Norwegian Ships (Neutral?)

[RustySubmarine]

I came across a Norwegian ship in the North Sea, which showed up on the chart in (Green) as a neutral. Apparently, most of the Norwegian Ships were allocated to British Shipping Companies and were used in British Convoys across the Atlantic. Therefore, attacking or sinking a ship flying the Norwegian flag is quite in order, which would probably be carrying supplies for the British war effort.

Reading the book Attack & Sink The Battle for Convoy SC42 by Bernard Edwards (Brilliant read by the way) relates to this fact that Norwegian ships in this convoy were operated by various British companies, after the invasion of Norway. So as far as the U boats were concerned, although showing green on the chart in SH3 as neutral, they were in fact under British control so were quite in order to attack.

[Missing Name]

The damned Norwegian shipping. I modified basic.cfg so that NEUTRAL=1. In other words, sinking a neutral grants credit. I only use this for convoys - if it's in an enemy collection, fair game. Then we run into the real life fuzziness of "neutral" US escorts guarding an enemy ship. In that case, also fair game.

Don't abuse it and go raid New York harbor before 8 December 1941!

[RustySubmarine]

Originally Posted by Missing Name

The damned Norwegian shipping. I modified basic.cfg so that NEUTRAL=1. In other words, sinking a neutral grants credit. I only use this for convoys - if it's in an enemy collection, fair game. Then we run into the real life fuzziness of "neutral" US escorts guarding an enemy ship. In that case, also fair game.

Don't abuse it and go raid New York harbor before 8 December 1941!

So in other words, if a Norwegian ship is travelling in the protection of a convoy, then it is quite in order to sink it, but if travelling alone, it is classed as a neutral and should not be attacked?

Even if it may or may not be carrying British supplies, I think attacking it would not be breaking any rules as far as BdU would be concerned, as it may more than likely be under British control, but with a Norwegian crew.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by RustySubmarine

So in other words, if a Norwegian ship is travelling in the protection of a convoy, then it is quite in order to sink it, but if travelling alone, it is classed as a neutral and should not be attacked?

Not in the stock game. It's not that sophisticated. It only reads what the file says. If you modify it the way Missing Name did then all Neutral ships will give full credit, period.

I'm a bit more masochistic. I modified my 'Neutral' listing to give zero credit. I'm neither penalized nor rewarded. Based on real-life court-martials I also modified my 'Friendly' ships to read -1 rather than -10. Every sinking of a friendly ship resulted in the u-boat kaleun being found not guilty.

[CaptBones]

Thanks Steve; that's the best method that I've heard of to-date.

The problem is a "game" problem and you've got a great "game" solution there. I say that because in real life the solution during the earliest months of the war was to stop (or at least attempt to stop) any neutral vessels and carry out inspection as required by the Prize Regulations. A quick review of sinkings on "uboat.net" reveals many instances of "neutral" shipping being sunk after U-Boats followed the procedures required by Prize Regulations.

When the niceties of Victorian behavior were dispensed with later on, any vessel sailing in convoy or otherwise escorted, or failing to show running lights at night and/or steering an evasive ("zig-zag") course, even if flying neutral flag or displaying neutral ID, was a valid target that could be attacked without warning.

As you noted, all that is, or at least was, apparently too much to be coded into SHIII (or even GWX) and the original solution to ID vessels was simply to strictly follow the status of each nation regarding its involvement in the conflict, by "official" date of engagement (and which side it was on, of course). It's not just an annoyance regarding Norwegian ships either, I've been equally challenged to decide what to do about Greek shipping encountered in the first year of the war and Dutch ships seen in the first few months as well.

I think I'll give your "fix" a try. I wonder if it would be a good method for SHIV ATO/OM also; I get tired of letting all those "neutral" ships go by, knowing that the game doesn't care if they're "neutral" or not and will give me full credit for sinking them if I decide to "cheat" a litlle...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptBones

When the niceties of Victorian behavior were dispensed with later on, any vessel sailing in convoy or otherwise escorted, or failing to show running lights at night and/or steering an evasive ("zig-zag") course, even if flying neutral flag or displaying neutral ID, was a valid target that could be attacked without warning.

It was even worse in the First World War. U-boats would always stop and inspect ships, so the British developed the first Q-Ships. They not only had hidden guns, they had extra crew trained to abandon ship, so the u-boat would be tempted to pull right alongside. It was because of that the Germans started torpedoing ships while submerged, and when they did the Brits accused them of cheating.

As you noted, all that is, or at least was, apparently too much to be coded into SHIII (or even GWX).

It is buried in the basic code. It could be changed, but to do so would be illegal, so no, it can't be done.

I wonder if it would be a good method for SHIV ATO/OM also;

They are exactly the same in that regard, and so is SH5.

I get tired of letting all those "neutral" ships go by, knowing that the game doesn't care if they're "neutral" or not and will give me full credit for sinking them if I decide to "cheat" a litlle...

I never attack neutrals, even with the changes, unless they are in a convoy. Even then I try to avoid it if I can.

[MantiBrutalis]

Neutral ships in enemy waters? Supplying the enemy. In an enemy convoy? Fair game too. Up till today I even had NEUTRAL=-1. Don't care about some virtual points, I'm in it for the fun and explosions. And being historically precise is fun for me.

[BigWalleye]

GFY, MB! I like your approach. There's more to playing the game than just playing the game. Sometimes you have to do what's right.

[RustySubmarine]

I think I will treat a lone Norwegian ship as a neutral, but if I find one within a convoy, then I will treat it as an enemy vessel.

[CaptBones]

Doing "what's right" means (or used to mean) complying with the law, including International Law. A neutral ship sailing alone, in enemy waters or not, was still a neutral ship and could only be attacked and captured/sunk if it was proven to be carrying "contraband" or war materials...and food, as well as most raw materials (among other things) were NOT considered "war materials" or contraband back in those "good old days." In fact, passenger vessels, even those of belligerent nations, were deemed as exempt by definition, because they should only be carrying civilian passengers and non-contraband/war material cargoes and should always be sailing with normal running lights and steering normal ("straight") courses in normal shipping lanes.

The Prize Regulations (issued by all Navies) clearly required neutral ships to be stopped, their papers examined, and if questionable, they were to be inspected to confirm the nature of the cargo, before taking any hostile actions. The impossibility of submarines/U-Boats (safely) complying with those Regulations resulted rather quickly in the emergence of "unrestricted submarine warfare", first during WW I and then again after the first few months of WW II. But, even before that became a reality, the Germans announced a Blockade of the British Isles in an attempt to maintain some degree of legitimacy WRT International Law (now, don't everybody start taking sides and turning this into a political gripe session please ).

So, if you're going to be "historically precise", then you need to have a full understanding of what the historical situation was and how it evolved over the course of the first year or so of the war. It changed significantly and had a direct impact on the behavior of U-Boat Commanders. The North Sea and the North Atlantic were not merely shooting galleries.

BTW, I have personal experiences in interdicting "neutral" shipping in a Blockade Zone and had the pleasure of burning/sinking a couple of thousand tons of contraband cargoes, including a running gun battle with an armed Junk...too bad that was on a surface ship though, might have been more of a "challenge" on a submarine, since they didn't have decks guns anymore!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptBones

The Prize Regulations (issued by all Navies) clearly required neutral ships to be stopped, their papers examined, and if questionable, they were to be inspected to confirm the nature of the cargo, before taking any hostile actions.

I always try to act like I'm doing that when I play 1939. Of course the game doesn't do that at all, and I have to use a torpedo or two, but my personal log always reflects those actions.

(now, don't everybody start taking sides and turning this into a political gripe session please ).

Who are you to...why, I oughtta...mumble...grumble...If you think that, then you're a...razzafrazzamobersober...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

So, if you're going to be "historically precise", then you need to have a full understanding of what the historical situation was and how it evolved over the course of the first year or so of the war. It changed significantly and had a direct impact on the behavior of U-Boat Commanders. The North Sea and the North Atlantic were not merely shooting galleries.

If I could make my own subsim, you can bet that would be part of it.

BTW, I have personal experiences in interdicting "neutral" shipping in a Blockade Zone and had the pleasure of burning/sinking a couple of thousand tons of contraband cargoes, including a running gun battle with an armed Junk...too bad that was on a surface ship though, might have been more of a "challenge" on a submarine, since they didn't have decks guns anymore!

Awesome! And I thought I had some adventures at sea!

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by CaptBones

Doing "what's right" means (or used to mean) complying with the law, including International Law.

Excuse me, poor choice of words. I was referring to playing these games in a historically accurate way, regardless of the points being assigned. I did not mean to imply a value judgment on the morality of attacking a neutral ship. I would hope that anyone who plays this game would have already accepted the notion that this is a game, and to play it, I must accept the role of someone who has already sworn an oath of loyalty to the Nazi government of Germany, something that in real life I would never do. In real life, I am morally opposed to the killing of another person without qualification. I play this game knowing full well that in real life there would be human beings on board those ships I sink, and that some of these would die. But I play GTA too, and I don't steal or condone stealing either. I learned many years ago that what happens in a computer game has no bearing on reality, any more than shooting skeet in any way implies a willingness to kill animals.

Oh, and by the way, doing "what's right" in real life for me has little if anything to do with obeying the law. For me, there is a Divine morality that trumps man's laws. YMMV.

[CaptBones]

BigWalleye - I didn't mean to suggest or imply anything re: morality or value judgments, please excuse me if it seemed to be that way. Plus, I do admire your fidelity to a "Higher Authority." FYI , I was born and raised in northern WI and first learned "Seamanship and Navigation" on Lake Superior, my Dad and several of his cronies had boats at Saxon Harbor; going fishing in November was not at all pleasant or relaxing!

Steve - I use my SH3 CDR personal Log in the very same way and always print out a copy when a career ends - DID or whatever; makes for some eye opening reading later on..."I did WHAT?" Yeah, lots of "adventures" in a 30-year Navy career (and for awhile afterward as well). We were the Flagship and a sort of Tender/"Mothership" for the PGs, USCG and RVN Navy Cutters and "Swift Boats" of TF 115; made for some interesting "scenarios", as they say. You should have been there on another occasion when my DE had to UNREP for fuel from a Destroyer Tender "somewhere south" of the Aleutians. I had the conn for eight hours in a "small gale", on station 100 feet off her port quarter, steaming at 8 knots directly into 30-ft seas, taking fuel through a 2-1/2 inch hose tied-off to a makeshift cover on the forward fueling trunk deck riser. My Reefer and watch cap were covered in ice, thought I'd frozen the entire right side of my face off....BTW - a "razzafrazzamobersober" to you too! And does sober know you're taking his name in vain?

[Sailor Steve]

Wowser! I was only in for two years, four months of that on the Vietnam gunline. I was a radioman wannabe, and remember dumping bags of shredded documents over the fantail in water swirling around my ankles. I was never cold, but it was...interesting. On the way home we encountered one of those "clear-sky storms". Standing on the signal bridge watching the bow plow under, and as the ship rose again she would shake just like a dog trying to get dry. For as bad as it sounds, it was never frightening; just awesome to watch.

Originally Posted by CaptBones

And does sober know you're taking his name in vain?

Since Sober rarely is, I doubt it.

[BigWalleye]

What is it with you guys? We are a thousand miles from salt water, but all the veterans who are native to this area went for the Navy! Doesn't matter which era - the Deuce, Vietnam, Gulf - everybody was a sailor.