Say hello to my "sloop" gun

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by popcorn2721

I was trying to find a use for the 2000 rounds of amunition that was brought along for the AA gun on my type IIb sub. Since my gunners cannot seem to down a plane before it rattles this can to death...I think I can save the ammo the deck gun has on board for larger tagets, and get a few extra pounds toward my total tonnage.

"Say Hello to my Little Friend!!!"

Why waste ammo?
(a couple old screenshots of my nefarious ways back in dec 2006. )

[UnderseaLcpl]

Wow.....

I don't even attack small vessels, much less machine gun people.
I find it hard when I imagine some poor english fisherman out on another miserable Nordsee day, just trying to make a living when a Uboat pops up and blows him away.
I didn't join the U-bootwaffe for THAT...

[Ducimus]

But you didn't join the U-bootwaffe, your playing a video game; and the nice thing about playing video games is you can try stuff you ordinarly wouldn't even think about doing, or things you conscious would simply disallow in your day to day life because what your doing is not real, thereby having an entertainment value all its own.

Cordially,
Capt Obvious

[Kodaita]

I guess I see both sides on this one. Like Ducimus says it is a video game so you can try things you'd never try in real life. Personnally I would never shoot peeps in a raft, but then I never would have served on a Uboat either. For me it's the realism that makes this game so great. So I try to keep it as close as possible to what I would do in real life. On those rare occansions when I need a dose of pure insanity I get my wife to load up GTA 4 and watch her try and avoid people on the sidewalk.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

But you didn't join the U-bootwaffe, your playing a video game; and the nice thing about playing video games is you can try stuff you ordinarly wouldn't even think about doing, or things you conscious would simply disallow in your day to day life because what your doing is not real, thereby having an entertainment value all its own.

Cordially,
Capt Obvious

Thanks for pointing that out Ducimus( no sarcasm) but doing things like that ruins the immersion value for me as well as being impossible for me, despite the fact that the little simulated sailors are essentially nothing more than electrical impulses in a box.
Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to see anyone censor video games for things like that, and I do hold you in high regard in the subsim community, but I personally still find killing helpless survivors repugnant.
It's just my opinion, I wouldn't judge anyone for doing it in a game. Perhaps I should have expressed that in the previous post.

Thanks for reading!

[Ducimus]

I personally still find killing helpless survivors repugnant.

UnderseaLcpl, I'll bet, that at the very least, you would consider doing just that. Morality in wartime is a very slippery slope when put in the right context.

Now, there are only two recording "machine gunnings" (that i know of), in WW2.

U-852, a type 9D2 commanded by Heinz-Wilhelm Eck
http://www.uboat.net/boats/patrols/u852.html


SS-238 (USS Wahoo), a Gato, commanded by Dudley W. Morton
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-238.html
(there are MANY accounts on this incident, and they all vary in details)


In U-852's case, the captains claim was that he was shooting at the wreckage, because it would give away his position. Not deliberatly at the survivors. It also happened that the survivors of the ship he had sunk, were to be clinging to this wreckage he was shooting at.


In USS Wahoo's case, the captains claim was that he was shooting at the boats themselves, and not deliberatly at the survivors, to make sure they weren't picked up anytime soon. Various accounts state that these boats were motorized launch's. (im guessing 20ft whaleboats or something).


Both very similar incidents, for similar reasons. Now put these two incidences in context to the backdrop to which they occured. In the atlantic, sailors on ships were generally merchant marines. Civillian sailors doing what they probably normally would have been doing in peace time, with the added "bonus" of having their ship shot out from under them, being instantly incinerated in a fiery explosion, being burned alive by burning fuel oil, or just plan ole dehydration, the list goes on. But generally speaking, they were not combatants from the get go, and there were rules of engagement that existed. So the morality was rather crystal clear from the get go.

Now, in the pacific, there were no rules of engagement, at least, non that the Japanese would adhere to. The merchant marine according to once source ive read, is acutally under the umbrella of the Imperial Japanese Navy. So from a technical standpoint, they're all combatants. Just a minor technicallity, that holds no meaning except for legal wrangling.

But also consider the enemy being fought here. To quote one Survivor of japanese captivity, a guard asked him, "What's the geneva convention?", The japanese tended to prefer to take no prisoners, and would sooner choose death over surrender - preferbly taking out as many allied troops as they could beforehand. They were culturally different on every concievable level, and had no problem playing "head hockey" with POW's in order to improve their sword stroke.

Now consider that these motorized launch's from a troop transport you just sunk contain troops that are on their way to reinforce a japanese garrision. In short, they are on their way to kill U.S Marines. Considering the amount of nearby islands, they will more then likey make it to their destination regardless if their transport was sunk or not. So then, you have a choice. Do you make sure they never reach their destination and possibly save American lives? Or will you still hold that making sure these troops never make it to their destination repugnant because their in lifeboats? I'll bet, at the very least, you'd consider blasting those boats from the water.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

UnderseaLcpl, I'll bet, that at the very least, you would consider doing just that. Morality in wartime is a very slippery slope when put in the right context.

Now, there are only two recording "machine gunnings" (that i know of), in WW2.

U-852, a type 9D2 commanded by Heinz-Wilhelm Eck
http://www.uboat.net/boats/patrols/u852.html


SS-238 (USS Wahoo), a Gato, commanded by Dudley W. Morton
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-238.html
(there are MANY accounts on this incident, and they all vary in details)


In U-852's case, the captains claim was that he was shooting at the wreckage, because it would give away his position. Not deliberatly at the survivors. It also happened that the survivors of the ship he had sunk, were to be clinging to this wreckage he was shooting at.


In USS Wahoo's case, the captains claim was that he was shooting at the boats themselves, and not deliberatly at the survivors, to make sure they weren't picked up anytime soon. Various accounts state that these boats were motorized launch's. (im guessing 20ft whaleboats or something).


Both very similar incidents, for similar reasons. Now put these two incidences in context to the backdrop to which they occured. In the atlantic, sailors on ships were generally merchant marines. Civillian sailors doing what they probably normally would have been doing in peace time, with the added "bonus" of having their ship shot out from under them, being instantly incinerated in a fiery explosion, being burned alive by burning fuel oil, or just plan ole dehydration, the list goes on. But generally speaking, they were not combatants from the get go, and there were rules of engagement that existed. So the morality was rather crystal clear from the get go.

Now, in the pacific, there were no rules of engagement, at least, non that the Japanese would adhere to. The merchant marine according to once source ive read, is acutally under the umbrella of the Imperial Japanese Navy. So from a technical standpoint, they're all combatants. Just a minor technicallity, that holds no meaning except for legal wrangling.

But also consider the enemy being fought here. To quote one Survivor of japanese captivity, a guard asked him, "What's the geneva convention?", The japanese tended to prefer to take no prisoners, and would sooner choose death over surrender - preferbly taking out as many allied troops as they could beforehand. They were culturally different on every concievable level, and had no problem playing "head hockey" with POW's in order to improve their sword stroke.

Now consider that these motorized launch's from a troop transport you just sunk contain troops that are on their way to reinforce a japanese garrision. In short, they are on their way to kill U.S Marines. Considering the amount of nearby islands, they will more then likey make it to their destination regardless if their transport was sunk or not. So then, you have a choice. Do you make sure they never reach their destination and possibly save American lives? Or will you still hold that making sure these troops never make it to their destination repugnant because their in lifeboats? I'll bet, at the very least, you'd consider blasting those boats from the water.

It's nice to see someone who does their research.
Nonetheless, from personal experience, I can say that killing someone unarmed, even if their only goal in life is to kill you and your friends, can be hard.
In my second deployment to Fallujah a guy in a SVBIED ran into our convoy. The bomb failed to detonate, and he came out of his car with a pistol, shooting at our armored trucks. We blew him to pieces, still not sure who killed him but many of us shot at him. For me there was no jubilation. It seemed like a slaughter of someone who was the victim of ignorance and oppression.
Many celebrated his death and made light of it, I personally didn't feel that way.
I would rather have been given the chance to discuss his life with him and arrive at a compromise, if possible.
Was he evil? Quite possibly.
Was he out to kill myself and my comrades? Yes.
And still, I felt only pity for him and his like.

All I'm saying Duc, is that for me, killing someone who basically has no chance seems wrong to me. I agree with your point about the Japanese mistreating survivors and prisoners. It was certainly wrong.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is that killing an enemy that is even so blatantly unmerciful as the Japanese or the Sunni Islam extremists, when unable to pose a threat, seems like killing someone who is mentally handicapped because they attack you with a Nerf gun.

Maybe I am too sympathetic, many of my fellow marines think so, but these are my beliefs, that's all I wanted to get across.
( In retrospect I did seem a bit imposing in my last post didn't I?)

Thanks for considering my opinion,

The Undersea Lance Corporal

[STEED]

Sink them all, case closed.