Lifeboats

[maillemaker]

As was said, with the Lifeboats and Debris mod you cannot harm the lifeboats or the people in them. You can even run them over with your u-boat - they will pass right through you. Gunfire has no effect on them.

Neutrals will treat you as hostile if you fire on them. That country will treat you as hostile and fire upon you and take evasive maneuvers for 24 hours after you fire on them.

You will lose renown for sinking neutral ships. Lose enough renown and it can end your career.

Rule of thumb: If its lights are on it is definitely neutral. Lights off it could be neutral or not - check the flag.

Steve

[Sgt_Raa]

Originally Posted by maillemaker

As was said, with the Lifeboats and Debris mod you cannot harm the lifeboats or the people in them. You can even run them over with your u-boat - they will pass right through you. Gunfire has no effect on them.

Neutrals will treat you as hostile if you fire on them. That country will treat you as hostile and fire upon you and take evasive maneuvers for 24 hours after you fire on them.

You will lose renown for sinking neutral ships. Lose enough renown and it can end your career.

Rule of thumb: If its lights are on it is definitely neutral. Lights off it could be neutral or not - check the flag.

Steve

thank you

Originally Posted by Sgt_Raa

Someone should make this mod for the homicidal ones like me... lol

I'll see if I still have a little something hanging around.


I never got around to adding bodies but you can shoot them.
They just disappear.
And no! You get no renown or lose renown.
They don't work that way.
(Someone would mod a billion points renown as a cheat!)

[Sgt_Raa]

Originally Posted by privateer

(Someone would mod a billion points renown as a cheat!)

that would be easy done...lol

[Kimmers]

ahahaha green ships
you're lucky all you lose is renown.

[applesthecat]

I know that in the Pacific, Mush Morton machine gunned Japanese survivors in the water and actually got a medal for it. In fact, shows that gunning survivors in the water was considered legitimate policy.

Then there are the H M S Torbay incidents in which Capt. Miers ordered the shooting of German survivors in rafts on two separate occasions. He entered both incidents into his log. The Admiralty sent him a strongly worded letter afterward but nothing else.

[HW3]

I know that in the Pacific, Mush Morton machine gunned Japanese survivors in the water and actually got a medal for it. In fact, shows that gunning survivors in the water was considered legitimate policy.

That is because the Japanese survivors had a nasty habit of trying to kill their rescuers.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by applesthecat

I know that in the Pacific, Mush Morton machine gunned Japanese survivors in the water and actually got a medal for it. In fact, shows that gunning survivors in the water was considered legitimate policy.

Then there are the H M S Torbay incidents in which Capt. Miers ordered the shooting of German survivors in rafts on two separate occasions. He entered both incidents into his log. The Admiralty sent him a strongly worded letter afterward but nothing else.

We've had that discussion several times before. Morton could be culpable, but he claimed they shot at his boat first. The video is edited, and is proof of nothing. Yes, we see guns shooting. Yes, we see people in the water, and some footage of people apparently being shot. But there is no accompanying explanation. Was it malicious, or was there a reason. We don't know, nothing is explained and claiming that it was undeserved, or deserved, or that it was considered policy to wantonly shoot survivors in the water. Proof would be actual orders showing that it was considered policy. Anything else is speculation.

[applesthecat]

IF they were in the water, why not just leave them there? What threat is a man floating in the water to a ship, or even a some survivors in a life boat? It was a war crime by our own standards. Eck was executed for doing the very same thing to survivors in a life raft.

[maillemaker]

I know that in the Pacific, Mush Morton machine gunned Japanese survivors in the water and actually got a medal for it. In fact, shows that gunning survivors in the water was considered legitimate policy.

Pretty damn cold.

IF they were in the water, why not just leave them there? What threat is a man floating in the water to a ship, or even a some survivors in a life boat? It was a war crime by our own standards. Eck was executed for doing the very same thing to survivors in a life raft.

Eck's side didn't win the war.

Steve

[robbo180265]

Originally Posted by Sgt_Raa

thats another completely different story.... they never officialy found his (Hitler's) body... it was supposedly burned and buried!

I hate to rain on you parade once more but:

"Red Army troops began storming the Chancellery at approximately 23:00, about 7 hours and 30 minutes after Hitler's death. On 2 May the remains of Hitler, Braun and two dogs (thought to be Blondi and her offspring Wulf) were discovered in a shell crater by a unit of SMERSH which had orders to find Hitler's body.
The autopsy, contrary to public reports authorized by Stalin in 1945, recorded both gunshot damage to Hitler's skull and glass shards in his jaw. However, Stalin was wary about believing his old nemesis was dead.[15][16] The remains of Hitler and Braun were repeatedly buried and exhumed by SMERSH during the unit's relocation from Berlin to a new facility in Magdeburg where they, along with the charred remains of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and those of his wife Magda Goebbels and their six children, were buried in an unmarked grave beneath a paved section of the front courtyard. The location was kept highly secret.[17]
In 1969 Soviet journalist Lev Bezymensky's book on the SMERSH autopsy report was published in the West but because of earlier disinformation attempts historians may have thought it untrustworthy.[18]
In 1970 the SMERSH facility, by then controlled by the KGB, was scheduled to be handed over to the East German government. Fearing that a known Hitler burial site might become a Neo-Nazi shrine, KGB director Yuri Andropov authorised an operation to destroy the remains. A Soviet KGB team was given detailed burial charts and on 4 April 1970 they secretly exhumed and thoroughly burned the ten bodies, after which the ashes were thrown into in the Biederitz river, a tributary of the nearby Elbe river.[17][19]"

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler

[maillemaker]

I hope they pissed in the ashes before chucking them in the river.

Steve

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by applesthecat

IF they were in the water, why not just leave them there? What threat is a man floating in the water to a ship, or even a some survivors in a life boat? It was a war crime by our own standards. Eck was executed for doing the very same thing to survivors in a life raft.

As I said, the video doesn't tell the whole story. If these were soldiers, did they fire on the sub? We don't know. Judging an action without all the facts is speculation, nothing more.

A video only shows you what the editor of that video wants you to see.

[applesthecat]

IN what possible context could shooting at those sailors in the water be justified? You can see helpless men being gunned down. It's plain to see. There is no room for nuance here. Trying to see that as being something other than what it is requires a highly convoluted logic.

Morton himself admitted to doing the very same thing as we see in the video so it not as if this video must be "edited".

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by applesthecat

IN what possible context could shooting at those sailors in the water be justified? You can see helpless men being gunned down.

2:13 We see a man in the water.

2:17 We see a close up of the same man, holding out his hand for help.

2:20 We see a US sailor with a sub-machine gun, shooting level, which implies his target is fairly far off. We don't see what he is shooting at.

2:23 We see three men in the water. There is a splash near them, which closely resembles the splash of a bullet.

2:25 We see several men in the water.

2:27 We see an AA crew firing a heavy machine gun.

2:29 We see splashes at a distance in the water. There is no obvious target.

2:32 We see what appears to be a body floating in the water, with no indication of how it got dead.

2:37 We see a close up of a man in the water.

2:43 We see a man firing a submachine gun at a closer target.

2:45 We do see a man in the water being shot.

2:48 We see an officer shooting a man in the water with a pistol.

There is one scene of a gun actually being fired at the men in the water - the rest is all cut.

Where do you see that they are helpless?

It's plain to see. There is no room for nuance here. Trying to see that as being something other than what it is requires a highly convoluted logic.

Convoluted logic? How so? There is nothing plain at all. I could just as easily argue that you are only seeing what you want to see, or what someone else wants you to see. I'm not, because I don't know any more than you do.

Morton himself admitted to doing the very same thing as we see in the video so it not as if this video must be "edited".

Not "must be edited", "IS edited". There is no question that none of the scenes are directly connected. It may be all sequential and edited just for time, or it may be maliciously edited to "prove" wrongdoing. My point is that we don't know one way or the other.

As I said, Morton also claimed that he was fired on first. Truth? Lie? Hero? Criminal? I'm not saying it didn't happen, or defending anybody. I'm just saying that the 'evidence' of that video is no evidence at all.