SH5 Wishlist

[Arclight]

Goes without saying I expect it perfect and 100% bug-free at release. If an angle is of by 0.001 degree, or a fingerprint fails to show as I was expecting, I won't buy.

And god forbid if they confirm these features and I buy the game, only to find it is not perfect! Class action lawsuit, without delay!



(okay, I'm done )

* no wait, one more

"GAME OVER - PLAYER WAS KILLED BY SAUSAGE"
"PURPLE HEART WAS AWARDED POSTHUMOUSLY"

[THE_MASK]

There should be a realism option where i have to man the deck/flack guns myself . This would mean i have to climb down the hatch before i can order a crash dive after i have finished with the gun .

[IanC]

Originally Posted by sober

There should be a realism option where i have to man the deck/flack guns myself . This would mean i have to climb down the hatch before i can order a crash dive after i have finished with the gun .

The devs said something to the effect that if you're on the bridge, you would need to climb down the hatch before diving. So that should be interesting...

[cpt blueballs]

ok i didnt meen take prisoners like it shoud be some main objektive but more something like this

On 28 Sep, 1939, the Jern (Master G. Gabrielsen) was stopped by U-32 65 miles west of Skudenes and the crew was given 15 minutes to get into the lifeboats. A boarding party from the U-boat scuttled the ship by three scuttling charges at 15.37 hours about 85 miles west of Jæren´s Rev. Five of the Norwegians had to help the boarding party to bring the explosives to the ship. The survivors were taken towards the shore on the U-boat before being transferred to the Swedish steam merchant Caledonia. The next day they were transferred to the Norwegian torpedoboat Lyn and taken to Kristiansand.

a also read this and its a order from later in the war 1943

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-301INT.htm

Rahn said that a new order had recently been issued that U-boats should, whenever possible, take prisoners from among survivors of vessels sunk.

[JU_88]

Which Uboat was it that sunk a passenger ship, but then took the survivors life boats in tow - (with the intention off dropping off close to a neutal port)
unfortunaley it was attacked by aircraft so it had to break tow with the survivours and dive.
But i guess (hope) the aircraft called for transport to pick up the surviors afterwards?
Im sure it happenned early war but I forget which U-boat, kudos to kpt for trying to help those people, many other Uboat Skippers weren't nearly as humane...

[looney]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Which Uboat was it that sunk a passenger ship, but then took the survivors life boats in tow - (with the intention off dropping off close to a neutal port)
unfortunaley it was attacked by aircraft so it had to break tow with the survivours and dive.
But i guess (hope) the aircraft called for transport to pick up the surviors afterwards?
Im sure it happenned early war but I forget which U-boat, kudos to kpt for trying to help those people, many other Uboat Skippers weren't nearly as humane...

Your talking about the Laconia indecent. This could actually explained to be a warcrime from the american high command.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

P.s. War is never humane, there where almost no accounts of war crimes committed by Uboat Skippers, there was only 1 actually accused and found guilty of committing a war crime. Allied skippers have a worse record, although none of them have been brought to court ("War does not determine who is right - only who is left. ~Bertrand Russell").

Ships taking on casualties where not being attacked.

-edit-
I can't find the source of my knowledge about the crimes commited ..must be on some of the sites below:
http://Uboat.net, http://www.uboatarchive.net/, http://www.uboataces.com/

[Sone7]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Two books Iron Coffins and Wolfgang Luth U-Boat Ace said they took Capt or highest surviving officer on board for questioning then sent them back to lifeboats.

...while in "Das letzte Boot", based on memories of Wolfgang Hirschfeld, we have examples of taking captains/officers as prisoners, all way back to France.

[HundertzehnGustav]

I would stop me a passenger liner, and get my crew a good shower
and take a lot of good food over to my U-boot.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by looney

Allied skippers have a worse record, although none of them have been brought to court ("War does not determine who is right - only who is left. ~Bertrand Russell").

Rubbish, I saw U-571 and the German Captain clearly machine gunned the unarmed survivors in the lifeboat. What's YOUR source? :-).

[XLjedi]

It certainly seems egregious to attack unarmed lifeboats filled with civilians or merchant marines. But what if it was a troop ship and the boats were filled with soldiers?

Is it a war crime to shoot at unarmed enemy combatants in life boats?

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

It certainly seems egregious to attack unarmed lifeboats filled with civilians or merchant marines. But what if it was a troop ship and the boats were filled with soldiers?

Is it a war crime to shoot at unarmed enemy combatants in life boats?

I haven't been able to find a copy of the Geneva Convention applicable at the time of WWII (as it is updated regularly), but the copy from 1955 seems quite sensible - e.g. you can't be held responsible for sinking a hospital ship if it isn't marked as one clearly. For the troops, I should think that they would carry their weapons and EQ with them, but in the case that they did not, then how would you show this to the enemy? If the enemy can't tell they are unarmed, they have to assume they are all armed and fighting units. In any case, the troops would be considered 'on base' if they were on a troop ship.

For lifeboats, it is not legal to do any harm to survivors who are shipwrecked and unarmed. This includes people in the water, so you can't for example drive a DD through a group of survivors and drop DCs on that spot. It is not legal to give preferential treatment to survivors, unless of a medical nature (e.g. you can't treat your own troops before the enemy).

For lifeboats though, if they fire on a ship, they can be blown out of the water, as they are still a fighting craft - otherwise you could have a battleship 'lifeboat'. A lifeboat with a machine gun is not a lifeboat.

[Truckerich]

I ounce in awhile try to pick up the enemy and capture the enemy in the oceans.[ P.O.A.]0
Like you said. They are unarmed. It has happened and would like to think they would do the same for me . I don't like sharks.lo

Originally Posted by aaronblood

It certainly seems egregious to attack unarmed lifeboats filled with civilians or merchant marines. But what if it was a troop ship and the boats were filled with soldiers?

Is it a war crime to shoot at unarmed enemy combatants in life boats?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

Is it a war crime to shoot at unarmed enemy combatants in life boats?

This is not a trivial question to answer. While the morality of shooting people in lifeboats can be clear, when attempting to try someone for a war crime, a specific international law needs to be cited. In the case of Heinz Eck, prosecutors had to scramble to find a law he supposedly violated. Since this took place at sea, it complicated matters greatly.

There were several treaties signed that addressed how combatants and were to be treated on land warfare. The Hague conventions were clear that a member of the military was considered a combatant unless some specific and limiting circumstances presented themselves. These included, but are not limited to

1. Surrender
2. Injured to the extent that they no longer were a military threat.

Prior to the 1949 conventions, that was about the only protections a military member had from being shot on the battlefield. If you did not surrender or were injured (and took no hostile action) you were a viable military target.

The nature of naval warfare were significantly different from land warfare that different Hague conventions governed naval action. In naval warfare the definition of whether a military member was a combatant is different from land warfare.

During the Eck trial, the applicable reference used in his trial was the “Convention (X) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention. The Hague, 18 October 1907.”
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/225?OpenDocument

[if anyone is interested in historical war law conventions, the following site is worth bookmarking
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/TOPICS?OpenView]

The courts ruled that Eck’s violated article 16

Art. 16. After every engagement, the two belligerents, so far as military interests permit, shall take steps to look for the shipwrecked, sick, and wounded, and to protect them, as well as the dead, against pillage and ill-treatment.
They shall see that the burial, whether by land or sea, or cremation of the dead shall be preceded by a careful examination of the corpse.

Frankly this is a shaky ground to convict Eck, but no one is claiming that he got a fair trial here.

The reason the courts used that article is that at the time, there was no international treaty that addressed military members in lifeboats.

Simply being in a lifeboat is not the same as surrendering, nor can it be assumed that being in a lifeboat renders a military member incapable of military action due to injury.

So no, during World War II there was no international treaty that would forbid the shooting of military members, who have not surrendered, who are, uninjured, in lifeboats..... But there is more to laws of war than international treaties.

In 1921, there was a trial in Germany concerning war crime atrocities committed by the Captain (Lieutenant Helmut Patzig) of the U-86 in the matter of the sinking of the HMHS Llandovery Castle (sunk 27 Jun 18).

The HMHS Landovery Castle was a Hospital ship that was torpedoed by the U-86. Whether this sinking was justified has been debated as there are indicators that it was carrying war materials. The torpedoing is not the point of issue however. After the sinking and after interrogating some of the crew, Patzing ordered the U-86 to rundown some of the lifeboats and to fire on others.

After the war, Patzing, was not tried under international courts, but tried in German courts. Patzing and two other officers were convicted, not of war crimes but of homicide. The German Supreme Court issued this statement

The firing on the boats was art offence against the law of nations. In war on land the killing of unarmed enemies is not allowed; similarly, in war at sea the killing of shipwrecked people, who have taken refuge in lifeboats, is forbidden.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...e-peleus-trial

So while there was no international treaty that addressed whether military members in lifeboats can or can not be shot, there was legal precedent in Germany and Eck should have known that his actions would certainly break German law.

Originally Posted by aaronblood

Is it a war crime to shoot at unarmed enemy combatants in life boats?

During World War II, no it would not be a war crime, unless the occupants both surrendered and did not take any offensive military action. However, the shooting may have violated domestic laws. In the case of Germany, it would not be a war crime, but it would have been a crime.

Like I wrote, not a trivial nor easy question to answer prior to the 1949 conventions.

[FIREWALL]

Here we go again. The train just went off the track.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Here we go again. The train just went off the track.

Don't worry. We got pretty much to the end of the original track.