Convoy decision

sublynx · 02-04-13, 08:19 AM

In this book

http://eaglescholar.georgiasouthern...._201005_MA.pdf

you'll find a description what Prien did when confronted with a task force of troop transports and a cruiser: one torpedo for each ship. At that point he didn't know that the torpedoes would likely malfunction, though. If he had anticipated failure the decision would likely have been different.

In BdU's war diary

http://www.uboatarchive.net/BDUKTB30261.htm

it reads that the U-boats taking part in the operation for supporting the invasion of Norway were not to attack "secondary targets" like merchant ships or convoys that were not part of Allied counteroperations. However there is no restriction attacking battleships.

I would think that a battleship would always have been a U-boat commander's number one target. Personally I would prefer to sink any of those darn carriers if given the choice between one and a battleship. I hate those airplanes

Sailor Steve · 02-04-13, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sublynx

I would think that a battleship would always have been a U-boat commander's number one target.

Jürgen Östen certainly agrees.

sublynx · 02-04-13, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Jürgen Östen certainly agrees.

Great clip

guntherprien · 02-04-13, 01:04 PM

Is it only me who finds submarine warfare a particularly cowardly form,especially against unarmed merchantmen?
I mean,come on,it's hardly trench warfare is it?
It riles me when I read of commanders getting medals for sinking merchant vessels and leaving the crew to die,I would be ashamed of myself.
I mean,look at 'Mush' Mortons escapade,when he slaughtered all the Japanese troops in the open water,
to name but a few.
Wreford-brown was hardly a hero sinking the Belgrano relatively recently was he?
No,I'm sorry,I don't rate it heroic one bit.Dangerous? Very,but heroic? No.
Flame away,comrades......

RConch · 02-04-13, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guntherprien

Is it only me who finds submarine warfare a particularly cowardly form,especially against unarmed merchantmen?
I mean,come on,it's hardly trench warfare is it?
It riles me when I read of commanders getting medals for sinking merchant vessels and leaving the crew to die,I would be ashamed of myself.
I mean,look at 'Mush' Mortons escapade,when he slaughtered all the Japanese troops in the open water,
to name but a few.
Wreford-brown was hardly a hero sinking the Belgrano relatively recently was he?
No,I'm sorry,I don't rate it heroic one bit.Dangerous? Very,but heroic? No.
Flame away,comrades......

Why the rant? This is a site where we play a game that is about what you don't like.
We don't flame here-its impolite.

guntherprien · 02-04-13, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rconch

Why the rant? This is a site where we play a game that is about what you don't like.
We don't flame here-its impolite.

No rant,baby,just a pov.

Gustav Schiebert · 02-04-13, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guntherprien

Is it only me who finds submarine warfare a particularly cowardly form,especially against unarmed merchantmen?
I mean,come on,it's hardly trench warfare is it?
It riles me when I read of commanders getting medals for sinking merchant vessels and leaving the crew to die,I would be ashamed of myself.
I mean,look at 'Mush' Mortons escapade,when he slaughtered all the Japanese troops in the open water,
to name but a few.
Wreford-brown was hardly a hero sinking the Belgrano relatively recently was he?
No,I'm sorry,I don't rate it heroic one bit.Dangerous? Very,but heroic? No.
Flame away,comrades......

FLAME!!! Sorry, but I did my finals on the morality of submarine warfare for my NCO promotion course.

The London Naval Treaty signed before the war, by Germany and Britain, meant that subs could not attack shipping while submerged. They had to surface, stop the vessel, inspect its cargo, then move the crew to a 'place of safety' before sinking it (known as Prize Regulations). Putting them in lifeboats did NOT count as a 'place of safety'.

However, in order to recieve this pretty robust legal protection they had to be civilian ships. And if they carried ANY guns or ANY military personnel (as most did) OR communicated with the navy AT ALL (as practically every ship did after the outbreak of war, they lost their protection.

So legally, the vast majority of merchant ships were naval auxiliaries and legitimate targets.

Realise this doesn't quite answer the point about cowardice/bravery, and I hope people don't take this as a flame. I'm just trying to point out a factual error in the assertion that merchantmen were 'unarmed'.

Sailor Steve · 02-04-13, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav Schiebert

The London Naval Treaty signed before the war, by Germany and Britain, meant that subs could not attack shipping while submerged. They had to surface, stop the vessel, inspect its cargo, then move the crew to a 'place of safety' before sinking it (known as Prize Regulations). Putting them in lifeboats did NOT count as a 'place of safety'.

During the First World War the u-boats were ordered to approach merchants on the surface, inspect their papers and let them go if truly neutral, but if they were enemy to allow the crew to abandon ship then sink them with scuttling charges or the deck gun. The British answer to this was the Q-Ship, which not only had guns hidden in crates or otherwise disguised, but even had small crews trained to man the boats and pretend to abandon ship while the gun crews made ready. Then, when the u-boats were ordered to use torpedoes in underwater attacks, the Brits started crying "Foul".

Quote:

However, in order to recieve this pretty robust legal protection they had to be civilian ships. And if they carried ANY guns or ANY military personnel (as most did) OR communicated with the navy AT ALL (as practically every ship did after the outbreak of war, they lost their protection.

Also true. The whole point was to strangle an island nation by preventing supplies from getting through. The only question was whether to attack submerged, increasing the chances of success, attack on the surface, which sooner or later was certain death, or not attack at all.

scudder · 02-05-13, 12:21 AM

Well, since we've wandered off into the woods somewhere (no offense taken, btw) I suppose I'll throw my hat into the ring as well.

We like to think that war has rules, and that those rules can be enforced. We like to think that, even in times of war, there is such a thing as right and wrong. Take the absurdity of the Prize Rules, as just one example. It's been pointed out already that both sides "broke the rules" in one way or another, and before long virtually every ship headed for England was a "valid target" because the reality was that every ship headed for England HAD to carry supplies/munitions/troops/whatever in order to keep the country afloat. The rules sounded nice on paper, but as soon as war broke out they were worthless. Reality just doesn't work that way.

The only thing common to every human armed conflict is death. Death of military men and women, which is often seen as acceptable on some level, and the death of civilians, which is generally considered barbaric and sub-human.

War is essentially an effort to carve out an exception to one of the fundamental civil principles of any developed nation: the prohibition of murder.

In that light no nation is innocent, no one wins or loses, and there are no "good" and "bad" sides. WWII is difficult, I think, because history and humanity have so clearly come down against what Hitler attempted to do. It's easy to see the allies as good and the Nazis as evil. Mind you, I'm not for one second suggesting that we're too hard on Nazi Germany, but the bipolar good/evil scenario is far too oversimplified. Das Boot, Saving Private Ryan, and any good documentary on WWII will show you that.

I've come to believe that if thinking about the reality of war (be it the specifics of the battle of the Atlantic, or war in general) doesn't make you squirm in your seat a little for want of a "cleaner set of rules" then you're not really paying attention.

As for the game, I play because a submarine is the ultimate strategy simulation, and is the polar opposite of the first person shooters that saturate the gaming market. I find the Pacific theater "boring" for reasons I can't put my finger on, so that leaves German U-Boats as the ideal sub sim. As a game mechanic, it's also convenient that things got more difficult for U-Boat captains as the war went on, allowing the player to gain and use skills in the game while maintaining a natural sense of historical accuracy.

sublynx · 02-04-13, 02:00 PM

I can't agree with the cowardly bit in the sense that a U-boatman's life was extremely risky. One could argue that U-boats hit defenseless or helpless targets. That's warfare. Basically all of warfare tries to hit the enemy from a safe position. That's why armor and shields and longrange weapons like a bow or a sniper rifle were developed. Strategy and tactics in all warfare strives to achieve a position where you can kill the enemy in perfect safety.

Heroic? My grandfather told me that when he went to the front in the winter of 1941/1942 the first task he faced was to pile frozen enemy carcasses to make a temporary winter road more durable. It was easier than felling trees as there had been an encirclement and the enemy had been pushed to a small area and then killed in piles. Probably those soldiers killed had very little ammunition or food when they were killed and they were probably killed mostly by artillery and mortar fire from a safe distance.

Heroism and war is a very difficult thing to define. I think it's easier to think of war as a basically insane slaughter that a society should avoid if at all possible. I don't play SH3 to feel brave or heroic. I like history, geometry and challenge and would probably desert at the first chance if I was to participate in real submarine warfare.

Interesting points of view anyways, guntherprien. I hope other people decide to share their views on this

Marcello · 02-04-13, 03:31 PM

What is regarded as moral/legal in this sort of stuff is pretty hazy and essentially driven by technology, politics and others factors. Technology made possible to build practical submarines in the years following the beginning of the 20th century but hard physical limits dictated that in order to operate efficiently they had to fight in a new different way from surface ships, a way that was indeed deemed by many inhumane/cowardly by the standards of the time, though often this was more born out of expediency than heartfelt morality.
Note that there were several attempts to build submarine cruisers that could fight conventionally on the surface, but hard physical limitations made impossible to combine the necessary elements of a surface ships, such as a sufficient artillery armament, a modicum of armor and stability to support them, with an acceptable underwater performance. Amenities such as quarters for prisoners were included in some WW1 german long range designs, but extra space on a submarine is a very pricey luxury from a design trade offs point of view.
So the net result was that for all the disparaging of the "huns" and such submarines eventually ended up being used generally in the way it was most suited to their limitations and advantages, the US in WW2 being notable example, with its prewar fleet boats being ordered to engage in unrestricted warfare from day one.
With the stakes sufficiently high legal niceties and moral qualms are thrown out of the window and weapons capabilities are exploited to the fullest.

guntherprien · 02-04-13, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sublynx

I can't agree with the cowardly bit in the sense that a U-boatman's life was extremely risky. One could argue that U-boats hit defenseless or helpless targets. That's warfare. Basically all of warfare tries to hit the enemy from a safe position. That's why armor and shields and longrange weapons like a bow or a sniper rifle were developed. Strategy and tactics in all warfare strives to achieve a position where you can kill the enemy in perfect safety.

Heroic? My grandfather told me that when he went to the front in the winter of 1941/1942 the first task he faced was to pile frozen enemy carcasses to make a temporary winter road more durable. It was easier than felling trees as there had been an encirclement and the enemy had been pushed to a small area and then killed in piles. Probably those soldiers killed had very little ammunition or food when they were killed and they were probably killed mostly by artillery and mortar fire from a safe distance.

Heroism and war is a very difficult thing to define. I think it's easier to think of war as a basically insane slaughter that a society should avoid if at all possible. I don't play SH3 to feel brave or heroic. I like history, geometry and challenge and would probably desert at the first chance if I was to participate in real submarine warfare.

Interesting points of view anyways, guntherprien. I hope other people decide to share their views on this

Thanks Sublynx,your reply was the kind of response I was looking for.
I love sh3 with GWX3 but after reading many,many books on the subject,am left with a sour taste in my mouth.
I keep thinking about a passage in Buccheims' 'Das Boot' where the captain can't reconcile himself to sinking seaworthy vessels,himself being a sailor on a sailing ship.
The point I was trying to make was that it must be difficult to commit fellow sailors,regardless of nationality to a watery death,especially if one is a submarine commander.
I have been a member of this forum for many years and in no way wish to denigrate it,I just wish to share my feelings.
In real life,I don't think I could sink a real unarmed merchantman with all the subsequent loss of life.
Long live SH3 GWX though.
May your God go with you.

Cybermat47 · 02-04-13, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guntherprien

May your God go with you.

That was a very good post.

May your God go with you.

Wreford-Brown · 02-08-13, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guntherprien

Is it only me who finds submarine warfare a particularly cowardly form,especially against unarmed merchantmen?
I mean,come on,it's hardly trench warfare is it?
It riles me when I read of commanders getting medals for sinking merchant vessels and leaving the crew to die,I would be ashamed of myself.
I mean,look at 'Mush' Mortons escapade,when he slaughtered all the Japanese troops in the open water,
to name but a few.
Wreford-brown was hardly a hero sinking the Belgrano relatively recently was he?
No,I'm sorry,I don't rate it heroic one bit.Dangerous? Very,but heroic? No.
Flame away,comrades......

Late to the party, but putting my tuppence in anyway!

I agree that Wreford-Brown wasn't a hero, but he was working under direct Prime Ministerial supervision and sinking the Belgrano had a strategic effect which still works today.

Anyone tracking the UK Press will see that the regular complaints about Las Malvinas are roughly on a four-year cycle (aligned with Argentinian politics). Every time the Argentinians make military assertions, the UK military has a low-profile press release mentioning the deployment of an attack submarine to an 'unknown destination', reinforcing the lessons of the war of 1982.

The sinking of the Belgrano had a psychological effect that has lasted for 30 years. I contest that the loss of 323 lives on the Belgrano may have ultimately saved lives in the long term as it helped prevent further military actions over Las Malvinas and therefore further unnecessary bloodshed.

I hope that the vote being held soon will be accepted by both the UK and Argentinian governments, regardless of which way the vote falls.

02-04-13, 08:19 AM	#1
sublynx Sea Lord Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: In the conning tower of my VIIC scanning the sea through the periscope Posts: 1,698 Downloads: 173 Uploads: 7	In this book http://eaglescholar.georgiasouthern...._201005_MA.pdf you'll find a description what Prien did when confronted with a task force of troop transports and a cruiser: one torpedo for each ship. At that point he didn't know that the torpedoes would likely malfunction, though. If he had anticipated failure the decision would likely have been different. In BdU's war diary http://www.uboatarchive.net/BDUKTB30261.htm it reads that the U-boats taking part in the operation for supporting the invasion of Norway were not to attack "secondary targets" like merchant ships or convoys that were not part of Allied counteroperations. However there is no restriction attacking battleships. I would think that a battleship would always have been a U-boat commander's number one target. Personally I would prefer to sink any of those darn carriers if given the choice between one and a battleship. I hate those airplanes __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NYGM+H.sie v16+Stiebler 4C+MaGui WS

02-04-13, 02:00 PM	#10
sublynx Sea Lord Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: In the conning tower of my VIIC scanning the sea through the periscope Posts: 1,698 Downloads: 173 Uploads: 7	I can't agree with the cowardly bit in the sense that a U-boatman's life was extremely risky. One could argue that U-boats hit defenseless or helpless targets. That's warfare. Basically all of warfare tries to hit the enemy from a safe position. That's why armor and shields and longrange weapons like a bow or a sniper rifle were developed. Strategy and tactics in all warfare strives to achieve a position where you can kill the enemy in perfect safety. Heroic? My grandfather told me that when he went to the front in the winter of 1941/1942 the first task he faced was to pile frozen enemy carcasses to make a temporary winter road more durable. It was easier than felling trees as there had been an encirclement and the enemy had been pushed to a small area and then killed in piles. Probably those soldiers killed had very little ammunition or food when they were killed and they were probably killed mostly by artillery and mortar fire from a safe distance. Heroism and war is a very difficult thing to define. I think it's easier to think of war as a basically insane slaughter that a society should avoid if at all possible. I don't play SH3 to feel brave or heroic. I like history, geometry and challenge and would probably desert at the first chance if I was to participate in real submarine warfare. Interesting points of view anyways, guntherprien. I hope other people decide to share their views on this __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NYGM+H.sie v16+Stiebler 4C+MaGui WS

02-04-13, 01:04 PM	#4
guntherprien Hand rag Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 85 Downloads: 170 Uploads: 0	Is it only me who finds submarine warfare a particularly cowardly form,especially against unarmed merchantmen? I mean,come on,it's hardly trench warfare is it? It riles me when I read of commanders getting medals for sinking merchant vessels and leaving the crew to die,I would be ashamed of myself. I mean,look at 'Mush' Mortons escapade,when he slaughtered all the Japanese troops in the open water, to name but a few. Wreford-brown was hardly a hero sinking the Belgrano relatively recently was he? No,I'm sorry,I don't rate it heroic one bit.Dangerous? Very,but heroic? No. Flame away,comrades......

02-05-13, 12:21 AM	#9
scudder Sailor man Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Western MA Posts: 43 Downloads: 35 Uploads: 2	Well, since we've wandered off into the woods somewhere (no offense taken, btw) I suppose I'll throw my hat into the ring as well. We like to think that war has rules, and that those rules can be enforced. We like to think that, even in times of war, there is such a thing as right and wrong. Take the absurdity of the Prize Rules, as just one example. It's been pointed out already that both sides "broke the rules" in one way or another, and before long virtually every ship headed for England was a "valid target" because the reality was that every ship headed for England HAD to carry supplies/munitions/troops/whatever in order to keep the country afloat. The rules sounded nice on paper, but as soon as war broke out they were worthless. Reality just doesn't work that way. The only thing common to every human armed conflict is death. Death of military men and women, which is often seen as acceptable on some level, and the death of civilians, which is generally considered barbaric and sub-human. War is essentially an effort to carve out an exception to one of the fundamental civil principles of any developed nation: the prohibition of murder. In that light no nation is innocent, no one wins or loses, and there are no "good" and "bad" sides. WWII is difficult, I think, because history and humanity have so clearly come down against what Hitler attempted to do. It's easy to see the allies as good and the Nazis as evil. Mind you, I'm not for one second suggesting that we're too hard on Nazi Germany, but the bipolar good/evil scenario is far too oversimplified. Das Boot, Saving Private Ryan, and any good documentary on WWII will show you that. I've come to believe that if thinking about the reality of war (be it the specifics of the battle of the Atlantic, or war in general) doesn't make you squirm in your seat a little for want of a "cleaner set of rules" then you're not really paying attention. As for the game, I play because a submarine is the ultimate strategy simulation, and is the polar opposite of the first person shooters that saturate the gaming market. I find the Pacific theater "boring" for reasons I can't put my finger on, so that leaves German U-Boats as the ideal sub sim. As a game mechanic, it's also convenient that things got more difficult for U-Boat captains as the war went on, allowing the player to gain and use skills in the game while maintaining a natural sense of historical accuracy.

02-04-13, 03:31 PM	#11
Marcello Planesman Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 183 Downloads: 49 Uploads: 0	What is regarded as moral/legal in this sort of stuff is pretty hazy and essentially driven by technology, politics and others factors. Technology made possible to build practical submarines in the years following the beginning of the 20th century but hard physical limits dictated that in order to operate efficiently they had to fight in a new different way from surface ships, a way that was indeed deemed by many inhumane/cowardly by the standards of the time, though often this was more born out of expediency than heartfelt morality. Note that there were several attempts to build submarine cruisers that could fight conventionally on the surface, but hard physical limitations made impossible to combine the necessary elements of a surface ships, such as a sufficient artillery armament, a modicum of armor and stability to support them, with an acceptable underwater performance. Amenities such as quarters for prisoners were included in some WW1 german long range designs, but extra space on a submarine is a very pricey luxury from a design trade offs point of view. So the net result was that for all the disparaging of the "huns" and such submarines eventually ended up being used generally in the way it was most suited to their limitations and advantages, the US in WW2 being notable example, with its prewar fleet boats being ordered to engage in unrestricted warfare from day one. With the stakes sufficiently high legal niceties and moral qualms are thrown out of the window and weapons capabilities are exploited to the fullest.