Its not Cricket, Herr Kaleun!

[GJO]

After a fairly fruitless patrol South West of the Canary Islands in April 1941 I decided to cross the Atlantic to see if I might find richer pickings. After many days at sea (it takes forever at the most fuel efficient cruising speed) I am heading for the Gulf of Mexico - remembering from the film, 'San Demetrio, London' that tankers bound for the UK started from Galveston, Texas, but on the way I decide to have a closer look at the port of Key West. The USA is still neutral and the harbour patrols ignore me as I nose in at periscope depth - then, dead ahead, I see a 'White Ensign' fluttering from the mast of a 'Flower' Class Corvette, apparently at anchor. I close to 450 Metres and sink it with one torpedo before sneaking off to continue hunting for tankers. The US harbour patrols continue to ignore me and soon dissapear out of range behind me . . .

I didn't find any British tankers and subsequently I decided to abort the second part of this patrol and restart from my saved position South West of the Canary Islands. My thinking being that such an action shouldn't have been possible in real life - a submarine attacking a ship at anchor in a neutral (but most probably not friendly) port would surely provoke a reaction and with less than 15 Metres of water under the keel, escape from attacking patrol boats and destroyers would have been unlikely - would the US ships have retaliated? I really don't know but I think they should have - after all, an attack on a guest in their home port is just not fair! Having said that, I am playing the part of a German sub commander and the rules of Cricket probably don't apply . . .

[Marcello]

My thinking being that such an action shouldn't have been possible in real life - a submarine attacking a ship at anchor in a neutral (but most probably not friendly) port would surely provoke a reaction and with less than 15 Metres of water under the keel, escape from attacking patrol boats and destroyers would have been unlikely - would the US ships have retaliated? I really don't know but I think they should have - after all, an attack on a guest in their home port is just not fair! Having said that, I am playing the part of a German sub commander and the rules of Cricket probably don't apply . . .

While the undeclared naval war against the u-boat went into high gear only in the fall of 1941 it is a safe bet that such provocative violation of the US "neutrality zone" (diplo-speak for u-boats not welcomed) would trigger hostile reactions. As a matter of fact the harbor patrol would have shot you on sight in all likelyhood.

[Dread Knot]

I think in real life in a neutral port, that the first reaction would have been, "was this an accident?" Given that submarines and torpedoes are stealth weapons there may have been initial confusion as to whether this was a magazine detonation or sabotage.

Assuming they figure out it is a submarine attack and you get clean away, it's hard to gauge what the reaction would be. The US did not declare war after an U-boat sank the US destroyer Reuben James, whilst she was escorting convoy HX 156. This was only weeks after the USS Greer was fired upon by an U-boat in September of 1941 and the torpedoing of USS Kearney on October 17, 1941. There might have been a diplomatic exchange between US and Germany and a subsequent increased diligence and reinforcement of the US Atlantic Fleet. On the German side, Admiral Raeder might inform his commanders that Hitler desires to avoid provoking the US at the moment, and to be more careful and circumspect.

That means you. :D

[Marcello]

I think in real life in a neutral port, that the first reaction would have been, "was this an accident?" Given that submarines and torpedoes are stealth weapons there may have been initial confusion as to whether this was a magazine detonation or sabotage.


Problem is that as far as I understand the american ships actually saw him. The neutrality zone at this point was 300 nm and by the sound of he may even be in US territorial waters. Even if it is only April that would warrant an hostile reaction regardless. And there is no way that a british ship going up into flames soon after he dives would be regarded as a coincidence...

[maillemaker]

I'm pretty sure there are rules of engagement regarding neutral ports.

Laws of War :
Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII); October 18, 1907

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague13.asp

"Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutral Powers and to abstain, in neutral territory or neutral waters, from any act which would, if knowingly permitted by any Power, constitute a violation of neutrality."

Convention on Maritime Neutrality, 135 L.N.T.S. 187, entered into force Jan. 21, 1931.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1928b.htm

"Art. 3. Belligerent states are obligated to refrain from performing acts of war in neutral waters or other acts which may constitute on the part of the state that tolerates them, a violation of neutrality."

[maillemaker]

That said, harbor raiding in SH3 is rather trivial, provided you can avoid the sub nets and minefields. :)

The ship AI in ports is abysmal. If you stay close to sea walls more often than not enemy escorts will ram the walls or shore repeatedly until they destroy themselves.

More than once on a lark I have raided a harbor, expending all of my torpedoes, and then backed my sub into a slip and surfaced to pull in my external loads and recharge my air and batteries.

The enemy port may light up like the Forth of July, with sirens wailing, searchlights playing, and guns firing your way, but if you are shrouded by walls you can come away unscathed during the entire operation. I like to imagine the dock crew coming down and gawking at the u-boat reloading its torpedoes in one of their slips while the crew looks up and waves. :D

You have to watch out, though, that your sub does not drift into an open line of fire, though. :o

Steve