StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Okay, can anybody explain to me what the heck the American bomber crew was thinking? I mean the sub signalled them in Morse code, made no attempt to fire, had at least a hundred survivors on deck, a red cross flag the size of the conning tower and was towing serveral lifeboats - and the americans still bombed them?

Thanas wrote:Okay, can anybody explain to me what the heck the American bomber crew was thinking? I mean the sub signalled them in Morse code, made no attempt to fire, had at least a hundred survivors on deck, a red cross flag the size of the conning tower and was towing serveral lifeboats - and the americans still bombed them?

What the crew were thinking? What altitude to make the bombing run at, what speed, how much deflection to allow, what to do when the sub started to dive. Whether the gun crews should start strafing or hold their fire in case they alerted the dozy pillocks down below. The bomb aimer probably had the aircraft so he was concentrating on what he was doing. By the way, this was an Army crew so they were probably wondering why all the grass was blue.

None of the above is a joke. The bomber crew had a mass of things to think about at that point of the attack and being an army crew, they hadn't been trained for maritime operations. The atmosphere in that aircraft could probably be described as disciplined panic. Too much to do and a few seconds to do it in.

The sub signalled them in morse? By radio or blinker light? If radio then the bomber was certainly not tuned to the right channel. If by light, the army crew probably couldn't read it. They would probably have mistaken the flashes for gunfire. In any case, it would have made no difference. Ruse de guerre and all that.

Made no attempt to fire? To the B24 crew that means the sub lookouts weren't doing the job. Good, makes sinking them easier and safer. A non-firing sub is a blessing to be welcomed and taken advantage of

Had a hundred survivors on deck? Couldn't see them. From an attacking aircraft, a submarine looks like a long white line in the water (the wake) with a gray blob at the end. No detail at all. Remember, aircraft frequently sank friendly submarines and ships through mistaken identity - I can think of a Ju-88 that accidentally sank two German destroyers. everything one sees is gray on gray against gray.

Red cross flag? Warships should not fly the red cross. If the B24 crew saw it (which is unlikely) they would have ignored it. But, they probably didn't see it. Gray blob again.

Towing several lifeboats? Didn't see them. Concealed by the wake.

We can argue whether the orders to sink the U-boat should have been given or not but the B-24 crew can't be blamed per se for this. They were told to go to point X, find a surfaced U-boat and sink it, They did what they were told and they saw what they were expected to see. A U-boat on the surface, practically begging to be bombed. Think on this; if they let it go, how many more allied ships would it sink?

There is only one way that U-boat could have avoided being attacked, and that is to have surrendered (and even that would be sticky). This kind of incident is why, on the whole, it is better not to go to war.

PS You may remember that in 1914 a German U-boat sank the cruisers Aboukir, Cressy and Hogue. Two of the three were sunk after they stopped to pick up survivors from the first. Welcome to modern warfare.

Japanese naval aviators, the most elite in the world at the time, identified a US oil tanker and a destroyer as being a fleet carrier and a heavy cruiser during the battle of the Coral Sea. This was during near perfect visibility conditions. This led to a major Japanese blunder sending an entire strike force to sink the two. It is very true that people see what they expect to see, even when it doesn’t make sense as in the case of a carrier with only one escort. No one could identify anything worth a damn from the air in WW2. You used photo recon and brought back the film to be exmained when you needed solid information.

The Nazis certainly used a great deal of tricky in the Battle of the Atlantic anyway. Generating false radio traffic even using the radios of captured vessels to send false distress calls, and employing disguised raiders. This was late 1942 and while we can look back today and see the war was clearly being won by the allies by that point, it was hardly so clear at the time. The Battle of the Atlantic was still ranging, the Luftwaffe offensive bomber force was still highly active, and the invasion of North Africa was still weeks in the future. No one was going to hesitate for a second attacking a surfaced Nazi U-boat.

In addition to the problems of accurately identifying the situation on the surface, and the possibility of deception and attendant danger to the allied freighters steaming to the rescue, there is also the fact that at that time, the B-24's home base of Ascencion was still a secret.
Apparently the bomber commander was concerned that discovery of this base could impact Allied supply air routes.

I had no idea things were that bad then.

My first guess would have been some of the above and the bomber-crew on too many amphetamines taken to stay awake.

Have you guys even read about the incident? The Allies knew what was happening, and the local air commander decided to attack due to a misunderstanding.

The Broad Fourteens attack is a poor comparison, since the roles are almost reversed and they thought they'd been hit by a mine; even in WWI nobody was going to haul to a stop with submarines in the area.

Stark wrote:...The Broad Fourteens attack is a poor comparison, since the roles are almost reversed and they thought they'd been hit by a mine; even in WWI nobody was going to haul to a stop with submarines in the area.

On the contrary, the fact that there was past history of u-boats torpedoing ships in the midst of rescue operations would seem very relevant to the midset of the bomber crew.
Assuming they had knowledge of the sinking of the Aboukir and her sisters, they would be much less likely to ascribe purely humanitarian motives for the subs on the scene.

Stuart wrote:The bomb aimer probably had the aircraft.

No, he didn't.

None of the above is a joke. The bomber crew had a mass of things to think about at that point of the attack and being an army crew, they hadn't been trained for maritime operations. The atmosphere in that aircraft could probably be described as disciplined panic. Too much to do and a few seconds to do it in.

The sub signalled them in morse? By radio or blinker light? If radio then the bomber was certainly not tuned to the right channel. If by light, the army crew probably couldn't read it. They would probably have mistaken the flashes for gunfire. In any case, it would have made no difference. Ruse de guerre and all that.

Made no attempt to fire? To the B24 crew that means the sub lookouts weren't doing the job. Good, makes sinking them easier and safer. A non-firing sub is a blessing to be welcomed and taken advantage of

Had a hundred survivors on deck? Couldn't see them. From an attacking aircraft, a submarine looks like a long white line in the water (the wake) with a gray blob at the end. No detail at all. Remember, aircraft frequently sank friendly submarines and ships through mistaken identity - I can think of a Ju-88 that accidentally sank two German destroyers. everything one sees is gray on gray against gray.

Red cross flag? Warships should not fly the red cross. If the B24 crew saw it (which is unlikely) they would have ignored it. But, they probably didn't see it. Gray blob again.

Towing several lifeboats? Didn't see them. Concealed by the wake.

This is wrong. The american aricraft made an identifying pass and then turned away to inform their commanding officer that
a) the sub was flying red cross flags all draped across its gundecks
b) had several lifeboats in its wake
c) was engaged in rescuing people and picking them out of the water.

So please do not turn this into "They did not know". They did know and they bombed regardless. It is also not as if this was some kind of on the spot situation, since the bomber had turned away already and had to fly back once they got the order to attack.

Thanas wrote:... So please do not turn this into "They did not know". They did know and they bombed regardless. It is also not as if this was some kind of on the spot situation, since the bomber had turned away already and had to fly back once they got the order to attack.

It seems pretty easy to understand why the bombing took place.
When Richardson gave the order to attack he was on Ascension, not on the B-24. He may have had the report from the aircraft, but being a pilot himself he would have been well aware of the difficulties of aerial recon and potential for misrecognition. Furthermore, though Donitz had alerted the British authorities, they believed it to be a trick and hadn't passed this information onto the American forces on Ascension.
On the other hand, he was very clear on his need to protect the vulnerable fuel tanks on Ascension. This was a major, but at time, undiscovered air refueling stopover on the Lend-Lease route from the US to British Egypt and the Soviets. The crucial fuel tanks were within shelling range of the 105mm guns mounted on the U-boats, so he would definitely have been eager to avoid the risk that they might spot the facility on their patrols southward.
Add to this the fact that for almost a year German subs had been scouring the Eastern seaboard of the US as part of Operation Drumbeat, and the temptation to blast the 4 subs is pretty obvious.

The decision to prosecute the attack isn't commendable, but it's definitely understandable given the situation at the time.

Gurachn wrote: On the other hand, he was very clear on his need to protect the vulnerable fuel tanks on Ascension. This was a major, but at time, undiscovered air refueling stopover on the Lend-Lease route from the US to British Egypt and the Soviets. The crucial fuel tanks were within shelling range of the 105mm guns mounted on the U-boats, so he would definitely have been eager to avoid the risk that they might spot the facility on their patrols southward.

And given that the boats - not one, but four - had already discovered the B-24, how was attacking it changing anything? Furthermore, a u-boat has never succesfully shelled a base. Of all the reasons for attacking, the risk of a U-boat shelling an undiscovered base is the most laughable. Especially seeing as how at that time it was not one boat, but four engaged in rescue operations and at most, a bomber could realistically hit one.

Even more, he should have thought about the possibility that 4 boats, every single of their commanders too stupid to attack, not even making evasive actions, not firing at the bomber and helping people out of the water might not be an incredibly stupid ruse de guerre.

Thanas wrote:And given that the boats - not one, but four - had already discovered the B-24, how was attacking it changing anything? Furthermore, a u-boat has never succesfully shelled a base. Of all the reasons for attacking, the risk of a U-boat shelling an undiscovered base is the most laughable. Especially seeing as how at that time it was not one boat, but four engaged in rescue operations and at most, a bomber could realistically hit one.

Even more, he should have thought about the possibility that 4 boats, every single of their commanders too stupid to attack, not even making evasive actions, not firing at the bomber and helping people out of the water might not be an incredibly stupid ruse de guerre.

I think you seriously underestimate the accuracy of aerial spotting of the period. In any case, as Sea Skimmer pointed out, the Kreigsmarine already had a reputation for using trickery and disinformation. Could the pilot really be 100% sure that this wasn't a cunningly disguised Milchkuh doing an emergency resupply of a wolf pack?

Your assertion that the subs posed no possible threat to the fuel tanks on Ascension is incorrect.
The 105mm on a type IX u-boat has a range of over 15km.
The fuel tanks at Wideawake airfield were at most 3000m. from the coast.
As far as I know the only coastal defenses were a pair of 5.5" guns (taken from the HMS Hood) sited several km down the coast above the port at Georgetown, and most likely out of effective LOS of a sub attacking the field.
Sounds like a pretty credible threat to me.

Regardless of all this it seems to me that you are clearly set on the idea that the B-24 was trigger happy and was just itching to fuck up some u-boat.
Well, I am willing to bet there was some of that involved as well. There is not doubt that they were both despised and feared, and I am sure that most maritime bomber crews would be salivating at the thought of seeing four of the bastards just sitting their on the surface, all fat and pretty.
But the fact that the pilot took the time to call it inand wait for confirmation before attacking, inspite of the obvious temptation, makes me hesitate to label him as an irresponsible maniac.
And given the very real potential for doubt, and the threat to allied interests, I can't help but label this as an unfortunate, but understandable event.

Gurachn wrote:

Thanas wrote:And given that the boats - not one, but four - had already discovered the B-24, how was attacking it changing anything? Furthermore, a u-boat has never succesfully shelled a base. Of all the reasons for attacking, the risk of a U-boat shelling an undiscovered base is the most laughable. Especially seeing as how at that time it was not one boat, but four engaged in rescue operations and at most, a bomber could realistically hit one.

Even more, he should have thought about the possibility that 4 boats, every single of their commanders too stupid to attack, not even making evasive actions, not firing at the bomber and helping people out of the water might not be an incredibly stupid ruse de guerre.

I think you seriously underestimate the accuracy of aerial spotting of the period.

It was clearly accurate enough to communicate all those details to the American commander via radio. Stop pretending they did not see what they reported.

In any case, as Sea Skimmer pointed out, the Kreigsmarine already had a reputation for using trickery and disinformation. Could the pilot really be 100% sure that this wasn't a cunningly disguised Milchkuh doing an emergency resupply of a wolf pack?

With decks full of people who were pulling out of lifeboats? Lifeboats which would have to be dragged out of Germany all the way to the coast of Africa? Via a tow line? Because U-boats did not carry wooden lifeboats of that size at all.

Your assertion that the subs posed no possible threat to the fuel tanks on Ascension is incorrect.
The 105mm on a type IX u-boat has a range of over 15km.
The fuel tanks at Wideawake airfield were at most 3000m. from the coast.
As far as I know the only coastal defenses were a pair of 5.5" guns (taken from the HMS Hood) sited several km down the coast above the port at Georgetown, and most likely out of effective LOS of a sub attacking the field.
Sounds like a pretty credible threat to me.

German gun crews had enough trouble hitting targets at less than 3km. Why? Because a sub is a pretty unstable gun platform. The likelihood of a german crew hitting an airfield that was camouflaged is miniscule, especially even more because u-boats were well known for diving against attacks and preferring not to slug it out with aircraft when possible. So tell me which sub commander would drive his boat, under air attack, in broad daylight, into an area were he had no real choice for evading attacks and then decide to shell enemy stations? It is an idiotic assumption.

Regardless of all this it seems to me that you are clearly set on the idea that the B-24 was trigger happy and was just itching to fuck up some u-boat.

I'll thank you not to assume my intent in advance.

After some reading my idea is that the commander, who was pretty inexperienced in such a role, decided that saving the lifes of shipwrecked people mattered less than destroying a U-boat, even if it was wearing a Red cross flag and was not firing against the bombers. This makes him a possible war criminal, but not a trigger happy scumbag. Especially if his assumption that they were only rescuing Italian personal was an honest one. So the situation here is that an inexperienced and possibly incompetent commander made a bad call.

The less likely possibility of the commander being both a war criminal and a trigger-happy scumbag is certainly there, but not supported at the moment.

Your assumption that the bomber crew was overly trigger happy is not supported by any of the facts. Note that they turned away instead of attacking immediately and took thirty minutes to fly back before starting their attack run. So you must be a real idiot to even assume I had that assumption.

An armed warship flying the red cross is a violation of the laws of war, which up through the trials at the end of WW2 was still punishable by summary execution. So the submarine is bombed and then they strafe the survivors in the water to execute them and that's still lawful because the submarine crew was certainly in violation of the sacrosanct nature of the Red Cross. You can't display the Red Cross on an armed ship of war, full stop. Perhaps if they'd spiked their guns and jettisoned their torpedoes and a formal announcement by Donitz had been made to that effect to the head of the International Red Cross in Geneva, but the WW2 Kriegsmarine was not exactly about to authorize that.

Thanas wrote:No, he didn't.

If the aircraft was doing a bombing run, yes he did. In a bomb run, the pilot hands over the aircraft to the bomb-aimer who actually controls the aircraft up to the moment of bomb release. If you think about the mechanics of aiming bombs, you'll understand why it has to be so.

This is wrong. The american aricraft made an identifying pass and then turned away to inform their commanding officer that
a) the sub was flying red cross flags all draped across its gundecks
b) had several lifeboats in its wake
c) was engaged in rescuing people and picking them out of the water.

So please do not turn this into "They did not know". They did know and they bombed regardless. It is also not as if this was some kind of on the spot situation, since the bomber had turned away already and had to fly back once they got the order to attack.

You asked what the bombing crew were thinking and I told you. They had a lot to do in a very short time and worrying about niceties was not on the list. The fact that the attack was queried at all reflects the highest possible credit on the bomb crew. They came in to close range with a lumbering, extremely vulnerable aircraft knowing that German U-boats carried a quad-twenty that would have shredded them. Personally I think they took a foolish and unnecessary risk for which they should have been reprimanded.

The facts are that warships may never fly the red cross, the fact that the submarine did so was, in itself a war crime as Her Grace pointed out. As was established by the German Navy in WW1 with the Aboukir, Cressey and Hogue, picking up survivors does not confer immunity on the ships doing so. Carrying survivors on the deck is easily interpreted as using them as a human shield - another war crime.

All the "outrage" about this incident is fake. This is war; if you don't like it, don't start wars. If you don't like the details of this particular incident, go along to the memorial that commemorates the birthplace of Kapitänleutnant Otto Weddigen and piss on it. He was the man who set the precedent that resulted in this sad incident.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:An armed warship flying the red cross is a violation of the laws of war, which up through the trials at the end of WW2 was still punishable by summary execution. So the submarine is bombed and then they strafe the survivors in the water to execute them and that's still lawful because the submarine crew was certainly in violation of the sacrosanct nature of the Red Cross. You can't display the Red Cross on an armed ship of war, full stop. Perhaps if they'd spiked their guns and jettisoned their torpedoes and a formal announcement by Donitz had been made to that effect to the head of the International Red Cross in Geneva, but the WW2 Kriegsmarine was not exactly about to authorize that.

If you are talking about this incident alone, you're talking out of your arse, Marina. This particular rescue operation had been sanctioned by the Red Cross. Using the Red Cross flags on an armed warship without permission is a war crime. Not when it's been sanctioned.

Edi wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:An armed warship flying the red cross is a violation of the laws of war, which up through the trials at the end of WW2 was still punishable by summary execution. So the submarine is bombed and then they strafe the survivors in the water to execute them and that's still lawful because the submarine crew was certainly in violation of the sacrosanct nature of the Red Cross. You can't display the Red Cross on an armed ship of war, full stop. Perhaps if they'd spiked their guns and jettisoned their torpedoes and a formal announcement by Donitz had been made to that effect to the head of the International Red Cross in Geneva, but the WW2 Kriegsmarine was not exactly about to authorize that.

If you are talking about this incident alone, you're talking out of your arse, Marina. This particular rescue operation had been sanctioned by the Red Cross. Using the Red Cross flags on an armed warship without permission is a war crime. Not when it's been sanctioned.

Uhm, no, I was speaking on general knowledge of the treaties. I've also NEVER heard anything about the Laconia incident in which the International Red Cross sanctioned that action. So please cite it, as well as the part of the Geneva conventions which allows the international committee to extend protected status to an armed vessel of war (which was in force in WW2).

Edi wrote: If you are talking about this incident alone, you're talking out of your arse, Marina. This particular rescue operation had been sanctioned by the Red Cross. Using the Red Cross flags on an armed warship without permission is a war crime. Not when it's been sanctioned.

I'm sorry Edi but Marina is right; an armed serving warship may never fly the red cross unless it has been disarmed and has neutral observers on board. A warship that doesn't fulfill those conditions can't be authorized to fly the red cross. If you think about the situation, you'll see why. Any warship would then hoist the red cross in order to create doubt about whether its use was justified or not. That's not a theoretical possibility; the Japanese used transports disguised as hospital ships to transport various key cargoes and other things. Having said that, very often people would extend immunity to a unit displaying the red cross but that was a privilege not a right.

This was an unfortunate circumstance; there is no doubt about that. I also have no doubt that the German skipper was doing what he thought was right. Unfortunately, that makes no difference. He was a target and a valuable one at that. As I said from the start, this case is a good example of why its better not to start wars.

German U-boats did shell the oil refinery at Aruba during the war during this very time frame. Might have been a different island, I don't exactly recall, but the event ended only when the submarine had a round explode in the gun bore. All that Nazi slave labor must have been making shoddy ammo.

Now meanwhile many marked hospital ships did the Huns sink by torpedo in WW1 alone? Seven or eight? The allies had surface ships coming to rescue people. Leaving any submarine intentionally afloat would be totally unacceptable. It really is that simple; and I second the statement is better not to start wars. And if you do, don't make unrestricted submarine warfare, itself also a war crime, your national policy and then bitch about people doing the same thing to you. The only valid goal in the Second World War was defeat of the axis powers by any means necessary, and that is all because of the brutal manner in which Germany pursued its total war from its opening days.

Its funny too that Thanas is asking what the bomber crew was thinking, and then points out that they had been ordered to attack the sub. So if they don’t attack they get a court marshal hearing.. much fun. Makes me wonder why he even asked the question when the situation is that clear cut out of hand.

Thanas wrote:

Gurachn wrote:I think you seriously underestimate the accuracy of aerial spotting of the period.

It was clearly accurate enough to communicate all those details to the American commander via radio. Stop pretending they did not see what they reported.

I am pretending no such thing. I'm sure your are aware that in wartime what appears to be the case is often not.

Gurachn wrote:In any case, as Sea Skimmer pointed out, the Kreigsmarine already had a reputation for using trickery and disinformation. Could the pilot really be 100% sure that this wasn't a cunningly disguised Milchkuh doing an emergency resupply of a wolf pack?

With decks full of people who were pulling out of lifeboats? Lifeboats which would have to be dragged out of Germany all the way to the coast of Africa? Via a tow line? Because U-boats did not carry wooden lifeboats of that size at all.

Once again, it is easy to disguise things to look like something else from the air. Neither one of us has any idea exactly what the pilot saw.

German gun crews had enough trouble hitting targets at less than 3km. Why? Because a sub is a pretty unstable gun platform. The likelihood of a german crew hitting an airfield that was camouflaged is miniscule, especially even more because u-boats were well known for diving against attacks and preferring not to slug it out with aircraft when possible. So tell me which sub commander would drive his boat, under air attack, in broad daylight, into an area were he had no real choice for evading attacks and then decide to shell enemy stations? It is an idiotic assumption.

You don't need pinpoint accuracy to destroy thin skinned tanks filled with volatile liquid.
Richardson was correct in appraising the risk to the area in his charge. A commander can not ignore such dangers just because an attack might be risky to his enemy. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that near suicidal attacks were made against high value targets (e.g. St. Nazaire raid was only some months before this...)

... So you must be a real idiot to even assume I had that assumption.

Ha ha, for a minute there I thought we were having a serious grown up discussion!

Gurachn wrote: You don't need pinpoint accuracy to destroy thin skinned tanks filled with volatile liquid. Richardson was correct in appraising the risk to the area in his charge. A commander can not ignore such dangers just because an attack might be risky to his enemy. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that near suicidal attacks were made against high value targets (e.g. St. Nazaire raid was only some months before this...)

This is a very important point. Gurachn is absolutely correct, it is one of the most fundamental principles of military planning that analysis of enemy options should be carried out on the basis of their capabilities, never on the basis of their intentions. The reason is quite obvious of course; capabilities are relatively constant while intentions may change overnight. The U-boats had the ability to carry out shore bombardments (and did so; they bombarded the oil refineries at Curacao and Aruba). They also had the ability to land teams of saboteurs which they did repeatedly in New England and Canada and also to destroy a weather station in Greenland. So, the threat from the U-boats was very real.

Also, it's worth noting that the German motivation for the rescue effort was not humanitarian but political. The whole effort was carried out to avoid political damage to the German-Italian alliance. That means this was not a humanitarian rescue mission at all but a military operation. As such it was a perfectly legitimate target. Ask a simple question; if the Laconia had been a troop ship carrying 1,800 British soldiers instead of Italian PoWs, would the submarines have gone to such lengths to rescue them? Of course they wouldn't and that, right there, destroys any case that might be made for protesting at the attacks on the submarines.

Stuart wrote:... The U-boats had the ability to carry out shore bombardments (and did so; they bombarded the oil refineries at Curacao and Aruba)...

In fact, as it turns out, Werner Hartenstein the commander of U-156, sinker of the Laconia, and star of this particular drama, is the guy who actually commanded Neuland Gruppe, during that wolfe pack's attack on the refineries at Aruba 7 months before.

At that time Hartenstein did actually make an attempt to shell the tank farm with his 105mm, but luckily (depending on your point of view) the crew had forgotten to remove the water cap from the barrel.
The resulting explosion destroyed the gun and seriously injured the deck crew...

Gurachn wrote: At that time Hartenstein did actually make an attempt to shell the tank farm with his 105mm, but luckily (depending on your point of view) the crew had forgotten to remove the water cap from the barrel. The resulting explosion destroyed the gun and seriously injured the deck crew...

Bad gun drill there. Sign of inferior training and a poor commander. It's beginning to look like this guy wasn't precisely the cream of the crop. More like one egg short of an omelette.

Looks like he did in fact sink another ship before returning home too, so the abuse of the Red Cross is complete.
http://www.uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2186.html

Sea Skimmer wrote:Looks like he did in fact sink another ship before returning home too, so the abuse of the Red Cross is complete.
http://www.uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2186.html

Just 3 days later in fact!
Eager fellow

Just after sinking the Quebec City, it seems his course took him extremely close to Ascension.
No attack mentioned though, so either he failed to spot the tank farm, or for some reason was lacking in crew for his deck gun...

Sea Skimmer wrote:Looks like he did in fact sink another ship before returning home too, so the abuse of the Red Cross is complete.
http://www.uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2186.html

I'm sorry, but exactly how was that abuse of the Red Cross?