MovieChat Forums > Das Boot (1982) Discussion > Please help: Point of the 'Coup de Grace...

Please help: Point of the 'Coup de Grace'


I know I'm missing a key point of naval warfare here, so be kind in light of my ignorance.

I didn't understand the point of the Coup de Grace. After the U-Boat torpedoed the 3 ships, it was besieged by a destroyer for what seemed like hours. When they finally can go up top to inspect the damage they wrought, the Captain says "Her backbone is broken. Damn tough ship, won't drown. Let's get to it, 9 [sic] Coup de grace, Flood tube 1."

So...why the finishing blow? It would seem to me that, having survived a harrowing night of bob and weave, boom-booom, they would just lay low. The Coup de grace, in this case, seems to:

1. Make it clear to any Allied ships that the U-Boat is still around causing trouble;
2. Expend an additional torpedo (they might need later) on an already critically damaged ship;
3. Have no appreciable "finishing" effect, except the dramatic plot device of showing burning sailors jumping into the sea for a horrific moral dilemma.

Afterall, it's not a body where a final shot might put a dying man out of his misery. Or is it. Did they need it sunk more quickly to draw attention OFF the area?

Like I said, I KNOW I'm missing this because my knowledge of war tactics is sparse at best. And it's not a big deal, nor does it detract in any way from my love for this movie. It's the only real "head-scratcher" for me, and I'd appreciate any guidance or thoughts.

~Suse


"Wagner's music is better than it sounds" ~ Mark Twain

reply

If not completely sunk, the vessel could have been towed to port and salvaged, or even the cargo salvaged. Also the vessel would be a hazard to navigation.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

And a light goes on. Thanks, CGSailor. While the ship seemed beyond salvage, I didn't think about cargo, munitions, etc. I figured it would eventually sink and not be a navigational problem, but it makes sense to get it out of the way as soon as possible.

Thanks again,
~S.

"Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have. It is the very last inch of us. But within that inch we are free."
~~~ V For Vendetta

reply

There were (are) Ocean Going Tugs just for that purpose. It happened fairly often during the war, where merchants were struck by U boats, abandoned but, didnt sink and later got salvaged. There was movie in the 50s with William Holden and Sophia Loren, called The Key, Holden's character plays a Salvage Tug Captain that does just this.

I used to have a USN Salvage Manual that mentions how many vessels were salvaged afloat during WW2, the numbers were in the high hundreds, though not all were necessarily abandoned due to U Boat damage, most were.

I would add, its also very bad luck. Some old school trains of thought think it a curse. In the Age of Sail you either sank your opponent or you took the vessel as a prize. Leaving it adrift, was akin to creating a ghost that would always follow you and give bad luck or worse. In the 19th and even into the early 20th Century, there were literally hundred of derelicts floating around the Atlantic alone. Why did they let them just keep drifting? Well there were of course efforts to salvage them, not only for safety but for profit. But most people didnt want to touch them, because they considered ghost ships.

reply

Wow, MinisterofSorrow, I appreciate that post on at least two levels:

1. It was very illuminating. I didn't know about tugs/other craft designated for salvage during wartime.
2. I love the spooky, and there's nothing, IMO, like knowing how folklore/ghostly tales originated. Thanks for the info about why ships left adrift were certainly a nuisance, but might seem even more sinister.


Time to dig out some of my ghost story collections. Practically every one has a scary tale of the sea (about ghostly ships like the "Dutchman," or ghostly crews) - yikes. I guess the sea - and life on or near it - can still prove fascinating and mysterious.


"I sent my soul through the invisible, some letter of the after-life to spell:
And by and by my soul returned to me, and answered, 'I myself am Heaven and Hell.'" ~ "The Rubaiyat,"

reply

The Flying Dutchman has roots in the real world. That story and many of the ghost ship stories come about because of that same superstitous nature that the Captain in Das Boot had. Even the most skeptical, technocratic commanders Ive seen at sea still believe in some of these nautical superstitions. I do too. So much so that it is unconscience and I dont even think of it as superstitious, its almost practical.

reply

Hey, MinisterofS., I appreciate the insight into the Dutchman, and that kind of lore in general. I think a great many so-called superstitions and legends stem from a practical response to a given situation, perhaps not well-understood at the time, but no less valid. If I had the option of completely scuttling a ship or leaving it to become a ghost ship sailed by a spectral crew, I'd scuttle away! But, as was said previously, one practical need for this is to avoid the potential disaster a derelict ship can pose to other vessels. I can see how ghost stories reinforce the practice, and I'll bet the scarier the better.

And, practical or not, I think Hamlet (a ghost-haunted dude himself) reminded us:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

There's plenty out there beyond my apprehension. For me, it's the pondering and imagining that keeps life interesting.

Thanks for the update, thought-provoking and informative.

~Suse

"Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax." ~ Schopenhauer

reply

What confused me about that scene, was why the crew would use a torpedo to sink the damaged freighter. You would think that they would have used the 88mm deck gun instead.. I just never got why they would expend a valuable torpedo, rather then just shoot off an 88mm shell into the freighter's waterline. I know in WWI, oftentimes, the U Boats would sink vessels with their deck guns, if given the chance.

reply

The cases you are referring to where the Crew used their 88... Was on ships that were independent steaming, not part of an escorted convoy. Also the ships were generally smaller. Even though a merchant vessel and not up to military specs for damage control etc... it takes a lot of deck gun fire to sink a large vessel.

This vessel was part of a Convoy. It may have been abandoned and left behind... it may be that the convoy sailed on to clear the danger area and once past that, an escort or two may double back to look for survivors. Not likely but the U-boat crew has no way of knowing. Using the Deck gun Means an extended and vulnerable time on the surface where they would be announcing their position to any escorts that might be nearby with every shot they take.

A single torpedo in this case is the safer bet, especially considering that so far they have had few opportunities to be expending any eels otherwise.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Give a bit of way for the film media to 'the truth'
A torpedo-blast looks much better on film than than that from a lousy 88-mm shell. I don't know how much explosives a 88-mm shell contained. But certainly much less than the torpedoes (appr. 280 kgs).
The 'Special Effects Manager had wanted a big blast for a relatively small sum. And they tell that he used a big portion of the money for blasts in that scene.
Whether it is likely or not that they would use a torpedo to sink a severely damaged ship - that blast really looks magnificent. A bit like the end scene of Leone's Duck You, Sucker.

reply

Der Alte and Thomsen (and all the other U-Boat Aces) had won their Ritterkreuze after a good many sinkings - or may be after a particular sinking - so as Günther Prien for intruding Scapa Flow and sinking Battleship Royal Oak.

The Ritterkreuz gave glory to the whole crew, and if Der Alte had won the Oak Leaves to it the whole crew most likely would have been sent back to Germany for R&R in the Alp Mountains.

And decorations were given for sinkings - not for 'probables'

reply

"and if Der Alte had won the Oak Leaves to it the whole crew most likely would have been sent back to Germany for R&R in the Alp Mountains."

Most likely not during the timeframe of Das Boot. Maybe in 1939 or 1940 but not from 1941 on. Flotilla's were losing boats regularly and yet they were increasing mission optempos. Flotilla's used rotations for patrols. Each U-Boat was on a 1 in 3 rotation. Had the Flotilla lost a boat during that U-Boats rotation, it likely would rotate to a patrol early to replace the lost boat. They slightly hint at this in Das Boot, when Thomsen meets up with them accidentally mid patrol. He had just recieved the Knight's Cross and he was back out again shortly thereafter, the book speaks on it in more detail.

Reinhard Hardegen for example. He recieved his Knights Cross and Oakleaves in addition to it within a span of 4 months. Upon recieving the KC, coming off a patrol, 14 days later he was back on patrol. But that 14 Days was nearly all refit. Upon completion of the succeeding patrol and recieving the Oak Leaves, he proceeded on another patrol 21 days later after refit. During his 14 month command of U-123 from mid 41 to mid 42 he conducted 4 war patrols, the last 180 days of which he spent 140 days on patrol. Most U-Boats of that period mirrored U-123 in patrol frequency, the ones that werent sunk that is.

As for the Knight's Cross reflecting on the crew, its true in theory. But officially the crew individually didn't recieve any part of it. As for the sense of pride, by mid 1941 crews wanted nothing to do with skippers who sought decorations, quite the opposite. Some skippers would not settle for coming off a patrol without tonnage, so they took increasing risks in order to do so. Crews wanted to come back. They wanted to do their part but, they wanted to come back. If they went out with a skipper that sought decorations, they knew they had less than a 50/50 chance of coming back. Crews wanted to go out with skippers that didnt take initiative or seek the glory. Which there were many. But by the time of Das Boot, even the skippers who didnt go balls to the wall were going down. This opinion comes from Hardegen himself, I listened to him speak at a NATO Event during Baltops over a decade ago in Germany.

Using Hardegen again as an example, his Iron Cross came on a patrol in which he had a 'probability' kill. A Kill which was later deemed not a kill, as it was salvaged afloat by the RN. His Knight's Cross came on a patrol where he sank 10 ships. His Oakleaves came on the following patrol after sinking 10 more. The only reason he didnt get thrown back into the breach was that he was medically unfit and was relgated to training. He said had he not been frail from (I forget if was an Aircraft Crash or Vehicle Crash), that he most likely would not have survived the war. He also said that his 'Ritterkreuz' meant little to him while he was losing so many friends.

reply

Hardegen started his career as a Pilot in training but a crash cut short his flying days. He transfered to Submarines where he was able to slip past the medical boards, Hardegen was medically unfit for subs from day 1 but he managed to get by time after time. He had an enternal bleed from some wound that never quite healed right.

Hardegens unfit for U-Boat duty caugh up with him right about the time of America's entry into the war and Doenitz needed experianced commanders. His final two patrols to American waters as part of operation Drumbeat was his send off.

Hadegen was not afraid to speak his mind at all. After his U-boat days were over he was invided to dine (along with another U-Boat ace, Erich Topp) with not other than Der Fuhrer himself. Hardegen spoke long and loud over Hitler's not giving enough importance and priority to the U-boat arm. Adolf was livid red with anger. Hardegen recieve a reprimand from Jodl, Hitler's Chief of Staff. Hardegen replied, "The Fuhrer has a right to hear the truth, and I have a duty to speak it."

Drumbeat, by Michael Gannon, is an excellent read on operation Paukenschlag. It goes into great detail not only about the operation as a whole, but much of it is a war diary of Hardegen and U-Eins Zwei Drei's (U-123) two Drumbeat patrols.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

He is a very interesting guy. Its interesting also to think of what would have been if he started training crews earlier, and the impact it would have had. He is very much considered today by the German Navy in the same regards as Rickover is in the USN. Most of the Doctrine at the Sub School is based on Hardegen. I took a tour of a modern U-Boat and the German School when we pulled into Kiel as part of a Baltops. He was speaking at the school. I was never really interested in subs before that trip.

reply

If you still care about seemingly lost torpedoed ships, you may watch the San Demetrio period movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039797/

reply

Actually, they should've used the deck-gun. There were no escorts around, so they had all the time in the world. And those shells are much cheaper and they carry a lot more of them than torpedoes. Other than that, the sinking made perfect sense. Their job was to destroy enemy ships, not just damage them.


S.

reply

Even without escorts in view that doesnt mean they couldnt suddenly appear. On the surface using the deck gun they would be vulnerable in the sense that they would not be able to use their hydrophone to detect any incoming escorts. Having said that, depending on the circumstances, using the deck gun to finish off the merchant could take a lot of time and ammunition. The other notion to think about is that the merchant could also be armed. As the Battle of the Atlantic progressed more and more merchants were self arming. Some were even hiding armament. The safe thing to do in 1941 would be to finish the ship off while submerged with a torpedo. In 1939 or even 1940 it would be an easier call to use the deck gun.

I am the motherf&*%in Shore Patrol As^&*%#!

reply

Airplanes ambushing u-boats caught on the surface is one of the biggest causes of loss and since the film is portraying a period after things were safe for them to stay on the surface all day long this is a more reasonable choice.

reply

If you listen to the DVD commentary during this scene, Wolfgang Peterson, Jurgen Prochnow and a few of the other actors are discussing the scene and they seem to think it's a bit silly too.

"... very unusual as they only had sixteen torpedoes. I guess they needed extra room. *chuckle*"

"... oh yeah. They were really happy to get rid of it. *snort*"

Maybe Peterson just felt it was necessary, for the sake of the narrative, that the men on the ship are seen to die at our u-boat crew's hands. So he figured he would use artistic license.

reply

Did you bother to read any of the following replies to the OP or did you just post your own straight away after reading the OP?

Artistic License? WTF... It has already been explained by several of us who have served in the Navy as to why the coup de grace. There are plenty of valid reasons and none of them are 'artistic license'.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Did you bother to read any of the following replies to the OP or did you just post your own straight away after reading the OP?


Nah. Far more interested in what I have to say.

reply

Never met a person interested in bullsh!t. Except a few alternative "green" energy guys trying to build a methane plant.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Whoo! Nasty!

Chillax. It's just a film.

reply

Well what do you expect when some no-nothing in love with the sound of his own voice gainsays those who know better.

it's not about it being "just a film"
it's about a no-nothing thinking he knows better than those who lived the life.
In that regard you can be considered to throw the first "Nasty"

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

"... oh yeah. They were really happy to get rid of it. *snort*"


Slightly OT here, but: From what I've read, the enlisted men *were* actually looking forward to torpedoes being expended. The boats were very cramped and the torpedoes were huge - each one gone meant more room for the crew.


S.

reply

Well, maybe, if enough targets were available. I seriously doubt they'd be firing torpedoes left and right just to make room though.

The best reason I can think of is making the kill 100%. Salvage aside (and that was no small part), having enough eye-witnesses of the account makes your claim valid or more valid (in the case the superiors are a bit skeptical of what subordinates report to them).

There are enough accounts of damaged ships, warships or merchant ones, making to long distances and actually being repaired and reused. The one example I can think of right now was the S.S. Jeddah incident that inspired the 'Patna incident' in "Lord Jim" (the Joseph Conrad novel), which did happen in the Indian Ocean during 1880. Another incident was "suffered" by the Kriegsmarine themselves when U-110 was left afloat AFTER its own crew tried to scuttle it resulting in the Royal Navy obtaining an Enigma machine and code books from that very submarine.

Sometimes you NEED to send that extra torpedo ;)



Cute and cuddly boyz!!

reply

Well, maybe, if enough targets were available. I seriously doubt they'd be firing torpedoes left and right just to make room though.

He wasn't trying to claim the Crew were wasting torpedoes just to make room, simply that the crew was glad when a few were gone so they had the extra room to bunk down. Which is true.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Good question. My opinion is that:

- If not sunk immediately, the ship could have drawn more Allied destroyers to the area.
- For torpedo, you are right. In my opinion, U-Boot commander would certainly finish off that ship with his deck gun. Wasting precious torpedo on already dead ship would be too expensive. Deck gun was very important weapon for U-Boots. Many U-Boot aces sunk merchant ships using entirely their deck gun.

reply

- If not sunk immediately, the ship could have drawn more Allied destroyers to the area.

The Allies already know where it's at as it was part of a convoy. If they were going to come back for it they would regardless of whether they sunk it or not because they would have no way of knowing it was sunk til after they went back. If it was a matter of not drawing attention back on them as you insinuate, they would be better served using the time to "clear datum" as we say... Getting clear of the area.

Your Opinion, is not based in any knowledgeable experience nor is it tactically sound.

- For torpedo, you are right. In my opinion, U-Boot commander would certainly finish off that ship with his deck gun. Wasting precious torpedo on already dead ship would be too expensive. Deck gun was very important weapon for U-Boots. Many U-Boot aces sunk merchant ships using entirely their deck gun.

It depends on the circumstances. Against a lone ship caught in the open ocean with little likelihood of a naval escort showing up... Yes. they would prefer the deck gun over wasting a torpedo.

But that is NOT the case here. An escort from the convoy could show up at any moment. they did not have the luxury of using the deck gun in such circumstances.
Again... your "opinion" is not tactically sound and demonstrates an ignorance of the subject matter on your part.

It would not be the first time either. What with your claim that the straits were too shallow and a submerged sub risked running aground, or that at full speed, the subs batteries wouldn't be drained in minutes flat.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Your confusion is understandable. The fact is, no U-boat captain would have even wasted a torpedo, let alone risked detection by surfacing nearby and firing another torpedo. This was all for dramatic effect.

I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke.

reply

The fact is, no U-boat captain would have even wasted a torpedo, let alone risked detection by surfacing nearby and firing another torpedo.

Actually they would have, and historically DID.
Which settles the matter of you being flat wrong.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

I don't think a U-boat captain ever fired a torpedo at a tanker that was not only fully engulfed with fire, but clearly had a broken keel and was completely unsalvageable.

And your blue text doesn't exactly settle the matter.

I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke.

reply

So.. you prefer to go with your ignorant opinion than historical facts...

ummm OK.

Some people just want to be idiots.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Uh huh.

A U-boat only has one defense, and it's being hidden. The idea that a U-boat captain would surface near a flaming wreck, while destroyers were looking for him, to fire a torpedo into a ship that was clearly a total loss, is idiotic.

Why did you make your text blue, by the way? It looks like a link to prove your point, but it's not a link. It's... bizarre.

But since I'm curious, why would he do this? What would be the point? He's risking his boat to... accomplish what? U-Boat captains didn't risk their boats with no hope of reward.

I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke.

reply

But since I'm curious, why would he do this? What would be the point? He's risking his boat to... accomplish what?


All this has already been explained. Several times in fact by not only me, but several others as well.

Scroll up and READ the posts.
I am not going to repost the same thing over and over again when you wont even read it the first damned time.

As I said... Some people want to be ignorant.






I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Yeah, I saw your genius response.

"If not completely sunk, the vessel could have been towed to port and salvaged, or even the cargo salvaged. Also the vessel would be a hazard to navigation."

A. Are you suggesting an oil tanker that has a broken keel and is completely engulfed in flames could be salvaged? Please clarify this point, Brain Man. It would have been a miracle if it were still floating in 6 hours.

B. A hazard to navigation? So the U-Boat skipper was concerned the ship might be a hazard to ships bringing war material to England? The U-Boat captain wanted to make sure the British got all the munitions they could?

If you're going to keep suggesting I'm stupid, you need to up your game. Your explanations are idiotic.

I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke.

reply

My game is up. It is your Dunning-Kruger that is getting in the way of your understanding.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

And the fact that you were apparently in the Navy, and think that makes you an expert on submarine warfare in World War II, that is getting in the way of yours.

I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke.

reply

No. The fact that I have studied the historical accounts, does.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205143265

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/12062


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

"If not completely sunk, the vessel could have been towed to port and salvaged, or even the cargo salvaged. Also the vessel would be a hazard to navigation."

A. Are you suggesting an oil tanker that has a broken keel and is completely engulfed in flames could be salvaged? Please clarify this point, Brain Man. It would have been a miracle if it were still floating in 6 hours.

B. A hazard to navigation? So the U-Boat skipper was concerned the ship might be a hazard to ships bringing war material to England? The U-Boat captain wanted to make sure the British got all the munitions they could?


Yeah, points A & B are exactly my immediate thoughts in response, as well.
Makes no sense. Why risk being detected when the vessel was clearly on its deathbed? And if it was standard operating practice to always wait around to make sure the target had been completely sunk, then wouldn't the enemy destroyer(s) also expect that the sub would still be hanging around hours later waiting to make sure that the ship did sink?

Seemed to me more a reflection of a character flaw (a kind of hubris) employed for dramatic effect in the story.

reply

Navy Man presents two cases where the ships were very close to port, and not on fire. I hate to call people idiots here, and I only do it when they start it.

He's an idiot.

I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke.

reply

The German Kriegsmarine had a standing order to sink tankers at any cost, as they were considered high priority targets.
If a UBoat commander would find a tanker which was crippled by him or an other Uboat before he surely would give it the coup de grace or Fangschuss (the German Naval term for it).
A few examples:
During the attack on Convoy ON 127 a tanker was crippled by U 659 and and about 5 hrs later sunk by Fangschuss from U 584 while u 659 was chased and depth charged by the convoys escorts, forcing u 659 to leave the scene heavily damaged.

Also during the attack on convoy SL 127 a tanker crippeld by U 659 was sunk roughly 90 minutes later by two torpedoes from U 409.

Also the coup de grace was used against targets of opportunity like troop transports as the mostly were targets of high tonnage.
Again some examples: At 08.44 hours on 14 Nov 1942 the troop transport Warwick Castle (20107 GRT) in convoy MKF-1X was hit by one of two torpedoes from U-413 about 200 miles northwest of Cape Espichel, Portugal. The U-boat hit her with two coups de grace at 08.57 hours, that caused the ship to sink about one hour later.

On 26 Oct 1940 the unescorted Empress of Britain (42,348 GRT) was struck by two 250kg bombs from a German Fw200 Condor aircraft of the 2./KG 40 about 70 miles northwest of Aran Island, County Donegal, Ireland.
Most of the crew and passengers abandoned ship, leaving only a skeleton crew on board and were picked up by HMS Echo, the armed trawler HMS Cape Arcona and the polish destroyer ORP Burza, which took the ship in tow until she was relieved by HMS Marauder and HMS Thames on passage to the Clyde. Later the tugs HMS Seaman and HMS Raider also participated in the salvage operation.

The salvage convoy, making roughly four knots, was escorted by HMS Broke and HMS Sardonyx and had air cover from Sunderland flying boats during daylight. On 2.05am, 28 October, 1940 two of three torpedoes fired by U-32 which followed the convoy for almost 24 hours, struck the Empress of Britain and sank her northwest of Bloody Foreland, County Donegal, Ireland.
U-32 was hunted by Royal Navy Destroyers for two days and sunk after severe depth chargings on 30th October 1942 with 9 men KIA and 33 becoming POW.





------------
Have you seen Robocop? Many people don't know that it's actually a documentary.

reply