Wouldn't it be cool if they modeled MUSH?
 

I was sitting back and drooling over the latest interior shots of SHIV and I caught myself thinking, "Why don't they model famous people from the sub war?". I mean instead of that goofy lookin (bearded Amish man as someone put it) XO why not have good ol' Mush Morton standing there?

OK I know that technically YOU are Mush in the sim but he must have been an XO at one point. At that rate go ahead and model Dick O'Kane. We have the pictures...

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/6909/mushkx7.jpg

I would be pretty cool to see these guys on your boat, eh! :arrgh!:

Making face-skins isnt difficult, i think... It could be done... The question is: Will SHIV be as easy to mod as SHIII...?

I don't think they'd want to include Mush, mainly because of that ... incident with the sunken troopship's lifeboats ... too controversial.

Wouldn't be cool if they modeled the mush being served in the ship's galley? Yummers! ;)

Will there be an ice cream machine on board? or a one arm bandit in the torpedo room?? Better get the modders on to it!

I don't think that Mush is too controversial (sp), I mean for goodness sake, we are currently playing as Nazis. :o

I'd love to have him modeled. Mush was a real skipper, fighting a war with different rules than the ones in Europe. Much of the Pacific was a no quarters battle... horrible, horrible, horrible stuff.

I can't say that in '42 after the stories of the Death March started filtering back, that I wouldn't have done the same as Mush. You would hope that one could retain chunks of their humanity, but I doubt it.......

lay off mush he is a hero just like all the submariners on eternal patrol how can you judge mush when you were not on patrol with him you dont know the full curcumstances on why he did what he did all i know is mush has been found and we should honor him for all the good work he did as a submarine commander in the pacific i for one i would go out on an eternal patrol with him i think he is a hero and thats my opinion

ober lt lare

Commander Models
 

I don't know if it would be because of the incident Iambecomelife mentioned, but I still agree that they would not model Mush Morton or any other specific commander. Maybe because they would feel it would be disrespectful to them or their families somehow, although they would probably have the legal right to do so. But I might be wrong - I don't know.

[quote=Quagmire]I was sitting back and drooling over the latest interior shots of SHIV and I caught myself thinking, "Why don't they model famous people from the sub war?". I mean instead of that goofy lookin (bearded Amish man as someone put it) XO why not have good ol' Mush Morton standing there?

Ah man, I thought the same thing with the dude with the beard. He looks like Amos out of Lancaster PA. LOL. Dude I got a good laugh out of your comment on that sailor.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I just want to see Don Rickles as the cook ... :lol:

You hockey puck................:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I disagree with the 'if you weren't there you can't judge' approach, on that basis, if you haven't marched Jews into gas chambers you can't condemn concentration camp guards?

However, given the situation, Morton was probably justified, it is legal to shoot paratroopers under canopy, but not downed pilots - the reasoning being that the downed pilot is out of combat, the para is heading into combat, similar situation here, the troops were in boats and if they get to shore, they can join the battle.

Killing survivors in lifeboats is never justified. Funny how it's ok for us to do it,but if an enemy does it it's a warcrime.

Not too mention that there were POWs from India in some of those lifeboats that the Wahoo destroyed...and flat out murdering anyone who tried to surrender.

The man was no hero,he was a war criminal,pure and simple.

Next thing you know,you'll be telling us how torture is justified.

OHH, my poor little thread :cry::cry:

All I wanted was some historical flare to the crew since so much effort is going into the historical flare of the sub. And now this. But since you started it...

War is criminal, war is hell, war is barbaric, war is everything awful you can think of. In all wars the winners are the victors and the losers are the war criminals. Crimes are committed on both sides, and the side that commits fewer crimes is usually the side that loses. Sure the Nazis were absolutely awful in every respect. But do realise that the Allies killed just as many civilians in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, culminating with the wholesale eradication of Hiroshima. So technically you can say that the Allies commited more crimes than the Axis and consequently they won.

Now I am an American and I have absolutely NO problem whatsoever with the actions of my government during WWII. Why? Because you have to fight fire with fire or burn to ashes trying. In fact, ending a conflict as brutally and completely as possible, as quickly as possible, actually SAVES lives in the long run. We all know what would have been if the Allies had invaded the Japanese home islands. The Hiroshima death tole would pale in comparison.

Well, fast forward twenty years after WWII and you have the swingin' sixties with the wonderful in your face, live from the battlefield, American media. Now the "crimes" of war are exposed for all to see. The politicians get scared that the majority of the historically uneducated electorate will not vote for them and they begin to pull back so as to appear "kinder and gentiler" of the tube every night. The war then drags on into a protracted, bloodier conflict since more people are killed over the years of "police action" than would ever have died in a short (yet brutal) total victory.

Fast forward thirty years after Vietnam and you have good ol' Iraq. Once again, America finds herself losing more people and staying longer in a conflict than she should since the mission is not to vanquish the enemy, rather to win "hearts and minds". Yes that vanquishing requires civilian casualties. Do you think civilian casualties were considered when Gen. LeMay planned the firebombing of Tokyo?

War is hell folks. When Mush Morton shot at those lifeboats he shortened the war by weeks, maybe months. If he had let them return to their homes the war would have claimed even more lives just by the fact that it was still active that little bit longer.

In conclusion, am I advocating war crimes? I an a way, yes. However, am I also advocating war? NO! My advocation of war crimes is only for the greater good of ending the conflict as soon as possible. Ironically humanity is served with far fewer deaths.

If politicians today do not have the stomach for war crimes, than they have no business going to war in the first place. Someone should have told MR. BUSH that...

Sorry for the rant but I have had the need to get that off my chest for some time now. Americas politicians and media are getting more people killed worrying about votes and ratings respectively than if they bit the bullet and supported a quick and total victory.

It makes no sense to prolong a conflict to save lives...

Mush Morton, I salute you!

Just as it is lawful to shoot paratroopers who jump from a burning plane, it is lawful to shoot soldiers in boats who could go into combat ashore.

Try reading the Geneva conventions before you quote them.

The PWs were a mistake in combat, but the GC allows for mistakes too - you aren't required to check the personal ID of every man you fire upon in combat.