SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   SHIII Mods Workshop (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=195)
-   -   Hospital ship in RND patrol results (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=84833)

andy_311 09-28-05 07:04 AM

Am just curious say for example a destroyer encounters a hospital ship in this game I doubt if an AI destroyer would have any quams in putting couple of dozen shells into her and sink her.
Wasn't there a case that occured in the baltic in wwII when aussian sub took one out the loss of life was higher than the Titanic disaster (I could be wrong)
Just because It's got the red cross emblems on it doesn't mean it's carrying injured personnel

AG124 09-28-05 07:52 AM

That was the Wilhelm Gustlov, which was a troop transport carrying over 9,000 civilians. She wasn't a hospital ship, but she was a former passenger liner and the disaster did claim more lives than the Titanic sinking.

There is a book on the sinking called The Damned don't Drown, but I think it's out of print.

Woof1701 09-28-05 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_311
Am just curious say for example a destroyer encounters a hospital ship in this game I doubt if an AI destroyer would have any quams in putting couple of dozen shells into her and sink her.
Wasn't there a case that occured in the baltic in wwII when aussian sub took one out the loss of life was higher than the Titanic disaster (I could be wrong)

You might refer to the Wilhelm Gustloff, a German cruise liner which was converted into a hospital ship and also took on thousands or refugees who were fleeing from the advancing Russian Army. A Russian sub sank the ship and a few days later sank another large refugee ship called "Steuben". Both ships didn't fly the red cross as far as I know, however it was clear that it wasn't a military operation but a rescue mission.

The overall loss of life is estimated to be over 10.000 people. Most of them women and children. A third refugee ship was sunk a few days later with another 7.000 casualties. Those sinkings can be considered one of the largest war crimes committed in WW2.

Quote:

Just because It's got the red cross emblems on it doesn't mean it's carrying injured personnel
Well normally the Red Cross was generally not misused to smuggle material or personnel or protect some operation from being attacked. If a country would've done that on a large scale, the enemy surely wouldn't have hesitated to attack anything even when showing a red cross.

However a more or less common practice was to OPENLY store war material near field hospitals and red cross units in order to prevent the enemy from attacking it. The Americans did that as well as the Germans in WW2.

AG124 09-28-05 08:02 AM

I believe I have read about one case in which a British hospital ship (the Newfoundland) was attacked and sunk by German aircraft in 1943.

Here is an article which briefly mentions it - maybe someone else can find a more detailed one:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news/...Date=2/21/2005

As was mentioned earlier, the Japanese hospital ship Awa Maru was sunk in the Pacific as well.

Speaking of the Titanic, in WW1, her sister ship Britannic was sunk while serving as a hospital ship - the sinking has never been proven to have been a sub attack though and may have been caused by a mine. Hospital ships back then had yellow funnels, which looks better than white to me.

http://members.aol.com/WakkoW5/britannic.html

http://website.lineone.net/~britannic98/

Bill Nichols 09-28-05 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woof1701
Thanks Bill for the post. That's exactly what I was searching for.

The problem with the neutrals in convoys came up a few months ago. I also solved it by changing the cfg file and thus declaring all neutral ships enemies. BUT I restrain myself NOT to sink any neutral ships outside convoys, and if I can't identify a ship I won't attack it. Period.
But if I sink a T3 in a convoy I want full renown for it, no matter whether it's British, American or Norwegian.

That's a great idea. Can you tell me how to do this?

Wulfmann 09-28-05 08:46 AM

I agree hospital ships would likely not be in a convoy. But, there are many things that are not quite right about this game and I feel it makes for better play to add a few.
I was attacking a convoy last night mid 1942. I could get close enough to launch into it but knew a transport was there and did not risk it. By having just a few possible, it changes your shoot at anything attitude and I like that.
I had taken out 3 escorts 2 with hom fish and had a bow and stern homy ready for the next one. I fired, he didn’t go down???? I turned and fired the stern, no hit????
I crash dived and got to0 far away to retake the convoy. Then I got “torpedo impact”, enemy unit destroyed. I was mortified. But, it was small cargo, my only merchant in the convoy (the other hom boy hit a big cargo, damaged.) That adds something extra, IMO.

As far as my additional escorts 3 and 4 rated; I was sunk on my first 1942 patrol, gun fire, DCs and rammed by a merchant, sunk on my third patrol by DCing and sunk on my first patrol by Catalinas 100 miles west of Brest. Sunk 3 times in 5 patrols. I think I have finally got it hard enough, LOL

As far as worst atrocities, I assume you mean nautical. The 10.5 million (4.5 Million Jews and 6 million gentiles) killed in the camps might be the worst!!!

Wulfmann

Woof1701 09-28-05 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Nichols
Quote:

Originally Posted by Woof1701
Thanks Bill for the post. That's exactly what I was searching for.

The problem with the neutrals in convoys came up a few months ago. I also solved it by changing the cfg file and thus declaring all neutral ships enemies. BUT I restrain myself NOT to sink any neutral ships outside convoys, and if I can't identify a ship I won't attack it. Period.
But if I sink a T3 in a convoy I want full renown for it, no matter whether it's British, American or Norwegian.

That's a great idea. Can you tell me how to do this?

Yep. It's in the basic.cfg file. There's a subsection about renown looking like this:

[RENOWN]
RenownReachGridObjCompleted=500
RenownPatrolGridObjCompleted=200
CompletedPatrol=100
NEUTRAL=-0
ALLIED=1
AXIS=-10
WrongShipSunk=-5000
FirstRankRenown=1000
SecondRankRenown=3500
EndCampaign=-5000

And I simply changed the value from NEUTRAL=-0 to NEUTRAL=1 and I now get full renown.

Wulfmann 09-28-05 09:55 AM

I also changed the value for reaching and completing the patrol grid so I get little for getting there and more for completing it as well as more for coming back to port. It adds up to the same but its an incentive to complete the missiom. Just my opinion.

Since I greatly reduced the tonnage in ships I also reduced the requirements for crew medals, promotions and renown occordingly so my score, about 50% tonnage of what it was for the same number of ships, does not change the reward for success. I still out score the real aces because I am sinking twice the ships they are but at least I am not running up a million tons in 3 years.

Wulfmann


[RENOWN]
RenownReachGridObjCompleted=200
RenownPatrolGridObjCompleted=300
CompletedPatrol=300
NEUTRAL=1
ALLIED=1
AXIS=-10
WrongShipSunk=-5000
FirstRankRenown=1000
SecondRankRenown=3500
EndCampaign=-5000

Woof1701 09-28-05 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulfmann
I also changed the value for reaching and completing the patrol grid so I get little for getting there and more for completing it as well as more for coming back to port. It adds up to the same but its an incentive to complete the missiom. Just my opinion.

Good idea. I like that!


Quote:

Since I greatly reduced the tonnage in ships I also reduced the requirements for crew medals, promotions and renown occordingly so my score, about 50% tonnage of what it was for the same number of ships, does not change the reward for success. I still out score the real aces because I am sinking twice the ships they are but at least I am not running up a million tons in 3 years.
Nope ins 6 years :-j
Just kidding. Is that a mod you published? Must've escaped my attention. Will have a look at terrapin's site in the evening!

[quote]
Wulfmann

Woof1701 09-28-05 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulfmann
As far as worst atrocities, I assume you mean nautical. The 10.5 million (4.5 Million Jews and 6 million gentiles) killed in the camps might be the worst!!!

You're right of course. It wasn't my intention to size up one atrocity to another, just to show that all parties concerned did some terrible things. The Japanese worked tens of thousands of Chinese to death, the British purposely bombed civilians in the German cities trying to break their will and utterly failing to do that, the Americans incinerated the population of two whole cities full of civilians and let the rest die of exposure, and the Russian government under Stalin turned on their own people and had several million killed.
When it comes to the death toll my ancestors still get the credit for being the worst and I guess it's well-deserved.
However: think about one thing: had the axis powers won the war (and thank god they didn't!) what would you think would've become of the Hiroshima atomic bomb in history?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.