issit thrue that RN let 2k sailors die when bismark sank

At least they didn't machine gunned them as they did with crew of DD Erich Giese:

or

Source:
Heinz-Wilhelm Eck: Siegerjustiz and the Peleus Affair (page 2)

Or actions UK submarine Torbay (Anthony "Crap" Miers)
on 4. and 9. July 1941 in Aegean when he machine gunned survivors.

Source:

A very incomplete list of Submarine atrocities.

 

Aparently u know much more about this then i do :lol:

 

TISO, your examples can be summed up as:

DD Erich Giese: Sunk next the shore - crew could act as reinforcements to German troops on the land. Which kinda defeats the point of sinking the ship in the first place


Battle of the Bismarck Sea: The American aim is to stop Japanese reinforcements from getting to New Guinea. There is a good chance that the soldiers in the lifeboats will get there, despite their transport being sunk. Which kinda defeats the point of sinking the ship in the first place


Torbay: The alternative (at least, my assumtion from what you posted) is that the enemy crew get back in their ship and sail off home. Which kinda defeats the point of attacking the ship in the first place




Now I'll admit that none of these were exactly 'sporting', but this is war, and none of them are examples where genuinely helpless non-combatants were attacked.
Find me an example of a U-boat crew being machinegunned in the middle of the Atlantic and I will concede the point

 

Your asumption is wrong.
You should read entire article regarding Torbay. Ships were sunk. Entire article regarding Torbay:

In a book dealing with survivors of Burma railway. It is also clearly stated that when US subs found allied POW survivors of two sunken ships they wanted to have a little target practice before they discovered that they were Diggers. About Wahoo. Most men it the water were Indian POW's being transported to Japan and not Japanese (but it seems nobody realy checked on who they were firing).

BTW

Eck's crew were machinegunned from the planes as they beached their boat and were leaving it. Check first page of Eck trial i provided in my prewious link. Not North atlantic but Somaliland coast which was on 2nd of may 1944 firmly under allied control.

BTW connection of U-852 to sinking of Paleus was only established later when her crew was in processing in the POW camp.

 

Fair enough, I'll yield on this one - it seems like the skipper was a nut-job.

Or leave a hundred or so of the enemy free to range around inside Allied territory? They were not prisoners, they had not surrendered to anybody, and the best way to make sure that they don't get up to any mischief is to somehow tie them down until a force of soldiers arrives to arrest them.

Cynical & rather unpleasant? Yes.
Breach of Geneva Convention? No.


Although honesty compels me to state that I would be quite angryt if it was a British crew and German aircraft. Like I said, it is cynical & unpleasant.

 

KHM. Have you checked where Somaliland coast is? So you have a sub crew obviously escaping heavly damaged and beched U boat on a desert coast. What "mischief" could they possibly do? Where could they possibly escape? You asked for example of allies machine gunning sub crew, here you have it.

 

The boat was heading for the Indian Ocean to join the Monsoon wolfpack operating there.

This boat got famous for all the wrong reasons when Kptlt. Heinz Eck had survivors of the Greek steamer Peleus machine-gunned in the water to erase all signs of his sinking. Eck and 2 of his crew were executed after the war, the only U-boat commander to be even tried for war crimes.