The next HBO/Spielberg/Hanks WW2 miniseries is a go...

[mookiemookie]

Apparently they've "acquired the rights to Donald L. Miller’s book Masters Of The Air: America’s Bomber Boys Who Fought The Air War Against Nazi Germany, which may be joined by other source material."

I'm sure it'll be just as well done as BoB and The Pacific.

EDIT: Whoops. Forgot the link

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/hbo-developing-third-wwii-miniseries-413632

[Dowly]

Oh goodie! :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Excellent. I love both miniseries. I hope other source material will include "Contrails from the Big Square A".

[BossMark]

Bloody marvellous

[Oberon]

Excellent! :yep: :up:

[Onkel Neal]

Great news, this will be good.

Wish Steven would do the same for the American sub war. :06:

[nikimcbee]

Great news, this will be good.

Wish Steven would do the same for the American sub war. :06:

They could do the Wahoo/Tang story.:Kaleun_Periskop:

[CCIP]

Awesome! Looking forward to it :yeah:

[Skybird]

Band was absolutely stunning and excellent any maybe is the best project ever done on the war. But while I was heavily impressed by Band, Pacific left me just as unimpressed. Something they had done superbly in Band, was missing in Pacific, and that was detailing and calling-to-life the various characters, and their relations, depicted in a believable way. In Pacific, there are just bots running around and they are just placeholders with a ID-name on them. Band also lacked the typical Hollywood pathos and extreme display of patriotism that ruins so many other productions on the topic, and even almost brought Private Ryan down, at the very end - good movie, with a very oh-bah! end.

If they get these things right again with the new series, it could become another good one.

[soopaman2]

Band was absolutely stunning and excellent any maybe is the best project ever done on the war. But while I was heavily impressed by Band, Pacific left me just as unimpressed. Something they had done superbly in Band, was missing in Pacific, and that was detailing and calling-to-life the various characters, and their relations, depicted in a believable way. In Pacific, there are just bots running around and they are just placeholders with a ID-name on them. Band also lacked the typical Hollywood pathos and extreme display of patriotism that ruins so many other productions on the topic, and even almost brought Private Ryan down, at the very end - good movie, with a very oh-bah! end.

If they get these things right again with the new series, it could become another good one.

I wanted to express a similar opinion on my comparisons of the BoB compared to the Pacific, you said it better than I ever could, so I 'll just quote you and stupidly say, "Uh yeah, I agree":88)

Pacifics problem was that its story was too fragmented.

In BoB you almost "fell in love with" or gained a window into the soul, with the men it followed, Pacific seemed empty.

Joe Bassilone is a NJ hero, to this day they hold parades to him in his hometown, he is beloved!

I did not feel that vibe seeing his portrayal in the Pacific.

BoB detailed the lives of men in the same unit, even if that particular episode did not feature them, you still saw the other guys, and learned more about them.

Pacific seemed forced, like Stevie was taking a payday.

[Sailor Steve]

Given that Band Of Brothers was based on the book of the same name by Stephen Ambrose, perhaps Spielberg should base this new one on another Ambrose book, The Wild Blue.

[Red October1984]

Oh......my........God. :o :o :o

This is just what I've been waiting for. Wow....I can't wait. I really cannot hold in my excitement.

I loved Band and The Pacific both. I could follow the Pacific's storyline fine and I felt that in some ways, It was better than Band. But in other ways, was not.

I'm so excited! When will this Air? :woot: :woot: :woot:

[Red October1984]

Great news, this will be good.

Wish Steven would do the same for the American sub war. :06:

1100th post! Woo!

They've done a war in europe, a war in the pacific, and now a war in the air....

They'll do a Naval one next.

Just wait... :smug:

[Jimbuna]

Looking forward to it and would love to see something on the Atlantic....an ASW group perhaps.

[CaptainMattJ.]

1100th post! Woo!

They've done a war in europe, a war in the pacific, and now a war in the air....

They'll do a Naval one next.

Just wait... :smug:
For the members of the board's sake i hope they get their facts correct, or we wouldn't hear the end of it from all of our naval enthusiasts.

But absolutely, hollywood, for the most part, has barely nicked the surface of the war at sea. U-571 was the last good naval movie they made (battleship was a disgrace). If they did it would probably be again in the pacific, perhaps even a letters of Iwo type deal where it portrays both the life of a Japanese and an American sailor. They might even do a WW1 Jutland type deal.

[Dowly]

U-571 was the last good naval movie they had

http://t.qkme.me/3p3wrx.jpg

[CaptainMattJ.]

http://t.qkme.me/3p3wrx.jpg
For Hollywood, it was good. So many members of this forum have major griefs with it's accuracy,but forget that its a general public Hollywood movie, since when have you expected a great deal of accuracy? I went into the movie with no expectation of that "Das boot" realistic feeling and came out slightly impressed with how Hollywood manged to get some things correct, even if the whole premise was totally false (obviously it was the british who first captured an enigma, and the film acknowledges that at the end.)

It was an action movie, and for that it wasn't that bad. AFAIK there hasnt been a decent modern naval warfare movie since, not counting Master and Commander. The thing i do hate about U-571 was the whole "Woo! Go America!" type of patriotic bull that hollywood decides to snuff so many films with. I was never into that sense of hyper-nationalism and neither were many of the men serving in the war. It was your average action flick, and while not being terrible for it's action scenes, it was full of inaccuracies and demonization of the average kriegsmarine sailor.

[Jimbuna]

Most seriously flawed for its historical inaccuracies which I honestly feel viewers would appreciate more then the so called 'action'.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Most seriously flawed for its historical inaccuracies which I honestly feel viewers would appreciate more then the so called 'action'.
Again, it's hollywood. They try to appeal to a dumbed down audience. They went in the general direction of how a submarine really operates but they focused more on action sequences and patriotism and duty than the details and deeper character development. Not many movies have pulled off both intense action and in-depth character development along with accuracies, and have all areas be rich and interesting and a great experience.

If they had a Band of brothers for naval warfare in the pacific (maybe even the atlantic, who knows), it would seriously boost the lacking field of good navy flicks.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I would think that the next miniseries would be about the Navy considering that Band of Brothers was about the Army, The Pacific was about the Marine Corps and this new one is about the Air Force (even though the air force at the time was the US Army Air Corps.)
Personally I wouldn't mind that a miniseries that showed WW2 from the point of view of the British, French, Germans, etc but thats just me.

[Red October1984]

I would think that the next miniseries would be about the Navy considering that Band of Brothers was about the Army, The Pacific was about the Marine Corps and this new one is about the Air Force (even though the air force at the time was the US Army Air Corps.)
Personally I wouldn't mind that a miniseries that showed WW2 from the point of view of the British, French, Germans, etc but thats just me.

Good post...

I think a Band of Brother-type-thing from the German's perspective would be good...maybe the Invasion of The Soviet Union as the storyline...maybe half is from Germany's POV and the other half is Soviet POV...

[mapuc]

you should ask your self this question

The WWII series band of brothers are based on a novel
and the coming WWII series Masters of...

Is there a novel that could be made into a WWII series about the life on a DD, Sub, you name it.

Markus

[Platapus]

U-571 was the last good naval movie they made...

Good as in the context that Pearl Harbor was good.

Even stripping away the multitude of historical inaccuracies (unnecessary inaccuracies) I did not think the acting nor the action was that noteworthy.

But to each his own. That's why going to the movies is voluntary in the US. :D

[Platapus]

Is there a novel that could be made into a WWII series about the life on a DD, Sub, you name it.




Run Silent Run deep as Beach wrote it. :up:

Final Harbor would also make a good movie if filmed right.

[Sailor Steve]

For Hollywood, it was good. So many members of this forum have major griefs with it's accuracy,but forget that its a general public Hollywood movie, since when have you expected a great deal of accuracy?
It's not that there isn't a great deal of accuracy, it's that there is none at all. They somehow managed to screw up even the tiniest details, which even five minutes of research would have shown them.

As for the movie itself, it was trite, contrived, and annoyingly stupid. I could have written a better plot. The movie is just plain bad.

Again, it's hollywood. They try to appeal to a dumbed down audience.
And you liked it.

[Sailor Steve]

I(even though the air force at the time was the US Army Air Corps.)
Actually it was the US Army Air Forces. It ceased being the Air Corps in June 1941.

[Sailor Steve]

Good as in the context that Pearl Harbor was good.
:rotfl2: :rock:

[Red October1984]

you should ask your self this question

The WWII series band of brothers are based on a novel
and the coming WWII series Masters of...

Is there a novel that could be made into a WWII series about the life on a DD, Sub, you name it.

Markus


War in the Boats: My WW2 Submarine Battles by Captain William J. Ruhe, USN (Ret.)

I'm reading it now. It's nonfiction but it reads like a novel. I think it would make a great movie.

[August]

Good as in the context that Pearl Harbor was good.

Even stripping away the multitude of historical inaccuracies (unnecessary inaccuracies) I did not think the acting nor the action was that noteworthy.

But to each his own. That's why going to the movies is voluntary in the US. :D

Yeah but you get to see Jon Bon Jovi get nailed with a hatch cover to the face! :yeah:

[Platapus]

Yeah but you get to see Jon Bon Jovi get nailed with a hatch cover to the face! :yeah:

Ok, a movie can't be ALL bad. :yeah:

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

you should ask your self this question

The WWII series band of brothers are based on a novel
and the coming WWII series Masters of...

Is there a novel that could be made into a WWII series about the life on a DD, Sub, you name it.

Markus I think Red October hit the nail on the head for the USN sub story, and I would think for the Kriegsmarine the canidate should be Iron Coffins by Commander Herbert A. Werner. It also covers the Battle of the Atlantic from 1941-1945.

Actually it was the US Army Air Forces. It ceased being the Air Corps in June 1941.
Ah ,I always wondered when they changed it from Corps.

[nikimcbee]

They try to appeal to a dumbed down audience.

Can't argue against that.:dead:

[mookiemookie]

I think Thunder Below would make an excellent movie. Fluckey was quite a guy.

[nikimcbee]

Yeah but you get to see Jon Bon Jovi get nailed with a hatch cover to the face! :yeah:

http://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/whrandytyler.jpg

Was? Keine Liebe fur mich?

[nikimcbee]

http://www.filmweb.no/bilder/migration_catalog/article557434.ece/BINARY/n/Harvey+Keitel+i+U-571

That post, it was all in German!

[nikimcbee]

I think Thunder Below would make an excellent movie. Fluckey was quite a guy.

I think all of the Wahoo patrols, then transition to the Tang's patrols. That is still my pick.

You have the first patrol, with the pre-war tactics and poor leadership.

Enter Mush Morton, maverick, aggresive Captain.
Trains O'Kane...

Please don't tear apart the Royal Hawaiian.:/\\k:

[Red October1984]

http://www.filmweb.no/bilder/migration_catalog/article557434.ece/BINARY/n/Harvey+Keitel+i+U-571

That post, it was all in German!

:har: :rotfl2:

KLAR! KLAR?! WHAT THE HELL IS KLAR?!?!?!

KLAR?!

YEAH!

KLAR STANDS FOR CLEAR!


http://bearsharkaxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/you-dont-say.jpg

Really?

Them Jerries should really put translations on all the levers/dials/buttons in their submarines in case we ever have to take control.

[nikimcbee]

It was because of that real-life incident in U-571, all of the US Navy had to carry a German dictionary and travel guide on all ships, because of the "Keitel Incident."

So when the Navy captured the U-505, they were prepared.

Boarding crew: "The text, it's all in German still!:o"
Crewman #2: "Fetch the dictionary!"
Crewman #1: Guten Tag. Wieviel kostet ein Bier?

[Red October1984]

It was because of that real-life incident in U-571, all of the US Navy had to carry a German dictionary and travel guide on all ships, because of the "Keitel Incident."

So when the Navy captured the U-505, they were prepared.

Boarding crew: "The text, it's all in German still!:o"
Crewman #2: "Fetch the dictionary!"
Crewman #1: Guten Tag. Wieviel kostet ein Bier?

Because we really had a boarding crew go to sea on a disguised S-boat. We had said S-boat sail all the way to the middle of the Atlantic. (I assume they had to switch out all the torpedoes with gas tanks) and we boarded the U-571. After we had meticulously planned out the boarding of U-571 by a disguised S-boat using German speaking American crews, we forgot that darn dictionary....and when we came back later and got the U-505, the U-boat STILL had everything in German. Still!!! Man. Won't the Germans learn?

Damn that stuck up quartermaster... :rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

I'm surprised they even found the North Atlantic. The COB didn't even know the proper signal for "Dive".

[Red October1984]

I'm surprised they even found the North Atlantic. The COB didn't even know the proper signal for "Dive".

Yea. I noticed that too. DIVE

HONK

HONK

....you better not....

HONK!

:/\\!!

I haven't seen this movie in a few months. I might watch it again just as a joke. I have it sitting here between The Enemy Below and Crimson Tide on my shelf...I think it's time to watch this from a diffe....CRASH DIVE! HONK HONK HONK!

Time to go to an impossible depth and shoot a dead guy out of a torpedo tube.

[Sailor Steve]

Ah ,I always wondered when they changed it from Corps.
1860: U.S. Army Signal Corps establised.
1907-1914: U.S. Army Signal Corps Aeronautical Division.
1914-1918: Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps.
1918-1926: U.S. Army Air Service
1926-1941: U.S. Army Air Corps
1941-1947: U.S. Army Air Forces
1947-Present: U.S. Air Force

[Stealhead]

1860: U.S. Army Signal Corps establised.
1907-1914: U.S. Army Signal Corps Aeronautical Division.
1914-1918: Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps.
1918-1926: U.S. Army Air Service
1926-1941: U.S. Army Air Corps
1941-1947: U.S. Army Air Forces
1947-Present: U.S. Air Force


September 18th 1947 to be exact birthday of the Air Force oddly ever since the Air Force has been having a hard time deciding what exactly it does.

I recall in 1997 two years after I enlisted that was the 50th anniversary to celebrate they changed the code for uniforms for the 2,000th time.The Air Force is the only branch
where they ask the troops for ideas and inputs on uniforms and gear and then when they look over the list they explain why everything suggested will not be permitted.They did for a week
in 1997 allow us to wear any former AF uniform so long as it displayed the correct rank at least where I was stationed at the time they did.I wore a pair of shorts because this was the standard uniform in North Africa and also in the South Pacific during WWII some officer disagreed with me so I had to go to my room and change obviously he did not appreciate my creativity being an academy grad.I notice that they never had a wear any old uniform day again.

[August]

It must bug those Air-dales to no end to be replaced by a drone controlled by some pimply faced kid sitting at a console in some bunker. "Flying high into the wild blue yonder" is becoming a virtual thing.

[Red October1984]

It must bug those Air-dales to no end to be replaced by a drone controlled by some pimply faced kid sitting at a console in some bunker. "Flying high into the wild blue yonder" is becoming a virtual thing.

I'm not even in the air force yet and it drives me crazy. YOU CAN'T REPLACE HUMAN PILOTS!!!! Even jet combat from miles away is slightly annoying. I wish air combat never changed from WW2. That was the REAL flying.


It's sad.....I would've volunteered in a heartbeat for a job as a WW2 Fighter Pilot

[Stealhead]

I'm not even in the air force yet and it drives me crazy. YOU CAN'T REPLACE HUMAN PILOTS!!!! Even jet combat from miles away is slightly annoying. I wish air combat never changed from WW2. That was the REAL flying.


It's sad.....I would've volunteered in a heartbeat for a job as a WW2 Fighter Pilot


You think it is easy today? Hardly there is a lot of task saturation in a modern fighter.The cut off point was the 2nd generation jet fighters(F-86,F-80) many guys that had even flown combat in WWII just could not do the same tasks at higher speeds.


Old time combat seems romantic but it was very hard.Modern air combat (not drone) is extremely demanding trust me I have seen pilots step out of the cockpit after missions they usually look like they just went 12 rounds with Ali in his prime.

You need to speak with some Hog pilots they do things up close and personal I have a buddy that did fabrication and once saw an A-10 that had over 200 holes it many of them from AK47 rounds you don't get AK rounds from miles away.They even found a few 7.62x39mm slugs in the air frame.

It will take a while before drones take over fully they are a very long way from having the payload of a manned aircraft.


What do you mean you are not in the Air Force yet and it drives you crazy? You'll never even make it past basic training then get ready to fold your underwear and socks and follow a ton of rules.You are in for rude awakening good thing your not about to join the Marine Corps.

[Oberon]

Fly DCS: A10C, just getting the damn thing off the runway requires a degree in computer literacy. Then you've got to wrestle with the TCP to line your shot up, all the time being warbled at by the RWR because some sod in a Buk is trying to find you on his radar screen. Then, when you do fire, you have to make sure that you don't screw your laser up by holding it on too long, or that you've painted the right point otherwise your nice big laser guided bomb is going to make a hole NEXT to the T-72 you were pointing it at.
By this time the Buk operator has woken up and you have two SAMs making pretty smoke trails in the sky by your cockpit, so you have to get out of dodge, whilst avoiding every Tom, Ivan, and Mohammad with a weapon throwing lead at you, and God help you if they vector in a fast mover, you have two AIM-9s to throw but after that, well you'd better hope they are stupid enough to wander in front of your GAU-8, failing that, fly no higher than the height of the grass so they lose you in the ground clutter.

So, what about the fast movers overhead? They have it easy, right?

Errr...no... Since they're flying high, the Buk operator gets a nice picture of them once he's burnt through the ECM, then there's MiGs waiting with BVR missiles to ruin your day, you've got to constantly keep an eye on your fuel gauge because everytime you turn on the burners it just eats fuel. You've got to figure out which one of those dots on your forward radar is the swine that just shot at you, and try to return the favour.
Fortunately AWACs is around the clarify the picture a bit, and your RWR can tell you roughly what is where, but unless you're laying the beat down on the sand people that prefer to bury their MiGs rather than risk flying them, it's a tough job, and even on an easy day, try pulling a few gees in a tight turn, and having to do all of the above whilst feeling like an elephant has sat on your chest.

They make it look easy because they've been bloody well trained, but a quick mess around in a competant simulator will tell you how tricky it is, and that's without the whole motion, gee force, and dead is REALLY dead things to worry about.

I must admit, there are elements of WWII aircraft that are much harder than todays aircraft, navigation, lack of zero/zero ejector seats, a lack of knowledge about the effects of very high speed on an aircrafts controls and airframe (particularly towards the end of the war as jets became to come in), however those difficulties have been replaced by new difficulties in the modern jet age.

Try air to air refueling some time... :shifty:

[Oberon]

It must bug those Air-dales to no end to be replaced by a drone controlled by some pimply faced kid sitting at a console in some bunker. "Flying high into the wild blue yonder" is becoming a virtual thing.

War is becoming a virtual thing, won't be too many decades before flying drone gunships fight drone tanks while drone jets fight each other overhead.

It reminds me of an old Star Trek episode where they fought wars on a computer, calculated where the damage was and who was killed and then had the affected people euthanised.

And that's not even getting into cyber-warfare...

[August]

War is becoming a virtual thing, won't be too many decades before flying drone gunships fight drone tanks while drone jets fight each other overhead.

It reminds me of an old Star Trek episode where they fought wars on a computer, calculated where the damage was and who was killed and then had the affected people euthanised.

And that's not even getting into cyber-warfare...


Makes me glad to be too old to see it.

[Red October1984]

Whoa whoa whoa guys. I never said that modern air combat was easy and undemanding.

I understand the complexity of it. I obviously don't have as much experience as you. I'm saying that the World War 2 prop plane dogfighting is much more interesting and would be much more fun than flying around an F-15. My goal is to become a Hog pilot. That is what I want to do. If that doesn't work out, I will fly something, somewhere for somebody. I love aviation and flying.

I just think that flying was more interesting and a lot cooler in a F6F over the Pacific, or a Spitfire over England, or a Bf-109 over France, and even a B-17 over Germany. I love WW2 stuff and would give almost anything to have a good ol' warbird...Maybe a P-40 or an Avenger Torpedo Bomber...

[Sailor Steve]

You'll never even make it past basic training then get ready to fold your underwear and socks and follow a ton of rules.You are in for rude awakening good thing your not about to join the Marine Corps.
I always remember my last three days before the sent me to Vietnam. Last day at NTC San Diego, I was up at 0600 and assigned to spend eight hours "policeing" the yards; picking up trash and cigarette butts all day long. The next day we were flown to Travis AFB. After a night in the barracks there we were awoken around 0900 by an airman who said "Your flight isn't until late this afternoon. Want to see the base?" We spent a hard day looking at airplanes and hangers, and mostly just lounging around.

[Gargamel]

Still havent finished the pacific...... *ducks*

But I do have my copy of BoB right here.....

Looking forward to this already....

[Stealhead]

Well just understand that anyone who flew in a WWII aircraft in combat that their life was on line and many of them did not make out alive.Just ask Chuck Yeager he said that what made him a good fighter pilot was that he did not fear death but understand that he actually faced death before he came up with that attitude.

If you join the Air Force you cant guarantee that you will forever fly one type of aircraft many pilots get moved around and they have to fly what ever is flown by the unit they get moved to and you also do not get to say "I don't want to move there or fly X plane its what they tell you to fly.Also the military is the master of taking what you would most like to do and assign you the exact opposite and they can tell when you are trying to use reverse psychology on them. An older cousin of mine was a Marine aviator he started in A-4s the went to Harriers then to F/A-18s then a desk.

If you really want to fly for the US military the first step is to become an officer unless you want to fly choppers for the US Army.Then you have to complete officer training Academy or ROTC the you have to pass the tests to get into flight school then you have to pass basic flight school and hope that you did well enough to go to the fighter program at the same time if you did well in both they might need a heavy pilot more and you'll go there anyway.You have a lot of goals to meet before you get to an A-10 cockpit or flight deck as they now called in the military.I am not saying that your goal is impossible it is just going to be very difficult.

[Skybird]

I'm not even in the air force yet and it drives me crazy. YOU CAN'T REPLACE HUMAN PILOTS!!!! Even jet combat from miles away is slightly annoying. I wish air combat never changed from WW2. That was the REAL flying.

That is right that - sorry - stupid attitude on war that made the French and oh so noble knights beeing massacred by English archers at the battle of Azincourt, 1415.

War is not about noblesse, romanticism and honour, but killing the enemy and destroying everything that is between you and the goal you want to achieve.

If you want romanticism, do a private duel in your spare time. But save the soldiers and pilots in real wars from your dangerous sentimentality. You could cost them their lives.

[Red October1984]

That is right that - sorry - stupid attitude on war that made the French and oh so noble knights beeing massacred by English archers at the battle of Azincourt, 1415.

War is not about noblesse, romanticism and honour, but killing the enemy and destroying everything that is between you and the goal you want to achieve.

If you want romanticism, do a private duel in your spare time. But save the soldiers and pilots in real wars from your dangerous sentimentality. You could cost them their lives.

Can you please explain to me how I am costing lives in a war by posting on Subsim? :hmmm:

I have the deepest respect for anyone who puts on a uniform to defend me or my country. I even respect those who do it for other countries. They fight so that we have the right to free speech. They fight so we can sleep safely in our homes at night without worrying about getting deported. I don't want romanticism. I want to serve my country. I will try to get in to fly the Hogs, but like I said, I will fly for somebody, somewhere, and at sometime. Even if that means choppers for the Army or AWACS or Cargo Planes for the Air National Guard or something.

I always have a backup plan too. I have a family with a military history. There are tons of other things I could do. If the military is out of the question, i shall be law enforcement.

[Hottentot]

War is not about noblesse, romanticism and honour, but killing the enemy and destroying everything that is between you and the goal you want to achieve.

Romanticism aside, the "old days" had the definite advantage of having a human element more strongly included. I say it's an advantage, because as long as there is the human somewhere in there, there is the risk of someone dying. And as long as there is the risk of someone dying, someone somewhere has to weigh that risk against the possible benefits gained by winning the war. Hopefully before they start it.

Imagine a situation where the human element is removed and the war is fought by droids or something similar. Replacing them is perhaps not cheap, but which is easier to sell to the public: the possibility of a financial loss on national level or the potential of losing a family member on personal level? Even if we suppose that such high tech army had somehow been acquired by a crazy dictator who doesn't have to care about the public opinion, it's still easier with the human element removed. When you run out of people, have fun waiting for about two decades for them to reproduce before you can even start training them. Whereas if you can just make more soldiers as long as you have the industrial capacity.

I for one am happy this is still just a sci-fi scenario.

[Red October1984]

Romanticism aside, the "old days" had the definite advantage of having a human element more strongly included. I say it's an advantage, because as long as there is the human somewhere in there, there is the risk of someone dying. And as long as there is the risk of someone dying, someone somewhere has to weigh that risk against the possible benefits gained by winning the war. Hopefully before they start it.

Imagine a situation where the human element is removed and the war is fought by droids or something similar. Replacing them is perhaps not cheap, but which is easier to sell to the public: the possibility of a financial loss on national level or the potential of losing a family member on personal level? Even if we suppose that such high tech army had somehow been acquired by a crazy dictator who doesn't have to care about the public opinion, it's still easier with the human element removed. When you run out of people, have fun waiting for about two decades for them to reproduce before you can even start training them. Whereas if you can just make more soldiers as long as you have the industrial capacity.

I for one am happy this is still just a sci-fi scenario.


Somebody's been playing Black Ops 2 lately... :D

[Hottentot]

Somebody hasn't ever touched anything even remotely related to the Call of Duty series.

[August]

Somebody hasn't ever touched anything even remotely related to the Call of Duty series.

Because except for the first few episodes it sucked.

[Hottentot]

Because except for the first few episodes it sucked.

I honestly couldn't tell. Reading my post again now it seems I was dissing the series, when in fact I meant literally what I said: I haven't ever played any of the CoD games. Heck, I got my hands on Medal of Honor only around last Christmas too when the Allied Assault was added to GOG. Their kind of games just are not my cup of tea, I guess.

[Skybird]

Can you please explain to me how I am costing lives in a war by posting on Subsim? :hmmm:
That is not what I have said.

[August]

That is not what I have said.

Sounded like that to me:

If you want romanticism, do a private duel in your spare time. But save the soldiers and pilots in real wars from your dangerous sentimentality. You could cost them their lives.

(insert shrug smiley)

[Cybermat47]

Good as in the context that Pearl Harbor was good.

You mean that the Japanese will promote people to hero gods over it?

[Cybermat47]

That is right that - sorry - stupid attitude on war that made the French and oh so noble knights beeing massacred by English archers at the battle of Azincourt, 1415.

War is not about noblesse, romanticism and honour, but killing the enemy and destroying everything that is between you and the goal you want to achieve.

If you want romanticism, do a private duel in your spare time. But save the soldiers and pilots in real wars from your dangerous sentimentality. You could cost them their lives.


Um, actually, I'd like to express my feelings about drones.

Machines break. People don't.

That is all.

P.S. October lives in Missouri, not Tora Bora. Just clearing that up for you :up:

[Skybird]

Romanticism aside, the "old days" had the definite advantage of having a human element more strongly included. I say it's an advantage, because as long as there is the human somewhere in there, there is the risk of someone dying. And as long as there is the risk of someone dying, someone somewhere has to weigh that risk against the possible benefits gained by winning the war. Hopefully before they start it.I think history already has proven your views - well, naive. The feudal lords letting their peasant get slaughtered for their own fame and accumulation of land and influence, or willed the massacring of the civilian villagers over wars of desire. Torture. Lacking medical abilities. The effects of medieval weapons on the human body (modern weapons are humane compared to what some of them, or old musketeer bullets, do to flesh and bone). Feudal class letting their tin soldier armies die in Napoleonic squares, sometimes thinking of doing that as the feudal classes' legitimate "hobby".

War never was humane. Never. And it is not today. And where you save the enemy from the grim determination of your will, the buddy beside you, wearing the same colours like you, maybe must pay with his life for your "noblesse" towards the enemy. The enemy is not to be admired - he is to be wiped out. Your admiration you can stick to where the sun does not shine. that is the difference between the reality of war, and romantic daydreaming.

There is nothing noble and honourful and humane in war. And the more this is forgotten, the more war there is and the more suffering there is and the more careless war gets started, waged, tolerated. Especially the past 12 years are a lesson that should remind some of us of that old truth, I think. If it would have been remembered while there still was time, some of the wars we now have would not be there, and the others we could not avoid would have been ended with devastating defeats if not annihilation of the enemy by now. You cannot win war by playing fair and limit yourself.

I condemn all those fools thinking of war holding a humane or noble dimension. War, you do it, or you don't, but if you do it, do it without regret, without scruples and without remorse.

It would be good, however, if you are certain of your motives why you go to war, and that you make sure your standards by which you decide it. can stand the test of what lies ahead.

Fame. Glory. Honour. Noblesse. Truth. Everybody should clean his mouth with soap when thinking about war in terms like this. Kill the enemy and destroy his means, stay alive if you can and care for the guy next to you, beyond this: shut up - that's good enough. Maybe the biggest lie in the history of all mankind: the myth of the "just war". I know only wars of desire, which always are retarded and stupid, and wars of necessity, which cannot - and should not! - be avoided. Flip a coin - it is either the one or the other side. No inbetween, no little bit of both sides.

[Cybermat47]

Wow Skybird, Werner Hartenstein would be incredibly happy with your post.

[Skybird]

Um, actually, I'd like to express my feelings about drones.

Machines break. People don't.

You have never flown a high-G turn then with you blacking out, I suppose?

[Skybird]

Wow Skybird, Werner Hartenstein would be incredibly happy with your post.
Who is that?

[Cybermat47]

Oh, and here's an example of how one Australian soldier's humanity saved a life.

The Gallipoli campaign of 1915 was the first major defeat of Australian forces ever. With Turkish machine gun bullets raining down from the mountains, and Kapitan Otto Hersing routing our ships giving fire support, it was hell for the Allied troops. However, we managed to get positions and camps there. In one battle, a group of Australians were taking cover in a large hole, with a Turkish prisoner they'd taken. One of the diggers (slang for soldier) was giving the prisoner some of his rations. The Turk was greatful for it. Soon, however, the Turks were advancing on the hole. The diggers retreated, leaving the prisoner to be picked up by his army. Just as the first group of Turks got there, there was one digger having trouble getting out. The Turks aimed at him...and one was tackled by the prisoner, who took his gun, and shot the others, giving the digger enough time to get out. The prisoner himself was killed by other Turks, but he only did it out of gratitude for the humanity of one of the diggers.

[Cybermat47]

Who is that?

One of the greatest Germans to ever live.

[Sonarman]

I think Thunder Below would make an excellent movie. Fluckey was quite a guy.@ Mookiemookie

Adm Fluckey's "Thunder Below" was actually greenlit as a project by Steven Spielberg a long time ago and a script was written by Shane Salerno. Unfortunately Dreamworks decided to shelve the project as the Crappy "U571" was already at an advanced stage of development at a rival studio.

[Skybird]

Who is that?
Google was my friend. I forgot the name, but of course know the Laconia incident. Well. Hartenstein thought he alone would change the rules of the game if only he made his intention known. Result of that was that he almost got all his men killed and the boat almost lost. If I would have been on his boat, I would have requested a transfer to another boat, I do not share the popular sentiments about him. In my eyes, he was a fool with good manners, and a risk for his own men, and a commander who made a terrible misjudgement and then tried to ease the pain on his conscience, an effort for which his men almost payed with their lives.

Your men go first.

I am with the American commander here who gave order to sink the sub, red cross and survivors yes or no. The boat was a weapon that shoot again. For the survivors he now saved, future ships with even more lives lost could have been the price. So: sink that sub. Not kind. But the logic of war.

I counter your example with two names that maybe fit better what you wanted to express: John Rabe, and Oskar Schindler. And hundreds and thousands of citizens showing civil courage but whose names history never has recorded. And different to Hartenstein, neither Schindler nor Rabe killed civilians due to misjudgement. ;)

But these were no soldiers.

[Sailor Steve]

You mean that the Japanese will promote people to hero gods over it?
He was referring to the movie Pearl Harbor, which was also pretty bad.

[Cybermat47]

He was referring to the movie Pearl Harbor, which was also pretty bad.

Oh no Steve, now that you've mentioned that, I'm going to have to watch Tora! Tora! Tora! again just to regain the will to live! :dead:

Nothing wrong with that! :haha:

[mookiemookie]

@ Mookiemookie

Adm Fluckey's "Thunder Below" was actually greenlit as a project by Steven Spielberg a long time ago and a script was written by Shane Salerno. Unfortunately Dreamworks decided to shelve the project as the Crappy "U571" was already at an advanced stage of development at a rival studio.

:damn:

[Cybermat47]

Your men go first.

Your first priority is to win the war. Hartenstein had sunken an enemy vessel. Check.

Your second priority is your men's safety. Hartenstein radioed the Allies, informing them of the situation. Check.

Your third priority is the safety of Civilians and captured enemy personnel. Hartenstein gave them food and water. Check.

If the Allies had informed the Ascencion Island base that a U-boat was rescuing survivors, it would have all worked out.

[Sailor Steve]

Machines break. People don't.
The argument for drones is that people do indeed break, and suffer and die. A machine can withstand more g-force, and if it is lost it was only a machine.

I'm not saying I support that argument, just explaining it.

Oh, and here's an example of how one Australian soldier's humanity saved a life.
Of course people display humanity in the midst of war. It happens a lot. That doesn't change Skybird's point that war itself is about nothing more than killing and dying. Trust me, it's not fun at all.

In the words of William Tecumseh Sherman:
"There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell."
-Address at Columbus, Ohio, April 11, 1880

[Red October1984]

I think history already has proven your views - well, naive. The feudal lords letting their peasant get slaughtered for their own fame and accumulation of land and influence, or willed the massacring of the civilian villagers over wars of desire. Torture. Lacking medical abilities. The effects of medieval weapons on the human body (modern weapons are humane compared to what some of them, or old musketeer bullets, do to flesh and bone). Feudal class letting their tin soldier armies die in Napoleonic squares, sometimes thinking of doing that as the feudal classes' legitimate "hobby".

War never was humane. Never. And it is not today. And where you save the enemy from the grim determination of your will, the buddy beside you, wearing the same colours like you, maybe must pay with his life for your "noblesse" towards the enemy. The enemy is not to be admired - he is to be wiped out. Your admiration you can stick to where the sun does not shine. that is the difference between the reality of war, and romantic daydreaming.

There is nothing noble and honourful and humane in war. And the more this is forgotten, the more war there is and the more suffering there is and the more careless war gets started, waged, tolerated. Especially the past 12 years are a lesson that should remind some of us of that old truth, I think. If it would have been remembered while there still was time, some of the wars we now have would not be there, and the others we could not avoid would have been ended with devastating defeats if not annihilation of the enemy by now. You cannot win war by playing fair and limit yourself.

I condemn all those fools thinking of war holding a humane or noble dimension. War, you do it, or you don't, but if you do it, do it without regret, without scruples and without remorse.

It would be good, however, if you are certain of your motives why you go to war, and that you make sure your standards by which you decide it. can stand the test of what lies ahead.

Fame. Glory. Honour. Noblesse. Truth. Everybody should clean his mouth with soap when thinking about war in terms like this. Kill the enemy and destroy his means, stay alive if you can and care for the guy next to you, beyond this: shut up - that's good enough. Maybe the biggest lie in the history of all mankind: the myth of the "just war". I know only wars of desire, which always are retarded and stupid, and wars of necessity, which cannot - and should not! - be avoided. Flip a coin - it is either the one or the other side. No inbetween, no little bit of both sides.

:-?

I'm going to say this good and clear. I do not admire the enemy. I do not see fame and glory in going to war. I highly respect those that do go to war. I have a good amount of family members in the military. I even have military family members in Germany. I respect those who defend my home. Let's face it. World Peace is impossible. War is inevitable. If you want to cut me down for wanting to defend my fellow citizens so that they can sleep safe and sound at night and see their kids off to school the next day, go ahead. If you want to shoot down my argument and tell me that I love war and I am wrong, go ahead.

I will not care. I will not be bothered by this. I want to protect freedom and what I believe is good. I want to give back to my country. I want to see to it that the Average Joe has the right to walk down the street without fear of being arrested/killed/deported/etc...


Try all you want, but I am me. You cannot change that. :stare:

[Sailor Steve]

I do not see fame and glory in going to war.
But that's exactly how you sound as you say it.

Try all you want, but I am me. You cannot change that. :stare:
That's fine. What you can't understand yet is that you do see war as a glorious thing. We all do when we're young. And it is that very attitude that helps wars come about. Yes, you should be prepared to defend what you believe in. You should also pray that you never have to. If you do you'll end up like Sherman. And you may never recover.

[August]

Dunno why but this TR quote seems appropriate here:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[Oberon]

Oh, and here's an example of how one Australian soldier's humanity saved a life.

In a similar vein but at the other end if the scale, alledgedly in 1918, a young British soldier took aim at a wounded German soldier as the Germans retreated from the battle of Marcoing, but couldn't bring himself to shoot a wounded man, the German soldier nodded his thanks and continued his retreat. The British soldiers name was Henry Tandey, the German soldiers name was Adolf Hitler...

[Red October1984]

But that's exactly how you sound as you say it.


That's fine. What you can't understand yet is that you do see war as a glorious thing. We all do when we're young. And it is that very attitude that helps wars come about. Yes, you should be prepared to defend what you believe in. You should also pray that you never have to. If you do you'll end up like Sherman. And you may never recover.


I don't mean to make it sound that way. I understand that war is a horrible, horrible, horrible thing to go through. I don't want to go to war, but I will if my country needs me. All I want to do is fly in the military. I want to do something I love while protecting what I love. Yes, I am young. I have uncles with PTSD. I know the horrors of war. The discovery channel did a documentary about my uncle's unit; 2nd Bn, 27th Infantry, or The Wolfhounds. It's called God's Soldier. It's on youtube. My uncle served as a doctor for one of the most dangerous postings in Northern Iraq. He lost buddies left and right. He told me about a period of time where they had "Ramp Ceremonies" almost every day. People were dropping like flies. There was a fellow from actually within 50 miles of where I live who was in that unit. He was shot through the neck on guard duty and my uncle was the one to work on him....There is now a stretch of road outside of Cape Girardeau, Missouri with his name on it. It's a sad thing. I don't want to be a stretch of road or a white gravestone but I am prepared to take the risk. I don't think war is glorious and a good thing. Yes, there are certain things that I find interesting every once in a while. I like learning about Allied operations in the Pacific. I think it can be interesting sometimes to learn about the terribly horrible things that our guys had to live through. I don't glorify it. That's simply the way it happened. I once heard that the Japanese would strap a guy to the ground and plant bamboo underneath him so that the bamboo would grow into the man and impale him slowly. I found that odd. I wanted to know more. Yes, it was interesting at the time but I do not glorify dying this way. I don't glorify anything about it. Heck, I'm not even completely sure it was the Japanese. It might've been the Vietcong. I don't remember the full story. I don't even know if that story is completely true. It's true that I respect the men who died in those horrible ways. Anyone who can fight for their country deserves respect. No matter how much I do not like that country, those people are stepping up (Knowing that they might not come back) to defend what they think is right. Unless it's service by requirement, I'm sure a lot of those guys don't want to fight. I might be going back on things I've said before. I try to keep a neutral opinion online. I don't want to drift too far to my personal opinion (im sure you would really hate me then) because I'm very conservative and I don't want to offend anyone with certain comments that would be okay in general talking around Southern Missouri. Some people around here can be very racist. Some are extremely against Muslims. I, personally, don't think that being racist against Obama will fix our problem. I don't think that "nuking every last Hajji out there" will fix the Middle East. It won't solve any problems to do that kind of stuff. I try to keep neutral and open minded. When it comes to the defense of my country, I am very strongly opinionated in one direction. Here on Subsim, the European Liberals like to cut down people like me. It is what it is. There are always people out there willing to accuse me of "Glorifying war" and cutting down every statement I make. I'm simply trying to stay neutral without exposing some of my more extreme opinions. I could go on all day about how I think this country is going in the wrong direction. I might not be able to justify some of it with facts, but it is an OPINION! Opinions are not always completely based on fact. They teach you that in Elementary English Class. It can be influenced by where you are from, what your family thinks/does, and what your religion says/does. I'm Catholic and I think Abortion is a terrible thing, but I guarantee there are some Pro-Choice people on here somewhere to cut down my argument with what they think is right. I think that there is something seriously wrong with our handling of illegal immigration. We are fighting a war here in America and nobody cares. Why? Because Mitt Romney was right when he said that 47% of America won't get up and get a job.

I know that you will pick apart this post sentence by sentence and give me a grilling about how I'm wrong. Opinions don't always have to be correct. Hitler had an opinion about how the Jews were bad. He backed it up with a few facts and some creative speeches. People believed him. I just today watched a PBS documentary about Antisemitism in the US during World War 2. Jews are not the cause of all of Germany's problems. The Jews are not terrible people. Same thing with current Muslim conflicts. There will be some bad apples in the bunch. Some groups are more prone to bad apples than others but Muslims can be a peaceful people.


I think the quote that August posted was great. Critics can say and do what they want. The man in the arena is trying. The Critics can talk about how he's doing it wrong or he believes in the wrong things all they want. The man in the arena won't care. He is there because he wants to be there. I have a quote to add here too...

"Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent"

I'm not sure who said that, but it's on a poster that ive seen many times. You guys can try and try, but you can't change the way I feel without my consent. I can give in to do what the Critic wants or I can have faith in my task that I volunteered for. If I want to fly, I will fly. You can't change the way i live my life because you accuse me of glorifying something that is unpopular among Europeans. I live in Hillbilly Country. Of course war is going to be supported by us Rednecks. There is no changing that. Hillbilly Country will be Hillbilly Country for a long time. There are people around here willing to fight in a Civil War to keep our gun rights. There is a great difference of opinion around here on Subsim. You will call us "silly ol' hics that need to go back to their shack and rethink this." Guns are important to the people around here. We do not commit mass shootings. We hunt. We target shoot. We defend our homes. If our right to defend ourselves was taken away, most of the people around here would fight up a storm. I know people predicting what's going to happen. Some are saying that gun control will pass, Civil War 2 will break out, and we will be fighting the United Nations. Some say that it won't pass and we'll be fine.

It's all a big mess and everyone has their own opinion. A lady once told me that "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion" every time I mentioned Politics. She was right. Everyone can think how they want to.

I'm done ranting now. Go ahead and tell me i'm wrong. :stare:

[Stealhead]

I'm done ranting now. Go ahead and tell me i'm wrong. :stare:


You should avoid GT if feel the need to defend yourself like that.You can say what ever you want here in GT so long as it follows the Forum rules so why do you not post your true opinion?

If you post something in Gt you should be prepared for the reaction to it from a person of opposing point of view. No one on here is trying to change your opinion that it your own lack of confidence.

Also slightly wall of textish and hard to read.(your post/rant)

August quote comes from a speech by T. Roosevelt generally called "The man in the Arena" he may be thinking of what Sailor Steve was saying to you because Steve has experienced war and you have not.He might also be trying to say ignore Skybird(he is the critic and your in the arena)

I would say post what you really feel don't be neutral about something if you do not really feel that way and don't back down from what you feel because in your last post you did do that to some extent.

[Cybermat47]

the German soldier nodded his thanks and continued his retreat.

the German soldiers name was Adolf Hitler...

At least Adolf had manners back then :D

[Red October1984]

You should avoid GT if feel the need to defend yourself like that.You can say what ever you want here in GT so long as it follows the Forum rules so why do you not post your true opinion?

If you post something in Gt you should be prepared for the reaction to it from a person of opposing point of view. No one on here is trying to change your opinion that it your own lack of confidence.

Also slightly wall of textish and hard to read.(your post/rant)

August quote comes from a speech by T. Roosevelt generally called "The man in the Arena" he may be thinking of what Sailor Steve was saying to you because Steve has experienced war and you have not.He might also be trying to say ignore Skybird.

I usually avoid GT topics that lead to me getting riled up. I just feel strongly about certain things and our military is one of them. Sailor Steve has experienced war. I highly respect him because of that. He has defended the things that he believed in. He defended my right to guns, an education, speech, press, and all of those other good things. I do not usually post my whole, true opinion because some of my views would offend some people. I try to keep an open mind so that I can learn about things from a different point of view. I am sorry that my rant was hard to read. I typed for a long time and cannot help it. I like you guys, but sometimes....you have a way of pressing my buttons. Anyone who has fought for this country is worthy of deep respect. I don't usually have arguments of this magnitude. (Raptor1 and I had a nice argument about the possibility of a self-sufficient Mermaid civilization that is causing global warming and their Nuclear Fusion Technology and why they don't speed up global warming and invade now. It was fun)


I try to learn things all the time. Before Subsim, I had no respect for the Navy. I was a firm believer in the Army-Navy Rivalry. I saw the real heroes as "Army Men" and the Navy inferior to the army in everything....Then this thing called Silent Hunter 2 came along. Aided by Das Boot and Subsim.com...My opinion was dramatically changed. 2 years ago, if you would've told me that I will love submarines and Naval stuff, I would've slapped my knee and fallen into a dramatic laughing spasm. I would've labeled you crazy. Now, I try to see different points of view while leaving out my own biases and opinions. I can learn so much more about the world this way. I have recently taken a liking to country music. I hated country music since the first time I heard it. Then, I heard Johnny Horton's historical music...then a friend pointed me to Jason Aldean, Eric Church, and Florida Georgia Line. I would've had a similar laughing spasm 6 months ago if you told me that I would like country music. If I keep an open mind, I have found out that I can learn so much and I can grow in my interests. I can now sit and listen to Country music on Pandora and play Silent Hunter. Pre-1900 History may be the next spark that turns into a fire. I have shut out things I deemed "unlikable" but now when you see it in a different way and in a different context....It can be pretty interesting. We have completely derailed this thread from it's original purpose. My "lack of confidence" can be proven by these points. I try to see things from other points of view and leave out my opinion. Sometimes, those two things come together in a gray area. Some of those issues I feel too strongly about. I can't even imagine taking the side of Hitler in his argument against the Jews. The Holocaust was a terrible thing. I couldn't even think about to argue against guns. Guns are a wonderful part of human technology if used in the correct manner.

I normally avoid topics like this that will set me off into an opinionated argumentative rant. Also, I mean no offense to anyone who served in the Navy. I'm just simply outlining my transformation. I would spit up a storm for weeks when the Army lost the Army-Navy game...(They still haven't won for over 10 years... :wah: ) Now, I can respect the Navy's fighting men in the same way I do the Army, Marines and Air Force. I have yet to be convinced on the Coast Guard though...You guys are going to have to work on me there...


Subsim is a great place... :rock:

[Hottentot]

I think history already has proven your views - well, naive.

And that's where I stopped reading the post.

[Sailor Steve]

I do not admire the enemy.
In one of Agatha Christie's mysteries written during the war her characters have an interesting conversation about admiring the enemy, or rather its reverse. One of the characters asks why they hate the Germans. Another character says "We have to, or else we wouldn't fight them." Of course by that time Germany had conquered most of Europe and was working on Britain, so the British saw what Nazi aggression had done to Poland and France, and had good cause to fight. The Americans felt the same way about the Japanese, again with good cause.

But what about the Germans? They were told that the invasion of Poland was a reaction to Polish aggression, and that France and Britain had declared war on Germany for no other reason that Germany had defended herself. Playing any wargame from the German side, or watching movies like Das Boot, gives us something of the commonality of fighting men. Watching Letters From Iwo Jima made me look at the common Japanese soldier, especially the scene where the commander translates the letter from a dying American to his mother.

A great many people still rail about how our own government forced us to lose to little Vietnam. Those damned hippies ruined everything. Today I agree with the anti-war protesters; we should never have been there in the first place. I was just a radioman on a destroyer. I didn't pull the trigger. I did receive the messages from the marines, though. Two bunkers knocked out. Five trucks destroyed. Thirty-three bodies counted. Thirty-three people I never met, who never did anything to me. I didn't pull the trigger, but I was indirectly responsible for their deaths. Of course they would have killed our marines and soldiers, perhaps willingly, and that's justification enough for killing them first. On the other hand we justified killing the Germans and Japanese in WW2 because they were the aggressors. They were the bad guys. They started it.

But who started Vietnam? The Warhawks would tell you that Ho Chi Minh started it, because he and his Communist buddies wanted to rule Southeast Asia. Others will tell you that it was Ho Chi Minh who won the election, and his enemies took the southern half of the country and then asked America for help. War supporters will tell you that Ho was a Communist. Anti-war types will tell you that the Americans refused to help the Vietnamese in their fight to get rid of the French, so the Communist Chinese were the only ones who would sell him weapons, and that he had to become a Communist to garner that support. War supporters will tell you that we went to the aid of a legitimate South Vietnamese government. War protesters would tell you that we helped set up that government, and when he proved to be ineffective we helped engineer his overthrow and then gave full support to his replacement.

I'm not saying who was right or wrong, because my opinions are just that. What I'm saying is that while everybody has opinions, and some of them are strong to the point of being extreme, the reality is that in my war there was no clear aggressor; no one cause you can point to and say "We were there because these people attacked us." We weren't there for self-defense, and we weren't there for revenge. We were just there. We hated the Vietnamese. We called them gooks, slopes, slants and worse. And we used those terms on all of them, not just the "enemy". They were useless little yellow people, and they all looked the same. We were there because our government told us to go there, told us this was the enemy, and because we were good patriotic Americans we believed them, and we believed in the cause. When some Americans started to point out that "the cause" might not be so just, they were vilified and called traitors, anti-American and even closet Commies.

Several years ago I met one of those Vietnamese transplants. It was in my hometown of Redondo Beach, California. He owned a gas station, and we had an interesting conversation about the war and its aftermath. He was about my age, and seemed to be a real nice guy. If I still lived there we might have become friends.

I once saw a picture of a Vietnamese farmer in a rice paddy with a plow hitched to a water buffalo. The caption said "At night he might put on black pajamas and fight with the Viet Cong against our troops." When I read that my first thought was "Of course at night he might put on black pajamas and help in the fight to drive the round-eyed foreign invaders out of his country." A couple of years ago I was fortunate to be turned onto a book by a former North Vietnamese soldier, and was surprised to find that his experiences paralleled those of many Americans, right down to having his own people think of him as some sort of freak. It's called The Sorrow Of War, by Bao Ninh. I highly recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/Sorrow-War-Novel-North-Vietnam/dp/1573225436/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358918696&sr=1-1&keywords=the+sorrow+of+war+by+bao+ninh

My point is that before you "despise the enemy", make sure of who the enemy really is. Be absolutely sure that the people telling you that you need to fight for your country, family and honor don't have their own hidden agenda. Make sure the "enemy" really is a danger to you and yours, and not just a scapegoat.

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”
-James Madison

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Göring

[Sailor Steve]

And that's where I stopped reading the post.
And again Skybird's penchant for heavy-handedness backfires. The rest was actually a very good post, and well worth reading.

[Stealhead]

So you respect those that serve to defend this country but your not convinced on the Coast Guard? That seems a bit illogical seeing as the Coast Guard saves for US citizens each year than any other branch.

Don't worry about thread derailment it is fairly common in GT.There are millions of Americans that have been in war and they all have many differing opinions some that you may or may not agree with.Did you know that Sailor Steve took part in protests against the Vietnam War after he left the Navy?(I am pretty sure he mentioned this once correct me if I am wrong Steve).

[Oberon]

Sounds to me that you are, what we all have been and are, still formulating opinions and views on the world.

You are correct in what you think, and equally you are wrong, as am I, Skybird and everyone else who has posted in this thread since everyone will always have differing viewpoints.

I have a great deal of respect for Skybird, I don't follow his beliefs on Muslims, so we agree to disagree on that, but we share a lot of similar beliefs on humanity and its chaotic ways. He believes in sorting out problems here on Earth first, I believe that we have to have one foot on this world and one on the next if we hope to survive the next millenia. If everyone agreed on everything, the world would be a very boring (but perhaps more peaceful) place.


In regards to war and its glory, I naturally defer to those who have witnessed it first hand, but I understand what you mean. Many of us here play Submarine sims, like Silent Hunter III or IV, we are well aware of what the real men went through, yet we get a thrill of achievement when we finally nail that merchant on full realism (manual targetting) or when we finally evade that escort after six hours of trying to keep as silent as possible. We care little for our little virtual men and their psychological well being because it is a game, a well crafted game but a game at that.
I, in my lifetime of playing games, must have sent hundreds, if not thousands of people to their deaths (and yet I've yet to come across a sim that simulates the letters that you'd have to write out to the family), heck I even developed the nickname of 'Haig' during a certain murderous game of Men of War, but only sometimes do I sit back and think 'I wonder if that dead bunch of pixels bleeding in the snow there had a family?' because if I thought like that all the time...I honestly don't think I could play another game that involves people or creatures being killed.

It's hard not to glorify war, or believe in a form of romanticism of wars gone past, of the 'Knights of the Sky' of WWI, or other various acts of battlefield chivalry. It's hard not to do so because it's a much easier thing to swallow than the cold hard truth that war is about killing more of the other guys than they kill of you. You can wrap it in conventions, dress it up as a righteous cause, but the cold hard ugly truth is still there, and the reason we keep doing it is because it's in our nature, our entire history has been built up on achieving safety for ourselves and those close to us, that's safety as in, safety from violent death, safety from hunger, disease and thirst. So, we see a resource that someone else has, and we want it, that someone else got that resource through the same thinking as we have, so he doesn't want to give it up...and thus war is born.
I would dearly love world peace, I would love the only wars to be fought as those on computer screens...but it isn't going to happen, it would fly in the face of ultimate human nature, and so what we do is we get by how we can. For some that's believing in the glory of war, for others it's a duty, neither of which are wrong, for they are exactly what we make them to be, at the end of the day though, war is war, and it doesn't matter what we believe about it, all we can do is try to keep some sense of humanity attached when interacting with it, as well as staying alive.

Apologies for the wall of text, I tend to go on when I'm tired, thankfully I'll be hitting the sack in just over an hour so you'll have some reprieve from my words.

[Sailor Steve]

All I want to do is fly in the military.
Now that I can relate to. I dreamed of being a fighter pilot, at least until I was ten and my eyes went wonky. Having the goverment pay for that expensive schooling is a good thing, and then if they do send you off to war at least you get to fly aeroplanes instead of being a grunt or a swab. That's a worthy goal.

[CaptainMattJ.]

All I want to do is fly in the military.
And my goal was to serve in the U.S navy as a leg up in my future career in the maritime industry. I also wanted to do what i loved while serving my country. But they dont take people with asthma, no matter how mild and with few exceptions. (ive also heard something about peanut allergies being a 4F too but i dont know if thats true). But aside from my asthma i began to realize more and more of what that meant. Just because i wouldnt necessarily be the guy with his finger on the trigger, id be a part of it. In the military you dont have the luxury of deciding where you go, how long you go, and in the vast majority of cases, the weapons you fire and the people you kill. If you are given an order, by god you follow that order or they'll throw you in jail and not even hesitate. Killing another man doesn't become quite as difficult when it becomes a question of his life or yours. Kill or be killed.

Being in the military flying aircraft doesnt and shouldnt detach the reality that there is a very real possibility where you may be pitted against another man and be ordered to take his, and possibly many others, lives.

[Hottentot]

And again Skybird's penchant for heavy-handedness backfires. The rest was actually a very good post, and well worth reading.

I went back to read it because of this and just can't come to the same conclusion. My main point was that wars are difficult to sell to the public because of real people dying. He takes an example from the feudal era when such thing as public opinion didn't exist and says history proves otherwise. The rest didn't seemingly relate in any way to what I said.

I don't even disagree with most of what that rest was. I just can't see myself having a discussion with someone who addresses the quoted post briefly and then goes on to have a monologue. To paraphrase a little: I think history has proven well enough where it would have went from there on had I actually replied.

[Tribesman]

At least Adolf had manners back then :D
Thanks for the laugh:yeah:

[joea]

And again Skybird's penchant for heavy-handedness backfires. The rest was actually a very good post, and well worth reading.
Agreed, it reflects my thinking on war now.

[Skybird]

Your first priority is to win the war.
Strange, when I say that in such totality, I take flak.


Hartenstein had sunken an enemy vessel. Check.
Unaware of its loading: 300+ passengers, and over one thousand Axis prisoners.


Your second priority is your men's safety.
Strange, when i say that it is second priority only, I take flak.

Hartenstein radioed the Allies, informing them of the situation. Check.
He did. idiot. He seriously beliueved the enemy would cooperate and cease the war because Hartenstein did a radio transmission: "Don't shoot, I mean no harm, I will start to fire at your ships again not before I unloaded my passengers." He wanted to ease his conscience which probably was disturbed. Still, what he did was naive.


Your third priority is the safety of Civilians and captured enemy personnel. Hartenstein gave them food and water. Check.
No, along with the second priority it is the maintaining of your combat efficiency and the maximising of your available combat power in times of combat powers. Foreign civilians and prisoners shall not make you compromise your logistic situation and your tactical and strategic situation if you allow that, you would violate your priorities one and two. And that is what Hartenstein did.

Civilians and prisoners are a burden you only shall take into your fomrula when you have the luxury of being in oversupply of goods and items, and your military situation is such that you can afford that generosity. While civilians that do not participate in supporting the enemy for sure must not be seen as a military target and thus can be saved from being targetted, presence of civilians shall not stop you to fire at the enemy if he is there. While prisoners you took must not be targetted, this is onmly as lonmg as there is no risk that they become a threat to your own effort and forces and logistics - by overwhelming the guards and breaking out, forming suddenly a potent threat in your middle or your rear.


If the Allies had informed the Ascencion Island base that a U-boat was rescuing survivors, it would have all worked out.
That's what you want to believe. A German sub is a German sub. It kills ships, and this shipkiller's position now was known. So...

[Skybird]

:-?

I'm going to say this good and clear. I do not admire the enemy. I do not see fame and glory in going to war. I highly respect those that do go to war. I have a good amount of family members in the military. I even have military family members in Germany. I respect those who defend my home. Let's face it. World Peace is impossible. War is inevitable. If you want to cut me down for wanting to defend my fellow citizens so that they can sleep safe and sound at night and see their kids off to school the next day, go ahead. If you want to shoot down my argument and tell me that I love war and I am wrong, go ahead.

I will not care. I will not be bothered by this. I want to protect freedom and what I believe is good. I want to give back to my country. I want to see to it that the Average Joe has the right to walk down the street without fear of being arrested/killed/deported/etc...


Try all you want, but I am me. You cannot change that. :stare:
Your desire to protect freedom and your country are okay. But I think you run a good risk of being send instead into a war in defence of corporate interests and profit digging. Iraq 2003 being the prime example.

My initial reply to you was about your display of showing a very romantic attitude towards duelling yourself with the enemy, and my point was that doing like this would turn you into a risk for your own comrades. Not only plans but also ideals are amongst the first victims of war, and once you are in the middle of it all that counts is not your ideals, but your efficiency in killing and destroying, or supporting others in becoming that, if you end up somewhere not in the fighting force but in the supply chain or desktop work.

[Skybird]

August quote comes from a speech by T. Roosevelt generally called "The man in the Arena" he may be thinking of what Sailor Steve was saying to you because Steve has experienced war and you have not.He might also be trying to say ignore Skybird(he is the critic and your in the arena)

Am I? To me it seems I am much more in care for own side'S fioghting soldiers than quite some others, it also seems to me that I have far lkess illusions about the nature of war and thus are at the same time more unforgiving in detemrination how to fight wars - but also are far more hesitent to get wars started over questionable motives. Some of the military opoerations and wars you have seen since 2001 would not have happened if it would have been up to me. And the fewer wars/operations still being carried out - let'S say they would hjave been fought very very differently.

Does this make me a war monger or a warner of war?

In literature and movies, there is sometimes this cliche brought up, the proud warrior drawing blank his knife, but not needing to fight this time and so cutting his own hand so that it bleeds before putting the blade back into its shed. But actually, the symbolism in this often used idea to me makes sense, if you interpret it this way: do not be easy in pulling your weapon, do not ready yourself for lethal fighting and war if you are not determined, unforgivingly, to indeed shed blood.

In other words: be careful and be not easy about calling for war. But once you draw your blade, than be determined, and not be about theatralic gestures.

The dilletancy of the Bush administraiton about Iraq was the one crime they committed. The other was their easymindedness and carelessness and the intolerable motives by which they unleashed it. That's why I have called Bush a traitor to his own soldiers back then: he abused the naivety of many soldiers who got blinded over their well-meant willingness to serve their country and defend freedom and democracy (oh with this magic spell you can catch the souls of young men so very easily, can't you) and all that. The war was about anything but that.

You hear that, Red-October-who-wants-to-serve?

Be aware of the treacherous master you are willing to give the power to decide over your life. It's precious, you should not accept just any criminal dirtbag to play around with it. You said you "know" about the horror of war, due to the stories told by your grandfathers. You do not know the horror because you read a book about it, or hear somebody talking about it. You know nothing as long as you have not been there and have seen it yourself - and then horror is staring back and deep into yourself. Don't be so eager to meet it. And don't be so foolish to think you are prepared for it. When you return home, you bring some of it back with you, hidden inside of you for the rest of your life. If that is still worth it for you, then at least be certain of the cause for which you make that sacrifice. By not differing between your idealistic desire and the real-political intention of your masters - politicians and corporations - you not only sell your soul and life under value, but you also could easily end up as a helper for the cause of "evil", helping right the opposite of what you hoped you would achieve.

Serving you can in so many functions. btw. As a Autobahn emergency ambulance medic, those guys see terrible things, I can tell you. As a firefighter. Policeman. Doctor. And so many other, less sensationally sounding jobs. Not to mention voluntary engagements and wellfare projects you can pick up. Soldiers are not the better humans, nor are they worse.

What'S more precious to you: serving the needs, or your hunger for glory deriving from your exclusively military definition of "serving"?

And finally, a question for which some will hate me again or attack me over my "cynism" again. You should ask yourself whether the higher cause or community you want to serve - indeed deserves your engagement. That point is often too much taken for granted so that it must not be questioned at all. And I found not questioning it to be very bad advise. Maybe that is the reason why I am such a grim comrade today, but I refuse to cry over the death of illusions I formerly had, for the only solid basis to make decisions, is realism - not wishful thinking, exaggerated hopes or irrational fears.

[Hottentot]

Case in point.

[Red October1984]

Okay Skybird...I can admit to romanticizing war a little bit sometimes. Everyone does. I have heard many stories of the horrors of war but have not personally experienced them and I see what you mean about me being dragged into another "Iraq 2003." That war lasted entirely too long. But how do you effectively fight an insurgency quickly without help from the native government?

My Coast Guard remark was supposed to be a kind of joke. I respect those men and women who defend the oceans and shores of Coastal America.

I don't have much time to post now. I'm in a hurry. I'll post more later!

@Steve, If you dreamed of flying then how did you end up on destroyers? I had to ask.

[mookiemookie]

I usually avoid GT topics that lead to me getting riled up. Don't. Always be challenging your beliefs. Read the things that rile you up. Analyze why they rile you up. Re-examine your assumptions. Be open to the fact that what you know to be true may not be true. Enter every discussion with an open mind. You don't need to be wishy-washy in your beliefs, but you do need to be aware of the fact that they may be based on false, incomplete or misleading information.

I constantly try to work on this every day. It's a journey, and it takes work.

[Bilge_Rat]

strange... I thought this thread was supposed to be about a new HBO mini-series.....:hmm2:

A few months back, I received the bluray version of "12 O'Clock High". It was made in 1949, but had a surprisingly adult script. They used 12 actual B-17s, crashed one and most of the combat footage in the film is actual combat footage shot during the war. I also found out many of the extras/crew had also served in combat during WW2. A good film to put you in the mood while we wait.

[Crécy]

strange... I thought this thread was supposed to be about a new HBO mini-series.....:hmm2:

I had to check if I had opened a wrong thread. Twice.

I heard rumors of this 'sequel' a couple of months ago and was under impression that this was supposed to be about the air war in the Pacific Theater. Nevertheless, as long as we get more yummy from mr. Hanks and mr. Spielberg, I'm content. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

@Steve, If you dreamed of flying then how did you end up on destroyers? I had to ask.
I already said: 20/200 in the right eye, 20/275 in the left. I only joined the Navy because I was afraid I would be drafted into the Army, and the Navy wouldn't even let me on a submarine because of my eyesight.

[Sailor Steve]

I take flak.
He would have too, but we were too busy giving it to him over something else. Also, we recognize that he's repeating what he's read, however true it may be, and is still learning. You, on the other hand, spend so much time preaching and beating people over the head with it that everyone has grown tired of hearing it, however true it may be.

[Skybird]

That war lasted entirely too long. But how do you effectively fight an insurgency quickly without help from the native government?

Wrong question. The real question is why it even got started in 2003. The answer is plans that were made already one decade earlier, and that nothing to do with terror, claims of WMD or anything.

The insurgency had to be expected, and some warning voices even predicted right what then came. If you have no answer to how to defeat it, then you have even one reason more not to start a war.

[Skybird]

He would have too, but we were too busy giving it to him over something else. Also, we recognize that he's repeating what he's read, however true it may be, and is still learning. You, on the other hand, spend so much time preaching and beating people over the head with it that everyone has grown tired of hearing it, however true it may be.
However. Nice sig of yours again, the Grammar Nazi. :D I already loved the cat.

[Stealhead]

Am I



I was only posting my interpretation of Augusts post not that I agreed with it.Though the advice to ignore you was meant to be useful as your discussions can be a little hard for some to handle.

I certainly agree that you do take flak for your views on warfare when others might say the same thing and take none.I would also say that I generally agree with you views on warfare.

[Red October1984]

He would have too, but we were too busy giving it to him over something else. Also, we recognize that he's repeating what he's read, however true it may be, and is still learning. You, on the other hand, spend so much time preaching and beating people over the head with it that everyone has grown tired of hearing it, however true it may be.

Steve, you just made my day. I've had a horrible day...and that made me laugh.

Sorry about your eyesight too... :wah:

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry about your eyesight too... :wah:
I've lived with glasse for almost fifty-three years now. It is what it is. :sunny:

[Andrewsdad]

Ok, Spielberg here are two ideas for you.

Remake "The Enemy Below" Although it would be tough to beat the original film. Really Tough !!!

"Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" Now there is a great story with tragedy, glory, and lots of big guns to bring in the crowds. Might teach them some history too !!!

AD

[Red October1984]

Remake "The Enemy Below" Although it would be tough to beat the original film. Really Tough !!!

They could do it with a sub that actually looked like a VIIC inside and they could make the orders that are given by the Kaleun better.

And I think the ending should be changed. I don't like the whole Ramming idea


Other than that, i really loved The Enemy Below

[Stealhead]

When it comes to submarine films nothing comes close to Das Boot it was just such a great film it is very hard to compete with it.

The problem that any submarine flick is the simple fact that the subject matter is not as appealing to a larger audience.The simple truth is that a film/miniseries about infantrymen or pilots will just attract a larger audience which means more money.

Oh and the Coast Guard serves in more places than just the US coasts they where in Vietnam,WWII and they also have seen a lot of action in the Persian Gulf.In modern times there over seas service is usually inspecting ships in controlled areas some times they get to send pirate vessels to Davy Jones.In WWII they where very busy many Coasties served as boatswain's mates and drove landing craft especially in the Pacific others hunted for German U-boats.In Vietnam they where a part of Operation Market Time.

[Red October1984]

Oh and the Coast Guard serves in more places than just the US coasts they where in Vietnam,WWII and they also have seen a lot of action in the Persian Gulf.In modern times there over seas service is usually inspecting ships in controlled areas some times they get to send pirate vessels to Davy Jones.In WWII they where very busy many Coasties served as boatswain's mates and drove landing craft especially in the Pacific others hunted for German U-boats.In Vietnam they where a part of Operation Market Time.

I did not know that. Thank you for sharing. I always thought the Coast Guard just did stuff around our coast. It would make sense...haha. :D

[Stealhead]

I did not know that. Thank you for sharing. I always thought the Coast Guard just did stuff around our coast. It would make sense...haha. :D

The Coast Guard is a Department of the Navy in the past and now it is also a Department of Homeland Security but can be taken over by the Navy at any time.I am not sure but I am guessing that the Navy still pays for most of what the CG has like they do the Marine Corps which is also a Department of the Navy. I cant say for sure who has the purse all the people that I know where in the Coast Guard pre 2003 when it came under Homeland Security.

One person that I know was in the Navy for 2 years got bored of it came home went to community college for 4 months got bored of that and joined the CG.He did 23 years with 2 years from the Navy he had 25 total and retired with larger cut that you get for 25 or more years.This was from the late 60's into the early 90's.He worked mainly on cutters up in Alaska he has no idea who many people he helped rescue.His last few years where in Florida running drug indication missions mostly.

[August]

You guys that are suggesting remaking movies are off the mark. A movie doesn't nearly cover the subject to the degree of depth you find in a book.

The Pacific was based on four books from two authors and BoB was a comprehensive unit history compiled from official records and participant interviews. In short a heckuva lot more ground is covered than can be contained in a two hour movie which is why they are 10ea hour long parts.

[Stealhead]

I agree with you I am not a big fan of remakes and any film you want to have a lot of depth to has to be in a series format.Normal films by nature usually tend to cut much of the depth out in order to maintain continuity you only have ~120 or so minutes to tell the entire story.

Also many people forget that Das Boot was originally a mini series that was later cut into one film.

[August]

I agree with you I am not a big fan of remakes and any film you want to have a lot of depth to has to be in a series format.Normal films by nature usually tend to cut much of the depth out in order to maintain continuity you only have ~120 or so minutes to tell the entire story.

Also many people forget that Das Boot was originally a mini series that was later cut into one film.


I heard that, but what a hack job it must have been! I have the "Original Uncut" version (293 minutes) and it still left some stuff that was in the book. I can't imagine cutting out half of that and still tell a decent story.

[Stealhead]

I heard that, but what a hack job it must have been! I have the "Original Uncut" version (293 minutes) and it still left some stuff that was in the book. I can't imagine cutting out half of that and still tell a decent story.

I have a really neat copy of the book that includes many of the photos that the man took.I really thought that the end of the film was well done it reminds me of "All Quiet on the Western Front"(original 1930 version) you get to know and like the characters then in the end...

[Sailor Steve]

I really thought that the end of the film was well done...
Unfortunately it perverts the meaning of the book there as well. Did you know that the Old Man actually survived?

[Red October1984]

Unfortunately it perverts the meaning of the book there as well. Did you know that the Old Man actually survived?

:o Really?

[Sailor Steve]

:o Really?
Well, to be honest I've never read them, as they've never been translated into English, but it's my understanding that he figures prominently in both sequels.

Also, it's been a while since I read the book, but I don't recall any other crew members getting killed, as with that group scene in the movie.

[August]

Well, to be honest I've never read them, as they've never been translated into English, but it's my understanding that he figures prominently in both sequels.


Get Skybird to write an english synopsis of the changes. Get him to use his long windedness for good this one time. :)

[Red October1984]

Get Skybird to write an english synopsis of the changes. Get him to use his long windedness for good this one time. :)

:har: :rotfl2: :har: :rotfl2:


Haha! :haha:

[Stealhead]

Unfortunately it perverts the meaning of the book there as well. Did you know that the Old Man actually survived?

I did not mean to say that it was like the book which I have not read either.The book I have has photos taken by the journalist on that tour and others that he took of U-boat crews later.You can see at the end of the first section that real Old Man did survive along with the rest of the crew though.

I separate films from books myself to me they a two very different forms of entertainment I never expect a film to be just like the book because they simply can not be for simple reason that each reader sees in their mind what they read in a different way.In a film you are forced to see the film writers and directors view of the events in the film along with their creative license.

Serious readers will always find the book better than the film I know that I do of course as I said view a film based on a book without expecting to "see" the book I think is a good way to put it.

[Sailor Steve]

I did not mean to say that it was like the book which I have not read either.The book I have has photos taken by the journalist on that tour and others that he took of U-boat crews later.You can see at the end of the first section that real Old Man did survive along with the rest of the crew though.
Okay, I was talking about Das Boot and you were talking about U-Boot Krieg (U-Boat War). Two different books. I have them both, and both are great in their own way. Yes indeed, not only did Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock survive the war, but he commanded a freighter and a nuclear reseach ship, and then served as technical advisor for the movie.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/willenbrock4.jpg

I separate films from books myself to me they a two very different forms of entertainment I never expect a film to be just like the book because they simply can not be for simple reason that each reader sees in their mind what they read in a different way.In a film you are forced to see the film writers and directors view of the events in the film along with their creative license.
Oh, of course, and I agree. I was just pointing out the differences in this particular case. :sunny:

[Dowly]

Unfortunately it perverts the meaning of the book there as well. Did you know that the Old Man actually survived?

The book's ending doesn't really offer any clue whether he survives or not. :hmmm:

"And there in the haze I see the Old Man, streaming with blood, his sweater
and shirt torn to shreds. His eyes, which were always narrowed, are wide,
wide open. At almost the same moment we sink to our knees, bracing our
arms on the splintered stones, and face each other like two Sumo wrestlers.
The Old Man opens his mouth as though to let loose a great shout. But all that
gushes from his lips is blood."

[Stealhead]

Yes your correct I have U-Boat Kreig translated into English very good that you knew which book I was thinking of I had forgotten the name myself and that book is currently stored away on a distant book shelf my wife would throw it and many others out if I did not store many of them safely in the garage I have an inside the house book limit.Which is a good thing because I would then be reading through 4 or 5 different books at the same time.

You are correct about Heinrich of course.

Speaking of books I have waiting for me both volumes of "Silent Victory" once I finish up with "The Beauty and the Sorrow" a very good read about WWI.