During the First World War the u-boats were ordered to approach merchants on the surface, inspect their papers and let them go if truly neutral, but if they were enemy to allow the crew to abandon ship then sink them with scuttling charges or the deck gun. The British answer to this was the Q-Ship, which not only had guns hidden in crates or otherwise disguised, but even had small crews trained to man the boats and pretend to abandon ship while the gun crews made ready. Then, when the u-boats were ordered to use torpedoes in underwater attacks, the Brits started crying "Foul".

Also true. The whole point was to strangle an island nation by preventing supplies from getting through. The only question was whether to attack submerged, increasing the chances of success, attack on the surface, which sooner or later was certain death, or not attack at all.

Well, since we've wandered off into the woods somewhere (no offense taken, btw) I suppose I'll throw my hat into the ring as well.

We like to think that war has rules, and that those rules can be enforced. We like to think that, even in times of war, there is such a thing as right and wrong. Take the absurdity of the Prize Rules, as just one example. It's been pointed out already that both sides "broke the rules" in one way or another, and before long virtually every ship headed for England was a "valid target" because the reality was that every ship headed for England HAD to carry supplies/munitions/troops/whatever in order to keep the country afloat. The rules sounded nice on paper, but as soon as war broke out they were worthless. Reality just doesn't work that way.

The only thing common to every human armed conflict is death. Death of military men and women, which is often seen as acceptable on some level, and the death of civilians, which is generally considered barbaric and sub-human.

War is essentially an effort to carve out an exception to one of the fundamental civil principles of any developed nation: the prohibition of murder.

In that light no nation is innocent, no one wins or loses, and there are no "good" and "bad" sides. WWII is difficult, I think, because history and humanity have so clearly come down against what Hitler attempted to do. It's easy to see the allies as good and the Nazis as evil. Mind you, I'm not for one second suggesting that we're too hard on Nazi Germany, but the bipolar good/evil scenario is far too oversimplified. Das Boot, Saving Private Ryan, and any good documentary on WWII will show you that.

I've come to believe that if thinking about the reality of war (be it the specifics of the battle of the Atlantic, or war in general) doesn't make you squirm in your seat a little for want of a "cleaner set of rules" then you're not really paying attention.

As for the game, I play because a submarine is the ultimate strategy simulation, and is the polar opposite of the first person shooters that saturate the gaming market. I find the Pacific theater "boring" for reasons I can't put my finger on, so that leaves German U-Boats as the ideal sub sim. As a game mechanic, it's also convenient that things got more difficult for U-Boat captains as the war went on, allowing the player to gain and use skills in the game while maintaining a natural sense of historical accuracy.

It's was war, by any means - sport.

Another POV from WW2 airwar - "Most pilots who died in WW2 often never saw their attacker" .... and this was in the big open sky.

Unfortunately in wartime people are often put into extreme situations where it is either 'you or me', and you'll do anything to survive - This is a natural animal instinct. :)

My ??? is what is the renown for a B Ship and all of the other Merch. ships.

I had all that written down some time ago but can not find it.

SO__ where can we find the "Renown" score for the ship we sink??


Thanks:salute:

Battleships were almost irreplaceable, as the long construction time meant that an unit ordered during the war would not be ready before the end. There was also only a limited number of them, so the loss of even a single one could have an impact on operations. Tankers were much more numerous and easy to replace.

I'm afraid that was not always the case.

USS Iowa.......................Laid down June 1940 and Commissioned Feb 1943

USS South Dakota...........Laid down July 1939 and Commissioned March 1942

My last contact with the convoy was while commanding U-384.

1943 January 12, grid AK0345

Time: 7:30 in the morning

Diesel reserve 30-35%

Weather: clear sky, Wind 15 m/s

Failed to position myself closer to the convoy. Was observing large convoy passing by in about 7 km away from me. Reported BDU. Speed 8 kn, Course 80. BDU responded with the request to report convoy status hourly. Was about to pursue the convoy when I spotted small merchant already far away left behind from convoy. Strugling after it in about 3 knots. Decided he was probably damaged by storm. Fired 4 torps in total. 2 missed, 1 dud, the last one had it. Sunk instantly. Decided not to follow convoy, due to low fuel. Still had 5 torps left. But I was far away from base to La Rochelle. Perhaps on the return course I will have to meet with supply u-boat not too far away, for extra diesel..

Not to be a nitpicker but for, say, Iowa you are looking at 1938-1939 for order and design, making it effectively prewar. It also took nearly half a year before it was actually committed to operations.
If you decided you needed a new battleship after the war had started to replace losses, most likely you would not get it before it was game over. That is what I was trying to say.
Yes, programs started before the war could and did yield results within useful time, but if you were starting from scratch it would not be possible to get them ready quickly enough. Typical example would be HMS Vanguard, despite being ordered in early 1941 and being designed to make use of existing components to expedite construction it was not ready before it had become irrelevant.

Your not nitpicking at all but the USS Missouri for example wasn't ordered till June 1940 but was still launched and ready for combat by June 1944.

It was commissioned in June. Note however that like Iowa it spent a good six months afterwards training and fine tuning before being actually sent to the theater and committed to operations. By then the IJN had de facto ceased to exist as a surface opponent. Could it have been used sooner? Maybe, but I would bet there would be a lot of crossed fingers in that case.

She actually participated in actions at Iwo Jima and Okinawa amongst others.

SH3/data/Sea/"type of ship you sank here"/.cfg file

:salute:

True, and so did Winsconsin, likewise a latecomer. But realistically, the matter had been settled by then, insofar surface engagements went, and if one wanted to be really technical 1940 was still prewar as far the US was concerned. In actual practice the breaking out of hostilities resulted in the termination of most battleships projects: the germans froze work on the H-39s, the british likewise halted the construction of the Lion class and the americans cancelled the Montana (the two extra Iowa were bumped down the priority list in favor of LSTs and such and never completed). The resources were redirected to something that could be brought in service within an useful time, such as submarines, escorts and aircraft carriers. Battleships were understood to be "come as you are" asset and a war would be largely fought with those that were either already ready or advanced enough in the pipeline. Eventual losses would have to be lived with. The same had happened previously in WW1, with neither Britain or Germany laying down new battleships after the beginning of the war.

Late to the party, but putting my tuppence in anyway!

I agree that Wreford-Brown wasn't a hero, but he was working under direct Prime Ministerial supervision and sinking the Belgrano had a strategic effect which still works today.

Anyone tracking the UK Press will see that the regular complaints about Las Malvinas are roughly on a four-year cycle (aligned with Argentinian politics). Every time the Argentinians make military assertions, the UK military has a low-profile press release mentioning the deployment of an attack submarine to an 'unknown destination', reinforcing the lessons of the war of 1982.

The sinking of the Belgrano had a psychological effect that has lasted for 30 years. I contest that the loss of 323 lives on the Belgrano may have ultimately saved lives in the long term as it helped prevent further military actions over Las Malvinas and therefore further unnecessary bloodshed.

I hope that the vote being held soon will be accepted by both the UK and Argentinian governments, regardless of which way the vote falls.