep! that's us. Morally bankrupt. Nothing like starting the day with a little rape, pillage, and plunder.

Personally I think we should take the gloves off. Carpet bomb a few cities just to get the point across. We're sick of your ****.

But that's just me...I think it foolish to let PC dictate combat strategy...I think it prolongs the suffering and costs lives.


Easy now fellas...if this escalates than this baby is gunna get shut down and I'm enjoying the debate/discussion, so lets play nice please? :ping:

[AVGWarhawk]

Thus closes another thread that went south. Thead to reopen when the heat is turned down some!

[AVGWarhawk]

Thead now open for business. Keep the heat down. Nice discussion and does not need to be stoked.

[Reaves]

Biggles thought it wrong to shoot pilots whilst in a parachute. But does that mean you can't shoot paratroopers?

When it comes to shooting survivors, who can say what was right.

One persons hero is anothers villain. One persons patriot is anothers terrorist. One thing for certain though, anyone who kills civillains is a murderer. (Collateral damage not included as harsh as it is.) A soldier, sailor or airmen/person (PC) knows that what they do may lead them to their deaths. The ultimate sacrifice.

[AVGWarhawk]

Regardless of whether it's a game or not,the lack of morals I find in people these days is a bit frightning. Makes it easier to see how some soldiers in Iraq can commit outright murder and rape. Somewhere along the line,morality got thrown out the window.

Before anyone throws out something like this as something new by any stretch of the imagination, please read deeply the inhumanity suffered during WW2. Not much morality then.

//http://chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/27/content_861767.htm (http://chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/27/content_861767.htm)

Here is just one tidbit of information concerning morality issue. I do not see where it has been thrown out. It existed then as it does now. What, do you believe these women were in servitude for a few guys? Try a platoon. Hollywood and reality are two very different things.

[AVGWarhawk]

One persons hero is anothers villain. One persons patriot is anothers terrorist. One thing for certain though, anyone who kills civillains is a murderer. (Collateral damage not included as harsh as it is.) A soldier, sailor or airmen/person (PC) knows that what they do may lead them to their deaths. The ultimate sacrifice.

Very true. More often than not, most invisioned the enemy that got away as the one to kill another day. One has to remember, whatever happened that day, Mush Morton had a deep seated vengence and large toy to vent that vengence. At sea, you are pretty much on your own to do as you wish. IMHO, I believe Morton thought he was doing the right thing, taking out enemy troops that if left adrift could possibly be picked up and fighting again. In the heighted state of excitment and adrenelin flowing, Morton saw troops that need not be in the war anymore. At least, this is how I perceive that particular piece of the patrol.

[Navigator857]

Evening all. Thought I'd throw my opinion in this debate. I served in the U.S. Navy for 10 years, and although I did not live in the WWII era I have many family members who did. Two were killed in Pearl Harbor, three on Iwo Jima and 1 in Normandy. That being said, I still get unnerved when I watch film footage from December 7th, 1941, the Islands campaigns and the European Theater. Although I served during the cold war with the U.S.S.R. I can't begin to imagine the horrors the men and women that served in the Allied forces endured from the crushing blows delivered from the Axis military.

I guess my input to this subject regarding the shooting of parachutes or floating survivers is this. Unless we, as the Subsim community were there, actually living the experience, then we can't understand the hostility, anger, probably hatred and distrust the Allies had for the enemy. Add to that the combat environment, it would seem that the every day plan-ole-plan-ole that we enjoy would be lost. So, before we, as the community judge any other on morality or "right or wrong" we should take that into account a bit I would think.

As far as shooting survivers in the game, I have visions of Saving Private Ryan in my head in regards to the German released, only to kill again another day. Just MHO

[Reaves]

Well said Navigator. That sums it up clearly and in my opinion is case closed. :know:

[tater]

For the PTO it also needs to be put in cultural context.

The japanese did not sign the GC. They did not believe in the GC. Dying was preferable to surrender. No quarter was asked by the Japanese. Little was given.

For the multiculturalists: we respected their culture, and fought them the way they fought, and wished to be fought.

[joegrundman]

I apologise for not making myself clearer.

I was referring specifically to the business of fighting in the theater of operations. It was total war of course, and a brutal and nasty business of death and killing. Yes, I also had plenty of family members who fought, died, or were murdered in the two world wars. Family members fought and died on both sides in the first world war as half my grandparents were German Jews who fled to Britain in the 1930s.

It is without question that the right side won, and that what the Nazis in particular were doing behind the frontline was the nearest thing to pure evil that the modern world has seen.

What I am arguing is that we did not win the second world war by playing nice, and to pretend that it was cricket, or baseball, by other means is disingenuous. We won by being able to throw more lead and explosives at the enemy while fielding more aircraft, men, ships and tanks than they did. Which is exactly what they were trying to do to us. The net result was lots of dead people, broken and bereaved families and devastated societies.

The theaters were characterised with different cultural norms, if you will, with regard to prisoners. The Western European theatre between Germany and the US and Great Britain was characterised with a certain respect for each other, and POW's were treated well and were able to go home afterwards.The Russians and Germans were more ruthless to each other (but not as ruthless as the russians were to their own POWs) and the Japanese and Americans were more ruthless to each other.

My guess is that this was due to senses of cultural similiarity and otherness, as well as Japanese norms.

But I will repeat that the US conduct after the war was something profoundly great. If only the axis powers could have believed how they'd be treated, they would maybe have surrendered years earlier. Who knows? It was probably beyond their imagination.

[AVGWarhawk]

I guess my input to this subject regarding the shooting of parachutes or floating survivers is this. Unless we, as the Subsim community were there, actually living the experience, then we can't understand the hostility, anger, probably hatred and distrust the Allies had for the enemy. Add to that the combat environment, it would seem that the every day plan-ole-plan-ole that we enjoy would be lost. So, before we, as the community judge any other on morality or "right or wrong" we should take that into account a bit I would think.

As far as shooting survivers in the game, I have visions of Saving Private Ryan in my head in regards to the German released, only to kill again another day. Just MHO

Exactly my sentiments in my last post. Young guys who felt they were done wrong (Pearl Harbor) and were correct. Guys who lied about age to get in and serve. Young guys who like you and me got a pellet gun as kid and shot anything in the woods that moved. After the action, heighten senses, almost a out of body experience. Similar to the study of police high speed chases and the policemans reaction after the suspect is caught. There is more than just a moral thought behind it, it is a psycological issue as well. If you read up on Morton and those that served with him (O'Kane, Paige), both stated Morton had a deep seated vengence.

As stated by Navigator, very like the German released only to kill a soldier later as shown in Saving Private Ryan. Probably much the same thought processes Morton was thinking at the time. It was war fellas, it is either him or me.

[mookiemookie]

Evening all. Thought I'd throw my opinion in this debate. I served in the U.S. Navy for 10 years, and although I did not live in the WWII era I have many family members who did. Two were killed in Pearl Harbor, three on Iwo Jima and 1 in Normandy. That being said, I still get unnerved when I watch film footage from December 7th, 1941, the Islands campaigns and the European Theater. Although I served during the cold war with the U.S.S.R. I can't begin to imagine the horrors the men and women that served in the Allied forces endured from the crushing blows delivered from the Axis military.

I guess my input to this subject regarding the shooting of parachutes or floating survivers is this. Unless we, as the Subsim community were there, actually living the experience, then we can't understand the hostility, anger, probably hatred and distrust the Allies had for the enemy. Add to that the combat environment, it would seem that the every day plan-ole-plan-ole that we enjoy would be lost. So, before we, as the community judge any other on morality or "right or wrong" we should take that into account a bit I would think.

As far as shooting survivers in the game, I have visions of Saving Private Ryan in my head in regards to the German released, only to kill again another day. Just MHO
One of the most important things that I learned in my college history class on day 1 was to not impose modern day standards of morality on events that happened in the past. Those events were a product of the culture, the people, the events, the overall zeitgeist. There are those that try and connect events of 60-odd years ago and today, and in doing so ignore all of the changes and cultural shifts that have occurred since then, and that's wrong.

[AVGWarhawk]

One of the most important things that I learned in my college history class on day 1 was to not impose modern day standards of morality on events that happened in the past. Those events were a product of the culture, the people, the events, the overall zeitgeist. Those that try and connect events of 60-odd years ago and today ignore all of the changes and cultural shifts that have occurred since then, and that's wrong

Yes, one must disconnect themselves and be a spectator looking in at all the different factors concerning time/place/circumstances. Objective observer as it were. Comparing the then and now is not the best route to take when dissecting certain events in history. It needs to be taken at face value for the time it occurred.

[DiveMonkey]

I guess if any comfort is to be had it's the difference between what we fought for and...what they fought for!

[rman214]

Do like Mush Morton did, Shoot The Sunzab**ches!:arrgh!:

[AkbarGulag]

My Grandfather spoke of using AA guns to down paratroopers in Crete, but he never had a feeling of ill will to Germans, in fact, he said if surrender had ever been innevitable, he had no problem with German soldiers taking him captive.

On the other hand, he never spoke of engaging (and him and his comrades did often) Italians, but he said no one in his unit would ever allow themselves to be captured by them, as they couldnt be trusted, I also get the distinct feeling that the Italians may have recieved less than friendly treatment when captured by men from my grandfathers unit.

The point im trying to make here is, he didnt 'hate' any enemy he fought. He just hated them for how 'They' fought. And the way they were treated was more often than not, a reflection of their own behaviour.

[SirMoric]

Paratroopers are valid targets, whereas airmen bailing out are not.

For one it's his way to get to the battlefield, like an APC, for the other it is his "liferaft".

rgds