Shooting Liferafts
 

Any downside to shooting and sinking a life raft full of survivors?

No downsides, but i think they are unsinkable...they probably don’t have damages boxes ...

I actually got credit for one on my mission log. Zero tonnage.
I wonder what our WWII subs did. I can see not wanting survivors on missions to report back sub activities. But I bet it goes agains regs or Geneva.

They can be sunk, but it's a waste of time and ammo.

In real life in any war there are going to be atrocities, and propaganda about enemy atrocities that are just made up. "If you surrender, the enemy will kill you with a flamethrower!!!" Get the troops to believe that, they'll be more likely to fight to the death instead of giving up.

There were verified cases of U-boats machine gunning survivors in the water, other verified cases where the sub gave the survivors food, water, a compass, and the course to the nearest land.

One famous/infamous case for American subs was USS Wahoo, some accounts you read claim the Captain (Mush Morton) hated the Japanese so much he machine gunned survivors in a rage. The actual official report says he sunk a troop transport, went in to see if he could get a prisoner or two, and the troops in lifeboats and landing craft opened fire on the Wahoo with machine guns so he had no choice but to return fire.

Humanitarian reasons aside, there are more reasons not to do it than to do it. Atrocities more often than not will stiffen resistance and piss off the enemy, if you're looking to break their spirit and reduce their morale that will usually have the opposite effect. It's also a two way street, you give the enemy all the excuse he needs to be barbaric in return. Risk versus reward is also a big factor, the ship you sunk is expensive and not easy to replace, a few dozen merchant seamen and a couple of rafts and lifeboats are cheap and easy to replace. One of them shoots back and kills a second class gunner's mate with a lucky shot, you just lost that contest because it takes years of training and a lot of money to make a qualified submariner. Just not worth the risk, once the ship goes down beat feet out of the area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoZ4_PRaJus

Figured this would be appropriate

Of what i remember for German side, Doenitz had huge trouble with it, at the Nuremberg trial. Because he said during the war at his Kaleuns « an ennemy surviving crew is an other ship crew next time... »
Meaning would be nice to not have survivors.
And this meaning was up to the Kaleuns to understand it...or not.
Hopefully very few of them understood and applied this hidden order.
And as it was a kind of hidden order, Doenitz made it through the trial...for this charge of indictment.

I thought unrestricted submarine warfare on military and civilian assets meant unrestricted.
Survivors were fair targets, and exactly for whats been mentioned. A surviving crew was another boats crew, and witnesses to submarine operations.


Seems to me this was more legit to do on the seas, since you could not take them (well I think some sub captains tried to capture a few) than when there are prisoners of war on land.

Great Smithsonian Video above.


Looks like the set they used may have been on an actual boat. Way too real looking.

Well, you can argue the morals and efficiency forever, but it happened in most wars. The book for RUN SILENT RUN DEEP had the captain sending the crew below so he could be alone while ramming lifeboats to make sure Bungo Pete was dead and had no chance to get back home and return with another destroyer. Early days in Vietnam there was an account of a heavy bomber chasing a guy on a motorcycle, dropping strings of 500 pound bombs to try to kill one soldier. Morality aside, to my way of thinking the risk/reward ratio and the efficiency are too poor to even bother with it. Modern day equivalent is targeting single terrorists with million dollar tomahawk missiles, not enough bang for the buck.

Yep, probably right.
I just finished watching a movie I bought from the USS Nautilus museum I visited over the weekend called Silent Victory - Submarine Warfare in WWII.


Its basically a historical account and walk through of the silent service from about 1920 through the end of the war.


Incredible does not adequately describe the detail and raw movie reel footage in this film.


Worth every penny I paid for it. In the movie it shows some raw footage of a lone Japanese survivor of an attack being rescued, taken on board and treated very well. Subsequently the POW was shown giving up coordinates of other ships on a map while dining with the captain. Interesting stuff.

Video from post number 5 (not going to attempt the poster's username since he apparently sat on the keyboard to spell it :doh: ) was an actual battle where a crewman on USS SILVERSIDES was killed, makes my point - trading the life of a qualified submariner for a fishing boat is a bad trade. In game is different, shooting up lifeboats and rafts doesn't change the score one way or another, and they never shoot back.

Real life is a another story, sinking that fishing boat cost more than it was worth.

Attacking survivors is also just a great waste of ammunition as well, in addition to being completely immoral.

Immoral is subjective and/or relative during a war such as WWII.
Waste of ammo can be argued as well. In the game yes its a waste since survivors are basically just cosmetic.

Agree. Only a pig would machine gun survivors. Rightfully German submariners got punished for doing that.

Not like they could even defend themselves anyway. Way I look at it, once their ship is below the waves, the job is done.