MovieChat Forums > U-571 (2000) Discussion > Germans didn't shoot survivors

Germans didn't shoot survivors


Foot notes at the end of this movie went out of their way to give the british credit for capturing the enigma code machine, but why wasn't there a foot note explaining that german u-boat sailors did not shoot survivors? Here is something I bet nobody ever read in a history book, in September 1942, the U-156 sank the british steamliner(converted to a military ship) the RMS Laconia off the coast of Africa, once the german u-boat commander discovered that there was civilians on board he immediately started a rescue operation, 3 others u-boats came and they started towing the life boats. The german commander radioed the british to inform them and asked for assitance. American B-24 bombers from a secret atlantic island base showed up, the german commander with "Red Cross flags" flying from the german u-boats signaled the B-24's for assitance. The B-24's turned and than started dropping bombs on the u-boats, the u-boats immediately cut the tow lines and dived for safety, as a result half of the survivors died. German Admiral Karl Doenitz than forbad any more assitance to surviors. The survivors from the second incident were always grateful for the german assitance and blamed the Americans for what happened.

google "Laconia incident"

reply

...but why wasn't there a foot note explaining that german u-boat sailors did not shoot survivors?

Some did though, and there is documented evidence for it.
e.g. One German U-boat veteran on one documentary said that while his first Captain was a decent man who fought honorably, his next Captain fired upon survivors without any compunction. It really depended on the U-boat's skipper whether they did so or not, some were rabid Nazis after all.

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."

reply

The RN did it too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Miers

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

reply

As did everyone else. It wasn't always possible to rescue them.

reply

the laconia was before the Germans started wholesale killing of sailors in the water. As far as the isolated incident of a case in the Royal Navy, the person was prosecuted by the RN, as oppsed to being ordered to kill sailors and civilian passengers in the water as was the case with the German Navy.

reply

You are either a troll, utterly ignorant, or didn't bother to read ANY of the posts that came before your moron a$$.

Germans did NOT engage in wholesale slaughter of Sailors in the water.
They were never ORDERED to do so.

As with the British AND American navies... it only happened a few isolated times.

Other than your stating "Yes they did too"... post the relevant facts to support your bullsh!t claim.
You can't. because it's untrue.
dumba$$


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

reply

There is a whole thread on the Laconia Incident over on the Das Boot Board.


And while Germans shooting up survivors was primarily an American/British propaganda tool and for the most part untrue... Your claim of it NOT happening is so much bullsh*t.
It did happen several times.

In March 1944 the Greek vessel Peleus was in the South Atlantic en-route from Freetown to Buenos Aires. Her crew was mostly Greek, but it included eight British nationals. On the night of 13 March she was sunk by two torpedoes fired by U-852 under the command of Heinz-Wilhelm Eck. Eck's orders were to proceed on war patrol to the Indian Ocean. However, the Greek vessel represented too tempting a target for him to pass. Possibly 15 of the 35 man crew of the Peleus survived the sinking.16 They were left clinging to liferafts and wreckage. The submarine surfaced and two men were taken aboard for interrogation. They were returned to a raft following brief questioning about the name of the ship and details of her voyage. Remarkably, and uniquely in terms of the German submarine service in the Second World War, for the next five hours (until approximately 1am on the following morning) the submarine cruised through the debris field on the surface of the ocean. Machine gun fire and grenades were directed at liferafts and larger pieces of floating wreckage. In the process survivors were killed. Whether they, or the liferafts, were the primary target of the gunfire and grenades was uncertain. To practical effect they were one and the same. Four men survived the attack, although one was to die later as a result of his wounds. The men were picked up on 20 April. Less than two weeks later, on 2 May U-852 was sunk in the Indian Ocean and her crew made prisoner. Eck was amongst the survivors. With his British captors aware of the Peleus killings and also the existence of the Laconia order a case was assembled against Eck, and some of his subordinates who had taken part in the atrocity.


Machinegunning of survivors was a very very rare incident but it did happen. On the whole. German Sub commanders acted within the utmost responsibility when it came to survivors even in the face of orders to the contrary. After the Laconia incident, orders were given (The Laconia Orders) that sub commanders were to no longer assist in any way, survivors of their sinkings. Sub Commanders pretty much ignored the orders and continued as before.

Like Military Naval sailors of all Nations... once the enemy is sunk, the crew is no longer an Enemy Crew but Fellow sailors in destress upon the sea.

Even in the US there is an incident of OUR sub commanders machine gunning the enemy in the water. The incident happened by one of our greatest Sub Commanders of all time with several subordinate officers who themselves went on to be some of our most decorated Sub heroes of all time.

Dudley "Mush" Morton in Command of USS Wahoo, along with his XO Richard "Dick" O'Kane (who later commanded USS Tang) and George Grider (Who also went on to command a great sub) were put in a position where they had to machine gun enemy soldiers in the water. They had torpedoed the troop transport that was carrying Japanese Marines to Guadalcanal. 1000's of Japanese fighting soldiers went into the water and within easy swimming distance of several atolls. They very easily could be rescued by their own forces and be reintroduced into the fight against our Marines in the Solomons. So the order was given to destroy all rafts and lifeboats and any wrexkage that could have been used for floatation. They took pains not to shoot at the men themselves but obviously many were hit regardless.


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

reply

And while Germans shooting up survivors was primarily an American/British propaganda tool and for the most part untrue... Your claim of it NOT happening is so much bullsh*t.
It did happen several times.



No it didn't happen several times. The SS Peleus is the ONLY recorded incident of a U-boat attacking survivors. The U-852 was on a secret mission, when Capt Eck saw all the wreakage after the Peleus was sunk he was afraid it would give away the U-852's posistion. So the order was given to destroy the wreakage. No different what the USS Wahoo did. Later the U-852 sank the freighter SS Dahomian and left the area immediately, I think Captain Eck's conscience got to him and did not want to see helpless sailors die again. Captain Eck paid the ultimate price after the war and was executed along with 2 other crew members for the Peleus incident. Why were no US military officers executed for attacking ships flying "Red Cross" flags across their bows and causing the deaths of civilians in the "Laconia incident"?

reply

No it didn't happen several times. The SS Peleus is the ONLY recorded incident of a U-boat attacking survivors.


wrong.
I suggest you read up on another U-Boat Ace... Erich Topp(U-552) and the sinking of the SS David H. Atwater

Herbert, Brian (2005). The Forgotten Heroes: The Heroic Story of the United States Merchant Marine. Tom Doherty Associates. pp. 55.
"The crew was not given any chance to abandon ship, and when they tried to do so, their lifeboats were riddled by machine gun fire."





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

reply

Regarding the U-552, in the early part of WWII U-boats deemed that some targets were too easy and rather than waste a torpedo, they would sink the ship with schell fire and machine gun fire. The attack of the SS David H. Atwater was a night attack, with visibility way down, it comes into question when did it stop being a military target and become a turkey shoot. I find it interesting that the U-552's commander Captain Topp was never charged like Captain Eck of the U-852. Captain Eck was hung. Captain Topp went on to become an Admiral in Germany's post war navy. Interesting side note, researching this topic. The real S-33 american sub served in the pacific theather, her lone claim to fame is sinking 2 and setting 1 Japaneese sampans on fire off the Aleutian islands. They were small unarmed fishing vessels. One prosecuter at Nuremberg admitted that the Germans fought a much cleaner war at sea, than the Allies.

reply

Regarding U-552 and the sinking of the Atwater...
1) Yes they did use deck guns in order to save torpedoes when they could and the Atwater was just such a case.

2) what you failed to address in your response was that it was MACHINE GUN fire that is in question and that it was SPECIFICALLY directed at crew attempting to launch lifeboats.

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

reply

2) what you failed to address in your response was that it was MACHINE GUN fire that is in question and that it was SPECIFICALLY directed at crew attempting to launch lifeboats.

I did adress it 1) It was a night attack, how do you target a lifeboat in the dark? 2) If the U-552 specifically targeted life boats, why wasn't Captain Topp charged like Captain Eck?

reply

Good post!

reply

good movie bro...

Ok how history works...History is written by the winners so even good Germans/ Nazis were written about badly.

Guarantee that not many people realized about Operation Valkyrie until the movies started to come out...and I don't just mean the Tom Cruise Version.

Now here is how Hollywood works...A movie is written to be the coolest story possible...it doesn't matter how true it is, how historically accurate of anything like that. Just should be the coolest story possible to make the coolest movie possible.

Now U-571 was the coolest they could make the enigma machine story...that's it.

Don't get angry by historical inaccuracies in movies.

First, no movie is ever 100% accurate it wouldn't sell that way.

Second, there is always too much stuff that you need to put in and that doesn't work.

Three, its always about the coolest story.

reply

Thank you, Aces214. Well stated.

reply

..A movie is written to be the coolest story possible...

What are you on? Wildebeest drugs?

reply

True, the Germans did no worse than we or the British did when our subs sank their ships. Our boats had orders not to lend any assistance to survivors, which considering the vulnerability of those subs, makes sense.

reply

" Our boats had orders not to lend any assistance to survivors, which considering the vulnerability of those subs, makes sense."

Even the smallest surface warships could take dozens of rounds before sinking. Just one single hit on a surfaced submarine can render it unable to dive where it will remain outgunned and dozens more hits and sinking is garaunteed!

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

reply

True, the Japanese however were known to shoot survivors. What was even stupider was that no matter how experienced the USN submariners were, the U boats were utterly foreign and it would have taken some training before they could even dive the boat without sinking it! Yet they managed all that and even torpedoed another U boat underwater, no mean feat back then without homing torpedoes or even sonar. It would have been more realistic say if they brought a couple of captured u boatmen along, who, like they were Communists or Jews, decided to turn on the Nazis and help them.

reply

Actually you are wrong there. The American crew's ability to operate the uboat is probably the biggest "incorrectly regarded as a goof " in the film.

As Scotty is wont to say, "You canna change the laws 'o physics! ". Regardless of what country built the boat, all subs at the time had the same basic technology level. To cause a sub to dive, certain things had to happen regardless of it being a uboat or a fleet type sub or even a Japanese I class. Other than the labelling and some differences in layout...a sub is a sub is a sub! You have to insure no open hatches or vents in the boat (white for green).
You had to flood the main ballast tanks (German : Dive tanks), and you had to have the variable ballast tanks trimmed (German : compensation tanks) . Etc...

Basically you are basing your opinion on that matter from a civilian assumption and expectation rather learned or firsthand knowledge.

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

reply

" It would have been more realistic say if they brought a couple of captured u boatmen along, who, like they were Communists or Jews, decided to turn on the Nazis and help them."

It IS realistic as the film shows it. The fault lies in your understanding of the subject matter, not the film.

As to your more realistic alternative....only in you imagination! NOT in anything even remotely resembling this little thing called REALITY! You need to go back to school and crack a history book. A Jew serving as a uboat crewman!?!?!? You ever hear of this little thing called the Holocaust? . Or do think that was unrealistic too?

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

reply

It takes a lot of training, like days, to familiarize even the most experienced submariner with any NEW sub, so they wouldn't be able operate the boat in just five minutes & not sink it. Especially when everything was in German and the one German speaker they had was not even a sailor. Also, not only did the German Navy hide some known Jews, they were not very Nazi, many Jews managed to hide it from everyone. After all, all it took was one Jewish great grand parent to make one a Jew. So one could look like the model Aryan Superman and still be Jewish to the Nazis. Also I mentioned Communists, and there were sleeper and ex Communists in Nazi Germany too. Or since it is fiction, they could have thrown in a regular German or two who were anti-Nazi, whatever??!! So yes, since the whole story was fiction to begin with, bringing along a couple renegade u boatmen is not as implausible as totally inexperienced sailors running a U boat on their own.

reply

" Especially when everything was in German and the one German speaker they had was not even a sailor."

When you cannot even get so basic a fact as that statement correct, how is one to take you serious?

They had TWO speakers aboard and the other one WAS a sailor!


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

reply

God, you are a pompous know-it-all. The movie was not based on any real story, No US or even British naval crew commandeered and sailed a U-Boat. So the other guy's idea of adding a willing German submariner accomplice is just as fictitious as the original story, but it would make it more believable. Or just have one of the prisoners decide to help instead of sabotage. I agree with him, it would take the men a few days to acclimate themselves to a completely foreign boat, especially back then most Americans were ignorant of the Metric system, which sadly is still true.

Furthermore, the only German speaker/reader they had was not even a submariner or a technician. So even if he got all the words correct, he wouldn't understand German technical jargon. My friend is a technical translator in German and French, and while he is not a great speaker of those languages, since he has an engineering background and learned all the phrases and jargon, he is good at translating technical documents that a more fluent conversational translator would not have competence in. Heck, they have even have technical translators from UK English to US English since the idiom is not the same.

reply

frak off troll


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

reply

Take your own advice. Sherlock Holmes you ain't. I can't muster any respect for someone who can't even rebut my points but acts like he is THE expert on U-Boat operations.

reply

I don't need to take my own advice as I am not a troll. You ARE being an ass however.
And again, "Sherlock".. they had TWO speakers, not one. And the second speaker WAS a Submariner.


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

reply

I am not a troll either, but you are worse than a troll. You are an arrogant know it all. Maybe you are smart, even smarter than I. But wise you ain't since wise people know what they don't know and admit it.

The whole story was fiction. There are no real events similar to this one to compare it to. Sure, in theory six people with no experience in a foreign sub could sail it, but long odds are against them. Then not only sail it but sink both an alerted enemy sub & destroyer as well. Come on. that is pure Hollywood fiction. It doesn't mean it was a bad movie, but that was the dumb point of it. Flying an enemy plane or driving a tank would be child's play compared to a sub. Like I said, none of them were versed in technical German and prolly were ignorant of the metric system too.

reply

But wise you ain't since wise people know what they don't know and admit it.

The whole story was fiction.

Hey retard... WHERE did I say this story was real?
Point that out and I'll admit my own ignorance.
Otherwise STFU.



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

reply

Would it help you to accept that you're wrong to know that in REAL LIFE, British and American submariners WERE ABLE to operate captured German uboats with little to no specific training on uboats?
It's true.


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

reply

They had some time to familiarize themselves with them and had all the controls translated, Sure, it would be easier for a submariner to learn a new boat than a novice. But if I remembered correctly, those boats were first towed into a port where they had the luxury of time to learn it. Besides, you need more people to run a boat anyways. There were only about five or six guys aboard, and one of them was a steward and another a non sailor.

reply

You are clearly out of your element with the comment about the steward! Even a black steward would be qualified on every single system aboard the sub just like any other submariner. That is a FACT and not subject to your opinion.

Moving on...
Concerning the matter of luxury of time.
To operate the sub to it's full capacity and capability, yes they needed days as well as a full crew. In that you are correct. Where you fail is that you are not taking into account that they are not doing that.
CREW SIZE: the majority of the crew is redundancy to allow for multiple shifts, and to man additional but noncritical positions. A sub CAN be operated at least for a short time and not to it's fullest capability with a very minimum of crew. Only a handfull of key critical systems must be manned and some of those are positioned so that one man could cover both systems.

TIME: while days may be needed to FULLY FAMILIARIZE themselves with all systems, they only needed a few minutes for the key systems they needed at the moment the moment. A rudder is a rudder. Dive planes are dive planes. An engine order telegraph is just that. You saw them having to figure out the hull opening indicator and which valves controlled the MBTs.
The most critical system would have been the compensation system (to maintain neutral buoyancy)

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

reply

CONT...
The buoyancy system, while important would not have to be immediately figured out for their pressing needs against the enemy sub. The German dive officer would have been maintaining diving trim all along. The subs trim would not have changed all that much during the short interval of capture. The biggest change being absent crew causing the sub to be light overall. They could have pumped some ballast from sea without trying to seek that delicate balance of neutral buoyancy. This would get them close enough to maintain depth with a down angle on the dive planes.
AFTER the attack, they then HAD TIME to familiarize themselves more.

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

reply

Well what would be the minimum of crew members that it would need to be run? Also, the bare minimum assumes they all know that boat well. I realize there is redundancy, that is a given.

Also, are you sure that a black mess steward back then would be trained as a submariner too? Though I realize that is the norm now since I had a couple friends who were mess stewards and cooks aboard nukes and they had to know the basics.

What are they doing? Why do they come here?
Some kind of instinct, memory, what they used to do.

reply

Am I sure about the mess steward and qualifications?
yes
100%
Absolutely
A fact not subject to your opinion.

All sailors must qualify to remain as a submariner! This is NOT some recent addition from a time just before your friends serving but has been the rule since before WW2.
As to exactly how many is the minimum? I'd be lying if I gave you an exact answer as I have not served aboard an old WW2 boat. I'd be guessing.
But since I have served in the navy and have studied in detail WW2 subs... at least my guess would be an educated one and not a W.A.G. like yours.

Just to operate the boat?
You would at least need a steersman
A planesman (preferably 2 but one could operate both in a pinch.
Someone to monitor and operate the HP air manifolds controlling the various saltwater ballast tanks and vents.
At least one person in the engineering plant (preferably a couple more but like the planesmen, one would do.
It would take a crew to reload torpedoes but only one to line up and fire.
The CO doesn't have to just stand there giving orders either. He can flood or blow a tank just as easily as a dedicated dive officer,or anything else required.
So long as changes to the engines are not needed, the engineer could run aft to assist in the after torpedo room or come forward to control to assist on the flood and blow vents. Whatever is needed.

Sometimes all that is needed is an extra pair of hands and not the brain behind it. In that way even the non-sailor would be helpful acting under the direction of a trained sailor. "When I tell you to... turn this valve ".

The minimum crew you see in the movie, while extreme, is doable. At least for a while. They would be doing without relief or rest/sleep. But remember, they did not plan to be this small a crew. The situation was forced on them and you make do with what you got.

Back to the steward,
Though only my conjecture, I personally think the steward in the film was modeled after a particular real life black steward. His name was Walker and served all 5 war patrols of USS Tang and was lost along with most of the crew when she was sunk of Formosa. He was part of a handful that made an unassisted ascent from 180 feet down but did not survive the ascent. Those that did survive remain the ONLY men to have rescued themselves unassisted from a sunk sub even today. Those men along with a few that went in the water from the bridge on the surface as Tang went under and one other that made it out of the conning tower were the only survivors.

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

reply

"You are clearly out of your element with the comment about the steward! Even a black steward would be qualified on every single system aboard the sub just like any other submariner. That is a FACT and not subject to your opinion."

"Am I sure about the mess steward and qualifications?
yes
100%
Absolutely
A fact not subject to your opinion."

Sorry but I'm going to disagree. Your contention is that a steward would be qualified on every single system aboard the sub just doesn't make sense. You're saying that stewards, whose duties were limited, could operate the torpedo firing systems, communications systems, engines, snorkeling systems, diving planes, trim tanks, periscope, etc, etc; just doesn't make sense.

The Navy offers courses (Nuclear Field "A" School) for enlisted personnel to qualify for sub duty. The Machinist's Mate school is three months, the Electrician's Mate and Electronic Technician's schools are six months and after this there is still more training. The point being that back in the era of a segregated Navy, they weren't providing this level of training to "stewards" who were expected not to be involved in actually operating the sub systems.







reply

You are talking about nukes. On a modern sub, there are the nukes, who get locked up in the engineering spaces, and the 'cones'/'coners' who handle nonnuclear duty. But to give you an example, even the most junior non-nuke sailors on a submarine can draw the basic schematic for the plant.

Qualifying in Submarines has always been and will continue to be one of the most rigorous and exhaustive qualifications in the military. It takes six months to a year on average to complete. Every member of the ship's company must be able to act, alone if necessary, to save the ship. All military personnel assigned to a submarine, regardless of specialty, must make an effort to actively qualify.

I think CG is, if he hasn't mentioned it explicitly, referring to the steward on USS Tang with submarine ace Dick O'Kane, Howard(?) Walker. He was a fully qualified submariner who could perform virtually any watch function on the boat.

In the submarine force, segregation simply wasn't practical. Everyone depended on everyone else for their security and survival.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

He didn't say "...virtually any watch function". He said "qualified on every single system aboard the sub."

In WWII, I find it hard to believe that every steward (the statement above wasn't limited to the steward on USS Tang but made in general) was qualified on EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM aboard a submarine.

"Black Submariners in the United States Navy, 1940-1975" says in its product description "Their roles limited by segregation, black submariners nonetheless were a key element of the “Silent Service” throughout World War II."

reply

Ok, I understand you now.
You are rapidly devolving into an argumentative a$$ quibbling over semantics.
Walker (USS Tang) was not unique among stewards, he was representative!

Yes, blacks were limited in what rates they were allowed into. Steward being one of them.
Even on a sub, blacks were still only stewards.

Submarine duty was unique in that every single individual had to qualify on all systems. This included the stewards.

You need to stop being an argumentative (bleep) and listen to those whose factual knowledge is more than your opinion.

The primary purpose of submarine qualification is to provide for the training of all personnel assigned to a ship in the handling of any emergency that may arise. In order to fulfill this objective, each man serving on a submarine must gain an intimate knowledge of that ship's systems, be able to rig all compartments for all operating conditions including emergencies, and be proficient in the use of damage control equipment kept on board. These requirements are mandatory for all personnel because it is impossible to insure that the best man for a particular function will be available on the scene at the time his services are needed. Each person aboard must be able to initiate immediate corrective action on any emergency in any part of the ship and continue corrective action until assistance arrives.

The first duty of an unqualified man reporting aboard a submarine is to commence the prescribed qualification program. The program is arranged so that the average time required to complete the qualification is seven months. The Commanding Officer may extend this period in unusual or deserving cases. Personnel who do not satisfactorily complete their qualification requirements within a year are permanently separated from the Submarine Service.

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

reply

CONT...

Qualification Process - The study of the submarine, its systems, watch stations, and compartments is accomplished in five steps. a. Study b. Sketching c. Practical Factor Performance d. Examination e. Qualification Review Board

These steps are completed in the following manner:

a. Study The unqualified man reads and studies the material in the Ship's General Information Book and the sections of regulations that apply to an individual system or qualification item.

b. Sketching A sketch of each system is prepared by tracing that system, compartment by compartment, throughout the ship. The sketches show, properly labeled, the following: All working valves and gages. Working pressure and test pressure. Switches and controls. Connections to other systems. Direction of flow. Other components as noted in the individual assignments. Size, capacity, or rating of piping, wiring and components.

The completed sketch is submitted to the system instructor for correction and approval. In discussion, the trainee must demonstrate a working knowledge of the purpose, operation, (including emergency or alternate methods of operation) and the location of the system components.

c. Practical Factor Performance The unqualified man actually operates each system, stands each watch, and rigs each compartment. When a practical factor involves the standing of a watch, it is done under the supervision of a qualified operator. Satisfactory completion of the practical factor requirements are recorded on the qualification training card by the system instructor or regularly assigned watch stander at the watch station.

d. Examination At the completion of each qualification item, the unqualified man is examined by an officer examiner who verifies his mastery of the subject. He presents the officer examiner his corrected sketch of the system signed by the enlisted instructor/examiner, his practical factor item sheet properly completed and is thoroughly examined on the system. When this examination is passed to the satisfaction of the examiner it is recorded on the appropriate place in the item requirement. .

e. Qualification Board Upon completion of the individual requirements, each man prepares himself by thoroughly reviewing all aspects of qualification. A Board of Review composed of designated chief petty officers and petty officers first class will examine each man. Upon successful completion of the examination by the Board of Review, the Qualification Officer will examine each man. Personnel who successfully complete this examination are recommended to be designated:

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

reply

" I find it hard to believe that..."
It does not matter what you find hard or easy to believe. What matters is what is! Not what you believe.
You have two people telling you that this IS how it is. Both are former US Navy. And one of them was a submariner AND an officer!
Tell me, other than pulling the thought out of your a$$ and simply claiming it untrue without any facts to support your contention, tell me where you stand to say we are wrong?

You are the epitome of armchair couchpotato quarterbacking.

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

reply

That book you cite... You latch upon the phrase about their roles limited by segregation like a drowning man for a life-ring. Proof (so you think) of your being correct.

You should have read further:

African-Americans have a distinguished record in American submarines particularly during the Second World War. That record stands in contrast to the difficulties imposed on them by decades of intolerant official government policy. Before the war the government prohibited African-Americans from joining the Navy. When it finally lifted the ban the only rate available to black applicants was in food service, variously called mess attendant, steward, steward mate or officers' cook. During the Second World War these men in the basic rate of steward qualified without difficulty. Here was the irony of their situation - they were officially condemned to what was thought to be a simple rate yet they qualified in submarines which meant that they had to know the complexity of every system on the boat. In actual practice these men served in a variety of submarine jobs including helmsmen, planesmen, gunners, and torpedomen. Officially, they were qualified stewards, but they served their boats in whatever way was needed.

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

reply

" In WWII, I find it hard to believe that every steward (the statement above wasn't limited to the steward on USS Tang but made in general) was qualified on EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM aboard a submarine."
You act as though Howard Walker was a unique case and did not apply to stewards "in general ".

Again from the very book YOU cited :

Edward Beach and others cited Joseph Cross of Halibut, Walter Pye Wilson of Trigger, George Lytle of Drum and Jim Stallings of Haddock for their contributions in combat. James Pruitt and James Patton of Puffer were instrumental in saving their boat when she was kept down for over 38 hours while Japanese destroyers pounded her with depth charges.

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

reply

The problem lies in what you think qualifying is.
qualifying in systems other than what you went to school for does not mean you are as skilled as the guy who went to school for it is. It means you have a working familiarity with the system and can operate it if necessary.

The MM who went to A school can not only operate but also fix and maintain the engines and motors.

The qualified steward knows how to close the main induction valve and switch propulsion to the battery if he had to. Ask him to break down the motor and fix a grounding short however and he would still be lost.

Get it now?


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

reply

I got it before. Your statement that a steward could operate every single system on board was incorrect. Could a steward operate the TDC? The Is-Was? I don't think so.

reply

There is a difference between ENLISTED and OFFICER qualifications.

The Torpedo Data Computer (TDC) was manned by an officer. In USS Tang it was the battlestation of none other than the Executive Officer himself!

The Is-Was was a circular slide rule used to computer firing solutions back before the invention of the TDC. It was still kept aboard as backup in case of a TDC casualty. Much the same as in this era of GPS navigation, quartermasters still practice celestial navigation with a sextant.

Would the steward know how to operate the TDC? Probably not, but then neither would any other enlisted other than perhaps a few senior enlisted know how either .

Senior enlisted (Chief and above) often qualified on some officer positions. It was not uncommon to see a Senior Chief standing Diving Officer Of the Watch (DOOW)
In fact, battlestations diving officer was often the billet for the Chief Of The Boat (COB)

And to head off your response of, "But you said EVERY POSITION ..."

I meant every position they were required to be in respect to their being Officer or Enlisted. I figured that went without saying. I guess for some quibbling a$$es it must be spelled out though.


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

reply

I find it interesting that you have no problem quibbling in your responses to others but you object to it in responses to you. "Every position" means every position. You were imprecise. If you'd said "Every enlisted" position I would have had no objection to your statement.

The word "every" is very broad. I expected more precision from you based on reading other posts from you. I will lower my expectations in the future. The fact that you had to resort to name-calling in and of itself speaks volumes.

reply

In this case the namecalling speaks ONLY to the frustration of a person who based only upon his opinion and no facts is basically calling others a liar when they are giving him cold hard information. In otherwords, acting as a troll.

Also, you have only started attacking my wording after tons of facts proving you wrong started being dumped on you. Ignoring the facts themselves.

This last post is a prime example.
Not one word on any of the facts I gave you.
No "sorry Sailor, you and Michael were right and my opinion was wrong "
Not even further ignorant argument against those facts.
No. Just changing the subject to attack my wording and swearing.
I'm a sailor! What did you fraking expect? Mr. Rogers?
Besides, my "namecalling " was spot on. You WERE being an a$$! Challenging my factual statements armed only with an opinion pulled from your a$$ with no facts of your own. You were basically insinuating that I was a liar or ignorant!

So back to the matter of the steward. After reviewing both Michael's and my information, and (if you are smart) maybe some research of your own. What is your opinion now on whether or not black stewards did receive training and qualify on subs outside of steward's duties?


As far as the film specifically is concerned, we see the steward filling in as a planesman. That and many of the other systems you "found hard to believe " are exactly the systems that sub qualification encompasses! Not your post about the TDC, but your earlier post mentioning the dive planes, ballast tanks, torpedoes, etc...

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

reply

I'll respond to all three posts here, rather than clutter the board with three separate responses. :)

I did some research. If you'll read back you'll find I even quoted a source. Something that your recitation of "facts" fails to do. You post that things are facts based solely on your own words. No citations.

My opinion of whether or not stewards were qualified on other systems should have been clear from what I said about how if you'd qualified your overly broad statement of "...every" with the word enlisted I wouldn't have posted anything challenging your statement. If it isn't obvious I did and do my homework from using the terms TDC and Is-Was (I didn't need you to define them, I knew what they meant) then perhaps you don't read as carefully as you think you do.

Appreciate the olive branch, but I was not and am not at "war". Just another veteran, enjoying IMDB's boards after a long absence due to protracted illness.

reply

One final thought.
An olive branch if you will...

Your "opinion" does hold true in general of blacks treatment in the navy as a whole. Your opinion fails here because the submarine service was unique and not like the surface navy at all.
EVERYONE, to include those who would otherwise be segregated in the surface fleet, could be called upon at any moment to act to save the boat from disaster. Politics and Racism had no place in a sub.

To quote FDR's line from the otherwise crappy Michael Bay film, Pearl Harbor, "I like submariners. They don't have time for *beep* And neither do I! "


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

reply

One final "final thought"
LOL

One such black steward in the WW2 submarine service went on to pioneer in and was responsible for the creation of my own Navy Rate, EW (Electronic Warfare).



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

reply

Don't know when or if he'll respond but I invited another poster I know to come add his two cents. Actually more like a buck fifty as he was an officer and served aboard an SSBN (think Crimson Tide) .

If you won't believe me, maybe you'll believe him.

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

reply

U-571, as a rule, is interesting because it tries very hard to skate on the line between barely plausible and simply unbelievable.

I'm not going to say the film got everything right. It didn't. And while it's hard to imagine the crew being able to control U-571, it's not impossible--with some caveats.

In former submarine officer Michael Pacino's novels "Emergency Deep" and "America", he depicts crews of only a handful of men running nuclear submarines. In "America" in particular, Russian submariners are able to capture and run a Virginia-class submarine, the most technologically advanced submarine in existence. Clearly, Pacino believes that such a feat is possible, in not particularly plausible.

In the interwar period, naval designers were collaborating with each other on submarine design quite frequently. For example, Electric Boat worked with M.A.N (Machinen-fabrik-Augsburg-Nurnberg)to produce submarine diesels. The systems used in submarines of all the western powers were remarkably similar.

Much the same way airplanes all work under the same basic principles, so do submarines all operate in basically the same fundamental way. They maneuver using a combination of thrust from the propellers and lift from variable buoyancy (hydrostatics) and the maneuvering planes (hydrodynamics).

If a crew were to successfully dive the submarine, they would have to have a knowledge of which controls were which. This is more obvious (and standardized) on aircraft than on submarines, but its plausible that the crew could have successfully dived the submarine with a translation of the applicable controls.

The biggest problem with the scenario is that they don't have any problems with the boat's trim. While it is likely that the German would have had his submarine rigged for dive and trimmed (his only defense at that point), it can't be dismissed that some large error in trim could have been unaccounted for. If such an error had existed, the boat would have almost certainly been doomed.

If, however, they did manage to dive without a significant trim problem, there is nothing wrong with their being able to maneuver underwater as they did. The film has skirted the edge of impossible but not crossed it.

What does cross the line is the submerged torpedo duel. I can't imagine that happening and succeeding. But could they dive the boat? Yeah, I think they could. And then figure it out after the battle? Probably. I've read through the translated copy of the Type-VIIC manual, and there's nothing too outlandish in there, if someone can put it in English.

You can assume that the scenario is impossible, but really its not too far from, say, F/Lt Hendley and a blind F/Lt Blythe being able to steal, start, and fly a German trainer in which they had no experience.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

I knew that....

Panaluv



reply

[deleted]

When you discuss the treatment of prisoners its always important to recognize a distinction between the different services. This is always defined by a massive different in culture of command and overall attitude towards fighting a war in general. As a rule navies are always more generous and understanding of one another than other armed services just because... well I don't know. Probably because #1 in naval warfare the goal is to sink the ship, and the crew is then useless, but I'd suppose more importantly its #2, which is that every sailor has sympathy for one another over the terrible prospect of being lost at sea. Its kind of a universal brotherhood I suppose.

Fact is also that any cursory research will show that the Kriegsmarine was the least Nazi-fied of all the branches of the German armed forces in WW2. This is actually why the Grand Admiral Doenitz was made the successor to the Reich after Hitler died, cause he'd lost all his trust and faith in his Nazi cohorts of the inner circle.

It is a fact that examples of German u-boat men shooting survivors are extremely limited and if there is a pattern it is overwhelmingly that help was offered in the form of directions towards land, supplies to help them survive til rescue, and even radioing to the allies the location of survivors.

The point of what this thread started over was that showing the Germans shooting survivors gives the impression that this was common place. In a war film with only a few hours you try to fit in those details that tell a greater truth in a single event. The message of this movie was that Germans were cruel and evil. Fact is that as far as the U-boat war was concerned they were far more generous than their allied counterparts. Where the German Ubootswaffe would offer survivors help Allied destroyers would continue to depth charge while German survivors were still in the water, killing them.

Its not a one or the other discussion. Those who speak ignorantly decades later like to pick their side and argue it like its still a war. The truth as anyone who does research will show you is that on the seas the Germans were as human anyone could have been in that situation, by and large. This movie did nothing to show that, and was actually harmful to the memory of the u-boat men who were in my opinion the most honourable of all the men fighting for the Third Reich.

That is the point, not that it happened one way or the other, but that the movie completely misrepresents who these men were. If they showed the Americans as total monsters I'm pretty sure you guys would be interested in why that was allowed to be shown as what 'Americans' were like in the war.

reply

Your point about the German sailors is well taken and correct.
As a former USN Sailor myself I can tell you that your points as to why the navies of the world are more humane than their landbound counterparts is spot on. Once the enemy's ability to fight is removed, they are just fellow sailors at the mercy of the sea. And the sea is the enemy of all. That and naval combat is an impersonal thing.

All that being said, I have to disagree with you over your analysis of this specific portrayal of the U-571 sinking the British survivors in the lifeboat.
Had U-571 been fully capable and not crippled I would agree with you 100%. But it WAS crippled and that changed the equation.
Fully functional, the sub could have and would have simply sailed away from the survivors, perhaps after questioning them as to the ID, tonnage,cargo, and destination. Perhaps even gave them some water and rations before giving directions to the nearest land. Safety of the sub foremost, that IS what historically happened as safety and the situation allowed.

But U-571 WAS disabled and adrift. She could not simply sail away. They could not even get away from a rowed lifeboat!!!
Listen to the Kaleun again as he explains why they most destroy the lifeboat. They could not take the survivors prisoner, even if orders did not forbid it, they would not have the room or supplies for that many extra people. They could not just let them go either. Without the ability to sail away and "clear datum" as we say, the survivors, if rescued would gladly tell their rescuers of the disabled enemy sub adrift nearby.

Really listen to the Kaluen as he explains it. He is not being made out to be evil. What you hear in his voice is grim determination and anger. Anger at having to do what he must, as terrible and as distasteful as it is, safety of his men comes first.

Had the roles been reversed and it was an Allied sub adrift and come upon by German or Japanese survivors, they might have done the very same thing, given those circumstances.

In point of fact, USS Wahoo, with Dudley "Mush" Morton as CO, was forced to do something similar. After sinking a troopship and hundreds if not thousands of Japanese imperial marines in the water, Morton made the decision to use the 20mm on any rafts, lifeboats, and any large enough debris to prevent the Jap marines from safely getting to several nearby atolls. Many dozens of Japanese were undoubtedly hit while they were shooting though they did not deliberately target the men. Mortons reasoning is that the atolls were very close and they were in waters still heavily patrolled by the Japs. Surviving soldiers had a STRONG chance of being picked up and returned to fighting. They were bound for the Solomon islands and Guadalcanal where our marines were being heavily attacked.

I never got the impression the film was trying to show the Germans as anything but men fighting for their country. And I didn't have to overanalyze it or read into it to come to that conclusion.
I think too many people try too had to find a reason, an excuse, to whine and bitch about this film.

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

reply

True, the Navy fought pretty decently and fair. Their commerce raiders treated their prisoners well, usually giving them fair warning before sinking the ship or taking it as a prize vessel.

reply

I always loved (well felt sort of disturbed by...) the scene in Das Boot (which incidentally is ten times the movie this is and upon which a lot of the action is based, IMO, anyways) where the captain tells them to shoot at the wreckage the crew of a newly torpedoed boat are hanging onto because "we don't have room or food", I liked they way they portrayed that, crappy situation.

reply