Jump to content


The Chieftain's Hatch: Panther/M10 and the Laws of War


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

Fett713 #21 Posted Aug 16 2016 - 23:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29148 battles
  • 303
  • [BSI] BSI
  • Member since:
    08-15-2012

Disguising weaponized merchant ships with the German flag would have been fine anyway according to the Naval code he mentioned, (or I'm misinterpreting it) so that's sort of a moot point really, simply weaponizing and hiding of the weapons under a normal merchant flag of their own is even more okay. The M10/Panthers crews fates are technically okay as well.

 

  1. That the accused was found in, about, or in and about a certain place, vessel, or aircraft within the control or jurisdiction of an armed force of the United States, or a shipyard, manufacturing or industrial plant, or other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the United States, or elsewhere;(as far as the allied troops knew it was territory they held, or appeared to be)
  2. That the accused was lurking, acting clandestinely or under false pretenses;(certainly clandestine and under false pretense)
  3. That the accused was collecting or attempting to collect certain information;(observation of allied movements and unit strengths)
  4. That the accused did so with the intent to convey this information to the enemy; and (intent would have been a harder one to prove, but certainly arguable)
  5. That this was done in time of war.(obvious of course lol)


Blackhorse_Six_ #22 Posted Aug 16 2016 - 23:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 43663 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 16 2016 - 17:05, said:

You're right. I do believe one of the best of german q-ship captains allowed the sailors on board the ship to depart before it was sunk. He was quite a famous pirate. :)  

 

Early in the war ...

 

When the tide began to turn, that sort of chivalry went out the window.



Sad_But_Drew #23 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 00:59

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21169 battles
  • 421
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

I seem to recall Skorzeny himself said something to the effect that the disguised Panthers "Might fool a very new soldier, at night and from a good distance".  They didn't have any Shermans (and precious few wheeled vehicles, because other units weren't about to give their "loot" up.  Several of the "behind the lines" groups raised suspicion because they traveled 5+ to a Jeep (way more than US troops would normally pile in).

 

Now the German "bird raiders" (they were all named after sea birds).  Had a great deal of success in distant waters the first 3-4 years of the war (they had to work where ships sailed singly.  Most of the time, they would scuttle their targets with demo charges (using the guns to discourage radio use).  Most were eventually sunk, though Komoran took Sydney down with it (by playing dumb until the cruiser came too close).  More than that I won't say, bringing up HMAS Sydney is just asking for your board to go to pieces.. 



Kamahl1234 #24 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 02:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 17836 battles
  • 8,318
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostTondaBobl, on Aug 16 2016 - 17:48, said:

 

And also, the Panther/M10 would never have looked like a wolverine, because most AT crews would look at the gun, and the Panther's unforgettable gun muzzle was there and could NOT be changed... But they look cool :)

Uhh, the muzzle brake could be removed on the Panther.

 

As even the chieftan noted, for some reason the crews doing the vis-mod had decided to leave them on, when they didn't need to (and shouldn't have, as the M10 lacked one).



WulfeHound #25 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 02:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostKamahl1234, on Aug 16 2016 - 20:38, said:

Uhh, the muzzle brake could be removed on the Panther.

 

As even the chieftan noted, for some reason the crews doing the vis-mod had decided to leave them on, when they didn't need to (and shouldn't have, as the M10 lacked one).

 

The muzzle brake was left on because the gun recoil would have been too much for the turret.

Kamahl1234 #26 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 03:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 17836 battles
  • 8,318
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 17 2016 - 01:49, said:

 

The muzzle brake was left on because the gun recoil would have been too much for the turret.

 

True, I guess it means that the crews didn't have too much faith in their disguise. 

Mavwreck #27 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 08:33

    Private

  • Players
  • 5662 battles
  • 5
  • [EGO-A] EGO-A
  • Member since:
    02-06-2013

View PostBlackhorse_Six_, on Aug 16 2016 - 22:18, said:

 

Early in the war ...

 

When the tide began to turn, that sort of chivalry went out the window.

 

Countries (and their troops) don't respect the laws of war because of chivalry; they do it to avoid reprisals.  If Country A is at war with Country B, and B commits a laws-of-war-violation against A, then A can break the laws of war to punish B.  They have to follow some rules, though - announce what they're doing, make the reprisal proportional to to the offense, and stop once B starts following the laws again.

 

You don't avoid chemical weapons or not kill surrendering soldiers because you want to be known as Mr. Nice Warrior - you do it so your enemy doesn't do the same thing back.

 

This might not directly apply to picking up survivors from enemy vessels you sink - that might be more a matter of the law of the sea.  I also don't think it would preclude trying individual soldiers for war crimes after the fact.


Edited by Mavwreck, Aug 17 2016 - 08:34.


redarmy27 #28 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 11:47

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5836 battles
  • 54
  • Member since:
    06-06-2011

Great topic.  I actually created a diorama for a contest last year for the game 28mm game Bolt Action.  It shows an Ersatz M10 in a rather bad situation.

 

Grief Comes to Greif:

It was a fun build.  I love using the tank in WoT as well!

 

Jake



stalkervision #29 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 14:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 49432 battles
  • 7,694
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
Great topic for discussion. I hope people look into this topic further.

Spiley_Craw #30 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 15:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 24445 battles
  • 2,574
  • [NBL] NBL
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

It's also important to remember that the entire concept of "Laws of War" is ridiculous on the face of it,

 since war is nothing more than legitimized, institutionalized crime on a truly grand scale.

 

The only purpose of "War Crimes" is to be able to punish your defeated, prostrate foe while still feeling

 good about yourself, or, very occasionally, to punish some of your own troops, again so that you can

 feel morally superior.

 

In general, I think it's just better to have the strength of your convictions, not be squeamish, and if you

 want vengeance against your defeated enemies just be honest with everyone and take vengeance. If

 you feel the need to pull out all the stops when you're still fighting them and do whatever it takes, just

 own up and do it honestly.

 

It's just better to be forthright about things. We (the US) did all sorts of not-nice things (to the enemy) in WW2, and I

have absolutely no problem with those actions, nor with owning up to them. if our enemies tried to trick us,

 that's fine too - in their place, I'd probably have done the same thing.  Double standards are never a good thing.

If only our political leaders weren't always mealy-mouthed weasels, the world would probably be a better place.

 

-Kle.

 



minim8greyhound #31 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 16:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 13999 battles
  • 2,369
  • [_SOC_] _SOC_
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011

Good read,

I respect the crews of those panthers for their bravery.

 

if only we could get a ROF buff ;)


Edited by minim8greyhound, Aug 17 2016 - 16:06.


mallet_1 #32 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 17:28

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 31275 battles
  • 16
  • [ZAP] ZAP
  • Member since:
    07-11-2014

View PostSpiley_Craw, on Aug 17 2016 - 14:48, said:

 

The only purpose of "War Crimes" is to be able to punish your defeated, prostrate foe while still feeling

 good about yourself, or, very occasionally, to punish some of your own troops, again so that you can

 feel morally superior.

 

 

As I recall, in the aftermath of Japan's defeat, some 50 US soldiers were executed for war crimes.  Having been humiliatingly been driven from the Philippines, MacArthur certainly felt great animosity, but he was focused on getting the job done in an honorable manner.



Blackhorse_Six_ #33 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 17:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 43663 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Postmallet_1, on Aug 17 2016 - 11:28, said:

As I recall, in the aftermath of Japan's defeat, some 50 US soldiers were executed for war crimes.

 

Cannot recall ever having read about that ...

 

And I'm pretty sure it would have been required reading.

 

Got a source?



Walter_Sobchak #34 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 18:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostSpiley_Craw, on Aug 17 2016 - 09:48, said:

It's also important to remember that the entire concept of "Laws of War" is ridiculous on the face of it,

 since war is nothing more than legitimized, institutionalized crime on a truly grand scale.

 

The only purpose of "War Crimes" is to be able to punish your defeated, prostrate foe while still feeling

 good about yourself, or, very occasionally, to punish some of your own troops, again so that you can

 feel morally superior.

 

In general, I think it's just better to have the strength of your convictions, not be squeamish, and if you

 want vengeance against your defeated enemies just be honest with everyone and take vengeance. If

 you feel the need to pull out all the stops when you're still fighting them and do whatever it takes, just

 own up and do it honestly.

 

It's just better to be forthright about things. We (the US) did all sorts of not-nice things (to the enemy) in WW2, and I

have absolutely no problem with those actions, nor with owning up to them. if our enemies tried to trick us,

 that's fine too - in their place, I'd probably have done the same thing.  Double standards are never a good thing.

If only our political leaders weren't always mealy-mouthed weasels, the world would probably be a better place.

 

-Kle.

 

you should probably read up on the history of the Nuremburg war trials.  You will find that the US, and in particular Justice Robert Jackson, were very much trying to avoid the trials becoming an example of victors justice and instead were trying to adhere to legal principle and establish a baseline for future international law.  That the US has not always adhered to the principles put forward by Justice Jackson is unfortunate, but certainly not his fault.



OrnmiIler #35 Posted Aug 17 2016 - 22:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 37969 battles
  • 597
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

The Germans captured as part of this operation were executed by firing squad as spies... Case closed.

Hello The_Chieftain :

As WoT art imitates life, the proper, justified, and case closed transparent outcome (execution) of those dishonorable, cowardly and treasonous (which always serve to breed further hatreds and actions against their own innocent countrymen, which mount upon the original crimes, and fuels perpetually similar means of retaliation by so-called adversary) actions, regardless of whom or what these actors may have thought they represented at the time, were never justified.

Their executions represented the universal principle of the greater good for all the participants of the conflict, and were appropriate under the relevant circumstances for the world to see and not feel totally ashamed. Here the punishment fitted the crime.

What example has resonated throughout the virtual cyber world, given that WoT life imitates art, concerning the in game green perpeTRAITOR who acts in similar and/or extreme fashion, but always against their own green team member’s? Here the punishment never fitted the crime.

WoT must firmly maintain in the execution of the new five strikes and out policy, with no reprieves or pardons!



Rising_Dough #36 Posted Aug 18 2016 - 01:31

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 60516 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View PostKamahl1234, on Aug 16 2016 - 21:04, said:

 

True, I guess it means that the crews didn't have too much faith in their disguise. 

 

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 16 2016 - 20:49, said:

 

The muzzle brake was left on because the gun recoil would have been too much for the turret.

 

If they were just mucking around allied troops, there would be no need to fire the gun.

 

Don't get me wrong, What you state makes sense. 

 

I just don't find any of the arguments for this not being an act of espionage credible. 

 

 



Kamahl1234 #37 Posted Aug 18 2016 - 17:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 17836 battles
  • 8,318
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostRising_Dough, on Aug 18 2016 - 00:31, said:

 

 

If they were just mucking around allied troops, there would be no need to fire the gun.

 

Don't get me wrong, What you state makes sense. 

 

I just don't find any of the arguments for this not being an act of espionage credible. 

 

 

Yeah, but if you're really worried it won't work, you'd really want to have an option for self defense, especially given espionage rules/punishments.

 

And it's not espionage if you're not actually trying to gather information. In this case they were trying to misdirect the allies by confusing them. 



URURolf #38 Posted Aug 18 2016 - 22:05

    Private

  • Players
  • 19182 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    03-11-2011
Since many German officers were condemned on the base of signing a document where they considered commando troops to be treated the same way as Skorzenny's group, I will say that justice was never the point here.

Rising_Dough #39 Posted Aug 19 2016 - 02:31

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 60516 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View PostKamahl1234, on Aug 18 2016 - 11:57, said:

Yeah, but if you're really worried it won't work, you'd really want to have an option for self defense, especially given espionage rules/punishments.

 

And it's not espionage if you're not actually trying to gather information. In this case they were trying to misdirect the allies by confusing them. 

 

Retaining your muzzle brake for the option of self defense casts doubt about their intent.

 

And since when is seeing enemy troop locations not considered gathering information? That's specious at best.

 

 



Kamahl1234 #40 Posted Aug 19 2016 - 02:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 17836 battles
  • 8,318
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostRising_Dough, on Aug 19 2016 - 01:31, said:

 

Retaining your muzzle brake for the option of self defense casts doubt about their intent.

 

And since when is seeing enemy troop locations not considered gathering information? That's specious at best.

 

 

Because simply seeing enemy troops doesn't constitute espionage. If you're specifically trying to relay troop positions, that's one thing. But trying to confuse or deceive the enemy into thinking they're in the wrong place (or attacking the wrong people) isn't espionage. 

 

And if your cannon cannot be fired more than once without the muzzle break, self defense still cannot be ruled out. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users