Awarding medals with SH3 Commander?

[GJO]

I note that with SH3 Commander, it is easy to award medals even in unrealistic circumstances and this does seem to me to be a bit of a cheat since a highly decorated officer or seaman will not require to be 'rested' off-watch in the crew quarters. How do other players cope with this phenomenon?

I also note the SH3 Commander does not permit a seaman to be promoted to Petty Officer ranks or a Petty Officer to become an Officer yet the game does allow this and, in the game I have replaced lost Officers and Petty Officers (I have lost a few flak gunners and WOs) by promoting through the ranks from within my crew. Did the Kriegsmarine allow promotions through the ranks in RL?

[Sailor Steve]

I can't speak to the promotions, but awards in my opinion are more realistic. The game only allows one qualification per patrol, and in real life there is no such thing as an unqualified petty officer. It's what makes him a PO in the first place. For me a new career starts with a shakedown run, usually to the end of the harbor and back. After that first "patrol" I then qualify all my POs before starting the first real patrol.

Medals? I never give one out unless a crewman does something truly extraordinary. In fact Commander's random assignment sometimes gives me crew who already have medals - in 1939! I use it to remove those.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Medals? I never give one out unless a crewman does something truly extraordinary.

A nice strong cup of tea and a back rub.

[GreyBeard]

I use SH to dole out promotions and medals, then SH Commander for all qualifications and correcting any medals that aren't actually available as of the date of the patrol. The entire crew has full qualifications after the 1st patrol. Not a navy in the world would set to sea without a full compliment of qualified crewman, unless we're talking Mchale's Navy, but that's a whole different matter.

[maillemaker]

I use the stock award system to build my crew with qualifications and awards. I do not use Commander to do this.

I know it is realistic for all your POs to have qualifications but part of what makes the game interesting for me is the investment you make over a month or more building your crew into an invincible fighting force from green rookies.

It may not be a realistic analog to the way real life was, but it gives you the feeling of an inept crew when you start off in 1939 and you don't have enough skilled men to get maximum efficiency out of any of the compartments. And as the war goes on and you build up your crew you really feel attached to them and are less apt to risk them over nothing when you play "dead is dead" and have to start all over again.

It's a huge deal to me when I finally get the award for a crew member that makes him have no fatigue! My goal is to get all POs and officers so that they do not fatigue. Once I've done that I have an elite crew that operates at its maximum ability.

If you use Commander to dish all that out up front it kind of kills the growing experience of the crew, for me.

Steve

[Jimbuna]

I'm very similar to Steve....all PO's have a qualification before going on their first 'war' patrol.

[Kielhauler1961]

Originally Posted by GreyBeard

...<snip>... Not a navy in the world would set to sea without a full compliment of qualified crewman, unless we're talking Mchale's Navy, but that's a whole different matter.

There are many instances of warships putting to sea with inadequately trained or qualified crews and the U-Boat arm was no exception. As their casualties mounted many sailors were drafted from shore establishments or the idle surface fleet with little or no training.

Even earlier in the war, well before Black May, allied interrogators were commenting on the low quality ('youthfulness' was the euphemism of choice) of some captured crews. The following is taken from the British report on the interrogation of the crew of U-131, captured in December, 1941:

"Many of the ratings had had very little or no previous U-Boat experience and were very young. Some of them confessed that they had undergone no training in school boats. One of the telegraphists stated that, had he returned from this cruise he would have been given charge of the wireless apparatus in another U-Boat. Three of the senior ratings could be considered to have the requisite experience usually necessary for the U-Boat service."

Source: U-Boat Archive. Full article here:
http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-131INT.htm

My father was sunk in May 1941 on the CAM ship HMS Patia off the Farne Islands in the North Sea by a German bomber. He told me that they had no trained AA gunners aboard as the crew had been hastily assembled from Chatham barracks only a few days prior to sailing from South Shields. The crew were nearly all raw recruits with little or no sea experience and none of the men in my father's mess had ever served together before. The ship was en-route to collect their aircraft from the Forth when they were sunk. It was her first, and last, 'patrol'.

The bomber was brought down by a lucky hit from an improvised AA weapon operated by the cook. My father wasn't sure if the ship had any purpose-built AA guns fitted. She probably did but he didn't know her well enough in the few days he was aboard and the armament details are incomplete. If she had, he didn't recall them being used. The cook's 'weapon' appeared to be the sole means of air defence for a 5,000 GRT ship.

The Admiralty Courts' Martial proceedings into the sinking are held in the National Archive at Kew in west London. The loss of the ship was attributed to the captain failing to take evasive action when attacked (true) but that verdict also conceals the facts that the crew were inadequately trained, unfamiliar with the ship, its systems and each other, and the ship itself ill-equipped for it's own defence.

Having read the original document it seems that the board found it more convenient to blame a dead man than examine the Navy's own failings.

KH

[GreyBeard]

Originally Posted by Kielhauler1961

There are many instances......the Navy's own failings.

KH

Okay, I stand corrected.