Why Do Captains Go Down With Their Ships?

tbarak · 05-05-06, 07:33 AM

I was reading a book on the Bismark and when she was sunk the captain remained on board and went down with her. Not so sure U-boat Kaleuns did the same, but it seems for surface ships, especially capital ships, the captains always insists on dying when their ships are sunk. Reminds me of WWII Japanese pilots who didn't fly with parachutes.

But I thought a good soldier always knew when to withdraw to fight another day. I mean, most captains have spent decades in the service, they are experienced, and it seems a shame to waste all that just because your ship is destroyed. Is it a written/unwritten rule, something to do with honour, or shame? Doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone shed some light on this matter to help me understand?

Seminole · 05-05-06, 08:16 AM

I would have to say it was matter of a sense of misguided duty and of honor founded in naval tradition. How that tradition originally started I can only speculate about....probably it is rooted in ancient times when for understandable reasons....no naval commander could see much profit in returning home to report failure to his not so "understanding" superiors.....drowning at sea being more than likely a better prospect. It does seem that, in more modern times, any highly trained and experienced naval officer would be able contribute much more to a war effort by living to fight on than he could from under 600 fathoms. But traditions, especially naval ones , die hard.

As for the Japanese flying without chutes... this was done to reduce the weight on their nimble Zeros as much as possible. From my readings anything not indispensable was often discarded to make the Zeros as nimble in combat and as manoeuvrable in flight as could be achieved. It was the Zero's chief strength. Many also discarded such equipment as radios sets and other similar equipment for the same reason. Anyway there was very little chance of the Japanese pilot being rescued from the vast expanses of the Pacific theater....plus.... there is that Japanese cultural aversion to risking capture under any circumstance. Japanese pilots without parachutes was however not universal. In Miracle At Midway there is a good example cited of a Japanese pilot being shot down by friendly fire, who bailed at 600 feet, amid his own fleet. Even so, he nearly was lost and had to drift in the sea for quite a while before he was finally spotted and rescued.

CptGrayWolf · 05-05-06, 08:31 AM

This reminds me of WWI pilots who never wore parachutes, even though they were around.
I forget who, but this is what a high ranking WWI Air Force official said about pilots and parachutes, " The place of the flyer is in the aeroplane".

Like Seminole said, sense of misguided duty and tradition.

NightCrawler · 05-05-06, 08:42 AM

The captain of the Titanic stay behind the rudder while Titanic sank...
It's kinda code, when ship goes under i goes under too

DeepSix · 05-05-06, 08:57 AM

I don't know if I'd agree that such a decision is made out of a sense of "misguided" honor. Honor itself is a good thing. I would say that a captain might take it to an extreme for a personal reason. The captain is ultimately responsible for his ship. While no one (not nowadays) would expect him to go down with it, I can see how some captains might feel losing a ship was an ultimate failure they wouldn't want to live with (This is not altogether different from people who would rather die than spend life hooked up to a machine.). There was a time when the loss of a ship would have hung over them and affected their career in the service, their position in society, and especially their practical ability to gain the confidence of future crews.

At least some men have chosen drowning over capture: John Cromwell, a submarine division commander in the Pacific, chose to go down with Sculpin because, according to survivors, he felt he "knew too much" about Ultra (codebreaking intelligence) and about the invasion plans for Tarawa. He feared the Japanese would torture him and extract that information. Several other men also decided to go down with the boat, and each had a personal reason no one will know - could be honor, or wounds, or confusion.

iambecomelife · 05-05-06, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepSix

I don't know if I'd agree that such a decision is made out of a sense of "misguided" honor. Honor itself is a good thing. I would say that a captain might take it to an extreme for a personal reason. The captain is ultimately responsible for his ship. While no one (not nowadays) would expect him to go down with it, I can see how some captains might feel losing a ship was an ultimate failure they wouldn't want to live with (This is not altogether different from people who would rather die than spend life hooked up to a machine.). There was a time when the loss of a ship would have hung over them and affected their career in the service, their position in society, and especially their practical ability to gain the confidence of future crews.

At least some men have chosen drowning over capture: John Cromwell, a submarine division commander in the Pacific, chose to go down with Sculpin because, according to survivors, he felt he "knew too much" about Ultra (codebreaking intelligence) and about the invasion plans for Tarawa. He feared the Japanese would torture him and extract that information. Several other men also decided to go down with the boat, and each had a personal reason no one will know - could be honor, or wounds, or confusion.

IIRC one of the other men was a planesman whose error had contributed to the Sculpin's sinking. When it was clear the boat was lost he was too ashamed to save himself.

Dantenoc · 05-05-06, 04:32 PM

I find this tradition somewhat strange, but I guess I can understand it somehow on a case by case basis.

But what I really don't get, is the stupid behaviour of some captains sinking their own ships when things seemed not to favor them. Take that German-English incident that ocured in South American at the begining of the war (I forget the ships name right now, but it was one Germany's "super" ships designed for merchant raiding).

Faced against three smaller british ships the german captain should have won... ok, maybe bad luck or something, he decides to dock at an international neutral port to regroup... o.k., maybe not my choice but understandable and even reasonable. Some days later, he gets all paranoid that maybe the entire royal navy is waiting for him outside the port so he gives out orders to sink his own ship and then kills himself.... what the hell?!?!?!

What kind of idiotic stupid thinking is that? If he really had a death wish why not go out fighting? (in hind sight we now know for a fact that he could have won, because no new english ships had arrived at the scene).

If he was scared of dying in battle and prefered living over fighting then why kill himself?.

If he was ashamed of failure, then why do what he did and inflict on the WHOLE country of Germany one of the most embarrasing moments of utter failure in the early days of the war?

Why didn't he fight it out and dye in glory (with only a squeleton crew of volunteers on board). Why didn't he just simply whait out the war interred on that neutral port, tying up a few capital english ships indefinitely for watch dutty outside the port? Better yet, why not whait until reinforcements could be sent? Even better, he could stay inside the neutral port as bait, for enemy capital ships to guard him, while U-boats arrived at the scene and snipe at the enemy capital ships?

There are so many scenarios I can think of where it's better not to sink your own ship, and only maybe one or two very unlikely, extreme, unplausible and completely improbable scenarios where it is justifyable (but not better) to sink your own ship that it just fails to make any sense whatsoever to me....

Any thoughts?

Ducimus · 05-05-06, 05:02 PM

Quote:

But what I really don't get, is the stupid behaviour of some captains sinking their own ships when things seemed not to favor them

Thats alot more easily explained. Serveral raeasons, if your sure you wont survive the outcome.

1.) You can say, "They didnt sink me, i scuttled the ship!". The bottom line is you deny them the credit for the sinking.

2.) It's better to scuttle the ship then have it fall inito enemy hands. So they can neither learn anything from it, nor use it against your country.

Quote:

Some days later, he gets all paranoid that maybe the entire royal navy is waiting for him outside the port so he gives out orders to sink his own ship and then kills himself.... what the hell?!?!?!

Scharnhorst wasnt it? I dont remember. As i recall...

1.) He was intentionally lead to beleive he was blockaded in that port, and was facing odds much greater then they really were. Given what he "knew" he was sure the ship wouldnt survive.

2.) I think he later learned of his error, or rather, the british information deception, and was probably ashamed of himself.

edit:

Quote:

Why didn't he fight it out and dye in glory (with only a squeleton crew of volunteers on board). Why didn't he just simply whait out the war interred on that neutral port,

My guess:
- Didnt want to give the british the satisfaction of having sunk him.
- Sensless loss of life (given what he was lead to beleive), why take your men to a slaighter? He was trying to save his crew from what he thought would be a hopeless battle.
- I read that the allies were putting diplomatic pressure on said neutral countries port to eject him.

Seminole · 05-05-06, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptGrayWolf

This reminds me of WWI pilots who never wore parachutes, even though they were around.
I forget who, but this is what a high ranking WWI Air Force official said about pilots and parachutes, " The place of the flyer is in the aeroplane".

Like Seminole said, sense of misguided duty and tradition.

WWI pilots were actually under orders not to carry chutes because the reasoning went they might abandon their aircraft too soon.

The Germans didn't figure it out until the last months of the war that their experienced pilots were a much more valuable asset than the planes were.

The Allies ended the war with parachutes still not being allowed I believe.

DeepSix · 05-05-06, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iambecomelife

...
IIRC one of the other men was a planesman whose error had contributed to the Sculpin's sinking. When it was clear the boat was lost he was too ashamed to save himself.

Yeah, that was Ensign W.M. Fielder, USNR, temporary diving officer. The depth guage may have stuck, but in any case he kept pumping water out and kept the planes up, and Sculpin - already damaged - broached in front of a Japanese destroyer. With the captain, the exec, and the gunnery officer all killed, the acting commanding officer decided to scuttle her. It is not known for sure if Fielder's error was his reason for staying on board, but it's a reasonable guess.

@Dantenoc - That was the German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee; I don't know if it's true but I once heard or read somewhere that Langsdorf, her captain, scuttled her and then shot himself with his sidearm while standing underneath the German naval ensign (flag). I don't think any of the other crew members were lost; as Ducimus says he may have made his decision in order to spare their lives instead of waste them in what he perceived to be a useless battle.

Don't know if that part about his suicide is true, but if it is I believe his decisions have more in common with the scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow in WWI than anything else. And again, as Ducimus says; I believe it was a case of him thinking, "I have failed, and cannot live with that, but the enemy will not have my ship." Pure speculation on my part, though.

zzsteven · 05-05-06, 06:33 PM

13 Dec 39: The Graf Spee ran into the cruiser pack of the British South American Squadron, consisting of the Heavy Crusier Exeter, and the Light Cruisers Ajax and Achilles. The result of this meeting is known as the epic Battle of the River Plate. The fight took place in the La Plata estuary off the coast of Montevideo, Uruguay in South America. The Graf Spee put the Exeter out of action, and seriously damaged the Ajax, while only lightly damaging the Achilles. The Graf Spee received a number of hits during the battle and was forced to take refuge in Montevideo for repairs - International law allowed ships to take refuge in neutral harbors for repairs for a maximum limit of 24 hours, depending on the wishes of the neutral host.

14 Dec 39: Uruguayan authorities board the Graf Spee to assess the amount of damage the ship received, to decide if the ship would be allowed to stay in their neutral harbor for more than the 24 hour maximum allowed by international law.

15 Dec 39: After looking over the evidence gathered on the 14th, and after serious consideration of all the suggestions from the Americans, French, Germans, and British, a Presidential decree was declared stating that the Graf Spee would be allowed 72 hours to make any and all repairs. The time limit would end at 8:00pm on the 17th of December, 1939. Also on the 15th, 320 crew members in full uniform were allowed to land and bury the Graf Spee's dead. In attendance was the ships captain as well.

17 Dec 39: Unable to complete repairs of the Graf Spee within the alloted time, unable to dash acros the harbor to Argentina, under strict orders by OKM not to go into internment in Uruguay, and wishing to avoid being taken by the British ships waiting and arriving in the region, Kpt.z.S. Langsdorff ordered his ship outside the harbor of Montevideo and to prepare to be scuttled. The ships crew were transfered to the German merchant ship Tacoma, and later to various Argentine tugs - all of which were soon after interned by Uruguayan authorities. Interestingly enough, the crew was under orders not to be interned in Uruguay, so with the permission of the Uruguayan authorities, they were transfered to Argentina, which was not under British influence and pressure as was Uruguay, and they spent the rest of the war there. Just after sunset, the Graf Spee was blown up with a series of well placed charges, causing it to sink in shallow water, coming to rest on the soft bottom in plain view of the coast. The Graf Spee sank intact and rested on the bottom with much of the ship still above the water line.

19 Dec - 20 Dec 39: Kpt.z.S. Hans Langsdorf, while in his room in the Naval Arsenal in Buenos Aires where the ships officers were being held, committed suicide with a shot to the head. He was found the morning of the 20th wrapped in the ensign of his ship. He was later buried in the Cementerio del Norte in Buenos Aires - his final resting place.

zz

Ducimus · 05-05-06, 07:52 PM

For the life of me i can't find on the net the article about Hans Langsdorf i read to add crediblity to my post, but i distinctly remember a few points:

- He was an old fashioned Navy officer.

- Gave the naval salute, even at the funeral of some of his crew when he put to shore. Even though others gave the nazi salute, he gave the naval one.

- When in operation, took great care to not inflict unneccssary loss of life on the merchants he was sinking. Infact IIIRC, he even gave them time to disembark ther ship before he'd shell it. Accounts ive read praised him highly for his sense of honor and humanity.

I remember my overall impression of the man was one of admiration. I think the demise of such an indvidial is greater then the ship he commanded.

EDIT:
Most of what i said in this thread is very lightly discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Langsdorff

Although i know at one point i found a website that had very detailed information, including photographs of the captain giving a naval salute at a funeral while a few of his company were giving the nazi salute. Said picture really gave the contrast of his character.

bill clarke · 05-05-06, 10:01 PM

Langsdorf was indeed an old fashioned saior and did not follow Nazi beliefs, as wsa said before his body when found was draped in the old WWI naval ensign, he treated all his British prisoners with dignity and provided them with food and cloths, no british merchant sailors were ever killed when Graff Spee stopped them.
The British cleverley "leaked" information that a superior force was waiting for him, and under orders not to let the ship be interned he chose to scuttle her. After his death the Nazies started a campain of personal villification against him.
When force Z was attacked off Malaya in 1941, Admiral Tom Phillips refuesed to believe that he was being attacked by torpedoe planes, when the awful truth came to be known to him he left his departure from the POW to late and drowned (when found his body had a life preserver on ), I think the shame of losing his ship in this way was too much for him to bear.
In and early WWI battle a British admiral let an inferior German force escape,after this no admiral would run from a fight no matter what the odds, and in the case of the battle of the Corenal, admiral Craddocks force was wiped out by the Germans.
And the Japanese, well that was their way of thinking, howeverit robbed them of valuable men.
Interestingly the only captain to have been court marshalled for losing his ship to the enemy in war was the captain of the Indionapolis sunk by the I-58.

05-05-06, 10:40 PM

Oh 1 important bit of infomation, When a combatant ship made an emergency dash to a Neutral port to repair, by International Law the only repairs allowed were those to make the ship sea worthy. No repairs are allowed to improve/fix its fighting ability. This is 1 of the contributing factors in the Graf Spee scuttling. Also on picket were 3 British Cruisers. The Exeter had disengaged from the action and made best speed to Alexandria for repairs. However she was relieved a few days later by another Heavy Cruiser (I forget her name) that had been layed up at Alexandria for repairs. Those repairs were done post haste as soon as the Graf Spee was detected and the Battle of the River Plate commenced, she then made all possible speed to get to the AO and arrived in time to assist in the blockade 1-2 days before Graf Spee was scuttled.

The British at first wanted the Uruguay Goverment to expell the Graf Spee after the 24H period, but later change its mind to allowing the Graf Spee more time in port so as to allow more Allied ships to arrive in the hope of sinking the Graf Spee when she left the harbour. They then did their little leaked intel act and the rest is history.

As to the Reason a Captain went down with his ship - Its about many factors, but the most common accepted reason was that since a ships Captain is responsible for the ship and all who sail in her and he is the last to leave the sinking ship, if the ship has been badly mauled and many of her crew are dead, then the captain will NOT leave his men behind. He will go down with her dead and be with them in death as he was in life. This is an old tradition from way back in the days of wooden ships an iron men. And like many tradtions, this 1 has lasted a long time.

BettingUrlife · 05-05-06, 11:19 PM

My answer is probably going to get a little off topic, but I'll post anyway.

Has anyone ever read, 'Midway: The battle that doomed Japan', by Mistuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya, 1955? They mention several instances of captains at Midway going down with their ships, and they went down mainly for cultural reasons (my interpretation). It must have taken years and a lot of money to get these guys all trained up, and then when faced with sure defeat they go and (basically) commit suicide.

I'm convinced that this made the job easier for the Allies in the long run. Trained commanders killing themselves, not only depriving their forces of another soldier, but taking away the years of experience they could use, plus the experience that could have been transferred to other officers/sailors.

05-05-06, 07:33 AM	#1
tbarak Sparky Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 151 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Why Do Captains Go Down With Their Ships? I was reading a book on the Bismark and when she was sunk the captain remained on board and went down with her. Not so sure U-boat Kaleuns did the same, but it seems for surface ships, especially capital ships, the captains always insists on dying when their ships are sunk. Reminds me of WWII Japanese pilots who didn't fly with parachutes. But I thought a good soldier always knew when to withdraw to fight another day. I mean, most captains have spent decades in the service, they are experienced, and it seems a shame to waste all that just because your ship is destroyed. Is it a written/unwritten rule, something to do with honour, or shame? Doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone shed some light on this matter to help me understand?

05-05-06, 08:31 AM	#3
CptGrayWolf Commander Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saint Lawrence Seaway Posts: 459 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	This reminds me of WWI pilots who never wore parachutes, even though they were around. I forget who, but this is what a high ranking WWI Air Force official said about pilots and parachutes, " The place of the flyer is in the aeroplane". Like Seminole said, sense of misguided duty and tradition. __________________ Thomas Voltz, U-93 VIIc, Aug 1940, at sea patrol 1 GWX3 Gold, 100%

05-05-06, 08:42 AM	#4
NightCrawler Engineer Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: FLA USA Posts: 217 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	Dont forget TITANIC The captain of the Titanic stay behind the rudder while Titanic sank... It's kinda code, when ship goes under i goes under too

05-05-06, 08:57 AM	#5
DeepSix Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Music City Posts: 683 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I don't know if I'd agree that such a decision is made out of a sense of "misguided" honor. Honor itself is a good thing. I would say that a captain might take it to an extreme for a personal reason. The captain is ultimately responsible for his ship. While no one (not nowadays) would expect him to go down with it, I can see how some captains might feel losing a ship was an ultimate failure they wouldn't want to live with (This is not altogether different from people who would rather die than spend life hooked up to a machine.). There was a time when the loss of a ship would have hung over them and affected their career in the service, their position in society, and especially their practical ability to gain the confidence of future crews. At least some men have chosen drowning over capture: John Cromwell, a submarine division commander in the Pacific, chose to go down with Sculpin because, according to survivors, he felt he "knew too much" about Ultra (codebreaking intelligence) and about the invasion plans for Tarawa. He feared the Japanese would torture him and extract that information. Several other men also decided to go down with the boat, and each had a personal reason no one will know - could be honor, or wounds, or confusion. __________________ Jack's happy days will soon be gone, To return again, oh never! For they've raised his pay five cents a day, But they've stopped his grog forever. For tonight we'll merry, merry be, For tonight we'll merry, merry be, For tonight we'll merry, merry be, But tomorrow we'll be sober. - "Farewell to Grog"

05-05-06, 08:16 AM	#2
Seminole Ace of the Deep Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,012 Downloads: 102 Uploads: 0	I would have to say it was matter of a sense of misguided duty and of honor founded in naval tradition. How that tradition originally started I can only speculate about....probably it is rooted in ancient times when for understandable reasons....no naval commander could see much profit in returning home to report failure to his not so "understanding" superiors.....drowning at sea being more than likely a better prospect. It does seem that, in more modern times, any highly trained and experienced naval officer would be able contribute much more to a war effort by living to fight on than he could from under 600 fathoms. But traditions, especially naval ones , die hard. As for the Japanese flying without chutes... this was done to reduce the weight on their nimble Zeros as much as possible. From my readings anything not indispensable was often discarded to make the Zeros as nimble in combat and as manoeuvrable in flight as could be achieved. It was the Zero's chief strength. Many also discarded such equipment as radios sets and other similar equipment for the same reason. Anyway there was very little chance of the Japanese pilot being rescued from the vast expanses of the Pacific theater....plus.... there is that Japanese cultural aversion to risking capture under any circumstance. Japanese pilots without parachutes was however not universal. In Miracle At Midway there is a good example cited of a Japanese pilot being shot down by friendly fire, who bailed at 600 feet, amid his own fleet. Even so, he nearly was lost and had to drift in the sea for quite a while before he was finally spotted and rescued.

05-05-06, 04:32 PM	#7
Dantenoc Captain Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ensenada, B.C., Mexico Posts: 504 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I find this tradition somewhat strange, but I guess I can understand it somehow on a case by case basis. But what I really don't get, is the stupid behaviour of some captains sinking their own ships when things seemed not to favor them. Take that German-English incident that ocured in South American at the begining of the war (I forget the ships name right now, but it was one Germany's "super" ships designed for merchant raiding). Faced against three smaller british ships the german captain should have won... ok, maybe bad luck or something, he decides to dock at an international neutral port to regroup... o.k., maybe not my choice but understandable and even reasonable. Some days later, he gets all paranoid that maybe the entire royal navy is waiting for him outside the port so he gives out orders to sink his own ship and then kills himself.... what the hell?!?!?! What kind of idiotic stupid thinking is that? If he really had a death wish why not go out fighting? (in hind sight we now know for a fact that he could have won, because no new english ships had arrived at the scene). If he was scared of dying in battle and prefered living over fighting then why kill himself?. If he was ashamed of failure, then why do what he did and inflict on the WHOLE country of Germany one of the most embarrasing moments of utter failure in the early days of the war? Why didn't he fight it out and dye in glory (with only a squeleton crew of volunteers on board). Why didn't he just simply whait out the war interred on that neutral port, tying up a few capital english ships indefinitely for watch dutty outside the port? Better yet, why not whait until reinforcements could be sent? Even better, he could stay inside the neutral port as bait, for enemy capital ships to guard him, while U-boats arrived at the scene and snipe at the enemy capital ships? There are so many scenarios I can think of where it's better not to sink your own ship, and only maybe one or two very unlikely, extreme, unplausible and completely improbable scenarios where it is justifyable (but not better) to sink your own ship that it just fails to make any sense whatsoever to me.... Any thoughts?

05-05-06, 06:33 PM	#11
zzsteven Chief Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 319 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	13 Dec 39: The Graf Spee ran into the cruiser pack of the British South American Squadron, consisting of the Heavy Crusier Exeter, and the Light Cruisers Ajax and Achilles. The result of this meeting is known as the epic Battle of the River Plate. The fight took place in the La Plata estuary off the coast of Montevideo, Uruguay in South America. The Graf Spee put the Exeter out of action, and seriously damaged the Ajax, while only lightly damaging the Achilles. The Graf Spee received a number of hits during the battle and was forced to take refuge in Montevideo for repairs - International law allowed ships to take refuge in neutral harbors for repairs for a maximum limit of 24 hours, depending on the wishes of the neutral host. 14 Dec 39: Uruguayan authorities board the Graf Spee to assess the amount of damage the ship received, to decide if the ship would be allowed to stay in their neutral harbor for more than the 24 hour maximum allowed by international law. 15 Dec 39: After looking over the evidence gathered on the 14th, and after serious consideration of all the suggestions from the Americans, French, Germans, and British, a Presidential decree was declared stating that the Graf Spee would be allowed 72 hours to make any and all repairs. The time limit would end at 8:00pm on the 17th of December, 1939. Also on the 15th, 320 crew members in full uniform were allowed to land and bury the Graf Spee's dead. In attendance was the ships captain as well. 17 Dec 39: Unable to complete repairs of the Graf Spee within the alloted time, unable to dash acros the harbor to Argentina, under strict orders by OKM not to go into internment in Uruguay, and wishing to avoid being taken by the British ships waiting and arriving in the region, Kpt.z.S. Langsdorff ordered his ship outside the harbor of Montevideo and to prepare to be scuttled. The ships crew were transfered to the German merchant ship Tacoma, and later to various Argentine tugs - all of which were soon after interned by Uruguayan authorities. Interestingly enough, the crew was under orders not to be interned in Uruguay, so with the permission of the Uruguayan authorities, they were transfered to Argentina, which was not under British influence and pressure as was Uruguay, and they spent the rest of the war there. Just after sunset, the Graf Spee was blown up with a series of well placed charges, causing it to sink in shallow water, coming to rest on the soft bottom in plain view of the coast. The Graf Spee sank intact and rested on the bottom with much of the ship still above the water line. 19 Dec - 20 Dec 39: Kpt.z.S. Hans Langsdorf, while in his room in the Naval Arsenal in Buenos Aires where the ships officers were being held, committed suicide with a shot to the head. He was found the morning of the 20th wrapped in the ensign of his ship. He was later buried in the Cementerio del Norte in Buenos Aires - his final resting place. zz

05-05-06, 07:52 PM	#12
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	For the life of me i can't find on the net the article about Hans Langsdorf i read to add crediblity to my post, but i distinctly remember a few points: - He was an old fashioned Navy officer. - Gave the naval salute, even at the funeral of some of his crew when he put to shore. Even though others gave the nazi salute, he gave the naval one. - When in operation, took great care to not inflict unneccssary loss of life on the merchants he was sinking. Infact IIIRC, he even gave them time to disembark ther ship before he'd shell it. Accounts ive read praised him highly for his sense of honor and humanity. I remember my overall impression of the man was one of admiration. I think the demise of such an indvidial is greater then the ship he commanded. EDIT: Most of what i said in this thread is very lightly discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Langsdorff Although i know at one point i found a website that had very detailed information, including photographs of the captain giving a naval salute at a funeral while a few of his company were giving the nazi salute. Said picture really gave the contrast of his character.

05-05-06, 10:01 PM	#13
bill clarke Captain Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Wagga Wagga, NSW Australia Posts: 519 Downloads: 40 Uploads: 0	Langsdorf was indeed an old fashioned saior and did not follow Nazi beliefs, as wsa said before his body when found was draped in the old WWI naval ensign, he treated all his British prisoners with dignity and provided them with food and cloths, no british merchant sailors were ever killed when Graff Spee stopped them. The British cleverley "leaked" information that a superior force was waiting for him, and under orders not to let the ship be interned he chose to scuttle her. After his death the Nazies started a campain of personal villification against him. When force Z was attacked off Malaya in 1941, Admiral Tom Phillips refuesed to believe that he was being attacked by torpedoe planes, when the awful truth came to be known to him he left his departure from the POW to late and drowned (when found his body had a life preserver on ), I think the shame of losing his ship in this way was too much for him to bear. In and early WWI battle a British admiral let an inferior German force escape,after this no admiral would run from a fight no matter what the odds, and in the case of the battle of the Corenal, admiral Craddocks force was wiped out by the Germans. And the Japanese, well that was their way of thinking, howeverit robbed them of valuable men. Interestingly the only captain to have been court marshalled for losing his ship to the enemy in war was the captain of the Indionapolis sunk by the I-58.

05-05-06, 10:40 PM	#14
Cdre Gibs Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Oh 1 important bit of infomation, When a combatant ship made an emergency dash to a Neutral port to repair, by International Law the only repairs allowed were those to make the ship sea worthy. No repairs are allowed to improve/fix its fighting ability. This is 1 of the contributing factors in the Graf Spee scuttling. Also on picket were 3 British Cruisers. The Exeter had disengaged from the action and made best speed to Alexandria for repairs. However she was relieved a few days later by another Heavy Cruiser (I forget her name) that had been layed up at Alexandria for repairs. Those repairs were done post haste as soon as the Graf Spee was detected and the Battle of the River Plate commenced, she then made all possible speed to get to the AO and arrived in time to assist in the blockade 1-2 days before Graf Spee was scuttled. The British at first wanted the Uruguay Goverment to expell the Graf Spee after the 24H period, but later change its mind to allowing the Graf Spee more time in port so as to allow more Allied ships to arrive in the hope of sinking the Graf Spee when she left the harbour. They then did their little leaked intel act and the rest is history. As to the Reason a Captain went down with his ship - Its about many factors, but the most common accepted reason was that since a ships Captain is responsible for the ship and all who sail in her and he is the last to leave the sinking ship, if the ship has been badly mauled and many of her crew are dead, then the captain will NOT leave his men behind. He will go down with her dead and be with them in death as he was in life. This is an old tradition from way back in the days of wooden ships an iron men. And like many tradtions, this 1 has lasted a long time.

05-05-06, 11:19 PM	#15
BettingUrlife Machinist's Mate Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: AM56 North Atlantic Posts: 128 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	My answer is probably going to get a little off topic, but I'll post anyway. Has anyone ever read, 'Midway: The battle that doomed Japan', by Mistuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya, 1955? They mention several instances of captains at Midway going down with their ships, and they went down mainly for cultural reasons (my interpretation). It must have taken years and a lot of money to get these guys all trained up, and then when faced with sure defeat they go and (basically) commit suicide. I'm convinced that this made the job easier for the Allies in the long run. Trained commanders killing themselves, not only depriving their forces of another soldier, but taking away the years of experience they could use, plus the experience that could have been transferred to other officers/sailors.