Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
I don't think so. They just do reasonable calculation to decide if it makes sense to replace a very expensive, time and resource consuming submarine filled with 80 of the highers calibre men in the military for a cheap, easy to replace airplane (as an example), with a crew of two easily replaced fly boys. If the trade doesn't make military sense, and it doesn't, then the policy is never to engage with airplanes.
Same thing goes with armed merchants. Merchant ships are plentiful and easily replaced, with crews of average, non-military men. Their guns are on an excellent gun platform and usually they have at least two guns to the sub's one. Does the trade make sense? Does the sub have other ways to attack merchant shipping that does not leave them in an uneven gunbattle where the consequences of losing far outweigh the rewards of winning the encounter? The answer is that it is against sensible policy to engage armed merchants on the surface. That's what torpedoes are for. Captains who violate the policy end up in Leavenworth--and that is where they belong.
It's just silly to say cowardice has anything to do with it. It's responsible management of military assets. You only risk your life if the payoff is way out of proportion to the cost of losing you, your crew and your boat. Any other way of evaluation is criminal.
|
Rockin, that comment was in response to something Moonlight posted. You might want to do some reading a bit further down in the thread to get the meaning of what I said and why I said it.