PDA

View Full Version : Un-glorious Action * Sinking the Lola Mae



Chrystine
09-24-2005, 07:23 AM
*

In the Straight of Ireland last night €" ca. 01:30 hrs. €" picked up a sonar contact.

Small merchant, closing fast.
U-53 positioned tªte- -tªte in her path.
At range 3,800 meters, darkened outline of Tugboat apparent, moving ahead straight course, speed 7 knots.
At range 1,400 meters, U-53 passed from speed of 1 knot to 8 knots and surfaced.
Gunners ordered to stations - .88 and 20mm manned, close range fire opened.
Tugboat hit repeatedly. Significant damage in area of fo'csle, man overboard appears to be on fire.
Fire is lit on fore-deck, Tugboat turning away to her starboard. A line is seen thrown from near-stern into the water.
Hull is now hit numerous times in close order with the .88.
Men€s voices heard, range between vessels 430 meters.
Grau calls up. Radio intercept: €œSSS! SSS! U-boat off port. Lola Mae taking water. Position North 4€¦€
Static€¦ Message terminated.
Superstructure on Tug now wreathed in orange flames, boat rolls over port rail, sinking.

Lola Mae sunk: S.E. Grid AM39.
Men in water.
Signal sent by U-53: Crew of British Tug Lola Mae in water. Position given.

U-53 turns one-eight-zero ahead full. Batteries recharged, submerge to 30 meters. Return listening to hydrophone.


What an un-glorious encounter€¦
Really, what I €˜like€ about it, is this image taken from the bridge during the opening salvo.
The only lighting for the shot here is muzzle-flash from the .88, it being otherwise pitch-dark.
No S.S€s were fired during this attack.

http://idealhorizons.intuity.net/P4_122_Tug_Lola_Mae.jpg

Kind of a €˜cool€ shot I think€¦
I€ve been looking for one like this for a long while. Finally have one for the scrapbook now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best, & BOL €¦
~ C.

*

Chrystine
09-24-2005, 07:23 AM
*

In the Straight of Ireland last night €" ca. 01:30 hrs. €" picked up a sonar contact.

Small merchant, closing fast.
U-53 positioned tªte- -tªte in her path.
At range 3,800 meters, darkened outline of Tugboat apparent, moving ahead straight course, speed 7 knots.
At range 1,400 meters, U-53 passed from speed of 1 knot to 8 knots and surfaced.
Gunners ordered to stations - .88 and 20mm manned, close range fire opened.
Tugboat hit repeatedly. Significant damage in area of fo'csle, man overboard appears to be on fire.
Fire is lit on fore-deck, Tugboat turning away to her starboard. A line is seen thrown from near-stern into the water.
Hull is now hit numerous times in close order with the .88.
Men€s voices heard, range between vessels 430 meters.
Grau calls up. Radio intercept: €œSSS! SSS! U-boat off port. Lola Mae taking water. Position North 4€¦€
Static€¦ Message terminated.
Superstructure on Tug now wreathed in orange flames, boat rolls over port rail, sinking.

Lola Mae sunk: S.E. Grid AM39.
Men in water.
Signal sent by U-53: Crew of British Tug Lola Mae in water. Position given.

U-53 turns one-eight-zero ahead full. Batteries recharged, submerge to 30 meters. Return listening to hydrophone.


What an un-glorious encounter€¦
Really, what I €˜like€ about it, is this image taken from the bridge during the opening salvo.
The only lighting for the shot here is muzzle-flash from the .88, it being otherwise pitch-dark.
No S.S€s were fired during this attack.

http://idealhorizons.intuity.net/P4_122_Tug_Lola_Mae.jpg

Kind of a €˜cool€ shot I think€¦
I€ve been looking for one like this for a long while. Finally have one for the scrapbook now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best, & BOL €¦
~ C.

*

WilhelmSchulz.-
09-24-2005, 09:23 AM
I sunk one the other day. And if you look carefulay it looks like you could arm them for sub hunting.
A bad day for the Tug-waffa. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Chrystine
09-24-2005, 10:33 AM
*

€œA bad day for the Tug-waffa. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif €œ

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ..Good one Wilhelm!

I€ve taken up blasting tugs on-sight if I can get them with one of the guns. I just don€t trust their disposition and radios; don€t want them in my A.O; and what the hey €" it€s a few more tons€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Best,
~ C.

*

Kaleun1961
09-24-2005, 04:00 PM
Nice work. You have a flair for adding a story to what is normally just a "routine" sinking. Nice photo. I blast these suckers every time I see them; trawlers and fishing boats, too. If it's British and floats, I sink it. Due to my actions on the high seas, sweeping the British fishing fleet, the price of fish & chips has gone up 83%, according to Irish sympathizers.

Dominicrigg
09-24-2005, 04:18 PM
lol you guys suck!

I mean you are the reason i cant get Cod anymore at my local fish and chipshop. Haddock just doesnt taste the same.

Have a heart! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

WilhelmSchulz.-
09-24-2005, 04:36 PM
Cod??? YAAAAAAAAA.Discusting.

Chrystine
09-24-2005, 05:02 PM
*

Dank für diesen Kameraden!

Although it was also terribly late, no excuse for a kaleun to get so geographically disoriented€¦
I obviously wasn€t in the Straight of Ireland, but rather the stretch of waters between the Inner & Outer Hebrides.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I admit Tugs cause me no qualms, armed trawlers either €" un-armed trawlers I€ll €˜dispatch€ if I find them compromising security of the boat or operations, but €" fishing boats, I€ll not sink them (feel badly about the three I put at the bottom last career even).
Neither would I ever sink a Passenger Liner €" at-least not in open water.

€œDue to my actions on the high seas, sweeping the British fishing fleet, the price of fish & chips has gone up 83%, according to Irish sympathizers.€

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Best, & happy hunting!
~ C.

*

Dominicrigg
09-24-2005, 05:07 PM
Lots of people get confused with the passenger liners. Its not a cruise ship!

In world war 1 and 2 they used passenger liners as makeshift troop ships, passenger liners you see are full of troops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif letting them through will not please the fuhrer! (though it pleases me since they are Brits, canadians and Americans on board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Even the ship tagged "Troop ship" in game is actually a passenger liner if you look at it. Will loads of extra life rafts stuck on the side and on mounts, because it would be packed beyond capacity, with men everywhere!

My Grandad actually went on one to the North Africa Campaign. Im pretty certain they even used the queen mary as a troop ship at some point.

Phil_C
09-24-2005, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Im pretty certain they even used the queen mary as a troop ship at some point.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes starting in 1940 and ending in 1945, they also used the Queen Elisabeth, Aquitaniaamong others, and the US tried to get the Normandie but she burned in NY Harbor at the beginning of the war.

the link is to an image of the 'Mary in her wartime dress.
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~maadonovan/ships/queen_mary.jpg

Chrystine
09-24-2005, 06:24 PM
*

€œLots of people get confused with the passenger liners. Its not a cruise ship!€

Of course it€s not a cruise ship. It€s a Passenger Liner.
They can stuff & pack €˜em full of GI€s and in purpose convert them to Troop Transports, but it€s still a Passenger Liner.

€œIn world war 1 and 2 they used passenger liners as makeshift troop ships, passenger liners you see are full of troops letting them through will not please the fuhrer!€

I€m well aware of that.
I just don€t care. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Honestly, to me that€s just too-cold.
I€ll prefer to let our infantry, armor and the Luftwaffe deal with them later.
I know it€s a matter of letting go a perfect opportunity to save German lives, I still just couldn€t bring myself to do it.
The clincher for me is really not-knowing how many civilians may be aboard as well.
Women? Children..?
Can€t exactly stop them, board and check the manifest.

What an utterly horrid fate for so many€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Friend, foe, neutral €" what does it matter to the cold Atlantic?
Hypothermia, drowning from sheer exhaustion, sharks €¦ Horrid.

€œEven the ship tagged €˜Troop ship€ in game is actually a passenger liner if you look at it. Will loads of extra life rafts stuck on the side and on mounts, because it would be packed beyond capacity, with men everywhere!€

Those I have no problem sinking on sight. They€re heavily-armed and as such, a more legitimate combatant.
Again, I€d feel very-badly about the men in the water (enemy or not), but €¦. You know€¦
It helps my disposition regarding them that I had one hole my boat once€¦ Bastards.
Even so €" I rarely target one intentionally, since they€re usually in company of Tankers and sundry other larger ships.


Great photo, Phil!

Best,
~ C.

*

Kaleun1961
09-24-2005, 06:55 PM
Knock, knock, knock! Gestapo! Open zie door, Fraukaleun! Ve hear you haff been spreading vicious rumours about ze cold bloodedness of unser glorious U-Waffe. Ve vish to haff you down to HQ for a little "talk" and re-education. It is your duty to sink these Allied boats, no thinking of the lives involved. Ende.

Chrystine
09-24-2005, 07:13 PM
*

A thousand pardons herr Oberst, but ze fraukaleun is, as usual on ze boat far-away in ze Atlantik, no doubt sinking many ships.

You may tell Berlin ze rumors are all lies & propaganda.
Fraukaleun did not get ze Kreuz Des Ritters sewing kerchiefs and baking cakes!

You may tell zis to whomever you like€¦
Come now, do you have a smoke?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*

Gunnersman
09-24-2005, 08:02 PM
That bright spot on the front of the tug, is that a fire or is that an explosion from a shell? Do you let your guys do their own shooting?

And how do you know its the Lola Mae? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RosenbauU73
09-24-2005, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrystine:
Those I have no problem sinking on sight. They€re heavily-armed and as such, a more legitimate combatant.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi
After 1942 I think the passenger liner will be also heavily-armed so that way you can start to sunk them and please the fuhrer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Chrystine
09-24-2005, 08:15 PM
*

Hi Gunner - (I€m abbreviating, see?) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yes, it€s actually an HE round impacting there.

€œDo you let your guys do their own shooting?€

Almost always€¦
My gunner ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) Fechner, has to be screwing up rather heinously (just wasting ammo) for me to take over the .88
As a rule tho€ he€s darn good. The whole gun crew is good. I have no complaints.

€œAnd how do you know its the Lola Mae? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif €

Heard them say it €¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

€˜Radio intercept: €œSSS! SSS! U-boat off port. Lola Mae taking water. Position North 4€¦€€

It helps to have a hyper-over-active-imagination€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best,
~ C.

*

Gunnersman
09-24-2005, 08:30 PM
Aaaah yes. The radio intercept. I missed that part. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Im more the hands on type of guy. I like to do my own shooting. There's a certain satisfaction in it. Although it is rather neat to watch the gun crew work while up on the tower...seeing that tracer round zoom off to its target. However, I find they are not as accurate at longer distances, especially in seas that are not quite smooth. They dont know how to time the shots with the rocking of the boat.

Baldricks_Mate
09-24-2005, 11:11 PM
Ziss posts vill be reported to ze Gestapo...you will all be shot after a fair trial zen zent to ze Russian front!

Ve haf vays of doing ziz, you know!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WilhelmSchulz.-
09-24-2005, 11:14 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gifWhat???

Baldricks_Mate
09-25-2005, 12:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WilhelmSchulz.-:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gifWhat??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh... Kaleun Schultz, ve haf a dossier un you too! Your kammeraderie vith zat Doneitz un Rommel and zat Colonel Klink vill only carry you zo far...zen its zee Russian Front for you too!

Dominicrigg
09-25-2005, 03:17 AM
lmao you have been watching too much allo allo baldrik!


What about the poor merchant seamen? They are not combatants and their pay stops the second their ship is sunk and they end up in the water! Even if they spend a week or 2 in a lifeboat making their way back to land (if they are lucky)

Seems a bit strange to have qualms about sinking a ship full of men paid to fight, but not one with civvies on board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

And yes, before someone says im aware its only a game, im talking hypothetically if it was real :P

Baldricks_Mate
09-25-2005, 05:07 AM
Zat show is shameless propoganda from zat drunken Churchill. I haf been shtudying zat fine show "Hogan's Hero's" vich is more propoganda but zee dumkopt Amerikans give avay zee game...I vill follow zee trail back to you all!

Zee Furher shall here of zis!

All zo called "passenger" liners must be shot on sight zen arrested unt zen zent to zee cooler!

Chrystine
09-25-2005, 08:10 AM
*

Hi RosenbauU73,

€œAfter 1942 I think the passenger liner will be also heavily-armed so that way you can start to sunk them and please the fuhrer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif €

Ahhh€¦
Well €" that could-well make a difference.
If I saw guns on her, I€d be more-inclined to take the shot given the opportunity & proper circumstance.


Baldricks Mate €"

€œ..you will all be shot after a fair trial zen zent to ze Russian front!€

ROTFL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Dominic €"

€œSeems a bit strange to have qualms about sinking a ship full of men paid to fight, but not one with civvies on board.€

You€re quite right of course, and it does glow a certain neon-pink as a seeming inconsistency, doesn€t it?
As does a great deal of moral compunction, in reality.

The difference, however subtle-seeming in €˜mere appearances€ is rooted in selectivity of targeting evaluated through intentionality of destruction.
Okay €" that€s a very high-sounding way of phrasing.

Look at the same as it were on land, not at sea.
In one place you have an enormous supply dump, loaded-high with all sorts of Materiel for the enemy€s war-effort €" but it is not being guarded, it€s merely being attended by a handful of civilians.
I€d have no desire to kill those civilians €" but given an opportunity to destroy the entire €˜dump,€ even if it means killing them along with it €" so-be-it. Casualties of war.

On another hand, you have a small clearing teeming with thousands of enlisted with a few officers €" weapons all neatly stacked and checked in some €˜makeshift€ armory a short way off €" but there they all are, standing in their boxers €" a few thousand of them, waiting to walk under a little spring for a quick €˜shower€ and to get sprinkled with some lye, or etc€¦
You have a €˜super-weapon€ where it would be perfectly feasible to walk up to the clearing and mow them all down with machinegun fire. All of them, to the last man.

Yes, I would have serious moral issue with that.
Admittedly, these are crude comparatives, and taken in complete isolation: there could be any number of exigent circumstances that would negate my €˜moral-qualms€ about that.

Again to say it, too. The €˜selectivity of targeting evaluated through intentionality of destruction.'
If in my U-boat I came across two ships traveling together €" a T2 and a Troop Transport, lets say €" and for the sake of my €˜rationale being explained€ here, lets imagine the GRT per ship is roughly identical (I know they€re not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).
If I had only one or two torps remaining €" I would 10 times out of 10, target the tanker.

If likewise the same €" but the two ships traveling together are a Troop Transport and a Small Merchant or such-like €" 10 times in 10, I will target the larger ship.
In this instance, it wouldn€t obviate the painfulness of such an ignoble end for so many warriors €" but I would think about the ship€s capacity to repeat it again and again if not sunk.

Would not this same €˜rationalization€ apply equally to a Passenger Liner performing the same duty?
Yes.
The difference is it takes a little more impetus for me to reach that rationalization in the case of the latter.

If any of this makes sense? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have a lot of respect for good soldiers. Ours, theirs €" any.
A good soldier deserves a fighting chance €" (IMO).
If circumstances of war put the decision to give them a fighting chance or to deprive them of it (especially for men in the thousands at a go) in my hands €" that is a fateful circumstance indeed: and no one ought be surprised if I opt to not deprive them of it. Let the chips fall where they may.


€œAll zo called "passenger" liners must be shot on sight zen arrested unt zen zent to zee cooler!€

~ Baldricks, again €¦

LoL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Thanks €" now I have a voice stuck in my head, shouting: €œHoooo-Gan!!! Vat iz ze meaning of zis???€

Best,
~ C.

*

Gunnersman
09-25-2005, 08:59 AM
If its big, it floats, and it has an Allied flag on it...its going down.

Chrystine
09-25-2005, 09:02 AM
*

There is a lot of good to be said for simplicity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best,
~ C.

*

WilhelmSchulz.-
09-25-2005, 09:05 AM
Baldricks. shutup. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Gunnersman
09-25-2005, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WilhelmSchulz.-:
Baldricks. shutup. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dude, he is joking. Take it easy.

Dominicrigg
09-25-2005, 09:34 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Crystine, i have notified your commanding officer of your moral... persuasion. On your next cruise we are assigning an officer of the Nazi party on your boat!

Its interesting but doesnt make sense to me. I understand your reasoning but meh, to me it looks like you are leaving others to face something which you would leave behind, for the sake of being "nice". But all this only shines good on your character. Im sure i would find it horrific to be facing that situation but would like to think if their was a cruise ship full of Terrorists heading for england, or some mad men wanting to take over and i was in a sub lined up. I would like to think i would be able to fire without hesitation!

Maybe its because of who is on the boats? I personally find it hard to sink battleships, i was fighting myself to sink the Nelson! lol

Chrystine
09-25-2005, 09:41 AM
*

Baldricks Mate is funny as can be€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I enjoy his great sense of humor.

Wilhelm, As Gunnersman says €" it€s all in playful fun€¦

Shoot €" these guys are wanting to report me to Hoffsteder for what I€ve said here€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

..Hi-ho, hi-ho, it€s off to the Front I go€¦
Hi-ho, hi-ho! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think I€d be a darn-sight meaner as infantry €¦

Best,
~ C.

*

Chrystine
09-25-2005, 09:53 AM
*

Report-away, Dom!

I€m sure the Gestapo and SS will listen to one with so-perfect a Goose-step!
I will not only aptly accommodate the Political Officer, I will regale him with accounts of what a shining beacon you are for the Party!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have perhaps failed to convey the reasoning sufficiently €" as you seem to be missing what is at the crux.

It is an Aristocratic-sensibility (utterly lost on the uniformed goose-stepping herd), a warrior€s honor.

It is more honorable & admirable to defeat an armed combatant, than to slit his throat while he sleeps, gagged & bound to a berth.
It was true 4,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, in Medieval warfare €" and it is no-less so for me today, in February of 1940. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And if women & children, too..?
Nein. Nicht annehmbar..

Best,
~ C.

*

Dominicrigg
09-25-2005, 10:37 AM
But thats not the point. You are not defeating him honourably by letting him go. You are leaving him to fight your brothers back home. Sinking the boat before your brothers have to face it is not "slitting their throats" emotive and horrific though that sounds. Aristocratic? Maybe, aristocrats were always cowards who let others get their hands dirty, that is something constant throughout history. We can agree on that.

So in a sense rather then likening it to glorious honourable warriors i would say, to steal from a movies ready made image, you are like Private Hopham in Saving private ryan. Who instead of jumping the German going up the stairs, leaves him to fight his friends. Which is neither herioc, honourable or flowery.

Its fair enough having a warriors honour in the field (though you would live about 2 hours), but when you are in the Submarine service its a little out of place to have "warriors honour" when there is never a time when its used.

Shooting up innocent steamers, hiding from the repercussions of the Destroyers in the depths. I would say no fight a sub fights is honourable, one of the reasons it was largely ignored in the British Navy, the most honourable and Proud navy in the world.

As for ancient history, in one fell sweep you put paid to the Great Battles of Alexander (flanking and attacking footsoldiers in the back with horses) Hannibal, ambushing Roman armies and slaughtering thousands. The American War of Independance, harrasing the english and attacking from farms, fields and forests.

Im afraid in real war there is no place for romanticism, never has been except in poetry and prose. In the U-Boat war there definately is none!

ps i found that a little offensive in the least to say i was a shining example to Nazi's. Disguised as it was there is no place for that especially if you knew my families history. My attitude is not Nazi, its realist and logical rather then emotional and romantic. Every nation in WW2 sank troop ships, nazi, communist, democrat.

63,000 Merchant seamen were killed in the war. Not military men. Not an armed combatant who brings you great honour.

Compared to 50,000 Naval losses for Britain and the Commonwealth. This illustrates where the honour is in war.

Talking of slitting throats, the war in North Africa was won due to the large effect the SAS had on sneaking into Italian camps and destroying their planes, slitting throats and machine gunning bases often. Honourable? No. Intelligent, brave, and saving lives of their brothers and families? Yes. In the end the Italians lost heart for a war they really didnt want, and surrendered with less loss of life on either side. SAS? Heroes!

Ohh no chaps, we cant possible wreck the engines of the Aeronautica! Thats not honourable, get your carbines and lets try to shoot them down when they bomb our boys!

*Rant over http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif*

Flydutch
09-25-2005, 11:13 AM
'The Qeen' As HMS Queen Mary was known, Was Converted into A Troopship. She was to fast for U-Boats to intercept!

As You Can see in the picture she was Painted in camo grey as most shipping in War Time would be! Even Sailing vessels would have Grey Sails, Anything sailing during The World Wars even neutral shipping risked to be sunk.
I Have been on The Qeen, And took A 'behind the doors' tour, She Still Is A Impressive Line Ship She Still Carries Some WWII Anti-Aircraft cannon.

Chrystine
09-25-2005, 11:25 AM
*

€œYou are leaving him to fight your brothers back home.€

That€s a fact.

€œMaybe, aristocrats were always cowards who let others get their hands dirty, that is something constant throughout history. We can agree on that.€

We are not agreed on that.
Until the emergence of mass Armies of conscripts (with Aristocratic Officer Corps), it was very much the opposite €" and only aristocrats able to wage war.
&nd they did with great courage & honor (usually).

€œYou are like Private Hopham in Saving private ryan. Who instead of jumping the German going up the stairs, leaves him to fight his friends. Which is neither herioc, honourable or flowery.€

I would agree if my objection were one of cowardice, or paralysis from fear €" which it clearly isn€t, rendering the comparison non-sequitor.

€œIts fair enough having a warriors honour in the field (though you would live about 2 hours)€

Far too over-simplified.
As principle is one thing, in immediacy of combat is another. There are often exigent circumstances, as I said earlier€¦

€œI would say no fight a sub fights is honourable, one of the reasons it was largely ignored in the British Navy, the most honourable and Proud navy in the world.€

Here, I really do agree with you €" for the greatest part (the exceptions being so miniscule as to deserve dismissal).

€œAs for ancient history, in one fell sweep you put paid to the Great Battles of Alexander (flanking and attacking footsoldiers in the back with horses) Hannibal, ambushing Roman armies and slaughtering thousands.€

Totally non-sequitor €" for the most.
They engaged warriors, armed and in combat formations.
The Romans of the late Empire (not the Republic) did extend beyond what I would call €˜honorable€ in such senses, and were genuinely ruthless in a more €˜modern€ sense).

€œThe American War of Independance, harrasing the english and attacking from farms, fields and forests.€

Non-sequitor. Still speaking about armed combatants: we€re not speaking about guerilla tactics €"vs.- Napoleonic formations, etc.

€œ Im afraid in real war there is no place for romanticism, never has been except in poetry and prose. In the U-Boat war there definately is none!€

Combatants in war remain individuals. The use of the word Romanticism here is interesting€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Out of place as reflective on what I€ve said, in my view €" but still an interesting term to have introduced (not least for its having sprung from anti-aristocratic sentimentality).

€œps i found that a little offensive in the least to say i was a shining example to Nazi's. Disguised as it was there is no place for that especially if you knew my families history.€

Dom, you very much have my deepest apology for anything offensive in my having said that. It had no intent outside the playfulness of the €˜Gestapo alerts€ to my dubious €˜loyalty€ to Party Discipline.
Please don€t think it was directed at You as an individual €" to you, Dominic.

€œ Every nation in WW2 sank troop ships, nazi, communist, democrat.€

Sure enough.
I find it really horrible. That€s not to say I don€t understand it, just I find it horrible.
Let€s not lose sight of the fact this is not a war €" this is a PC Game & Sim.
I have this luxury to entertain my sensibilities about such things €¦

€œ In the end the Italians lost heart for a war they really didnt want, and surrendered with less loss of life on either side.€

The effects of (e.g. WW II) the way modern war is waged, can produce impressive and meaningful results €" but I find all modern warfare abominable really.

Gone are the noble shades of the Homeric heroes €¦

€œ Ohh no chaps, we cant possible wreck the engines of the Aeronautica! Thats not honourable, get your carbines and lets try to shoot them down when they bomb our boys!€

* Starts passing out the carbines€¦ *

Best, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~ C.

*

Dominicrigg
09-25-2005, 11:43 AM
lol nice one, and now i finally understand!

N' no problem about the Nazi thing, its just something i would never want to be associated with, in play or anything else. Its one thing im touchy about lol. I think one of the only reasons i can play this game fighting my Countrymen on my mothers side is because a) its a game and b) i have deep respect for the Uboats men, who i know were in the main not Nazis lol!

I think its also because i cant swim that subs fascinate me, though i do get freaked out sometimes by the camera when going deep. Anyone else find that?

Chrystine
09-25-2005, 11:50 AM
*

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

€œI think its also because i cant swim that subs fascinate me, though i do get freaked out sometimes by the camera when going deep. Anyone else find that?€

I tell you, honest-to-the-gods, Dom €" why the €œmen in the water€ issue has been a recurring €˜motif€ (issue) here for me, in SH III €" is because that €˜fate€ scares the b€jeepers out of me. It€s just terrifying to me personally.
Floating out there a b€jillian miles from anywhere, cold, wet, it€s deep, €˜things€ brushing against your legs €" stuff down there you don€t even read about€¦
* shudder * ..It freaks me out too€¦ (and I can swim: not 2,000 kms. tho€).
It€s just scary€¦

I€d infinitely rather be killed with destruction of my boat or a targeted ship, etc €" than end up alive in the water.
When I see and think about those Transports full of hundreds upon hundreds of men ending up there that way, my mind returns to the ill-fated crew of the USS Indianapolis. I can do it, I€ll just rejoice if the gods give me a means to avoid it.
(Like a nice fat T3, or etc€¦ ).

Best,
~ C.

PS. €œ..its just something i would never want to be associated with, in play or anything else.€

Understood & duly noted, Dom€¦

*

Dominicrigg
09-25-2005, 12:40 PM
lol i was on holiday in spain, and saw a galleon out at sea, and said to my friend "lets get a canoe and check it out!" So we hired a canoe and went out, must have been a mile or 2. Maybe more.

Checked the galleon out and then my friend just jumped off the canoe and started swimming round. I was "Wow! How cool!" I wished i could do it, and he climbed back in and went, "go for it, you have a lifejacket on, it will hold you"

Well after a few mins i decided to do it, climbed gingerly over the side of the canoe, and held on. Then with some more coaxing finally let go. A moment of panic as i sunk few cm while wondering if i would plummet to the bottom. Then he started rowing!

"What the **** are you doing!" I shouted,

"gonna move away and get a picture!" he said.

umm ok i thought, he rowed about 30 metres or more away, said "Wave!" and started taking photos, at that moment my brain went Duhhh duh... dum dum dum.... Da da da da da da da da da deee de daaaaaaahhhhh! (jaws theme) and i started to look down and think of all the things underneath me, (my brain went overtime lmao). Squids, and clingy seaweed, old ropes and chains to tangle me and drag me under, not to mention giant squid and sharks!

I Shouted and he came back and we rowed back, i was pretty proud of myself and now on dry land i can see there would most likly be a nice sandy ocean floor and nothing more there, but i was ****ting it!

I think my fear of water is being dragged down into the darkness and drowning, as one of my dreams is to go diving in crystal clear water and this would not scare me. I get a similar freaked out feeling when diving down deep in the darkness of the game with the camera, and i panicked the other day when doing this and something fell off one of my shelves heheh.

Meh, that turned out to be a long story, and probably not too interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Game__On
09-25-2005, 02:36 PM
Read it all with much amusement! ...

xcellent story, from now on ill be afraid swimming in the sea as well..

thx...

Seriously, great story, great thread as well lol

p.s: Anyone that doesnt kill a passenger liner when having the chance, is a weak selfish wussy, and therefore not fit to fight in a war!
Does more damage then good ...

All of you would have been executed straight away iff u ever let such a target go...To kill off your friends and family so you won't have to feel guilty ! Shame on you !!!!!!

Thousands of your friends and family die for YOUR peace of mind,...Selfish and cruel ...

hmm...i'm not sure what is happening here, but the idea of letting thousands of troops go to kill your beloved because feeling sorry for them actually pisses me off lol ..

I'd better stop typing now



p.s: j/k ..it's only a game right ?

Baldricks_Mate
09-25-2005, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Shoot €" these guys are wanting to report me to Hoffsteder for what I€ve said here€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

..Hi-ho, hi-ho, it€s off to the Front I go€¦
Hi-ho, hi-ho! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Best,
~ C.

* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pah! zat voman haf unconvered mien disguise...

Major Hochstetter in ein Baldrick suit...

I vill go now.

Kaleun1961
09-25-2005, 03:30 PM
Oh man, I am coming late to this very interesting discussion! Why do the best conversations [as kids say]always take place when I am in bed?

First, Hogan's Heros, gotta love it. I watched it at 12 and I'm still watching it at 44. Major Hochstetter, "Vat is zis man doing here?" Klink in his sycophantic voice: "Ah General Burkahalter it is indeed a great pleasure... Shut up, Klink!" Schultz and his famous lines, "I see nothing, I hear nothing and I say nothing... If I would know something I would not even tell myself..Me send for you? I never send for anyone, not even if I need them."

As to submarines and their fight being "dishonourable," well, there is that saying all is fair in love and war. The idea is to win, win at all costs, for the alternative does not bear thinking. Were the guerilla and partisan campaigns of WW2 honourable? Was a Soviet partisan killing wounded on a hospital train comparable to the atrocities committed by the SS Einsatzgruppen? What about the Soviet submarines sinking refugee ships in the Baltic in the spring of 1945, filled with women, children and other non-combatants? The same for fighters strafing retreating columns of refugees. Both sides engaged in that practice.

My Great Uncle survived two torpedo sinkings of his ships in WW2. Once he was strafed while in the water; he lived because he could swim and submerge when the plane attacked, his buddy could not, remained in his life vest and died, hit by several rounds of machine gun fire. I am sure he had some choice words for the U-boats; likewise my grandfather who sailed tankers off the shores of Newfoundland.

Only those who have not gone to war entertain notions of chivalry and glory in war. Those who have been there know what an ugly thing it really is. As [Sherman, or Grant?] said, "War is hell." And another famous fellow, I think it may have been Churchill, said something like this, "It is a good thing war is so bad, else we would grow too fond of it." Sorry if I misquoted, I am recalling from memory.

Kaleun1961
09-25-2005, 03:34 PM
Yeah, I get that gasping for air sensation when I go under water with the camera. I got my feet tangled in some underwater growth and nearly got snared. A moment of terror, indeed. However, it is difficult to drown, you almost have to work at it, really. The body will float, you just have to trust it to do so, which is the hardest part about learning to swim.

Chrystine
09-25-2005, 06:01 PM
*

Yes that€s it, Hochstetter €" couldn€t for anything think how to spell that one.

Lest this €˜subject€ fester beyond the comedic here (and I keep enjoying the exercise of pushing these rationalizations to their most absurd lengths http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) €" let me do clarify that I€m not an idiot (usually, tho€ I have my moments).
I am well aware of what war is; as aware as one can be who has a sane, clear and rational grasp of reality but who (without complaint) has not suffered enduring one.
I have a fair number of (yet living) relatives who were participants in WW II even, my father included.
I have friends who were in Korea as well as Viet Nam, and I€ve been a fairly avaricious reader with a great love of history, and have digested more than a few books on wars from Troy to the modern Middle East.
Neither is my mind so estranged from reality as to get the latter confused with romanticism or other species of naiveté and sentimentality.

I€m not a fool. I know what a horror war is. I know €œall is fair in love & war€ €" particularly in €˜modern€ warfare.
I understand quite well the meaning of necessitation, just as I do expediency, opportunism, and exploitation.
I know what it means to take lives to save other-lives. I know what the reasoning was behind the USA€s decision to use the bomb(s) in Japan when it did, etc.
I understand quite-well the advantages and desirability of Special Operations Units, of covert Ops, of €˜Black Ops,€ etc.

If anyone wants to call me a €˜whuss€ for enjoying SH III the way I choose to €" that€s fine. I couldn€t conceivably care less.
I would care a bit if I be taken for an idiot to any degree that goes beyond my normal idiocy.
The subject at hand here, I would exclude from that.

I know and understand perfectly well what you€re all saying €" and in reality where the war was real, concrete, was being waged in actuality €" I even agree. War is a monstrous thing: monstrous things need to be done. If they€re not, it only grows worse€¦

Philosophical reflections I do much enjoy, even applied to questions of war, of combat, of tactics, etc€¦ (I have thoroughly delighted in reading Clausewitz, Jomini, Tsun Tsu and such thinkers): but I am able to distinguish between the abstractions of such reflectivity and the existential realities which are reflected upon.
I would enjoy sitting with any one of you in a quiet spot, sipping coffee and discussing such things (if the interest were likewise shared, of course), but there are so many questions and issues of such complexity that such dialogue in a Forum-setting is all but impossible.
In such a sea of ideas, every crest which is mentioned, seems atop an invisible or non-existent wave. We catch at those tufts, as if they were €˜totalities€ themselves, which they are not.
This manner of such discussions is just in-conducive.

€œ Only those who have not gone to war entertain notions of chivalry and glory in war.€

Of course: and it is sincerely hoped that I am not thought one quite that na¯ve.

€œThose who have been there know what an ugly thing it really is.€

As do many who have never been.
There are differences in the depth, breadth and clarity of the understanding of that knowledge €" a divide which cannot be crossed by those who have not seen it in person.

€œAs [Sherman, or Grant?] said, €˜War is hell.€€

Yes, it was Sherman in his attempted auto-biography I believe: who said something like: €œI tell you gentlemen, war is hell and, quite frankly, you cannot refine it any further than that.€

€œ And another famous fellow, I think it may have been Churchill, said something like this, €˜It is a good thing war is so bad, else we would grow too fond of it.€ Sorry if I misquoted, I am recalling from memory.€

I€ve always liked that quote.
I believe, however that was Robert E. Lee at Fredericksburg, said after Jackson€s assault began which was driving the Federals into the river. "It is a good thing war is so terrible; else we should grow too fond of it."

&nd true it is €¦

For all my sophism hitherto in this thread relating to the attacking of Passenger Liners (in SH III) and the nature of the €˜objections€ by those of you with an eye better fixed to the era at-question and the grim brutality of such €˜necessities€ €" I may re-think my position.
It would be hard, after-all, to let go so many tons if within reach€¦

But this is only a game €¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best,
~ C.

*

Kaleun1961
09-25-2005, 09:04 PM
Yes, R. E. Lee! I read about that battle recently, so the quote was still in my mind. I have this habit of thinking it was Churchill who said almost everything. Those Civil War generals were a prosaic lot, and of course a few were dolts, as to be expected in any war. Thanks for setting me straight on that one.

Chrystine
09-25-2005, 09:22 PM
*

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Indeed, there were many in the field with exquisitely-eloquent pens (and tongues) in that horrid war.

€œ..and of course a few were dolts€¦€

A few were dolts of nearly biblical proportions.
One who always comes to mind for me was James Butler.

€œ I have this habit of thinking it was Churchill who said almost everything.€

Understandable. I think Churchill almost did say everything.

€œ Thanks for setting me straight on that one.€

My pleasure€¦
It took me a few to recollect it, which required my pushing the €˜memory€ that it was Frederick the Great who€d said that out of mind first.
Very quotable fellows those men€¦

~ C.

*

Gunnersman
09-25-2005, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrystine:
*

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Indeed, there were many in the field with exquisitely-eloquent pens (and tongues) in that horrid war.

€œ..and of course a few were dolts€¦€

A few were dolts of nearly biblical proportions.
One who always comes to mind for me was James Butler.

€œ I have this habit of thinking it was Churchill who said almost everything.€

Understandable. I think Churchill almost did say everything.

€œ Thanks for setting me straight on that one.€

My pleasure€¦
It took me a few to recollect it, which required my pushing the €˜memory€ that it was Frederick the Great who€d said that out of mind first.
Very quotable fellows those men€¦

~ C.

* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Posted Sun September 25 2005 20:01
*

Yes that€s it, Hochstetter €" couldn€t for anything think how to spell that one.

Lest this €˜subject€ fester beyond the comedic here (and I keep enjoying the exercise of pushing these rationalizations to their most absurd lengths Wink ) €" let me do clarify that I€m not an idiot (usually, tho€ I have my moments).
I am well aware of what war is; as aware as one can be who has a sane, clear and rational grasp of reality but who (without complaint) has not suffered enduring one.
I have a fair number of (yet living) relatives who were participants in WW II even, my father included.
I have friends who were in Korea as well as Viet Nam, and I€ve been a fairly avaricious reader with a great love of history, and have digested more than a few books on wars from Troy to the modern Middle East.
Neither is my mind so estranged from reality as to get the latter confused with romanticism or other species of naiveté and sentimentality.

I€m not a fool. I know what a horror war is. I know €œall is fair in love & war€ €" particularly in €˜modern€ warfare.
I understand quite well the meaning of necessitation, just as I do expediency, opportunism, and exploitation.
I know what it means to take lives to save other-lives. I know what the reasoning was behind the USA€s decision to use the bomb(s) in Japan when it did, etc.
I understand quite-well the advantages and desirability of Special Operations Units, of covert Ops, of €˜Black Ops,€ etc.

If anyone wants to call me a €˜whuss€ for enjoying SH III the way I choose to €" that€s fine. I couldn€t conceivably care less.
I would care a bit if I be taken for an idiot to any degree that goes beyond my normal idiocy.
The subject at hand here, I would exclude from that.

I know and understand perfectly well what you€re all saying €" and in reality where the war was real, concrete, was being waged in actuality €" I even agree. War is a monstrous thing: monstrous things need to be done. If they€re not, it only grows worse€¦

Philosophical reflections I do much enjoy, even applied to questions of war, of combat, of tactics, etc€¦ (I have thoroughly delighted in reading Clausewitz, Jomini, Tsun Tsu and such thinkers): but I am able to distinguish between the abstractions of such reflectivity and the existential realities which are reflected upon.
I would enjoy sitting with any one of you in a quiet spot, sipping coffee and discussing such things (if the interest were likewise shared, of course), but there are so many questions and issues of such complexity that such dialogue in a Forum-setting is all but impossible.
In such a sea of ideas, every crest which is mentioned, seems atop an invisible or non-existent wave. We catch at those tufts, as if they were €˜totalities€ themselves, which they are not.
This manner of such discussions is just in-conducive.

€œ Only those who have not gone to war entertain notions of chivalry and glory in war.€

Of course: and it is sincerely hoped that I am not thought one quite that na¯ve.

€œThose who have been there know what an ugly thing it really is.€

As do many who have never been.
There are differences in the depth, breadth and clarity of the understanding of that knowledge €" a divide which cannot be crossed by those who have not seen it in person.

€œAs [Sherman, or Grant?] said, €˜War is hell.€€

Yes, it was Sherman in his attempted auto-biography I believe: who said something like: €œI tell you gentlemen, war is hell and, quite frankly, you cannot refine it any further than that.€

€œ And another famous fellow, I think it may have been Churchill, said something like this, €˜It is a good thing war is so bad, else we would grow too fond of it.€ Sorry if I misquoted, I am recalling from memory.€

I€ve always liked that quote.
I believe, however that was Robert E. Lee at Fredericksburg, said after Jackson€s assault began which was driving the Federals into the river. "It is a good thing war is so terrible; else we should grow too fond of it."

&nd true it is €¦

For all my sophism hitherto in this thread relating to the attacking of Passenger Liners (in SH III) and the nature of the €˜objections€ by those of you with an eye better fixed to the era at-question and the grim brutality of such €˜necessities€ €" I may re-think my position.
It would be hard, after-all, to let go so many tons if within reach€¦

But this is only a game €¦ Wink

Best,
~ C.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are you Chrystine?
Ok, ok. Your not really a woman. What woman likes history, speaks so eloquently AND plays SHIII. Hmmmm, Your really a drag queen arent you!? And a sight that is easy on the eyes at that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Ok, maybe it is possible your really a woman. Im not sexist. Just pulling your chain.
So tell me, Chrystine...do you have a twin, and does she like helicopter pilots?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WilhelmSchulz.-
09-25-2005, 10:47 PM
Damm someone who knows as much as me on milatary history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

KZS_Tartarus
09-26-2005, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gunnersman:

Who are you Chrystine?
Ok, ok. Your not really a woman. What woman likes history, speaks so eloquently AND plays SHIII. Hmmmm, Your really a drag queen arent you!? And a sight that is easy on the eyes at that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Ok, maybe it is possible your really a woman. Im not sexist. Just pulling your chain.
So tell me, Chrystine...do you have a twin, and does she like helicopter pilots?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can assure you my wife is very much a woman... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And definately one of a kind! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Just a brief thought on the topic of this discussion... It is not necessarily so that warfare is all about "kill all enemy soldiers". Usually, that is not the case! There is, and should be, a particular reason why any enemy is to be killed; it may be his being in a position to threaten our activities in some sense or sector, etc. From that perspective, you could almost see the killed soldier as collateral damage; it is the unit he is part of that is to be destroyed. This aspect is one that is often lost, perhaps particularly so when looking at war from the point of view of the front line army soldier, where it often really is about killing the enemy wherever you may find him (which is so, of course, because the soldier will always find himself deployed into an area where there are enemies that need be killed!). Of course, I am simplifying here to make a point; the concept of 'war of attrition' comes to mind, for one thing... My point is not that it is never about 'killing the enemy', but that it is not necessarily so.

Naval warfare is an arena where the potential for distinction between 'military operations' and 'killing the enemy' is probably the largest: It is the sinking of ships that matters, and the seamen and officers on that ship are merely operators of the ship; "sorry chaps that I had to sink your ship" becomes an honest sentiment. The warship (or merchant ship) crew are not enemies in the particular sense that they need to be killed in order to win the war, but only in happening to be present inside the piece of equipment that needs to be destroyed.

This 'impersonal' character is, I believe, quite similar for fighter pilots... And is it a coincidence then, that what (true!) stories you hear about enemies being shot down/sank, rescued, and then brought into the officers' quarters for a hot bath, a good meal and a game of bridge with their captors, are usually about navy officers and pilots?

And it is with that view on naval warfare that the troopship or troop-laden passenger liner becomes an anomaly: here you come across enemy soldiers headed for an operation area where they will become a threat to our operations --- these troops need to be stopped, which if you come across them at sea (i.e., if the threat posed by the potential presence of your sub has not deterred the enemy from sending troopships across) means that they need to be killed. This is a shift away from the usual, and to a naval officer perhaps more natural, view of 'destroying the equipment with no specific intention of killing the men', into 'killing people in their capacity of being soldiers'. Noting the distinction and anomaly there, IMHO, illustrates an understanding of warfare, rather than a lack of such understanding.

Just my thoughts on the matter, of course... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best,
- B

Baldricks_Mate
09-26-2005, 02:30 AM
I got this from another WW2 game but I think it fits here:

"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country.

But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying.

You die like a dog for no good reason."

-Ernest Hemmingway

Dominicrigg
09-26-2005, 07:06 AM
Amazing quotes, i love war quotes! Especially Churchills, he was the master orator!

As for my viewpoint and other peoples, its interesting to see peoples views. I hope when people see me "arguing" in these threads that they dont take it as me just being obtuse because thats not my aim. Im genuinly interested in understanding people and especially ideas that seem "wrong" to me (I think wrong is the wrong word lol, but you understand me) If i can understand it, sometimes i even change my view! (rarely though lol) I also really enjoy the discussions, even emotive ones about Iraq and whos navy is the "best" lol. (Though they rarely last long without degenerating into insults)

Last night i went for a beer with my friends and brought up this same conversation with them, and one had exactly the same viewpoint as you Chystine on Troop ships. We brought up all aspects of morality in war, from ancient times to modern and his opinions in short were :

Japan bombs : Right It shortened the war and saved lives in the long run.

Cargo ships : Right They are aware they are carrying weapons, they put themselves at risk.

SAS attacks : Right, both parties are fighting men, the Italians should have prepared better defences, better watches.

Troop ships : Wrong. Troops are defenceless and heading to battle. They have no way to leave the ship or defend themselves. They should be left to reach the warzone.

I understand this, though it makes no sense to me as i would put Hiroshima wrong before troop ships, you are sacrificing people in both to shorten the war, but one is civies, the others are soldiers. But i personally think all are right, meaning all are necessary evils. Or maybe it would be better to say none are wrong...

Dont misunderstand me as a bloodthirsty warmonger because given the chance i wish we all made love not war lol. But im a realist, and i know that this will never happen ever in world history. I think war seems to be something humans need, it seems to be our "Natural selection". So I see the need to be "evil" in order to defeat the greater evil.

I know if i was a uboat captain, and i was sinking all these ships, i would have nightmares at night, i dont even know if i could cope with knowing about all the people i had killed who were not trying to kill me personally. But i know objectively what i should be doing, and in my cosy position now i dont think of Uboat captains as monsters, quite the opposite.

I think if i was involved in a war, i would like to be a pilot, as to me that is the nearest you will ever get to Arthurian chivalry in a war.

I leave you with some quotes from who i think was the Champion of WW2 (some of them quite deep!). Who was later denounced as a Warmonger which i think is shamefull.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
Sir Winston Churchill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
Sir Winston Churchill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is the answer which I will give to President Roosevelt... We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
Sir Winston Churchill, Radio speech, 1941 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
(That one brings a to my eye! lol)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


and finally :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.
Sir Winston Churchill, My Early Life, 1930 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which i think is especially true of Churchills quotations! Lol

Apologies for waffling on, im bored on my lunchbreak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


ohh ps, as for my values in game i never sink ships smaller then Coastal cargos. No trawlers or tugs ect. Not because they are a waste of torps (Caus i could use the AA guns) but because i think this is "wrong" as they have no impact whatsoever on the war and I know even if the report me, i will be long gone by the time anyone gets there.

Baldricks_Mate
09-26-2005, 07:27 AM
------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dominicrigg:

Dont misunderstand me as a bloodthirsty warmonger because given the chance i wish we all made love not war lol. But im a realist, and i know that this will never happen ever in world history. I think war seems to be something humans need, it seems to be our "Natural selection". So I see the need to be "evil" in order to defeat the greater evil.

I know if i was a uboat captain, and i was sinking all these ships, i would have nightmares at night, i dont even know if i could cope with knowing about all the people i had killed who were not trying to kill me personally. But i know objectively what i should be doing, and in my cosy position now i dont think of Uboat captains as monsters, quite the opposite.
QUOTE]
------------------------------------------------

"All conflict has a capricious nature that randomly spares one then consumes the next. But do not suscribe to "peace at any price"; one must do what has to be done; do it quickly, then properly mourn the loss of innocence & life."

doug.d
09-26-2005, 07:31 AM
Troops on troop ships are just walking, talking "war equipment", much the same as tanks, guns or planes. If they get through, they are going to kill many of your comrades and ultimately cause you to lose the war and, make the lives of your comrades already lost, a waste.

Grit your teeth and give the command Kaleun, LOS!

The_Silent_O
09-26-2005, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
lol i was on holiday in spain, and saw a galleon out at sea, and said to my friend "lets get a canoe and check it out!" So we hired a canoe and went out, must have been a mile or 2. Maybe more.

Checked the galleon out and then my friend just jumped off the canoe and started swimming round. I was "Wow! How cool!" I wished i could do it, and he climbed back in and went, "go for it, you have a lifejacket on, it will hold you"

Well after a few mins i decided to do it, climbed gingerly over the side of the canoe, and held on. Then with some more coaxing finally let go. A moment of panic as i sunk few cm while wondering if i would plummet to the bottom. Then he started rowing!

"What the **** are you doing!" I shouted,

"gonna move away and get a picture!" he said.

umm ok i thought, he rowed about 30 metres or more away, said "Wave!" and started taking photos, at that moment my brain went Duhhh duh... dum dum dum.... Da da da da da da da da da deee de daaaaaaahhhhh! (jaws theme) and i started to look down and think of all the things underneath me, (my brain went overtime lmao). Squids, and clingy seaweed, old ropes and chains to tangle me and drag me under, not to mention giant squid and sharks!

I Shouted and he came back and we rowed back, i was pretty proud of myself and now on dry land i can see there would most likly be a nice sandy ocean floor and nothing more there, but i was ****ting it!

I think my fear of water is being dragged down into the darkness and drowning, as one of my dreams is to go diving in crystal clear water and this would not scare me. I get a similar freaked out feeling when diving down deep in the darkness of the game with the camera, and i panicked the other day when doing this and something fell off one of my shelves heheh.

Meh, that turned out to be a long story, and probably not too interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...I have a rule, if I can't see my feet, I don't swim in it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif This includes mucky lake water. I much prefer swimming in the clear ocean with clean sand below...and nothing else.

...Now, on the other hand, I have NO qualms about exiting an aircraft at 800 feet AGL, with 80 pounds of combat gear and military parachute at night with no moon...I've done it many times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

...but being stuck in the middle of the ocean with nothing to float with seems like pure torture! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The_Silent_O
09-26-2005, 07:57 AM
Perhaps a little education on the Law of Land Warfare and Geneva conventions are needed here.

Nothing says you cannot target a troop transport (whether they be an aircraft or troopship) so long as you know that combatants are on board (soldiers on a ship or paratroopers in an aircraft). The key word here is 'combatants' which has its own definition. So...

- unarmed trawler with merchant sailors on board minding there own business not fair game (and NOT delivering war goods).

- uarmred trawler with merchant sailors on board who have radio'ed YOUR u-boat's position back to port....is now FAIR game.

There is one strange addition to this rule when it comes to paratroopers...They can be fired upon while descending...But, you cannot fire on a pilot who has exited his aircraft because of damage. He is then considered a non-combantant, since he has no avail to his primary weapon, his fighter.

Same goes for sailors in the water from a sinking ship...cannot fire at them.

Chrystine
09-26-2005, 09:34 AM
*

There have been many men €" voices €" through our collective history which are memorable seemingly as much for their 'quotability' as for the decisiveness, forcefulness and intelligence of their actions. Churchill is certainly one of these. Another, I think, from a somewhat earlier era, was the American€s own Abraham Lincoln.

I€ve often reflected on one anecdote in particular which I€ll share here, so to draw from it with a little twist to make yet another point.

It was yet early war, late €61 perhaps or 1862. Still wheeling all directions in search of a suitable Commander for the Army of the Potomac, still as yet fielding the brilliant but genuinely un-suited McClellan.
As was Lincoln€s custom, Sunday€s were open house days at the White House, where any one of America€s millions of citizens could walk right in and request audience with the President.
One Sunday afternoon, a little ol€ lady walked in for such a visit.
Granted audience, Lincoln asked her politely what was on her mind, what could he do for her?
She then flew into a controlled tantrum of some sort and demanded McClellan be relieved of command Immediately! He must be replaced! The very hopes and salvation of the Union depended upon it.
Lincoln asked her: €œWhom do you suggest replace General McClellan?€
She answered: Anyone! Just anybody!
Lincoln smiled softly, and equally so €" replied: €œYes ma€am, €˜anybody€ is just fine for you €" but I need Somebody.€

Now I would say €" there are the trench soldier critics of the great Generals and strategists. Those who think €˜for-themselves€ and writhe in the filth and vexations of the €˜trenches€ (the fields of battle, the camps, etc) in the €˜certainty€ that they would handle €˜this ****ed war€ in different, better, more expedient, more decisive ways.
It is no less true among thousands upon thousands of civilians watching from the relative comforts of their homes and jobs on the home front.
It becomes altogether different when one is in the position to make the decisions which need to be made.

As I€ve said earlier in this thread, the attack on an (un-armed) Pax-Liner loaded even be it with soldiers headed for the front, is anathema to me: it is not that attacking it would make me feel €˜guilty€ per se €" but that it would make me vomit. It is a repugnant plunge to the basest, lowest fathoms of human depravity.
As said previously. In SH III €" I have this luxury.
In war €" at sea or in a Commanding Office? No. There the luxuries fall victim to the first contact of Will and World.
It is easy to sit back and say: €œI would never have used so deplorable a weapon as an atom bomb: and if I had €" it would have been on troop concentrations, not on civilians and enormous cities.€
Marvelous. Until one actually is in a position of making the decision.
Then all moral compunctions are slapped-awake to the more immediate, if not-higher levels of consciousness.
A responsible consciousness in power, will do what it is needed €" not what is €œright.€
Whether posterity will judge it right or wrong, good or evil, scarcely matters €" in war, it matters nothing.
So too for those actions most-repugnant. The physiological constitution will not €˜warn€ in advance that what you are about to do will cause you to vomit with disgust when you remember this later: you just see an opportunity and use what is best at hand and do it.
Maybe you will get sick later, or live with night-terrors for the rest of your life; but it will have been done.

In SH III, I enjoy my ability to both €˜simulate€ being this purely fictitious Fraukaleun, engaging in the exploits of my-own U-boot waffe €" and at the same time, preserving what traces I€m able of my €˜humanity€ which leave me saying €" in healthy echo of the sentiments of Merleau-Ponty €" €˜I should not wish to forfeit my right to be thought a noble-soul.€

Over such flimsy, ill-thought, and false inferences clacking about €˜weakness,€ €˜guilt,€ €˜effeminacy,€ or otherwise €" I can almost laugh.
I could almost as well point to the likes of Major General F.W. von Mellenthin and those other Aristocratic Officers of the Reich€s Armies who understood reality at much deeper levels than were the pallid, shallow plebian ideas of the frontline grunts.
I would challenge anyone to find anything €˜weak,€ €˜cowardly, or effete in Von Mellenthin €" to name but one of hundreds of exemplars.
(No intent to €˜pull€ this fine Maj. General into my own specific reflections here €" merely to say that the sort of broader, deeper consciousness of reality encompassed the war and all things within it €" remaining €˜above it€ in the most admirable ways, as opposed to the alternative in which one becomes encompassed by the war €" losing sight of all else; and yes €" there is a massive difference).

For me €" there is an added €˜quandary€ of sorts. I delight in being effeminate (in reality, I very much am) €" but there is a will to shed as much of it as I can in €˜war-gaming.€ I don€t want to be a €˜girl at war:€ I aim to be a €˜soldier€ or a €˜Commander,€ or a €˜Fraukaleun.€
What a tightrope-walk! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It is a challenge you €˜guys€ cannot quite comprehend.
I€ve hitherto found the position of equilibrium best in my disdain for attacking Passenger Liners (or Troop Ships) for the reasons stated.
Yes, it allows me to be a U-boat Kapitan (the choice is mine) €" it allows me to not forfeit my sense of being a noble-soul €" it allows me to €˜justify€ (rationalize) it on a basis above the €˜war as a finite organism€ €" and it allows me to enjoy exercise of the €˜strength€ and courage to choose what is less-than-easy (who doesn€t want the many tons of a passenger liner?).

It is, admittedly, a delicate complex of €˜rationalizations€ €" and that€s all it is: all it was ever intended to be.
There is no argument with any of the €˜necessities of war€ arguments from the men who have posted here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It is, at-bottom, little more than a berating of the painfully obvious.

Best regards, as always €"
~ C.

*

Game__On
09-26-2005, 09:34 AM
christine replied to my uncoherent post: "If anyone wants to call me a €˜whuss€ for enjoying SH III the way I choose to €" that€s fine. I couldn€t conceivably care less.
I would care a bit if I be taken for an idiot to any degree that goes beyond my normal idiocy.
The subject at hand here, I would exclude from that."

Just to be sure...That "wuss" thing originally was meant as a joke, but somehow i managed to interweave my opinion about doing such a thing in a real war into a post about that was supposed to be about this game ...

Just so you know ...i do not think you are a wuss LoL ..

****, talk about thread crapping,...but i just had to make that clear ...

please do continue, i have lots of reading up to do ...

Gunnersman
09-26-2005, 10:02 AM
...War is hell...
-William Tecumseh Sherman

It is well that war is terrible. Lest we should grow too fond it.
-Robert E. Lee

I enjoy playing wargames. For several reasons; The romantacism of the military, challenge of strategy, and just plain 'ol blowing **** up! However, every now and then I pause and think about what I just did...whether I am reenacting "Operation Market:Garden", shooting down a BF109 over Europe, or sinking a T2 tanker.
I sometimes put myself in that actual situation, vividly: Who was that guy I just shot down?
I wonder how many people were on that tanker and will they get off alive? How many guys will I lose if I flank left and take on the MG42 or flank right and take on that platoon?

Im certain I would react differently in real life as opposed to a computer game.

That being said, you should fight a war to win. That means you give it your all and end it as soon as possible , by WINNING! You can't constantly worry about things like "collateral damage".

And on the lighter side...my favorite Sir Winston Churchill quote, when talking with Lady Astor;

Lady Astor: Winston! Your drunk!

Winston: Indeed! And YOU are ugly.
And tomorrow I will be sober.

Dominicrigg
09-26-2005, 10:39 AM
heheheh poor Lady Astor, outwitted and outclassed at every turn!

Lady Astor: "Winston, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee."
Winston: "Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."

Gunnersman
09-26-2005, 10:57 AM
I think Winston Churchill is probably my favorite politician in history. If for any reason, his wit, candor and leadership.
*ahem* Not that I have very many favorite politicians...mind you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

3.JG51_Molders
09-26-2005, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrystine:
*

In the Straight of Ireland last night €" ca. 01:30 hrs. €" picked up a sonar contact.

Small merchant, closing fast.
U-53 positioned tªte- -tªte in her path.
At range 3,800 meters, darkened outline of Tugboat apparent, moving ahead straight course, speed 7 knots.
At range 1,400 meters, U-53 passed from speed of 1 knot to 8 knots and surfaced.
Gunners ordered to stations - .88 and 20mm manned, close range fire opened.
Tugboat hit repeatedly. Significant damage in area of fo'csle, man overboard appears to be on fire.
Fire is lit on fore-deck, Tugboat turning away to her starboard. A line is seen thrown from near-stern into the water.
Hull is now hit numerous times in close order with the .88.
Men€s voices heard, range between vessels 430 meters.
Grau calls up. Radio intercept: €œSSS! SSS! U-boat off port. Lola Mae taking water. Position North 4€¦€
Static€¦ Message terminated.
Superstructure on Tug now wreathed in orange flames, boat rolls over port rail, sinking.

Lola Mae sunk: S.E. Grid AM39.
Men in water.
Signal sent by U-53: Crew of British Tug Lola Mae in water. Position given.

U-53 turns one-eight-zero ahead full. Batteries recharged, submerge to 30 meters. Return listening to hydrophone.


What an un-glorious encounter€¦
Really, what I €˜like€ about it, is this image taken from the bridge during the opening salvo.
The only lighting for the shot here is muzzle-flash from the .88, it being otherwise pitch-dark.
No S.S€s were fired during this attack.

http://idealhorizons.intuity.net/P4_122_Tug_Lola_Mae.jpg

Kind of a €˜cool€ shot I think€¦
I€ve been looking for one like this for a long while. Finally have one for the scrapbook now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best, & BOL €¦
~ C.

* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got pissed at a English torpedo boat that wouldn't leave me alone when I returned from a successful number of encounters along the English channel. I surfaced and ordered my crew to the man the 88mm and open fire, but they wouldn't turn to engage. I took the initiative and manned the gun controls and fired a total of six shells at the torpedo boat to find it explode and leave a nice trial of burning oil http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Kaleun1961
09-26-2005, 12:01 PM
I have a similar, yet differing viewpoint to Chrystine's about inhibitions in the game. She does not like to "pull the trigger" on passenger liners, nor the little fishing boats. I sink everything in sight, as it adds to my tonnage for medals and renown. If I were a real kaleun, I doubt I would so freely sink every little trawler and fishing boat I found, on exactly that point, that they are non-combatants.

My family tree traces back to several generations of sailors and fishermen. I doubt whether there were very many kaleuns who would shoot up a puny fishing boat. It might have sufficed to deem him a war criminal, though I doubt that would really have been a consideration at the time. I mean really, did the SS ever consider they were going to be tried at Nuremburg when they were doing the things that made them so infamous?

Likewise, I doubt whether I could have pulled the trigger on some poor bloke who was out in the North Sea trying to pull in a few cod or plaice or whatever fish they find there. But this game makes them a legitimated target in that you are rewarded for destroying them, therefore I sink them. I would imagine that a kaleun so cold-hearted in the real war might have been somewhat castigated by his peers, in that he would draw condemnation on top of what they were already being accused of ["criminal" warfare against "civilian" shipping.]

So, if I were a real U-boat kaleun [assuming I could make my 21st century morality retroactive to WW2] I would sink those troopships, but leave the fishers and trawlers alone; and insofar as they were not hampering my own belligerent intentions on the high seas towards their side's shipping.

Chrystine
09-26-2005, 12:02 PM
*

Thanks for your clarifying note, Game On. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In reality, I€m very-petite, delicate, rather €˜prissy€ one might say €" and for the greatest part, a €˜whuss.€
I can be downright vicious if family or friend is threatened €" but thankfully, that€s been rare hitherto€¦

In SH III, I€m anything but €" and think my level of aggression is pretty high: too-high at times. (Over-compensation maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).


€œ I sometimes put myself in that actual situation, vividly: Who was that guy I just shot down?
I wonder how many people were on that tanker and will they get off alive? How many guys will I lose if I flank left and take on the MG42 or flank right and take on that platoon?€

* nodding agreement and understanding *

I think it really furthers (deepens) the immersion factor.

€œ Im certain I would react differently in real life as opposed to a computer game.€

As would everyone €" anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

€œ That being said, you should fight a war to win€

Most certainly.
One also €˜ought not€ mistake what that means and entails.
To win a torpedo on transport engagement is not terribly difficult in-itself.
To win a war is much-more complex and difficult.

€œ That means you give it your all and end it as soon as possible.€

Yes €" but this ought not to become an excuse for brashness; neither in strategy, tactics nor in specific actions. €˜End it as soon as possible€ is not synonymous with €˜strike everything as soon as it is within my range.€

€œ You can't constantly worry about things like 'collateral damage'.€

Indeed. Not only €˜can€t€ €" but should not. In war, €˜collateral€ is a very literal terminology.
One can make efforts to minimize it when opportunities for such are offered, but it€s otherwise €˜moot.€
The only constant €˜worry€ in war, is correcting your mistakes, exploiting the enemy€s, and following up your successes. Mostly the former two.

For the sake of adding it to the body of these reiterated hammer-strikes of €œkill them when you see them€ notions: it may behoove those indeed wishing an €˜early€ end to the War to reflect that the mid-Atlantic is not an Infantry theater.
Where units are killed in war is critical. It is not merely a question €˜that they are killed.€
You can keep sending as many infantrymen to the bottom of the Atlantic as you please: the Allies will keep sending more & more €" and then some more, and they €˜will bleed into€ the Theaters of Operation where Strategy dictates they will serve the most good.
When those same units (divisions, Corps, etc) are killed in theater, the entire strategic panorama is changed.
If they are not-destroyed in theater also.
In a global war fought at the level of intensity as was WW II, the mere €˜numbers€ being dulled or softened by sinking of transports in the Atlantic was negligible and, had it increased its success rate a hundred-fold, would quite likely only have prolonged the war.
Had the U-boot waffe had the numbers and ability to sink ALL of them, it would have made a meaningful impact on the war-effort. The reality is it was never close to that capacity or ability.
It could well be argued that the greatest good for the conduct and shortening of the war, dictated infantry arriving, being engaged and destroyed in the infantry theater.

It may be counter-argued that Germany€s far-smaller finite number of human reserves would inevitably succumb to the greater press of the Allies€ numbers €" but in truth, this has nothing to do with any losses of infantry in the Atlantic (which were negligible & collateral) €" and most to do with the Soviets, both for weight of numbers and because they were operating in the actual infantry theater (where it critically counts, and hence, particularly this latter).


It is (to my thinking) as impossible not to enjoy Churchill€s many quotes, as it is to fail enjoyment of Mark Twain.
Two of the most outstanding exemplars of the meaning of €˜rapier wit.€

In all of human history (well, that I know anything of, that is to say) €" I€ve only two €˜favorite politicians.€ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Pericles, and John Quincy Adams.

Best,
~ C.

*

Kaleun1961
09-26-2005, 12:57 PM
I just had this thought and wanted to toss it into the ring. What about the morality of flamethrowers? There was one nasty weapon. I can't help but think that the soldier spared a watery grave would meet his end on land in such a grisly manner.

The_Silent_O
09-26-2005, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
I just had this thought and wanted to toss it into the ring. What about the morality of flamethrowers? There was one nasty weapon. I can't help but think that the soldier spared a watery grave would meet his end on land in such a grisly manner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's your official answer...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
36. Weapons Employing Fire
The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers,
napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of
international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause
unnecessary suffering to individuals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

according to FM 27-10 and international law, still not a restricticted weapon against combatants.

It is perhaps the only way to clear a bunker or like strongpoint.

Having said that, these are not in the US inventory anymore that I know of.

More here...

FM 27-10 (https://www.doctrine.usmc.mil/signpubs/r5121a.pdf)

In my career, I still find this document a very interesting read, especially considering our engagements in the world right now.

For example...when can you target a church or mosque, as soon as somebody defends from it.

The_Silent_O
09-26-2005, 01:53 PM
test bump

funny things happening here at UBI forums land...I got disconnected.

Dominicrigg
09-26-2005, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It could well be argued that the greatest good for the conduct and shortening of the war, dictated infantry arriving, being engaged and destroyed in the infantry theater. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif WHAT! Crystine that beggers believe. I just get to understanding your viewpoint and then you drop that bombshell http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

First of all a ship like the Queen E could carry about 15,000 troops. Sinking this ship kills 15,000 troops before they get to the theatre, it couldnt possibly argued that letting them get there is better. There is no way on earth that letting an enemy get his troops to battle, and then fighting him is better then destroying them before they even are engaged. That definately doesnt make any sense.

Secondly you remove a ship which would go back, pick up another 15,000 and bring them back to fight again. Also you hit the prestige of the nation and make him think twice about bringing his troops overseas. Troopers are harder to build then cargo ships or Oilers, you cant just scrap one together like they did with liberty ships and victory ships. This would mean pushing more men onto the liberty ships, meaning cargo gets left at home till later.

It causes losses of important trained men who took months to train, meaning their replacement with green troops. It means loss of shipping to bring more troops over. It means less men to attack, it means diversion of brain power, economic power and military power to defend these men as they come across on the boats.

Imagine the effect it would have had on morale if soldiers from America, Australia and Canada were being killed before they could even reach the fight. At the very least it would have given Germany breathing space and delayed landings even further into the future giving them more time to build defences. At the most American public opinion could have turned against a war which they had been forced into.

As for the Uboats having no meaningfull impact on the war they most certainly had a massive impact, once America entered the war and began to outbuild their sinkings with the Liberty ships then the numbers of uboats meant it was an impossible task. But never was this so apparent to those actually fighting on the seas.


Landings at Utah beach on D-day? About 25,000. So destroying 10-15,000 on their way to the warzone is not insignificant.

Dominicrigg
09-26-2005, 02:21 PM
P.S Flamethrowers are most definatley banned by Geneva convention. The American military know that and that is why they no longer have them in employment. I hope they dont entertain thoughts of getting around their use with legal loopholes! Lol


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The_Silent_O
09-26-2005, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
P.S Flamethrowers are most definatley banned by Geneva convention. The American military know that and that is why they no longer have them in employment. I hope they dont entertain thoughts of getting around their use with legal loopholes! Lol


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got it...but we still use tracer ammunition and fuel air explosives (not napalm...it has a smaller localized effect) as well as many other nations...there are much easier ways to destroy a bunker these days than in WWII. If you read the specific chapter, flame weapons (including flamethowers) are not specifically prohibited by international law.

The use of a flamethower in WWII was more of a psychological threat to the enemy. It would certainly make you abandon your bunker if you saw one approaching, thus the effect desired (takedown bunker) was accomplished. It certainly helped in the pacific theater where the Japanese Bushido doctrine had them fighting to the death. What else are you going to do when they won't surrender?

I'm not trying to justify its modern use, but it certainly had a use in the pacific during WWII.

Dominicrigg
09-26-2005, 03:43 PM
Yeah agreed, it even would have uses in modern warfare like the caves in afganistan no doubt. But they are "illegal" though that is pretty meaningless in war.

No doubt in a large scale world conflict they would be used, but our side tries to play fair at the moment in war.

Chrystine
09-26-2005, 08:34 PM
*

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

€œAs for the Uboats having no meaningfull impact on the war€¦€

Tsk-tsk-tsk€¦ Again €" reading comprehension.
I never said U-boats had no impact on the war.

€œ..destroying 10-15,000 on their way to the warzone is not insignificant.€

Intercepted en route as a constituted invasion force is entirely different.
If I were in a position in the Channel in early June, €44 to target transports, I€d sink them like mad!
I would even avoid tankers and such to hit the transports.

The €˜bezerker€ mentality in war is really useful only in the front lines where infantry & artillery are hammering away at opposing infantry & artillery, attempts to apply it universally to €˜warfare€ generally are doomed to failure and can never obviate the fact or the reality that in war, where, when and how units (especially very large ones) are destroyed is fundamentally critical on a plethora of levels €" strategic and tactical.
(Austria trying it with Napoleon didn€t work very well, did it? ..& then voil ! - Austerlitz.)
These considerations & elements are part & parcel of how conventional wars are waged to be €˜won€ as quickly & decisively as possible.
WW II is rife with examples in which Time and timing became critical strategic elements.
Poland alone, too €" offers numerous type of example of how €˜who, what, where and when€ are of paramount importance in the way conventional war is waged.
Extend, magnify and apply it to the global (or even just the European) theater if you€re able.

That said €" you do raise some good points, and they are points I€ve also factored into my thinking.
The primary one €" IMO €" being the loss of the transports themselves.
Weigh it in the grand scheme of things however €" and the wisdom of attacking them solely because it€s there, and I can is extremely dubious at best, preposterous folly in its worst, and a matter of marginal-import in it€s most-probable.

€œ There is no way on earth that letting an enemy get his troops to battle, and then fighting him is better then destroying them before they even are engaged. That definately doesnt make any sense.€

It apparently makes no sense to you.
I wonder about your grasp of the real nature of conventional warfare.
(It loses applicability in atomic / nuclear warfare, where it no longer really matters €˜where€ enemy forces may be destroyed €" if simply destroying them is all that matters to €˜avert€ a conventional war).

Don€t mistake me here either however. Neither am I saying that interdictive strikes including destruction of Forces in transit to or from Theater is necessarily wrong, or flawed.
It could be the best possible thing to do in some situations, circumstances, etc.
The mistake is in thinking that such is €˜always€ universally €˜ideal€, the €˜thing to do,€ and a good war-winning tactic.
If you think prosecuting any conventional war to quick, decisive Victory is that clear, simple and straightforward €" I don€t know what to tell you.
Remember to bear in mind that we are speaking about total war. All or nothing.

€œ Also you hit the prestige of the nation and make him think twice about bringing his troops overseas.€

No you won€t.
Not fighting peoples like the Brits or Americans. You€ll just be re-stirring the hornets€ nest and making them re-double their efforts €" and more.

Again, the hit to the shipping was the U-boats€ real impact on the war.
The best reason to target the transports is depriving the enemy of the ships. Plain and simple.
No dispute from me on that point.
That it is a paramount or decisive factor is a question which cannot be answered in isolation & apart from a view of the war as a totality €" and not only €˜the war,€ but the production capacities, capability, resources, Will & stamina, etc of the belligerents as well €" (all of them!).

€œImagine the effect it would have had on morale if soldiers from America, Australia and Canada were being killed before they could even reach the fight.€

None. It wouldn€t impact morale. It would again be a re-stirring of the hornet€s nest if anything. It€s €˜merely€ frustrating.
You can€t even begin to compare it with the impact on morale of losing divisions of massed infantry in the field.

€œAt the very least it would have given Germany breathing space and delayed landings even further into the future giving them more time to build defences.€

Germany was already beyond any hope of €˜breathing space€ with the fiasco of Barbarossa. I don€t even know what one could compare this to. Nor can you have it only one way.
Germany under Hitler simply didn€t understand what that meant; not well enough in any event. Hitler kept Germany €˜breathless.€
IF the allies had suffered a less astute leadership, one which failed to recognize and grasp that the inertia was theirs €" even still, the additional time granted Germany to improve its defenses would have likewise served the advantages of the Allies in overcoming them, training more and harder troops, amassing larger stores of better weapons, better plans and preparations for mobilization, etc €" near ad infinitum.

€œIt causes losses of important trained men who took months to train, meaning their replacement with green troops.€

You€re getting closer to understanding the deeper level here.
Just don€t think that it applies only the way in which you €˜want it to.€
Green troops reaching the theater is not the same as combat veterans. Cannon-fodder and a pool from which some hardened vets will emerge.
I can€t help it if you cannot grasp the strategic & psychological battlefield significance of destroying massed infantry on the field €" no matter how much you want them under water.
( I might leave un-questioned where is the real cowardice for those willing to snipe a tub of defenseless GI€s with a stand-off weapon like a torpedo €" but not meet them head-to-head in line of battle).
Time dictates an almost incomprehensible amount of what goes into the prosecution of a total-war waged on the scale of the Second World War.
Combat losses on the front generated ever increasing demands for re-enforcements & replacements €" the latter being ever-increasingly more €˜green€ more poorly trained troops€¦
You cannot attribute this to U-boat operations in the Atlantic.
Again, it is Time manifest as an intractable factor.
Do you think the Allies were un-aware of this? That they were oblivious to the fact that the over-all inertia was theirs?
Those troops need not have been so €˜green,€ so quickly-trained and churned out as cannon-fodder and €˜hope-for-the-best-boys.€ The Allies chose to keep their inertia moving, and Time dictated the necessities & the effects.
It is a vicious cycle which favors the side making most efficient use of time €" the side best-able to make Time a principle ally.

Time was from the beginning opposed to Nazi Germany. Never €" not once in the war subsequent to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was it her Ally.
The Allies were going to win that war regardless. That Time was an ally was a serious additional advantage.
The pin-****** to the influx of American GI€s in the Atlantic were never, ever going to do more than prolong the war.
Even had there been ten times, a hundred times the number of long-range U-boats, and had they all been tasked specifically for finding and sinking troop transports €" the Allies would still have won.
Why? Time, Will and nearly inexhaustible resources.
If they had needed to €" the US would have just built massive air fleets and flown them over.
The point is, you never know how things will actually play-out until the actual strategic situations and circumstances have been fixed well-enough in view to make adjustments and adaptations.
&nd if the Will exists €" you can bank on those adjustments and adaptations being implemented.
This also belongs with reflection on why marginal or insignificant losses of infantry in the Atlantic (or other oceans) is really just a dulling of numbers €" it doesn€t €˜answer anything€ that helps. They€ve only vanished and need to be replaced.
Do you think, looking at the human reserves of the US and the Soviets, Germany was ever going to succeed in this sort of attrition?

€œ..it means diversion of brain power, economic power and military power to defend these men as they come across on the boats.€

No it didn€t.
Not that I€ve ever come across anywhere.
The time, attention and resources the Allies vested in commerce convoy organization and defenses was what it was €" and nothing more was added because troop transports were included.
Why would there be?
What more could they have possibly done?
Available escorts were distributed as efficiently as they could calculate, armaments placed on cargo ships and the transports & air cover was provided when and where possible. Hardly any additional drain to mind, men or materiel.
The practice was continued throughout the war, because the U-boats were incapable of sufficiently disrupting it to warrant seeking an alternative. None was ever required.

As far as I know €" the Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary were quite unique in their wartime service.
If you get a chance to put a torp in either €" I€ll not think the worse of you.
If I get the chance €¦ Well. I probably will too now. Those are two ships the Allies will use to our (Germany€s) greater detriment in the long-of-things.
Between them, during the course of the war, they transported some 1.5 million men.
That is significant.
Sinking her and killing even 15,000 GI€s €˜neutralized€€ and merely in transit to a staging area, is still but a pin-***** €" it is the loss of the ship that makes it something of an imperative.

As things stand at present €" interestingly (for me at least) €" this thread has provoked a shift in my perceptions and disposition.
Previously, I had said I€d not attack a passenger liner but will an armed troop transport.
Now, I€m much more inclined to the diametric opposite. More inclined to target a Passenger Liner/Transport, and to not bother with the smaller troop transports (unless fired upon, or the unlikely possibility of coming across one or more alone €" or in a small convoy in which they are the largest ship: yes, this is also a shift in my thinking and disposition as far as SH III goes €" it is mere opportunism. As K-61 has poignantly contributed here €" the game rewards us for that: and, not to begrudge Dom€s inputs either, there is much to be said for depriving the enemy of the ships-themselves. I can leave Hitler to fuddle through his infinite messes on his own http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

Ahhh€¦ The pleasures of enriching views, deepening understandings and refining perceptions!

..But I think you gentlemen are making me a meaner Fraukaleun €¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best,
~ C.

*

Kaleun1961
09-26-2005, 08:44 PM
I had no idea that flamethrowers were banned. The point I was making was in consideration of a horrid weapon being used. Yes, it definitely was a psychological weapon; it also meant that a man captured while in possession of one would not remain a P.O.W. for more than the time it took his captors to execute him outright. That's how greatly the average front line Joe viewed it and those who would use it.

Chrystine
09-26-2005, 09:20 PM
*

To add this note €¦

I€m also following the parallel topic with great interest.

€œWhat about the morality of flamethrowers? There was one nasty weapon.€

* nodding *

Ain€t it the truth?
Modernity has come up with some doozies€¦ (how do you spell €˜doozy?€)

I think one of the nastiest weapons I can even think of are anti-personnel mines.
Think of the €˜bouncing-betty€ for instance.
Horrid€¦

For myself €" I think all modern weapons fall squarely into the €˜nasty-as-hell€ category.
CBU€s can€t be a joy €¦
- But the question of a weapon€s €˜morality€ €" fascinating as it is, leaves me rather €˜blank.€
The only truly €˜immoral€ weapons I can imagine are chemical, biological and environmental. Any one of such I condemn outright as just plain immoral; evil.

Conventional weapons, I find much more difficult to evaluate in that language.

Last night I watched a fairly nicely-done documentary (could have been better, have seen much worse) on the Polish Resistance in Warsaw.
There was a piece in it about the SS using gasoline and cigarettes, matches, etc €" to simply ignite the resistance-fighters (which was any pretty-much any Pole unfortunate enough to be caught).
Now that €" and human behaviors generally are the more easily evaluated in our language of ethics and morality.
What an utterly evil thing€¦

Best,
~ C.

*

doug.d
09-27-2005, 12:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrystine:
As things stand at present €" interestingly (for me at least) €" this thread has provoked a shift in my perceptions and disposition.
Previously, I had said I€d not attack a passenger liner but will an armed troop transport.
Now, I€m much more inclined to the diametric opposite. More inclined to target a Passenger Liner/Transport, and to not bother with the smaller troop transports (unless fired upon, or the unlikely possibility of coming across one or more alone €" or in a small convoy in which they are the largest ship: yes, this is also a shift in my thinking and disposition as far as SH III goes €" it is mere opportunism. As K-61 has poignantly contributed here €" the game rewards us for that: and, not to begrudge Dom€s inputs either, there is much to be said for depriving the enemy of the ships-themselves.
..But I think you gentlemen are making me a meaner Fraukaleun €¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Go get em girl! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I see more medals in your wartime future rather than a high probability of your having a mauser thrust into your hands and being sent off to the Russian front for dereliction of duty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tigerboat
09-27-2005, 12:57 AM
To add to this morality discussion, there was a piece on the History Channel a couple years back in the Color of War (WWII) series that I found striking. It presented the historical record of the American submarine SS Wahoo machine-gunning Japanese troops in the water after sinking the troop carrier. There were no reprimands or objections to this action.

The following is from: http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-238.html

"At this point, Morton's actions became somewhat controversial. He surfaced to recharge batteries, at the same time going after the surviving troops from the transport (Buyo Maru) with gunfire. Unfortunately, most of the troops in the water were actually Indian prisoners of war, along with a number of Japanese garrison troops. A total of 195 Indians were killed, along with 87 Japanese€"this includes those killed in the torpedo attack and sinking€"out of 1,126 men aboard. It should be noted that, contrary to some reports, O'Kane related that Morton actually ordered the boats to be sunk, but did not order the deliberate shooting of survivors.

Morton's actions were not generally condemned at the time. It was presumed that combat troops remained legitimate targets as long as they were in a position to resist, were actively doing so, and were likely to be able to resume the fight. In a sinking close to enemy held islands, leaving the boats intact would arguably have meant the troops would be able to do just that. Also, it was reported that the Japanese were shooting at Wahoo.

....Wahoo ended her patrol at Pearl Harbor. Morton received a Navy Cross, as well as an Army Distinguished Service Cross.."

Gunnersman
09-27-2005, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrystine...
Thanks for your clarifying note, Game On. Wink

In reality, I€m very-petite, delicate, rather €˜prissy€ one might say €" and for the greatest part, a €˜whuss.€
I can be downright vicious if family or friend is threatened €" but thankfully, that€s been rare hitherto€¦
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sooo...what about your twin?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tigerboat...
To add to this morality discussion, there was a piece on the History Channel a couple years back in the Color of War (WWII) series that I found striking. It presented the historical record of the American submarine SS Wahoo machine-gunning Japanese troops in the water after sinking the troop carrier. There were no reprimands or objections to this action. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are some things I wont even do. I dont think I could get so personal as to shoot people in the water(unless they were trying to shoot me).
Flamethrowers...hmmm, as long as I didnt have to see my handywork. Besides, they are just friggin hot to shoot as well!
I guess it all comes down to personal preferences...for lack of a better word.

The_Silent_O
09-27-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
I had no idea that flamethrowers were banned. The point I was making was in consideration of a horrid weapon being used. Yes, it definitely was a psychological weapon; it also meant that a man captured while in possession of one would not remain a P.O.W. for more than the time it took his captors to execute him outright. That's how greatly the average front line Joe viewed it and those who would use it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, they are not banned, read my quote again (source was posted above)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">36. Weapons Employing Fire
The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers,
napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of
international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause
unnecessary suffering to individuals.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Targets requiring there use can include numerous examples from the past (German defense posts on the Normandy Beaches, Japanese caves on Iwo Jima) and today, but today we use flame weapons and standoff i.e. the Air Force delivers a fuel - air bomb to hit a terrorist cave. So we don't have to send G.I. Joe up to the cave with 40lbs of jellied oil strapped to his back.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For myself €" I think all modern weapons fall squarely into the €˜nasty-as-hell€ category.
CBU€s can€t be a joy €¦
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that ALL weapons throughout the AGES were nasty...You can't just say modern weapons are nasty. Biological weapons have been purposely used since the middle ages. Flame weapons were used even earlier between ships. Boiling oil was spilled on troops assaulting castles. There is no such thing as a nice weapon that is meant to kill.

I'll go back to my 'Bunker' example...what is the difference between recieving, oh, let's say, 35 rounds from a MG34 in your torso, versus, being sprayed with a flamethrower...in both cases the victim is going to be in extreme pain until they expire.

I'm not trying to be contentious or morbid here, but as you have said it "War is Hell" no matter how you cut it.

And you, Chrystine, could be teaching military art in our military schools, your general knowledge is way beyond mine on the art of war...but, I tend to key on the technical aspects of war history.

Same goes to you K1961...I thought this was just a gaming site, but instead we're discussing Von Clauswitz and Depuy, Strategy and politics... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...we are quite a highbrow bunch, Der Furher probably doesn't like us Kaleuns thinking at this level! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Chrystine
09-27-2005, 10:18 AM
*

€œ Sooo...what about your twin? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif €œ

Three sisters and a brother €" and we€re North, South, East, West and Up €" the 5 of us couldn€t possibly be any more different and individualistic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

..Don€t it figure? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


€œ I would say that ALL weapons throughout the AGES were nasty...You can't just say modern weapons are nasty.€

Point well made & taken, Otto!

Even as I €˜penned€ that statement, in the back of my mind I had an image of being run through with a bronze Mycenaean spear-head.
You€re quite right!
The €˜modern€ qualifier could hardly be more arbitrary or erroneous.

€œ And you, Chrystine, could be teaching military art in our military schools, your general knowledge is way beyond mine on the art of war€¦€

Most-generous of you to say, Otto €" but why do I somehow doubt it€s so? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

€œ..but, I tend to key on the technical aspects of war history.€

It€s so freaking enormous and complex €" who could know €˜all there is€ to war, or even to any one aspect of it?
I€ve paid much-much less attention to the technical aspects (taking in only what is offered at the more superficial, narrative level), but have long been fascinated by battlefield tactics €" particularly employment of Infantry and artillery.
The more I€ve read, contemplated (and at-least think I€ve understood), the more keenly has my fascination focused on artillery. Now the next €˜study€ I€d really like to make in earnest would be employment of Naval Arty as an infantry support weapon.

Even if you think it something particularly €˜unusual€ (and it is, of course) that a €˜girl€ should understand even as much/little as I do €" think the more how ironic that when I applied and attempted in good faith to enlist in the Marine Corps at age 19, the Corps refused me on the two-fold basis of being too-small and not a high school graduate (I€d dropped out when I was 17).

Thank goodness! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I Love the Corps! ..but I€d have hated being in it€¦
Instead €" I saw my €˜Elephant€ in the University €" blood, sweat and tears!
( Kids €" don€t try this at home! Stay in school!)

€œ ...we are quite a highbrow bunch, Der Furher probably doesn't like us Kaleuns thinking at this level!€

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ..O€ we€d be in a fine mess I think€¦ If only he knew!

Best,
~ C.

*

Chrystine
09-27-2005, 10:49 AM
*

Fiddle-faddle!

I missed a Post.
Welcome to the Forum, Tigerboat!

A nice contribution piece to the topic, as well.
I recall having read about that in one of my books here, tho€ it lacked a few of the details you mention.
Very interesting indeed!

Interesting as it bears both upon questions of €˜morality in war€ (generally) and that it is submarine relative.
It€s not €˜unique€ as an instance of America€s oft€ repeated penchant for duplicity and double-standards.
I don€t mind much at-all when one does something €˜wrong,€ or converse to what one proclaims as €˜belief€ or €˜doctrine,€ etc €" so long as it€s owned up to and one takes the heat & consequences for it.
Lying about it, distorting facts to accommodate excuses for why €˜X€ was done €" I can€t stand.

As I recall, the Americans were quite vocal in their condemnation of a German U-boat Kapitan & crew who€d done the same thing somewhere in the Atlantic: even to the point of trying him at Nuremberg.
I can€t remember that Kapitan€s name €" but it seems I recall the charges were found unwarranted and he was released without conviction.

On the other hand €" the US decorated Morton in relation to that incident (according to the source I read). From the article you€ve cited here, it seems questionable whether that incident had anything to do with his decorations.

All very interesting tho€!

Best,
~ C.

*

The_Silent_O
09-27-2005, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrystine:
I€ve paid much-much less attention to the technical aspects (taking in only what is offered at the more superficial, narrative level), but have long been fascinated by battlefield tactics €" particularly employment of Infantry and artillery.
The more I€ve read, contemplated (and at-least think I€ve understood), the more keenly has my fascination focused on artillery. Now the next €˜study€ I€d really like to make in earnest would be employment of Naval Arty as an infantry support weapon.

Even if you think it something particularly €˜unusual€ (and it is, of course) that a €˜girl€ should understand even as much/little as I do €" think the more how ironic that when I applied and attempted in good faith to enlist in the Marine Corps at age 19, the Corps refused me on the two-fold basis of being too-small and not a high school graduate (I€d dropped out when I was 17).

Thank goodness! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I Love the Corps! ..but I€d have hated being in it€¦
Instead €" I saw my €˜Elephant€ in the University €" blood, sweat and tears!
( Kids €" don€t try this at home! Stay in school!)


* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You and I could have talks...studying "Networked Fires" is what I do for my "employer" (Fires - meaning artillery or any other distance delivered munitions). The Navy and the USMC are also developing new Naval Gunfire systems (look up "littoral combat ship" in google), something tells me you could get hired in a heartbeat, but I know you are "employed" Ha!

I did a paper a while back that studied the battle of antietam in the civil war...and the reason I picked that battle was because it was one of the first major battles where counter-battery fires were employed, chiefly by the Union forces using rifled cannons and time fuses against the confederate smoothbore cannons. It was devestating fire, if you look at S.D. Lee's confederate battalion loses in the morning. Union gunners were taking them out from over 4 miles away. (essentially from the PRY HOUSE to the DUNKER CHURCH).

Yes, HS diploma is required for enlistment...but I see you've fixed that. In more ways than one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is a good book (a numbers book!) on civil war tactics, very quantitative...

Paddy Griffith (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300084617/qid=1127846632/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2243989-5404036?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Kaleun1961
09-27-2005, 01:01 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Otto. I was under the impression that flamethrowers were "banned" because the U.S. military no longer uses them.

Fuel-air explosives are, yes, nasty. I think the idea behind them is not so much to kill by flame, but that the process of inflammation uses up all the oxygen in the vicinity of the explosion, and therefore the targetted personnel die of suffocation, or the flames, explosion and over-pressure which results from the detonation of the misted fuel.

Kaleun1961
09-27-2005, 01:05 PM
I'm going to disappear for a while, so you may not see me posting here for some time. I am going to devote some serious time to testing the new "Improved U-boat" mod beta. However, I am going to come back here and check out this fascinating and thread. Good posts, everyone. It is so refreshing that we are sharing ideas amongst friends, rather than riposte and counter-riposte over some miniscule trivia. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dominicrigg
09-27-2005, 01:22 PM
ARGGGG!!! Flamethrowers are banned lol!

You are quoting from some military handbook. I quoted from the Geneva convention which has banned them.

America does not use fuel air bombs or flamethrowers, the bombs they used on the caves in afgan were bunker busters and that massive 10,000 pound one, or whatever it was. Because they have signed the agreement not to use flame weapons.

That handbook you are quoting from is acting as lawyers do, and using a loosly worded clause to get out of the agreement, thats why i said i hope the american military are not going to get round it lol. How do you use a flame thrower without causing unnecessary suffering?

Flamethrowers cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering, i know for a fact they are in that clause, one of the weapons the claus was brought in for. Its loosely worded because no one could list every weapon which causes terrible injuries and naming them wouldnt help.

Flamethrowers and flame throwing tanks are banned defo defo!

One thing this highlights though is how impossible it is to make a law, because you cant possibly account for every eventuality, and it could be argued every weapon causes unnecessary pain lol.

Dominicrigg
09-27-2005, 02:35 PM
@ Chystine

You base your whole argument on hindsight, with hindsight it was pointless going out in a uboat at all, as their were never enough of them at any point. But from their viewpoint they could have won the war, they seemed to be doing at many points from the standpoint of a German sailor. If you want to use that argument then there is no gain in sinking a transport, because the allies will just build more, and send more tanks. No point in sinking oilers. No point in getting up in a morning, none of it has an impact (especially so in this game)

If we were to take the view in hindsight then really, there was no point in soldiers shooting at the invading Allies, because no matter how many they shot, more would "seep into the theatres" and win the war. Its a bizzare argument to try to say troop transports are not valuable lol. I was alright with the fact you found it inhumane, that worked...


As for resources being moved, America had no escorts patrolling the coast, when sinkings happened Britain had to supply America with escorts to defend the coast. Valuable escorts which should have been defending the english coast and shipping. You say yourself if troop ships had been sunk, the America would have used long range planes, this is a diversion of minds and manpower at the least that you admit though dont realise its a diversion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It could well be argued that the greatest good for the conduct and shortening of the war, dictated infantry arriving, being engaged and destroyed in the infantry theater. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This could never be argued ever! Its a thousand fold better for your troops not to have to engage, if they dont have to defend the town against 10,000 paras then they will hold the town. If the advancing brigade of british armour doesnt get its 10,000 soldiers to support it then it wont be as potent a force. Ask a soldier or a general if he would rather face the enemies on the field or have them intercepted to allow him time to take or consolidate his objectives, or to take pressure from him.

If the soldiers who have been training since before the war are killed, then new ones who have no training have to be drafted in. If soldiers being moved from Africa to france are sunk before they get there, experienced men are lost. The first soldiers into the theatre had years of training, anyone with a basic grasp of warfare realises these are not expendable. It only takes a quick glance at the casualty tables for battles to see how few are actually killed in the field, compared to how many would be lost in a uboat attack.

Even if they are green troops just fresh from high school, its still not better to let the boat go and beat them in the field. You use ammo, the soldiers tire, the supplies are used up, their are inevitable losses. The enemy gains momentum from his reinforcements, what possible advantage could be gained from allowing an enemy to invade? The romans realised this over 2000 years ago, when they stopped any reinforcements getting to Hannibal by controling the seas. The British realised this in the Napoleonic wars when they defeated french fleets over europe. The British realised this when they defeated the spanish armada sailing to pick up soldiers from Holland. Their aim was to sink a few ships to lessen the invasion force. Not "hey let the spanish land, then we can really show have an impact on the war theatre!"

The argument was not "Could Uboats have sunk all the allies troop ships"

But "Does sinking troop ships have a detrimental effect on morale, fighting strength and quality of troops?" The answer to which is yes, yes, yes.

Warfare is about concentration of forces and economising forces. Destroying 10,000 men en route with 40 men is the epitomy of this, cowardice doesnt enter the equation. Wether an aircraft bombing a troop train, uboat sinking a troop ship, bomb dropped on a garrison or idiot with a sticky bomb in a sock sticking it to the side of a tank. Few beating lots = good

Tsun tsu is a good basic read for wannabe generals.

Oh and you overestimate British/American morale, enough losses would have the people against the war, and more then likely the troops also. Morale was at an all time low in Britain in the run up to the battle of Britain, losses on troop ships heading to africa to fight would have compounded this.

As for "Extend, magnify and apply it to the global (or even just the European) theater if you€re able." It would be a good idea for you to do this, imagine the ships heading to attack Norway and the german soldiers there early war. Imagine sinking the troop ships in the Russian theatre, or the troop ships taking soldiers to fight in the Africa campaign. The war was not just about D-day and the fight across normandy.
Imagine being a japanese Sub commander sinking an American troop ship on its way to Iwo jima or another of the islands. The impact is immense, fundamentally making the enemies unable to even attack and leaving commanders and troops with a feeling of impotence.
It was a global "World war".

"Time and timing are critical strategic elements", and destroying an enemy before he even attacks is the perfect moment.

For all the talk of how little effect the removal of a troop ship would have i wonder do you know how many men there were in a Division? How much impact a division would have on the war theatre?

The_Silent_O
09-27-2005, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for resources being moved, America had no escorts patrolling the coast, when sinkings happened Britain had to supply America with escorts to defend the coast. Valuable escorts which should have been defending the english coast and shipping. You say yourself if troop ships had been sunk, the America would have used long range planes, this is a diversion of minds and manpower at the least that you admit though dont realise its a diversion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you implying that during WWII Britain patrolled the US coast with Royal Navy Ships??? Can you cite a specific factual example???. And how many ships??? I don't remember this at all...

I know for a fact that:
1) We gave Britain close to 50 Clemson class destroyers before we entered the war on lend lease, essentially gratis...
2) The US had the specific mission to train and bring up to standard the Royal Canadian Navy so it could perform escort duties for the Royal Navy.

Methinks you have your facts backwards?

joeap
09-27-2005, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Silent_O:

I know for a fact that:
1) We gave Britain close to 50 Clemson class destroyers before we entered the war on lend lease, essentially gratis...
2) The US had the specific mission to train and bring up to standard the Royal Canadian Navy so it could perform escort duties for the Royal Navy.

Methinks you have your facts backwards? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Methinks you have number 2 backwards?? The RCN was in the war fighting u-boats before the USN!!!

Chrystine
09-27-2005, 04:10 PM
*

Hi Otto,

€œYou and I could have talks...studying €˜Networked Fires€ is what I do for my €˜employer€ (Fires - meaning artillery or any other distance delivered munitions).€

€˜Talks:€ now there€s a polite euphemism€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You€d talk, I€d sit and listen (probably attended with a lot of head-scratching and hair-tugging).
I€m sure it would be boundlessly fascinating tho€ €" whatever of it I could comprehend.

€œLook up €˜littoral combat ship€ in google.€

I€ll do that. Thanks.

Antietam€¦ Say the name and you almost have to pause for a few minutes of silence, don€t you?
I made a very protracted study of the Civil war that spanned about five years (I mean, doing nothing else). Read everything I could get my hands on €" and that€s just endless, it€s a deluge.
Of all the literally hundreds of books devoured, it wasn€t until I really spent time picking through the €˜niceties€ of Antietam that I was physically moved.
I closed the book then currently reading €" made the plan, and in two days I was sitting on the front steps of the Dunker Church with a smoke and can of Mr. Pibb.

Seeing & standing on the ground while being cognizant of all that transpired there is just mind-numbing.

€œI did a paper a while back that studied the battle of antietam in the civil war...and the reason I picked that battle was because it was one of the first major battles where counter-battery fires were employed, chiefly by the Union forces using rifled cannons and time fuses against the confederate smoothbore cannons.€

I€d love to read that paper.

€œIt was devestating fire, if you look at S.D. Lee's confederate battalion loses in the morning. Union gunners were taking them out from over 4 miles away. (essentially from the PRY HOUSE to the DUNKER CHURCH).€

It€s now been quite a long while since I€ve done any reading on that war and period, but I can recall some of it.
For the life of me, I can€t recollect whether I was ever really aware of the €˜first€€ there regarding counter-battery fire.
If I do recall the 17th, tho€ €" Federal guns would have been heard all that day, from the opening salvos fired on Jackson€s troops in the northern cornfield in the early morning, €˜til A.P. Hill finished off Burnside's wasted day-long efforts at the bridge. (I Still cannot quite grasp what Burnside was thinking all day).
Well, maybe I€m a moron and just never succeeding in understanding what was in his head: but good lord €" he wasted the entire day and how many men, trying to push that stupid bridge against just 400 Georgians?
So where were his guns? (Don€t remember that anymore).

Thanks very much for the recommended title €" it is tempting, but what do you mean exactly by, €œa numbers book!€..?
Sounds cruel €¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Honestly, I€ll take your word for it before I would any of those reviewers at Amazon €" mostly, because I€m not too sure what to make of them. Too-subjective.

Yes €" I did €˜correct€ that FUBAR. A year later.
Funny how life goes sometimes isn€t it? I paid dearly for never having gone to high school (I spent my years there in an OWE Program, showed up for attendance, left for day-long parties, until I dropped out on my 18th birthday).
I could have been the poster-child for €˜Bad Choices.€


Kaleun €"

I hope you€ll not be away over-long€¦

Seems Gunnersman, and now K-61 are taking an €˜away€ €¦
A few others, too have seemed more scarce of late.

Much as I enjoy a good discussion, good, fruitful dialogue, some of these things just grow too taxing on time and energy.
Just as I care how I look at home & outside of it €" I care how I appear in public in such a Forum too.
I€ve taken my time with Members, to treat each as an individual, have been as courteous and polite and friendly as I know how; here, as €˜IRL,€ I think before I speak and I choose how I say what I choose to say fairly carefully.
That€s all just part of my nature.
It costs tho€ €" time and energy, and there should be limits to what I €˜need€ do here in order to remain a contributing member, preserve my personality and character and enjoy the company, conversations, posts and pics of all €" without being overly-taxed chasing Don Quixote€s windmills.
It may be I push too hard, seem abrasive or €" I don€t know what€¦
If there€s some male ego thing I tax with my being here, what can I say?
It doesn€t bother me to bite my lip, sit quietly and let the €˜final word€ drop all €˜round.
I can€t help but feel some strain & wonder at the question of how suitable I am for the Forum.

I may take my leave soon as well €¦

Best,
~ C.

*

Game__On
09-27-2005, 04:17 PM
The whole concept of "war" ...

In a time when it was not uncommon for me to be up for days on end on amphetamines (holland in the "gabber" era, what can i say), one day somehow a discussion that started about "what damage an airgun does on a human skull" ended in a discussion about "war", obviously ...

Think of how weird it is to be discussing what is "decent" in a war, let alone make "rules" of what's fair and unfair in a WAR ... It's like humanity cant make up his mind.
It desperately tries to be civilized, yet you can always be sure there are at least 5 gruelling wars going on ...

The reason i brought up the amphetamine thing is this ...
Iff after a few days, u manage to conquer the paranoia (takes practice, being intelligent doesnt help,so not a problem for me thank god) and an interesting subject like "war" comes in to play, u can bet your *** that every god given angle that and every possible scenario has been covered at least 10 times in all conceivable and non-conceivable ways ...
Then at some point when your brain is done computing all those factors, suddenly a crystal clear conclusion appears...
There is no way around it, its the only possible answer and therefore the absolute truth, no matter of how simple that conclusion may be...
You havent been awake untill u haven't slept in 5 days, believe you me ...
I'd say 2 days is when your brain is functioning at its highest overclock though, after that it just gets ******ed.

So, 1 absolute truth, which can be looked at from 2 angles ..

Angle 1 : "War is ******ed" ...This conclusion is the view in which one would consider humanity "civilized"...The angle in wich we choose to believe in a god-like creature, that has created us for a higher purpose...
(******ed is a bad word choice i realize, the word im looking for is really hard to spell though)

Angle 2 : "wow, humanity is lamer then i thought"

This is the angle where it becomes clear that humanity is not special, the angle in wich we cease to believe in magical beings that live in the clouds and that we are and always will be upgraded animals as long as we have any emotions...



Obviously, between those 2, the number 2 conclusion is ... The Absolute Truth ...



*I realize that there may be some people that could have drawn these conclusions without resorting to starvation and sleep deprevation.
I on the other hand cant be bothered to think about such things, since my tv-schedule is murder ... I can barely find time to heat up pizza between the Simpsons and Oprah ...
Also,..spelling may vary ...

So, whats your take on "war" and making actual "killing rules" in a desperate attempt to "keep it civil" lol like :

"the decent way to murder someone is to blow his brains out, setting him on fire however is frowned upon"

It goes beyond my comprehension, enlighten me ...

KZS_Tartarus
09-27-2005, 05:11 PM
Hope you don't mind me jumping in here Dominicrigg, Tia has been spending an awful lot of her time addressing these points already ...

"You base your whole argument on hindsight...

No, it's not based on hindsight. That Germany could not win the production war was obvious to everyone involved, long before the war even started. It was entirely clear, all along, to everyone, that Germany's only chance was to win the war on the battlefield, not in the factories. How it could or could not be done on the battlefield is a whole different topic...

"This could never be argued ever! Its a thousand fold better for your troops not to have to engage, if they dont have to defend the town against 10,000 paras then they will hold the town. If the advancing brigade of british armour doesnt get its 10,000 soldiers to support it then it wont be as potent a force."

You have missed the whole point there: Yes, it will be exactly as potent a force! It will only happen a little later, when 10,000 new, fresh soldiers have been shipped over. If there were no replacement soldiers available (and none could be created), then it would matter that those 10,000 soldiers were killed before they reached the theater. But that was not the case for allies (and, again, everyone was well aware of that). If, on the other hand, you defeat that advancing brigade on the battlefield, you have made a difference, both by destroying a fighting unit (which is much harder to replace than just a few of the men who made up the unit), and (more importantly) by preventing whatever activity that unit was conducting and opening up a possibility for you to take the initiative on the battlefield.

You brought up the example of the Utah beach landings earlier in this thread, and that is actually an excellent example to illustrate the opposite point to the one you're trying to make here. If you kill 10,000 more men on Utah beach, that would be a disaster for the allies; it could well trash that whole landing, and put a serious dent in the allied operations in that area. That there are 10,000 reserves available in the UK is of no help to the allies in that situation; the force they were to reinforce has already been beaten. If, on the other hand, you kill those 10,000 men in transit, and if (as was the case) those men could readily be replaced in a reasonable time, then you haven't really accomplished anything at all; the landings will take place anyway, with just as many men, only perhaps a few days later, or with slightly fewer reserves available (which would not be a problem in that case).

The crucial point is this: How valuable a certain number of infantry are to the enemy depends entirely on what activity they are performing and which unit they are part of at the time. And they are never less valuable than while in transit to a theater of war! Their value increases tremendously once they reach the battlefield, and even further once they are part of a force conducting an important operation. That is precisely why Tia keeps telling you: It matters very little how many you kill by sinking troopships, compared to what happens on the infantry battle field!

"Ask a soldier or a general if he would rather face the enemies on the field or have them intercepted to allow him time to take or consolidate his objectives, or to take pressure from him."

You do that (but ask a general, not a soldier). You might be surprised at the answer, which most certainly would be some variant of "it depends".

"It only takes a quick glance at the casualty tables for battles to see how few are actually killed in the field, compared to how many would be lost in a uboat attack."

That, if anything, should ring a bell that there is more to land warfare than casualty figures.

"Even if they are green troops just fresh from high school, its still not better to let the boat go and beat them in the field. You use ammo, the soldiers tire, the supplies are used up, their are inevitable losses. The enemy gains momentum from his reinforcements, what possible advantage could be gained from allowing an enemy to invade? The romans realised this over 2000 years ago, when they stopped any reinforcements getting to Hannibal by controling the seas. The British realised this in the Napoleonic wars when they defeated french fleets over europe. The British realised this when they defeated the spanish armada sailing to pick up soldiers from Holland. Their aim was to sink a few ships to lessen the invasion force. Not "hey let the spanish land, then we can really show have an impact on the war theatre!" "

You're getting things mixed up here... A troopship in an invasion force is an entirely different thing from a troopship transporting reinforcements to a theater. Cutting a supply chain is a different thing from nibbling away at some of the supplies being transported. If time serves your purposes better than the enemy€s, then it makes sense to try to delay the enemy, but not otherwise. One can learn a lot from previous examples, but only to the extent they are applicable to the present situation... Taking the simplistic view of "it worked this way in a few previous wars, so it must be a general rule of warfare" does not help!

"Imagine sinking the troop ships in the Russian theatre, or the troop ships taking soldiers to fight in the Africa campaign. The war was not just about D-day and the fight across normandy.
Imagine being a japanese Sub commander sinking an American troop ship on its way to Iwo jima or another of the islands. The impact is immense, fundamentally making the enemies unable to even attack and leaving commanders and troops with a feeling of impotence.
It was a global "World war"."

Those are a whole set of various points that need to be dealt with separately, not grouped together in some attempt to generalize what is quite different. It was already said previously in this thread: This stuff is really way too complex for a forum discussion already, and if we have to try and sort out all aspects simultaneously it just becomes as hopeless as it is pointless.

I think we are pretty much done with this discussion; what needs to be said has been said, and whether or not you agree with it matters more to you than it does to us€¦ But of course, feel more than free to continue it with the others around here.

Best,
- B

The_Silent_O
09-27-2005, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrystine:
Antietam€¦ Say the name and you almost have to pause for a few minutes of silence, don€t you?
I made a very protracted study of the Civil war that spanned about five years (I mean, doing nothing else). Read everything I could get my hands on €" and that€s just endless, it€s a deluge.
Of all the literally hundreds of books devoured, it wasn€t until I really spent time picking through the €˜niceties€ of Antietam that I was physically moved.
I closed the book then currently reading €" made the plan, and in two days I was sitting on the front steps of the Dunker Church with a smoke and can of Mr. Pibb.

Seeing & standing on the ground while being cognizant of all that transpired there is just mind-numbing.
* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Antietam has always been my favorite battlefield, if you could use such a term to describe that. I once thought of using my VA benefit to be buried there (next to a brave "Iron Brigade" soldier) but, alas, the federal cemetary is closed to any further internments...

In the fall, Antietam is an irony of pure pastoral beauty fighting to shield horrible past. Harvest describes more than one event that has happened there and still happens today. Still, to this day, it is the greatest loss of life in one 24 hour period for the United States, For awhile the casualties of 9/11 almost reached the death toll almost exceeded Antietam, but it the end the battle still holds the grisley record.

I don't know what it is,...the chaos, the multiple attacks, the chance meeting in western Maryland, failed opportunities. It is a battle of endless study for me...

I've loved Frassanito's photo books, and I highly recommend Michael Priest's books on Antietam for a soldiers' eye view. I was reading and re-reading Stephen Sears book during desert storm (the only paperback I had). And anything on MG John Gibbon and the Iron Brigade always has had an interest for me. And perhaps the most poetic passages on Antietam come from Bruce Catton, in his Army of the Potomac trilogy.

I've trundle over that battlefield many times and in many odd places in Maryland that had roles to play in the preceding Maryland Campaign, on bike or foot.

Alright, I'm waxing poetic,...Time to get some more tonnage! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chrystine
09-27-2005, 08:07 PM
*

Hi Game On,

A Post with interesting admixture of humor and seriousness.

€œSo, whats your take on €˜war€ and making actual €˜killing rules€ in a desperate attempt to €˜keep it civil.€€

That question is less important (IMO) as to what anyone€s €œtake€ on it is €" than it is a matter of discernable evolution.
Just look at the evolution of €˜Rules Governing the Conduct of Warfare€ (as a general description of a €˜type€).
How do they germinate? Why? Among whom? €" Who are the parties who nod their assent to them €" be-it formally or informally?

The origins are most-probably rooted in primitive-societies which sought to limit the amount of destruction visited upon the essentials for the survival of a Clan or a Tribe (as a unit) in moments of €˜war€ €" sudden eruptions of violence by neighboring clans, Tribes, etc. as tacit agreements based on a commonality of €˜value-types€ and similarity of life-styles and modes of living.
However speculative, it nevertheless also offers a fairly simple model to highlight the essential elements of those €˜Rules€ as well as offering a generalized description of what war really is at-bottom.

War is a means of increasing power through extension. Plain and simple. (I at-least know of no instance of war being waged for any contraction).
The complexities begin in wresting from the entanglements of complex histories, the myriad forms in which €˜extension€ is sought and applied.
Extension of territory (or merely of physical property €" €œpillaging€); of influence; of domination (i.e. control), determination, etc €¦

Generally speaking €" excluding wars of annihilation of the sort practiced by the Mongol Hoards, in which not only were all peoples exterminated, but the land itself was €˜scorched€ €" wars are fought to increase & extend power, while retaining interest in not destroying what is useful and desirable in the object & goal €" the objective(s).
If one wishes only land, a la Hitler in Russia, exterminating the people is all right, but not destroying the land or basic infrastructures €" which will be useful.
Most wars which have been fought in history have Not been wars of extermination, but rather limited wars €" meaning, limited in scope, range and desired objectives.
The more this is so €" the more easily one ought be able discern the reasoning behind creating and evolving Rules Governing the Conduct of Warfare.
In a nutshell €" it is pure self-interest. One may wish to seek enlargement of power, but not risk all one has by doing so.
Hence €" €˜mutual accords.€
€˜We may engage one-another€s troops whenever and where-ever we find them, but, we shall not engage civilians nor destroy domestic property.€
Literally in intentionality, this translates: We may like to try to take your territory or parts of it, and will kill your troops in the process if we find any €" but we don€t want you to sneak behind us while we€re about it, and kill our women and children, burn our cities and fields to our complete & utter ruin.
Part of what making these sorts of €˜promises€ anything substantial entails, is in-fact, adhering to them oneself.

As societies increase in complexity (over time, through an infinity of reasons) €" it might well-be-expected such €œRules€ will likewise increase in complexity.
That such concepts for €˜civilized warfare€ €" however incongruous it may sound €" are applied to weapon types and systems, when such have increased in lethality to the degrees they have in €˜our€ modern times (atomic, nuclear or lesser but specifically abhorrent weapons like napalm, etc), should make sense & be pretty understandable.

We will agree not to €˜X€ and €˜Y€ if we ever meet in combat €" if you agree as well€¦
We won€t use €˜Z€ if you don€t use yours either.

That such €˜agreements€ are actually binding in times of war is of course a chimera.
The side which finds advantage in violating the €˜Rules€ will likely do so if what it stands to lose by not-doing-so is sufficient.
After-all, in war €" it is all but impossible to €˜punish the victor,€ the more-so if you are the vanquished €" and you can€t further punish the dead.
If what one stands to lose is lesser than the consequences of violating the €˜Rules€ and surviving the war €" the €˜Rules€ retain some efficacy even in wartime.

One could, I suppose, think very-generally of such €˜Rules€ (Guidelines, Parameters) as something like a sheath for a sword.
Within it, the blade is still a symbol of the possible, clean, sharp and ready to be drawn.
Don€t stare at it too long waiting for the sword to be drawn while you attempt to do something €˜sneaky€ €" the sheath can also make a hell of a club.

We have a glaring example of this having played out quite recently, with Sada€am watching the sword hand of the US and playing €˜tidily-winks€ with WMD€s.
Bad move€¦

Best,
~ C.

*

Chrystine
09-27-2005, 08:45 PM
*

Well that€s as beautifully said as it is moving, Otto€¦

Waxing poetic, indeed.
Lovely prose with depth and meaning.

I€ll try to find at-least some of the works you mention here, additions for my private library and with the hope of getting to read them sometime.
At your mention, I was sure I have a book here somewhere on the Iron Brigade, but can€t remember anything specific about it €" a cursory scan of the shelves didn€t show it to me. I found only a book here on the Orphan Brigade.
I also see here across from me now on one of the shelves, the first (and I think best €" i.e. most-enjoyable overall) of the books I€ve read on Antietam €" €œThe Gleam of Bayonet€s,€ by James V. Murfin. Come to think of it, I believe I even picked it up in the bookstore there.

Catton, to be sure €" always a delight.
As are the writings of Shelby Foote, to my taste and thinking €" tho€ of a quite different nature.

Sear€s is a marvelous historiographer. Just delightful to read. His book €" €œTo the Gates of Richmond,€ is one of the finest books on any Civil War Campaign or Battle I€ve ever read.
The same may be thought of W.C. Davis, Rhea, Cozzens and Hennessey; all gifted historians and authors with great knack for €˜peeling the onion€ and telling the stories which enlighten as well as €˜entertain.€

I€ll look for anything I can find by Frassanito and M. Priest €" neither of whose name is ringing any bell at the moment.
Thanks much for the recommendations.

Best, - and happy hunting! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
~ C.

*

Dominicrigg
09-28-2005, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Silent_O:

Are you implying that during WWII Britain patrolled the US coast with Royal Navy Ships??? Can you cite a specific factual example???. And how many ships??? I don't remember this at all...

I know for a fact that:
1) We gave Britain close to 50 Clemson class destroyers before we entered the war on lend lease, essentially gratis...
2) The US had the specific mission to train and bring up to standard the Royal Canadian Navy so it could perform escort duties for the Royal Navy.

Methinks you have your facts backwards? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol i had to go back and read my post, i wrote it half cut! lol.

Yeah its quite strange how most people dont know about the destroyers ect in WW2. The lend lease act has got tangled up and confused to mean they were actually lent to Britain, or given. In fact Britain was paying off the loan up until quite recently for all the materials "lent". Also British bases were "leased" which have massive value internationally, the lease for these is still running today!

The lend lease act was passed in March 1941 (After checking history books lol) the destroyers were bought in 1940. Of the lease part of "Lend lease" Britain was leasing before the act came in. In fact to part pay for the destroyers (along with cash) bases were leased to America.

They were extortionate prices and very poor, but Britain was desperate! Lol


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
On 2 September 1940, in response to two requests by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in May and June of that year, the Congress of the United States approved a deal brokered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to transfer 50 old destroyers to bolster British escort forces in the face of heavy destroyer losses suffered by the Royal Navy due to Dunkirk and other costly operations. By the date the deal was approved, the RN had lost 33 destroyers of all types, the majority being modern, capable units. As a result of this agreement, the US gained basing rights at such locations as Argentia, Newfoundland, Canada, Bermuda Island and various Caribbean locations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those leases on bases are still running now, I think they were 100 year leases, which as you can see is ridiculous for 50 WW1 destroyers lol. In addition to cash (gold) payments. Of course every little helped, even the presence of a destroyer had some little effect on Uboat attacks.


On the quality of the destroyers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At the time of transfer, none of the US ships had been modified for anti-submarine warfare, much less received the €œescort modification€ later applied to a number of these ships remaining in USN service.

Some ships required as much as four months of yard work before being considered suitable for use by the British. Royal Navy ship handlers complained about the ships€ excessive tactical diameter and their liveliness in North Atlantic seas due to their very fine hull dimensions. Ratings found the ships€ layout, accommodations and appointments alien, but adapted readily. During their service with the RN and RCN most of these ships lost two or three 4€ SP guns, their antiquated 3€ anti-aircraft gun and AA machine guns in favor of more modern RN weapons. Torpedo armament was quickly halved and in some cases relocated to the centerline. More depth charge stowage, K-gun and Y-gun depth charge projectors and eventually the Hedgehog ASW mortars were added. Sensor upgrades included the addition of radar, high frequency direction finding (HF/DF or €œHuff Duff€) equipment and improved ASDIC (€œsonar€ in US parlance). Although some authors have made much of the contribution of these ships, even to the point of claiming they €œsaved the world,€ their primary benefit was to provide more escort platforms - although of no great technical capability - until the British could get sufficient numbers of modern destroyers and smaller escorts afloat to replace them. As new ships became available, the transferred vessels were rapidly withdrawn from escort duty and moved to such auxiliary roles as mobile aircraft target towing or paid off. Some were even transferred to yet other Allied navies, including the free Norwegian and free Polish Navies as well as to the Soviet Navy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Britain did lend (in the real sense of the word) the destroyers to Russia for the remainder of the war, and Russia returned them at wars end.

Lend lease came in when Britain was essential bankrupt in the sense she no longer had much "liquid" assets. Trade was carried out in gold bullion, and Britians had been near exausted on buying arms and food to carry out the war. American people had no wish to be involved but the Government (thank god) saw the danger would soon turn to them. The American government realised there would come a time when Britain could no longer buy arms, and then would collapse, of coarse the high ups in America realised this would mean no chance in Europe, so brought in the lend lease act to prolong the fight. "Give us the tools and we will do the job." As Churchill said when trying to secure more gear, he realised the American situation. I think we are all lucky Roosevelt was in power in America! He had the foresight.



On the Canadian navy, yes they had been in the war since the start so needed no training.

Ermmm... your initial question on British destroyers its in a few books i have. Let me find one...

Here is a quote from "The Battle of the Atlantic" Date is around February 1942.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anxious to help prevent the disaster beginning to unfold on the east coast of the United states, the Admiralty offered to lend 10 corvettes and 24 anti submarine trawlers. At the same time the First Sea Lord, Admiral Pound, cabled his American counterpart, urging once again the swift introduction of a coastal convoy system. This was, King replied tartly, under 'continous consideration'. The offer of additional escorts was warmly recieved, at least. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its worth noting here, and is a strong defence in my argument about Troop ships, Admiral King was not just being awkward. He believed that troop ships should be defended, and felt there were not enough escorts to defend troop ships and Convoys. So instead he stuck to defending troop ships and left cargo ships to sail singly.

Though his mistake was that even ships in convoy with one escort are better then single ships. As convoys limit the chances of a Uboat bumping into a contact at all.

lol that post has taken me 3 hours to do amongst my work lmao (i hope it answers the question!)


@ KZS_Tartarus no i dont mind anyone jumping in, thats what a forum is about. Its more fun when everyone gives their opinions! I will have a look through later on.