Das Boot Question - Johann

[Scott M. Kozel]

This is about the scene in the movie "Das Boot" where the chief mechanic
Johann cracked up during a depth charge attack against their U-boat. He
was sobbing and hysterical, and he left his battle station and went to
the control room where the captain and officers were.

The captain ordered him several times to return to his battle station,
and when that didn't work, the captain rushed back to his cubicle to get
his pistol. Several crewmen picked Johann up and rushed him back to the
rear part of the boat, and when the captain got back, a crewman told him
that Johann was under control.

The scene ends with the captain sitting down and placing his pistol on a
table, and the officers were shown standing around with troubled looks
on their faces, some of them undoubtedly thinking that it could have
just as easily been them that cracked up.

I just watched "The Director's Cut" of Das Boot, and the director
claimed that in everything they tried to make the movie extremely
accurate historically, from the equipment to the actions of the German
soldiers.

Questions:

Is it realistic that a WWII German U-boat commander would think that
it would be militarily effective to threaten a key crewmember with
shooting, for cracking up during a depth charge attack and leaving his
battle station?

Would the captain have actually fired if Johann was still in the control
room and had been unable to pull himself together?

Obviously it is a serious problem affecting the whole U-boat when the
chief mechanic leaves his battle station during a depth charge attack,
but how would threatened or actual shooting of the chief mechanic solve
the problem?

How would this action motivate other crewmembers to not crackup
themselves? In addition to the threat of being blown to kingdom come by
depth charges, they would also have the threat of being shot by the
captain if they cracked up. Seems like that would increase (and not
decrease) the likelihood of others cracking up.

How does this action increase the morale and efficiency of the crew?

[David Wilma]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Is it realistic that a WWII German U-boat commander would think that
it would be militarily effective to threaten a key crewmember with
shooting, for cracking up during a depth charge attack and leaving his
battle station?
Would the captain have actually fired if Johann was still in the control
room and had been unable to pull himself together?
how would threatened or actual shooting of the chief mechanic solve
the problem?
How would this action motivate other crewmembers to not crackup
themselves?
How does this action increase the morale and efficiency of the crew?

Das Boot is a work of fiction, but certainly based on real events. It would be
pure speculation to discuss what a fictional character would do. As for a real
U-Boat commander, I suspect that there were some who would consider shooting a
crewmember who threatened the ship, the official reason for such an action. As
to justifying the action as a way to encourage the others, that may also be a
motive, but the threat to the ship would be paramount.

As I recall from the movie, Johann did threaten the ship by more than just
leaving his post.

As I said, this was a work of fiction. It is a tribute to the film that one
character's actions would inspire a discussion of his personality.
--

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by David Wilma
Das Boot is a work of fiction, but certainly based on real events. It would be
pure speculation to discuss what a fictional character would do. As for a real
U-Boat commander, I suspect that there were some who would consider shooting a
crewmember who threatened the ship, the official reason for such an action. As
to justifying the action as a way to encourage the others, that may also be a
motive, but the threat to the ship would be paramount.
As I recall from the movie, Johann did threaten the ship by more than just
leaving his post.
As I said, this was a work of fiction. It is a tribute to the film that one
character's actions would inspire a discussion of his personality.

Indeed it is just a movie, but I just watched the DVD of the "The
Director's Cut" of Das Boot, produced in 1997, and the director claimed
in the "director's commentary" that in everything they tried to make the
movie extremely accurate historically, from the equipment to the actions
of the German soldiers. (This DVD has options for subtitles in English,
Spanish or French, and options for German speaking or dubbing in
English, Spanish or French).

The director said that the interior of the U-boat was made accurate down
to the last screw, and that the interior was a full-scale mockup built
and mounted on gimbals so that the boat could be rocked in a realistic
manner to simulate sailing, diving, and under depth charge attack; and
that the mockup set still exists and can be viewed by the public at the
Bavarian Film Works, just outside of Munich.

The book _Das Boot_ was published in 1975, and it was heavily based on
real events, even though the book was a novel, and the movie was based
on the book, although while the chief engineer did crack up during a
depth charge attack, the incident where the captain threatened him with
a pistol was not in the book.

I realize that it is pure speculation to discuss what a fictional
character would do, but I was interested in knowing whether a German
U-boat commander would use threatened or actual shooting of a crewmember
to "deal with" the crewmember's temporary nervous breakdown.

Joahnn was the chief mechanic, so his position was critical to damage
control during a depth charge attack, but he wasn't doing anything else
to threaten the boat; he was sobbing and hysterical, and he left his
battle station and went to the control room where the captain and
officers were, and he was sliding down into a sitting position when the
captain went to get his pistol.

Panic is contagious, so the captain would have the responsibility to
restore order to the boat, as he saw fit.

[brandon]

Why not?

The only thing is that he must fire the pistol just when the depth
charges are going off, so the asdic doesnt detect the sound of the
pistol shot.
--

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by brandon
The only thing is that he must fire the pistol just when the depth
charges are going off, so the asdic doesnt detect the sound of the
pistol shot.

ASDIC is sonar, but the sound detection gear on the destroyer, under
slow-speed tracking, would be able to hear a noise such as a pistol shot
on the sub that it was tracking.
--

[David Wilma]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by brandon
The only thing is that he must fire the pistol just when the depth
charges are going off, so the asdic doesnt detect the sound of the
pistol shot.

ASDIC is sonar, but the sound detection gear on the destroyer, under
slow-speed tracking, would be able to hear a noise such as a pistol shot
on the sub that it was tracking.

If the sub is under depth charge attack, the ASW forces would have a pretty
good idea where the sub was. The pistol shot picked up by the hydrophone
probably wouldn't offer too much more information for targeting purposes. And
don't forget, the captain was yelling at Johann, so the boat wasn't running
silently.

--

[Cub Driver]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
How would this action motivate other crewmembers to not crackup
themselves?

One can only assume that the captain, like many individuals today,
believed that such actions were voluntary, or resulted from a lack of
moral fiber that could be overcome with a display of iron discipline.
After all, wasn't that the whole point of shooting deserters and
cowards, which was routinely done in the German army in WWII and in
all armies in WWI?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: ***@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net
--

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Cub Driver

Post by Scott M. Kozel
How would this action motivate other crewmembers to not crackup
themselves?

One can only assume that the captain, like many individuals today,
believed that such actions were voluntary, or resulted from a lack of
moral fiber that could be overcome with a display of iron discipline.
After all, wasn't that the whole point of shooting deserters and
cowards, which was routinely done in the German army in WWII and in
all armies in WWI?

Most country's armed forces back in the WWII era did not have much
sympathy for soldiers having a "nervous breakdown", and I don't recall
that they even called it as such, they used the terms "combat fatigue"
and "shell shock".

It probably was common for commanders to tell the soldier something like
to "snap out of it" or to "get your s--- together".

The movie "Patton" comes to mind, where he slapped the hysterical
soldier in the hospital... was that a true event?
--

[Leo Faulkner]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The movie "Patton" comes to mind, where he slapped the hysterical
soldier in the hospital... was that a true event?

Yes.

http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap08.html
--

[e***@memphis.edu]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The movie "Patton" comes to mind, where he slapped the hysterical
soldier in the hospital... was that a true event?

I don't have the details at hand, but yes, the
incident depicted in the movie was based on a
real case. IIRC, Patton actually did something
like this more than once.

EGF
--

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The movie "Patton" comes to mind, where he slapped the hysterical
soldier in the hospital... was that a true event?

More or less. During the Sicily campaign, Patton was touring
a hospital when he encountered a patient who was not actually
wounded (though he was running a fever), who when asked why
he was there, said "It's my nerves." Patton broke into a
tirade against this 'coward' and 'weakling'. A few minutes
later he met another similar soldier. This time he was so
enraged that he took a swing at the man, and knocked his
helmet across the floor.

The story got out immediately; Eisenhower then
ordered Patton to apologize publically to both men and to
a representative delegation of men from each division of
his army.

[Andrew Clark]

Post by Cub Driver
After all, wasn't that the whole point of
shooting deserters and cowards,
which was routinely done in the German
army in WWII and in all armies in WWI?

I don't think anyone was shot for desertion or cowardice in
the British Army in WW2. And wasn't there only a few cases
in the US Army?

[Bill Shatzer]

On 30 Dec 2004, Andrew Clark wrote:

-snip-

Post by Andrew Clark
I don't think anyone was shot for desertion or cowardice in
the British Army in WW2.

The British Army had, I think, abolished the death penalty for all
strictly military offenses - specifically, desertion and cowardice -
some years before WW2.

Post by Andrew Clark
And wasn't there only a few cases
in the US Army?

Only a single case - the unfortunate and unlucky Pvt. Eddie Slovik.

There were several dozen death sentences for desertion imposed
by courts martial but only Pvt. Slovik's sentence was actually
carried out.

Cheers,

--

[Cub Driver]

Post by Andrew Clark
I don't think anyone was shot for desertion or cowardice in
the British Army in WW2. And wasn't there only a few cases
in the US Army?

There was one, Eddie Slovik, who inevitably became the subject of a
book and (television?) movie.

--

[Billy Clements]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Would the captain have actually fired if Johann was still in the control
room and had been unable to pull himself together?

I was the Commanding Officer of a Polaris/Poseidon submarine for 51 months
during the Cold War. The CO, XO, Weapons Officer and Ass't Weapons Officer
all had .45 caliber pistols in their safes. If a member of the crew had
tried to prevent a legal tactical launch (one ordered by proper higher
authority and authenicated), we would have shot him. Thank God it never came
to that. I am only speaking for my boat--do not know how other boats
operated on this matter.
--

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Billy Clements

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Would the captain have actually fired if Johann was still in the control
room and had been unable to pull himself together?

I was the Commanding Officer of a Polaris/Poseidon submarine for 51 months
during the Cold War. The CO, XO, Weapons Officer and Ass't Weapons Officer
all had .45 caliber pistols in their safes. If a member of the crew had
tried to prevent a legal tactical launch (one ordered by proper higher
authority and authenicated), we would have shot him. Thank God it never came
to that. I am only speaking for my boat--do not know how other boats
operated on this matter.

That is quite a lot different from Johann's temporarily nervous
breakdown, where other than creating a scene and being away from his
battle station, he wasn't interfering with the operation of the boat.
His crying and blubbering could have been stopped with a gag, if there
was a concern that he would be heard on the destroyer's hydrophone.

Interference by a crewmember with a missile launch from a ballistic
missile submarine, is a whole different situation, and could be
construed as a militarily hostile action by the crewmember, and I can
see where a standing order would be in place to shoot a crewmember who
tried to do that. Wouldn't that be considered to be mutiny, a
deliberate and illegal attempt to obstruct the mission of the command?

mu·ti·ny
Open rebellion against constituted authority, especially rebellion
of sailors against superior officers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=mutiny

Likewise in a WWII example, a crewmember who tried to prevent the launch
of torpedoes when they needed to be fired and after the captain had
given the order to fire them, could legitimately face deadly force
designed to stop his interference. Wouldn't that be considered to be
mutiny, a deliberate and illegal attempt to obstruct the mission of the
command?
--

[Keith B. Rosenberg]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The scene ends with the captain sitting down and placing his pistol on a
table, and the officers were shown standing around with troubled looks
on their faces, some of them undoubtedly thinking that it could have
just as easily been them that cracked up.

One of the captains of U-505 committed suicide during a depth charge attack.
The executive officer assumed command and when the attack ended returned
the boat to France. Crew do crack up. So do officers.

That officers carry side arms is not just for self defense.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Is it realistic that a WWII German U-boat commander would think that
it would be militarily effective to threaten a key crewmember with
shooting, for cracking up during a depth charge attack and leaving his
battle station?

There was a somewhat similar incident on U-505. The boat's second
commander, Cszhech, was an insecure type, an ambitious martinet.

In the summer of 1943, U-505 had to abort its cruise five times
due to mechanical failures and sabotage. In a bar in Lorient,
Cszhech overheard a nasty joke at his expense, and was so upset
he crushed his drink glass in his hand.

U-505 finally got out to sea in October. 14 days out, she was
attacked by a British destroyer. At the height of the depth
charge attack, Cszech shot himself.

If a not-untypical officer could not tolerate such weakness
in himself, then it would not be tolerable in a crewman.
Hysteria can be contagious, and in a sub under attack there
would be no margin for disruption by a crewman having a fit.

[K. Helm]

Hi!

"Scott M. Kozel" <***@comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:cqmjg7$***@gazette.corp.bcm.tmc.edu...
...

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Is it realistic that a WWII German U-boat commander would think that
it would be militarily effective to threaten a key crewmember with
shooting, for cracking up during a depth charge attack and leaving his
battle station?

It wasn't just leaving his station.
He wanted to leave the boat by opening the tower's hatch.
This would have let to the loss of the complete boat.

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Would the captain have actually fired if Johann was still in the control
room and had been unable to pull himself together?

Consider the consequences...
Loose one man or loose all hands because of this one man...

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Obviously it is a serious problem affecting the whole U-boat when the
chief mechanic leaves his battle station during a depth charge attack,
but how would threatened or actual shooting of the chief mechanic solve
the problem?

The mechanic wanted to leave the boat under water...
He grabbed the ladder and wanted to climb up to the hatch....
Opening that hatch would mean sinking the sub.
Shoot the mechanic means keeping the hatch closed.
I cannot speculate about personal consequences for the captain and / or the
crew...

Post by Scott M. Kozel
How would this action motivate other crewmembers to not crackup
themselves?

Maybe they don't crack up, maybe there will be a mutiny? Who know's?

Post by Scott M. Kozel
How does this action increase the morale and efficiency of the crew?

Don't even think of such a shooting as a morale booster...
They will function for that journey, but then?

Kristian

[John Hatpin]

Post by K. Helm
He wanted to leave the boat by opening the tower's hatch.
This would have let to the loss of the complete boat.

The boat was running deep - it would surely have been impossible to
open the hatch due to outside water pressure.

Besides, there were plenty of crewmen available to restrain him
physically, which they did anyway when the Old Man went for his
pistol.

In this case, I'm inclined to believe that is was a dramatic moment
inserted for dramatic reasons. Cleverly, you don't (on first viewing)
know why the Captain walked away until it's all over and he sits down
and (dramatically) lays down his pistol on the table, with a camera
zoom to emphasise the weapon.

I suspect that it's little touches like this that angered Buchheim
(the book's author) - reputedly, he disowned the film, despite his
earlier involvement. It would be interesting to know more about that
side of the film's production - this isn't mentioned in the Director's
Commentary.

Pistols aside, Das Boot remains probably the best film ever about
WWII, and I urge anyone reading this who hasn't seen it to go out and
get hold of either the Director's Cut version, or, preferably, the
"Uncut" (5hr) version. Even if you're not particularly interested in
submarines, still rent or buy it. It's a very powerful - and almost
entirely accurate - film.

Oh, and buy the book too. It's even better. ;-)

[K. Helm]

Hi!

Post by John Hatpin

Post by K. Helm
He wanted to leave the boat by opening the tower's hatch.
This would have let to the loss of the complete boat.

The boat was running deep - it would surely have been impossible to
open the hatch due to outside water pressure.

You got that point. Johann wouldn't have been strong enough to open the
hatch fully.
But to endanger the boat and create a panic situation you need a litte hole
and water coming through it.

Post by John Hatpin
Besides, there were plenty of crewmen available to restrain him
physically, which they did anyway when the Old Man went for his
pistol.

If you look closely at that sequence, no one really moves. Everyone is
struck with fear (?) and somehow immobilized during that attack. Besides
they are on their post and doing their job. No one leaves his station just
for fun.
The old man has to get his pistol before anyone moves...

Post by John Hatpin
In this case, I'm inclined to believe that is was a dramatic moment
inserted for dramatic reasons. Cleverly, you don't (on first viewing)
know why the Captain walked away until it's all over and he sits down
and (dramatically) lays down his pistol on the table, with a camera
zoom to emphasise the weapon.

ACK, this is one of these "creative" elements you can use to build up
tensions.
"Oh my god, the old man wanted to shoot him?"

Post by John Hatpin
Pistols aside, Das Boot remains probably the best film ever about
WWII, and I urge anyone reading this who hasn't seen it to go out and
get hold of either the Director's Cut version, or, preferably, the
"Uncut" (5hr) version. Even if you're not particularly interested in
submarines, still rent or buy it. It's a very powerful - and almost
entirely accurate - film.

I fully agree to you.
I got the VHS-copy of the TV-Series and the directors cut.
I've seen the short version on tv as well.

The TV-Series is as close as it can get to the book and the reality.
But the old grey's do not love Buchheim for this work.
Many of the old u-boat drivers do not share his point of view.


Kristian




--

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by K. Helm
He wanted to leave the boat by opening the tower's hatch.
This would have let to the loss of the complete boat.

Well, actually, the hatch can't be opened under
water. It closes against the hull and is held shut
by water pressure. The pressure on the hatch would
be about 200 kg per meter of depth. At 50 meters,
that would be 10 tonnes.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by K. Helm

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Is it realistic that a WWII German U-boat commander would think that
it would be militarily effective to threaten a key crewmember with
shooting, for cracking up during a depth charge attack and leaving his
battle station?

It wasn't just leaving his station.
He wanted to leave the boat by opening the tower's hatch.
This would have let to the loss of the complete boat.

I watched that scene at least 6 times when I rented the DVD a few weeks
ago, and that wasn't my interpretation. I didn't see him trying to go
up the ladder to the hatch, and in any event, such a hatch would have a
"plug" type design to keep it from opening while underwater.

My best surmise as to why he went into the control room, was because
that is where the officers and captain are, and in his uncontrollable
fear he wanted to be near the captain since the captain is the "father
figure" on the boat, and that he would derive "comfort" from being near
the captain.

[John Hatpin]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by K. Helm

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Is it realistic that a WWII German U-boat commander would think that
it would be militarily effective to threaten a key crewmember with
shooting, for cracking up during a depth charge attack and leaving his
battle station?

It wasn't just leaving his station.
He wanted to leave the boat by opening the tower's hatch.
This would have let to the loss of the complete boat.

I watched that scene at least 6 times when I rented the DVD a few weeks
ago, and that wasn't my interpretation. I didn't see him trying to go
up the ladder to the hatch, and in any event, such a hatch would have a
"plug" type design to keep it from opening while underwater.
My best surmise as to why he went into the control room, was because
that is where the officers and captain are, and in his uncontrollable
fear he wanted to be near the captain since the captain is the "father
figure" on the boat, and that he would derive "comfort" from being near
the captain.

It looked to me like he seriously wanted to get out of the boat. He
was making panicky noises, was looking and pointing up the control
room ladder, and possibly (I don't remember without checking) had his
foot on the bottom rung. He certainly looked as if he wanted to climb
that ladder.

I always felt that he was being torn between the urgent desire to
escape and the knowledge that this was impossible. It was a
superlative piece of acting, and utterly believable.

[Tommi Syrjanen]

Post by K. Helm
The mechanic wanted to leave the boat under water...
He grabbed the ladder and wanted to climb up to the hatch....
Opening that hatch would mean sinking the sub.

The U-boat hatches opened outwards. This means that it was completely
impossible to open them underwater if the boat was not flooded as the
water pressure would hold them closed with far more strength than any
man or a group of men could exert.

Anyway, Das Boot is based on a war patrol of U-96 but it is not a
documentary. Buchheim made two submarine patrols and the book (and
thus also the film) draws on his experiences on both patrols, thus
creating an anachronistic combination of late 1941 and mid-1943 (I
think, I can't remember exactly when he made his second one). Many of
the events that are mentioned in passing (like deaths of Endrass and
Mützelburg, and introduction of homing torpedoes) happened after the
U-96 patrol. (I'm not certain if they are in the movie since I haven't
seen it in several years but they are in the book).

Buchheim also exaggerated quite a bit, in particular in the scene
where they are stranded at bottom after failing to pass Gibraltar.
Sure, they got damaged by bombs dropped from a Swordfish and had to
spend a couple of hours at the bottom fixing the boat--a nasty
situation, indeed--but the extent of the damage, time spent to fix it,
and the depth they were in were all embellished.

I'm not completely certain but I think that the scene of panicking
machinist NCO was Buchheim's invention and it didn't happen during the
real patrol of U-96. Also, I have the feeling (but I can't check) that
in the book it was not Johann who panicked, but his second.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The book _Das Boot_ was published in 1975, and it was heavily based on
real events . . .

Does this mean that more than one operational U-boat
was resupplied at a port in neutral Spain?

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
--

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The book _Das Boot_ was published in 1975, and it was heavily based on
real events . . .

Does this mean that more than one operational U-boat
was resupplied at a port in neutral Spain?

I included "even though the book was a novel" after the ". . ." above.
"Novel" means "fiction", and the author claimed that the book drew from
real events, but that doesn't mean that the author might not use a real
core event with some modifications to the periphery, or maybe create a
second instance of one real event.
--

[Louis Capdeboscq]

Post by Don Phillipson
Does this mean that more than one operational U-boat
was resupplied at a port in neutral Spain?

Definitely.


LC

[John Hatpin]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The book _Das Boot_ was published in 1975, and it was heavily based on
real events . . .

Does this mean that more than one operational U-boat
was resupplied at a port in neutral Spain?

I believe so, and also that Vigo was that port.

The Spanish authorities, until late in the war, were often willing to
turn a blind eye to Axis use of their ports. Consider the ease with
which the Italians maintained a base for midget submarines (SLCs) in
Algeciras, adjacent to Gibraltar, for attacks on shipping in the
British port. There's no reason to suppose that similar blind eyes
wouldn't be turned in Vigo.

The impression I get is that bribes could secure some pretty amazing
support in Spain, and the Germans had the pesetas. In the Algeciras
case, they were able to ship a huge amount of materiel to what was
fundamentally a derelict interned tanker (the Olterra) - as long as
this wasn't done overtly, it was possible, though illegal. Money
changed hands, and questions weren't asked.

Back to Vigo, the hardest part for me to believe is that they took
torpedoes on board which had been dropped off previously by boats
returning from patrol. Fuel oil, food, and so on, I can understand,
being supplied from within Spain, but I sometimes wonder how true it
is that boats would exchange torpedoes in that manner rather than at
sea or back in a home port. Logistically, it doesn't make much sense.