Shipwrecked Japs - Live - or let Die?

[cazorp]

What's your take on this subject, do you engage lifeboats and rafts, or do you let them float away? In the real war I believe subcommanders used to take prisoners, at least to gain information about ships name, weight, cargo etc. Later in the war I believe there was a doctrine ordering subcommanders not to take prisoners due to the risk of suicide attacks. Found this youtube clip last night, a small warning is in place, some may find this disturbing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gFQH54k0M

[JackAubrey]

What's your take on this subject, do you engage lifeboats and rafts
Never.

[Steiger]

I hit one once just see if the boats or crews took damage. But really I have better things to point my guns at.

[breadcatcher101]

I hit one with a torpedo once although not by design. Was set at 6 feet set to go off with contact, yet still hit the lifeboat, was trying for another carrier with my stern tubes.

I just leave them alone, you are going after their cargo, not them. Even if they are combat troops off a hit transport I break off the attack. They afterall have lost their gear, weapons and the like and have most of the time little chance of rescue. Hanging around to dispatch them should you have a disire to would expose your boat to air attack anyway.

[Webster]

What's your take on this subject, do you engage lifeboats and rafts, or do you let them float away? In the real war I believe subcommanders used to take prisoners, at least to gain information about ships name, weight, cargo etc. Later in the war I believe there was a doctrine ordering subcommanders not to take prisoners due to the risk of suicide attacks. Found this youtube clip last night, a small warning is in place, some may find this disturbing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gFQH54k0M

it was true that there were a few situations were this happened but it wasnt as bad as that "fake" video with gunnery training shots mixed with clips of guys in the water was faked to make you think they were shooting people in the water. at the end there was two scenes with a real view of men being shot but this was very very rare and you would be severely punished if you were known to have done it.

the only time such a thing was deemed "understandable" was if you were deep in enemy territory and had no choice because you couldnt risk taking them onboard and leaving them alive would give away your position or presence in the area and get you killed

[Steiger]

I think maybe now is a good time to mention the Wahoo's attack on a troop transport. After being struck, the troops took to various life boats, all of which the Wahoo sank with gunfire. I think the estimate of killed was 1,500. I know there's a sort of moral ambiguity there, but if you think about it, when playing for keeps like that, it really was the best course of action.

[cazorp]

A combattant is a combattant unless they clearly surrenders, or otherwise can be judged not fit for fiting, feel free to compare with gun camera footage from Iraq/Afghanistan, where AH-pilots seems to be pretty vigilante in completing the task with various insurgents..


Webster - Agreed, the footage is very propaganda, actually I believe the guy in the water uses a handgrenade on himself(?) and the soldiers (try) to kill him to avoid an attack. But non the less, there is a huge difference between "not helping" and "killing on purpose". The germans took the same approach after 1942, prohibiting their u-boot commanders to rescue any survivors after the Laconia-incident outside africa;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident


This is the german Lanconia order in English;


All efforts to save survivors of sunken ships, such as the fishing out of swimming men and putting them on board lifeboats, the righting of overturned lifeboats, or the handing over of food and water, must stop. Rescue contradicts the most basic demands of the war: the destruction of hostile ships and their crews.
The orders concerning the bringing-in of skippers and chief engineers stay in effect.
Survivors are to be saved only if their statements are important for the boat.
Stay firm. Remember that the enemy has no regard for women and children when bombing German cities!

[Munchausen]

I think maybe now is a good time to mention the Wahoo's attack on a troop transport. After being struck, the troops took to various life boats, all of which the Wahoo sank with gunfire.

:hmmm: Dick O'Kane also indicates, in his book, that the action might've cost Mush Morton his career (at the very least) had he survived the war.

[Buddahaid]

I hit one with a torpedo once although not by design. Was set at 6 feet set to go off with contact, yet still hit the lifeboat, was trying for another carrier with my stern tubes.

That's pretty funny. I leave them alone, but now I think I'll try a torpedo for the hell of it.

[Sniper297]

One of them things they don't like to talk about, if we had lost the war and Mush Morton had survived he definitely would have been tried for war crimes. Run Silent Run Deep was fiction, but in that the captain had a dilemma - if Bungo Pete survived and rowed back to shore he would just get another destroyer and go on killing US subs, so ramming the lifeboats was the lesser of evils. Germans had a similar problem, any merchant seaman rescued would get on another ship, we were building new Liberty cargo ships faster than the U boats could sink them. Not unique to the Navy, same type of discussion during the Battle of Britain - shoot down a Spitfire or Hurricane, the pilot bails out, do you strafe him while he's hanging helpless in his parachute? If you don't, he's gonna get another plane and might kill YOU next time you meet.

There were instances of "atrocities" on both sides where men swimming in the water or hanging from parachutes were "murdered" (quotations because whether these are actual atrocities or murders depends on circumstances and opinions) but in general it didn't happen often merely because it's not efficient. Battle of Britain again, got one squadron of fighters going against a dozen bombers, shoot them all down and you won't have to deal with the same airplanes another day. Same single squadron intercepting 100 bombers heading for London - use up all your ammo shooting down a few of them and the rest drop all their eggs on target. Better idea in that situation, as soon as a bomber jettisons his load and turns around heading for home, that's a "mission kill", he's not gonna get his bombs on target this time, so let him go and try to get another one to jettison his bombs.

That's one of the decisions any commander has to make in wartime, is the risk worth the reward? A lifeboat is no threat to me and isn't gonna get the supplies to the enemy, surfacing to destroy it doesn't help my side all that much and puts my sub at risk from air attack or possibly there's a destroyer on the way. Not gonna win the war trading an expensive submarine for a lifeboat, so after sinking the maru I'm gonna apply the principle of calculated risk and get the hell out of the area before someone shows up to investigate who sank the ship. I do the same thing with convoys and task forces, one attack and GET OUT. Get the biggest ships and let the small fry go, repeated attacks might be heroic but they're increased risks for diminishing returns.

[TomcatMVD]

I once read the story of a German Pilot, who, after a dogfight, knew that the remaining allied pilot had run out of ammo.
He formed up to the allie's side, fired a couple of rounds so as to let him know he was still combat effective... and escorted him for a few miles before letting him go away unharmed.
I guess you can read/hear a lot of stories that portrait both faces of this dilemma.

[cazorp]

Any staff rescued would be taken as POW's, so they wouldnt just end up on another merchant/warship, unless they were set ashore in some enemy territory (which probably also happened to "less important" sailors/civvies cramping the subs).

I wonder where they put POW's during patrols, did they left for port if they had POW's or what was the SOP?

[Sailor Steve]

No, never. I wouldn't to it in real life and I try to play realistically, at least to my lights.

We had this same exact discussion with the same mentions of Wahoo and her skipper back when we were waiting for SH4, and it turned far enough south that it ended up getting locked.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=104999

[Armistead]

They would've never tried Mush for war crimes. In reality he did the right thing. Too much speculation, but being a hero he made a quick decision in combate. The fact is many of those soldiers were close enough to shore to make it and would've killed our soldiers. He did the right thing and took them out. It's speculation about who fired first or what took place. Mush gave orders to shoot the boats, they shot back and they basically let them have it..

But even if he shot them all for for the hell of it, he would've never been charged for war crimes...he was a hero, the worse case, it would've got swept under the table.

For them to charge him, they would've had to bring him up when they had knowledge, not let him go serve his nation heroically only to charge him later.

O'Kane said it bothered him, but that it was the right thing to do.

They certainly had orders to shoot anything that may give away their position. Our subs probably shot a lot more fisherman on junks than soldiers in lifeboats.

As for me, I mostly run over them not to waste bullets, but you have to give them a few rounds so you get credit. I'm in the JP killing business and business is good....taking off on Brad Pitt there.

[Sniper297]

Well, like I say leaving morality aside (civilian casualties collateral damage who the hell cares, better them than us, scorched earth warfare is the only reasonable way to fight) to me it's a question of what you get for it. If they handed out major medals, promotions, and reknown for plinking sampans I'd stay away from battleships and hunt sampans. In the actual war US subs DID sink sampans and fishing boats primarily because they were used as pickets, most had radios aboard and reported sub sightings and were therefore legit targets. Arguably Mush Morton's action WAS justified and made a certain amount of sense - you don't kill them now, eventually they will be re-equipped and shooting at our soldiers. Even if you don't like the Army :salute: your whole purpose in interdicting the enemy supply lines is to help the Army out, you would shell those same enemy soldiers on shore.

For me it boils down to risk and expenditure versus gain - the bad guys are swimming around and have lost all their equipment, so when (if) they finally DO make it to the front lines they won't be able to fight our guys as well, if at all, until they're resupplied. For me it's similar to those stupid little gunboats - definitely a legit target, it's a warship, the Geneva Convention wouldn't argue that you have a perfect RIGHT to sink one. Problem is they're not really worth a single torpedo let alone a spread that would be needed to actually hit one, and surfacing to fight it out they have more guns. Better to just avoid them if you can, if for some reason you HAVE to tangle with one it's best if you didn't use up all your ammo shooting lifeboats. :03:

[Armistead]

In reality, this is a game and these arguments are silly game wise. If it scores points, gives better SS's, who cares. Those little critters aren't real. Most games these days are just brutal. Nothing brutal about running over some bad cartoon figures, but only certain larger wood life boats give you one ton, but it's some points....that' why they put them there.

These debates are better left in serious WW2 forums, not a gaming forum.
If your style is not, fine, but for those that do it, to complain is silly...why,

Cause it's in the game and part of the game.

[Webster]

as sailor steve mentioned, this subject has been fully covered before and i see no reason to go through it all again.

if you are interested in this subject matter or if you feel the need to comment on it then i am sure any opinion you may have wished to convey here was very likely already expressed in the thread link below which will give the full range of opinions on the subject.

Soooo...... Who's gonna MG the survivors (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=104999)

[Armistead]

Just close it now Web...or someone will by tomorrow. I've got some lifeboats to shoot up, so laters.

[gimpy117]

it's a game. i sometimes do.

there's really no war crimes when you're opponent is a bunch of 0's and 1's

[keltos01]

japanese sailor commits suicide with hand grenade :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W6FwoXl624

maybe that's why they didn't pick them up ?

keltos

[WarlordATF]

I don't go out of my way to sink lifeboats, i conserve the ammo for use against aircraft. However i have known a few WWII Vets and to this day some of them still have anger at the Japanese. Its might be hard for us to understand, but these men and women saw first hand how Pearl Harbor and the War unfolded and Killing the enemy (germans or japs) was the way to victory so i am not surprised that some of them may have gunned the lifeboats or pilots in the chutes.

One Vet that was a friend of my Grandfathers almost tore me a new one when he saw i was riding a Kawasaki instead of a Harley. It was the mentality of the time and political correctness meant standing behind your country instead of the way its used today to try to force us to believe we are wrong for wanting our enemies dead.

[Webster]

Just close it now Web...or someone will by tomorrow. I've got some lifeboats to shoot up, so laters.

not my section but i think they will let it go on untill the inevitable crossing of the line that always starts an arguement

we arent the thought police so we dont want to close valid topics of discussion but this sort of topic always ends in an arguement

[Nisgeis]

If the lifeboats were armed with machine guns, then I'd sink them. If it's armed is it still a lifeboat?

[Steiger]

Did you ever play that old game Asteroids, where you shoot the big one and it breaks into lots of little ones that you get to shoot again? That's like what lifeboats are in SHIV. :D

[VirtualVikingX]

I am a former legal advisor in the Norwegian Armed forces. Anybody seriously interested in this subject should take a look at this document:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/44072487ec4c2131c125641e004a9977?OpenDocument

Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

I quote:

"Chapter II. Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked

Art 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, it being understood that the term "shipwreck" means shipwreck from any cause and includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.

Such persons shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Parties to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.

Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex."

Of course this dont apply to an armed vessel not clearing giving signs of surrender, of any size. But a person in a lifboat must be considered "shipwrecked" as the absolute main rule.

[Nisgeis]

Of course this dont apply to an armed vessel not clearing giving signs of surrender, of any size. But a person in a lifboat must be considered "shipwrecked" as the absolute main rule.

So, sinking lifeboats armed with machine guns is legal then. Good to know for the future. If that's from 1949 though, what did it say prior to that, e.g. during the war? I mean, how much of a change did it need?

[VirtualVikingX]

I'm sitting here wondering a bit about that myself. As I was mainly occupied with Afghani matters during my tour of duty, I'm no expert. (Not many shipwrecked insurgents around, especially in Afghanistan)

My best guess is that the convention from 1949 mostly is compromised of rules that had been respected for some time. So answer for pre 1949 would have to be the same, but with more uncertainty regarding the law/rules.

I'll try and speak to someone about this.

[Apocal]

at the end there was two scenes with a real view of men being shot but this was very very rare and you would be severely punished if you were known to have done it.

Not that I'm condoning or condeming this, but Navy film crew was allowed to record it and the USN itself later put time and effort into viewing, editing and dubbing it into a finished product for general distribution. That would seem to very strongly indicate that it was OK, if a bit distasteful for some.

[Webster]

Not that I'm condoning or condeming this, but Navy film crew was allowed to record it and the USN itself later put time and effort into viewing, editing and dubbing it into a finished product for general distribution. That would seem to very strongly indicate that it was OK, if a bit distasteful for some.

you have to know the context in which it was done so this propaganda film cant be taken on face value.

the navy training films were to show how you have to be wary of sailors that would stab you with a knife, be carrying a grenade or gun because they were the first true suicide bombers who believed they HAD TO die and not be captured and a sure way to die in battle was to kill the man trying to help you.

this was why it was that some did shoot without taking chances but it wasnt condoned in any way but safety first allowed an excuse for it in some cases.

lets face it if your crew member was stabbed to death trying to get a sailor out of the water then that crew most likely would be hard pressed to try and save another one right away but they would still try again in the future, but im sure they did it with a finger on the trigger while doing it.

[Apocal]

Nothing stopping that boat from sailing away if they felt they were in danger.

[Steiger]

iat the end there was two scenes with a real view of men being shot

I rewatched that little part there at 2:20 that you're talking about with the two guys getting "shot at." Well it's horse****, to be frank. If you watch it very carefully, you can see it's actually a lifeline that's being thrown over the side for those men in the water. There was a bit of trick editing thrown in by the guy who did that video, you can see that just before the splash comes up in the water the camera jerks. He either sped up the shot or removed a few frames to make it difficult to see the line. Watch it carefully again, you can also see the rope in the water leading from the splash to the ship. So all you see is a guy shooting, then a big splash, and your mind, influenced by the video title, fills in the rest. There's a reason he has disabled commenting for his videos, because everyone would call him out as the manipulating assbag that he is.

Earlier in this topic we were discussing moral ambiguity. Well here's the very definition.

[seaniam81]

So, sinking lifeboats armed with machine guns is legal then. Good to know for the future. If that's from 1949 though, what did it say prior to that, e.g. during the war? I mean, how much of a change did it need?

The Second Geneva Convention dated 1906 then updated in 1929. Covered everything in the First Geneva Convention but added the treatment of the "shipwrecked" or wounded at sea.

Countries that Signed the 1929 Geneva Convention

America Austria Belgium Bolivia Brazil Bulgaria Chile China Colombia Cuba Czechoslovakia Denmark Dominican Republic Egypt Estonia Finland France Germany Great Britain, Ireland and British Dominions Greece Hungary Iceland India Italy Latvia Luxembourg Mexico Nicaragua Norway Netherlands Persia Poland Portugal Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia Siam Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Uruguay Venezuela
Countries that did not sign the 1929 Geneva Convention

USSR - Would only agree to the terms of the Hague Convention that did not allow prison camps to be inspected, prisoners to receive correspondence, or for notification of prisoners taken.
Japan - though in 1942 did promise to abide by its terms


As you can see the only nation who didn't have to follow any of the Geneva Convention's articles was Japan.

So shooting or not providing aid to any wounded at sea or "shipwrecks" would have been against the rules.

[VirtualVikingX]

The Second Geneva Convention dated 1906 then updated in 1929. Covered everything in the First Geneva Convention but added the treatment of the "shipwrecked" or wounded at sea.



As you can see the only nation who didn't have to follow any of the Geneva Convention's articles was Japan.

So shooting or not providing aid to any wounded at sea or "shipwrecks" would have been against the rules.

Thanks! I learned something!

[vanjast]

My son and I are in regular contact with a WW2 war vet.
He, till this day, states that he would have gunned down any eastern axis forces surrendering or in lifeboats.

:06:

[Ducimus]

Not that I'm condoning or condeming this, but Navy film crew was allowed to record it and the USN itself later put time and effort into viewing, editing and dubbing it into a finished product for general distribution. That would seem to very strongly indicate that it was OK, if a bit distasteful for some.

OK, im guessing people are STILL thinking that youtube video posted in the original post is genuine. It is not.

What the video really is, is a bunch of stuff someone spliced together from raw footage and put together in such a manner as to make it look like something its not.

Go through the films at this link,
http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/794.cfm
I garuntee you'll see alot of that youtube video in a totally different context.

Just because you saw it on youtube, doesn't mean it's true.

Edit: infact, the last video on that page, at about 1:30 you'll see they were really shooting at MINES.

[Apocal]

Just because you saw it on youtube, doesn't mean it's true.

Edit: infact, the last video on that page, at about 1:30 you'll see they were really shooting at MINES.

The clip I was referring to was the one a previous poster described as "throwing a line." Although even that is questionable, drawn .45 and all. It's pretty moot in the end. We won afterall.