Convoy decision

[scudder]

So I was on my second patrol of the war, Oct. 1939. I came across a huge convoy, and at it's center was the HMS Rodney. I had arrived ahead of the convoy, and the seas were pretty choppy, so I was able to get in position close and perpendicular to the convoy's direction of travel. I had 4 torpedoes left, all in the forward tubes, and my choice of targets as about 1/2 to 2/3 of the convoy was within ideal range and at the right AoB at the same time. There were several smaller merchant ships, a few medium tankers, one or two large tankers, and the crown jewel massive battleship in the center. I chose to go for the gusto and fire on the Rodney. I put all 4 () torpedoes in her side, and she went down before too long.

I felt pretty good, until I realized I just let the entire convoy of materials and fuel proceed on to Britain unharmed. So what would a Kaleun do IRL? Sink the battleship so the next convoy isn't as well protected, or try to get at as much merchant tonnage as possible, even if it means letting the battleship get away scott free?

[padi]

I think he choose the Battleship because it is very prestigious to sink a great warship like a battleship or a carrier.

[HundertzehnGustav]

two for the rodney, two for two tankers...

[Jimbuna]

Go for the Rodney...a BB is simply too tempting to pass by.

[sublynx]

In this book

http://eaglescholar.georgiasouthern...._201005_MA.pdf

you'll find a description what Prien did when confronted with a task force of troop transports and a cruiser: one torpedo for each ship. At that point he didn't know that the torpedoes would likely malfunction, though. If he had anticipated failure the decision would likely have been different.

In BdU's war diary

http://www.uboatarchive.net/BDUKTB30261.htm

it reads that the U-boats taking part in the operation for supporting the invasion of Norway were not to attack "secondary targets" like merchant ships or convoys that were not part of Allied counteroperations. However there is no restriction attacking battleships.

I would think that a battleship would always have been a U-boat commander's number one target. Personally I would prefer to sink any of those darn carriers if given the choice between one and a battleship. I hate those airplanes

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by sublynx

I would think that a battleship would always have been a U-boat commander's number one target.

Jürgen Östen certainly agrees.

[sublynx]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Jürgen Östen certainly agrees.

Great clip

[guntherprien]

Is it only me who finds submarine warfare a particularly cowardly form,especially against unarmed merchantmen?
I mean,come on,it's hardly trench warfare is it?
It riles me when I read of commanders getting medals for sinking merchant vessels and leaving the crew to die,I would be ashamed of myself.
I mean,look at 'Mush' Mortons escapade,when he slaughtered all the Japanese troops in the open water,
to name but a few.
Wreford-brown was hardly a hero sinking the Belgrano relatively recently was he?
No,I'm sorry,I don't rate it heroic one bit.Dangerous? Very,but heroic? No.
Flame away,comrades......

[RConch]

Originally Posted by guntherprien

Is it only me who finds submarine warfare a particularly cowardly form,especially against unarmed merchantmen?
I mean,come on,it's hardly trench warfare is it?
It riles me when I read of commanders getting medals for sinking merchant vessels and leaving the crew to die,I would be ashamed of myself.
I mean,look at 'Mush' Mortons escapade,when he slaughtered all the Japanese troops in the open water,
to name but a few.
Wreford-brown was hardly a hero sinking the Belgrano relatively recently was he?
No,I'm sorry,I don't rate it heroic one bit.Dangerous? Very,but heroic? No.
Flame away,comrades......

Why the rant? This is a site where we play a game that is about what you don't like.
We don't flame here-its impolite.

[Gustav Schiebert]

Originally Posted by guntherprien

Is it only me who finds submarine warfare a particularly cowardly form,especially against unarmed merchantmen?
I mean,come on,it's hardly trench warfare is it?
It riles me when I read of commanders getting medals for sinking merchant vessels and leaving the crew to die,I would be ashamed of myself.
I mean,look at 'Mush' Mortons escapade,when he slaughtered all the Japanese troops in the open water,
to name but a few.
Wreford-brown was hardly a hero sinking the Belgrano relatively recently was he?
No,I'm sorry,I don't rate it heroic one bit.Dangerous? Very,but heroic? No.
Flame away,comrades......

FLAME!!! Sorry, but I did my finals on the morality of submarine warfare for my NCO promotion course.

The London Naval Treaty signed before the war, by Germany and Britain, meant that subs could not attack shipping while submerged. They had to surface, stop the vessel, inspect its cargo, then move the crew to a 'place of safety' before sinking it (known as Prize Regulations). Putting them in lifeboats did NOT count as a 'place of safety'.

However, in order to recieve this pretty robust legal protection they had to be civilian ships. And if they carried ANY guns or ANY military personnel (as most did) OR communicated with the navy AT ALL (as practically every ship did after the outbreak of war, they lost their protection.

So legally, the vast majority of merchant ships were naval auxiliaries and legitimate targets.

Realise this doesn't quite answer the point about cowardice/bravery, and I hope people don't take this as a flame. I'm just trying to point out a factual error in the assertion that merchantmen were 'unarmed'.

[sublynx]

I can't agree with the cowardly bit in the sense that a U-boatman's life was extremely risky. One could argue that U-boats hit defenseless or helpless targets. That's warfare. Basically all of warfare tries to hit the enemy from a safe position. That's why armor and shields and longrange weapons like a bow or a sniper rifle were developed. Strategy and tactics in all warfare strives to achieve a position where you can kill the enemy in perfect safety.

Heroic? My grandfather told me that when he went to the front in the winter of 1941/1942 the first task he faced was to pile frozen enemy carcasses to make a temporary winter road more durable. It was easier than felling trees as there had been an encirclement and the enemy had been pushed to a small area and then killed in piles. Probably those soldiers killed had very little ammunition or food when they were killed and they were probably killed mostly by artillery and mortar fire from a safe distance.

Heroism and war is a very difficult thing to define. I think it's easier to think of war as a basically insane slaughter that a society should avoid if at all possible. I don't play SH3 to feel brave or heroic. I like history, geometry and challenge and would probably desert at the first chance if I was to participate in real submarine warfare.

Interesting points of view anyways, guntherprien. I hope other people decide to share their views on this

[Marcello]

What is regarded as moral/legal in this sort of stuff is pretty hazy and essentially driven by technology, politics and others factors. Technology made possible to build practical submarines in the years following the beginning of the 20th century but hard physical limits dictated that in order to operate efficiently they had to fight in a new different way from surface ships, a way that was indeed deemed by many inhumane/cowardly by the standards of the time, though often this was more born out of expediency than heartfelt morality.
Note that there were several attempts to build submarine cruisers that could fight conventionally on the surface, but hard physical limitations made impossible to combine the necessary elements of a surface ships, such as a sufficient artillery armament, a modicum of armor and stability to support them, with an acceptable underwater performance. Amenities such as quarters for prisoners were included in some WW1 german long range designs, but extra space on a submarine is a very pricey luxury from a design trade offs point of view.
So the net result was that for all the disparaging of the "huns" and such submarines eventually ended up being used generally in the way it was most suited to their limitations and advantages, the US in WW2 being notable example, with its prewar fleet boats being ordered to engage in unrestricted warfare from day one.
With the stakes sufficiently high legal niceties and moral qualms are thrown out of the window and weapons capabilities are exploited to the fullest.

[guntherprien]

Originally Posted by Rconch

Why the rant? This is a site where we play a game that is about what you don't like.
We don't flame here-its impolite.

No rant,baby,just a pov.

[guntherprien]

Originally Posted by sublynx

I can't agree with the cowardly bit in the sense that a U-boatman's life was extremely risky. One could argue that U-boats hit defenseless or helpless targets. That's warfare. Basically all of warfare tries to hit the enemy from a safe position. That's why armor and shields and longrange weapons like a bow or a sniper rifle were developed. Strategy and tactics in all warfare strives to achieve a position where you can kill the enemy in perfect safety.

Heroic? My grandfather told me that when he went to the front in the winter of 1941/1942 the first task he faced was to pile frozen enemy carcasses to make a temporary winter road more durable. It was easier than felling trees as there had been an encirclement and the enemy had been pushed to a small area and then killed in piles. Probably those soldiers killed had very little ammunition or food when they were killed and they were probably killed mostly by artillery and mortar fire from a safe distance.

Heroism and war is a very difficult thing to define. I think it's easier to think of war as a basically insane slaughter that a society should avoid if at all possible. I don't play SH3 to feel brave or heroic. I like history, geometry and challenge and would probably desert at the first chance if I was to participate in real submarine warfare.

Interesting points of view anyways, guntherprien. I hope other people decide to share their views on this

Thanks Sublynx,your reply was the kind of response I was looking for.
I love sh3 with GWX3 but after reading many,many books on the subject,am left with a sour taste in my mouth.
I keep thinking about a passage in Buccheims' 'Das Boot' where the captain can't reconcile himself to sinking seaworthy vessels,himself being a sailor on a sailing ship.
The point I was trying to make was that it must be difficult to commit fellow sailors,regardless of nationality to a watery death,especially if one is a submarine commander.
I have been a member of this forum for many years and in no way wish to denigrate it,I just wish to share my feelings.
In real life,I don't think I could sink a real unarmed merchantman with all the subsequent loss of life.
Long live SH3 GWX though.
May your God go with you.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by guntherprien

May your God go with you.

That was a very good post.

May your God go with you.