General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned -Dave
Posted by:
John Griffiths
()
Date: June 06, 2001 05:18PM
<HTML>I had to respond to this post!
Firstly, you would never get a command, with all due respect. Why? Mainly because you allow emotion to over rule common sense – and that means you would risk the lives of each and every one of your crew because you did not consider the risks beforehand. Unfortunately, in war, there is no room for emotion. If you can give quarter, all well and good – but never at the risk of those under you. You serve your Queen and country for sure – but you also owe it to every man jack who serves alongside you.
Incidents of ships torpedoed whilst picking up survivors? HMS Grafton was torpedoed whilst going to the aid of HMS Wakeful at Dunkirk. The torpedoing vessel was U-62.
As for ‘fair and equitable consideration’, take the case of the Empire Howard of HX231. Sunk by U-403, three survivors were picked up by HMS Snowflake. The rest were killed in the water by depth charges fired by the trawler Northern Wave which was hunting for the U-boat. Snowflake did not stop – she put down nets and steamed slowly past the survivors. To stop would have been to suffer the fate of many of the ships on that convoy.
You said that you would stop.
>>Sorry Brian as it\'s maybe my soft mentality\'but i would risk my ship to pick up all survivors. Even today the Bismark survivors say that it was revenge for the Hood that made the British abandon the rest of the crew in the water. <<
You would not stop – if you did, you could be charged with wilfully endangering the lives of your crew and the vessel herself. As for the Bismark, many veterans of Dunkirk recall the way the Luftwaffe machine gunned survivors in the water. War is a two sided thing. Emotions ran high on both sides.
>>Anyway maybe it\'s just me\'but i would risk my crew and ship to rescue my own enemy from a grusome death.<<
Many rescue ships – ships equipped to recover survivors – were sunk because, despite their humanitarian purpose, they allowed the enemy to continue the fight. Therefore, they were legitimate targets for both sides. A dead man is one less in the line against you.
Kurt’s post is particularly good on this score.
>>The commander in this case exersized his judgement in not stopping - he probably had the right to not follow his orders if he felt it was operationaly dangerous or innappropriate - commanders are generally given some latitude in how to carry out their orders, balancing their responsibilities to accomplish their main mission, and to safeguard their crew and ship. <<
That judgement was an uneasy balance; risk the ship and her crew – or carry the fight on.
>>Weddingen, in WWI, opened up the sub era by sinking three warships in a row, two of whom were at a dead stop to rescue the victims of his first sinking. People learned: never stop when subs are known or thought to be in the area.<<
This is accurate. To stop knowing there were U-boats or enemy ships in the area, was to not take a calculated risk – it was suicide. You have to remember that being at constant action stations exerts a heavy toll on men. When action stations sound there is the release of so much pent-up emotion and very little thought. Rationality comes second to the job in hand – and, as is the case of the trawler Northern Light, the task was to kill the U-boat that was sinking ships – there would be time later, maybe, to pick up men in the water.
Dave, don’t make statements based on emotion! With all due respect, conditions during an action are never cut and dried. Again, with all due respect, unless you have experienced the press of intense action you will never know how you will react. I saw men who had plenty of tough things to say in shoreside bars, and who swaggered around like hard men, cry like kids when the metal started flying. Some wet their pants. Many switched off and did what they were trained to do and all of us were scared. It is easy with hindsight to say you would do many things but – trust me – your thoughts at the time are selfish.
Given the choice of picking up my enemy and risking my ship, or killing the enemy and then picking up what’s left I would have to say I’d go for the latter.
At the end of the day, however odious it might sound, war is not fair. You make the best of it – but never, ever without calculation and thought of the risks involved beforehand.
Aye,
John
</HTML>
Firstly, you would never get a command, with all due respect. Why? Mainly because you allow emotion to over rule common sense – and that means you would risk the lives of each and every one of your crew because you did not consider the risks beforehand. Unfortunately, in war, there is no room for emotion. If you can give quarter, all well and good – but never at the risk of those under you. You serve your Queen and country for sure – but you also owe it to every man jack who serves alongside you.
Incidents of ships torpedoed whilst picking up survivors? HMS Grafton was torpedoed whilst going to the aid of HMS Wakeful at Dunkirk. The torpedoing vessel was U-62.
As for ‘fair and equitable consideration’, take the case of the Empire Howard of HX231. Sunk by U-403, three survivors were picked up by HMS Snowflake. The rest were killed in the water by depth charges fired by the trawler Northern Wave which was hunting for the U-boat. Snowflake did not stop – she put down nets and steamed slowly past the survivors. To stop would have been to suffer the fate of many of the ships on that convoy.
You said that you would stop.
>>Sorry Brian as it\'s maybe my soft mentality\'but i would risk my ship to pick up all survivors. Even today the Bismark survivors say that it was revenge for the Hood that made the British abandon the rest of the crew in the water. <<
You would not stop – if you did, you could be charged with wilfully endangering the lives of your crew and the vessel herself. As for the Bismark, many veterans of Dunkirk recall the way the Luftwaffe machine gunned survivors in the water. War is a two sided thing. Emotions ran high on both sides.
>>Anyway maybe it\'s just me\'but i would risk my crew and ship to rescue my own enemy from a grusome death.<<
Many rescue ships – ships equipped to recover survivors – were sunk because, despite their humanitarian purpose, they allowed the enemy to continue the fight. Therefore, they were legitimate targets for both sides. A dead man is one less in the line against you.
Kurt’s post is particularly good on this score.
>>The commander in this case exersized his judgement in not stopping - he probably had the right to not follow his orders if he felt it was operationaly dangerous or innappropriate - commanders are generally given some latitude in how to carry out their orders, balancing their responsibilities to accomplish their main mission, and to safeguard their crew and ship. <<
That judgement was an uneasy balance; risk the ship and her crew – or carry the fight on.
>>Weddingen, in WWI, opened up the sub era by sinking three warships in a row, two of whom were at a dead stop to rescue the victims of his first sinking. People learned: never stop when subs are known or thought to be in the area.<<
This is accurate. To stop knowing there were U-boats or enemy ships in the area, was to not take a calculated risk – it was suicide. You have to remember that being at constant action stations exerts a heavy toll on men. When action stations sound there is the release of so much pent-up emotion and very little thought. Rationality comes second to the job in hand – and, as is the case of the trawler Northern Light, the task was to kill the U-boat that was sinking ships – there would be time later, maybe, to pick up men in the water.
Dave, don’t make statements based on emotion! With all due respect, conditions during an action are never cut and dried. Again, with all due respect, unless you have experienced the press of intense action you will never know how you will react. I saw men who had plenty of tough things to say in shoreside bars, and who swaggered around like hard men, cry like kids when the metal started flying. Some wet their pants. Many switched off and did what they were trained to do and all of us were scared. It is easy with hindsight to say you would do many things but – trust me – your thoughts at the time are selfish.
Given the choice of picking up my enemy and risking my ship, or killing the enemy and then picking up what’s left I would have to say I’d go for the latter.
At the end of the day, however odious it might sound, war is not fair. You make the best of it – but never, ever without calculation and thought of the risks involved beforehand.
Aye,
John
</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
crew of U-470 abandoned
|
Dave McQueen | 06/05/2001 08:12PM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned
|
Brian Corijn | 06/05/2001 09:03PM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned
|
Dave McQueen | 06/06/2001 07:04AM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned
|
Steve Cooper | 06/06/2001 12:27PM |
|
RE: USS Juneau
|
Rainer Bruns | 06/06/2001 01:03PM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned
|
becorijn@zeelandnet.nl | 06/06/2001 01:14PM |
|
USS Juneau
|
Michael Lowrey | 06/06/2001 02:41PM |
|
RE: USS Juneau
|
Michael Lowrey | 06/06/2001 03:22PM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned
|
Rainer Bruns | 06/06/2001 01:11PM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned
|
Steve | 06/06/2001 01:29PM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned -Dave
|
John Griffiths | 06/06/2001 05:18PM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned -Dave
|
Ted Agar | 06/06/2001 07:29PM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned -Dave
|
Tom Iwanski | 06/06/2001 07:59PM |
|
in defense of Mush
|
kurt | 06/06/2001 08:55PM |
|
RE: in defense of Mush
|
Steve Cooper | 06/07/2001 01:27PM |
|
Mushs first wahoos third
|
kurt | 06/07/2001 03:21PM |
|
RE: in defense of Eck
|
Tim | 06/08/2001 01:44AM |
|
Eck knew he was killing survivors
|
kurt | 06/08/2001 05:05PM |
|
With all due respect John
|
Dave McQueen | 06/07/2001 06:44AM |
|
RE: With all due respect John
|
John Griffiths | 06/07/2001 04:10PM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned
|
Steve | 06/06/2001 12:19AM |
|
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned
|
Joe Brennan | 06/06/2001 06:00AM |
|
RE: other example
|
Rainer Bruns | 06/06/2001 01:06PM |
|
realities of war
|
kurt | 06/06/2001 03:41PM |
|
RE: realities of war
|
Walt | 06/06/2001 10:08PM |
|
RE: realities of war
|
Steve | 06/07/2001 10:02AM |
|
RE: wrong spot, defending Mush
|
Rainer Bruns | 06/06/2001 11:31PM |
|
Mush and Eck
|
kurt | 06/07/2001 04:01AM |
|
RE: Mush and Eck
|
Rainer Bruns | 06/07/2001 11:32AM |
|
RE: Mush and Eck
|
Walt | 06/07/2001 12:04PM |
|
RE: Mush and Eck
|
Steve Cooper | 06/07/2001 01:21PM |
|
RE: Mush and Eck
|
Walt | 06/07/2001 04:59PM |
|
RE: Mush and Eck
|
Tim | 06/08/2001 02:06AM |
|
RE: Mush and Eck
|
Rainer Bruns | 06/07/2001 03:43PM |
|
RE: Mush and Eck
|
Walt | 06/07/2001 04:57PM |
|
different opinions
|
kurt | 06/07/2001 03:56PM |
|
RE: different opinions
|
Rich Mickle | 06/07/2001 11:03PM |
|
RE: different opinions
|
Siri Lawson | 06/08/2001 03:56AM |
|
RE: different opinions
|
Rich Mickle | 06/08/2001 08:51AM |