Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Sub Warfare

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Sub Warfare Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 1:10:29 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		I'm playing the campaign as allies now in Mid March 1942, I've sunk 130 Japanese ships and damaged another 100 or so.

I think allied subs are far to deadly this early in the war and ASW is completly out of wack, where every ship in a TF will attack a single sub, sinking it most of the time!

US subs in the early part of the war suffered from bad tactics, bad comanders, and bad torpedoes.
Post #: 1
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 1:22:51 AM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I will gladly trade some of my US subs for some of yours, in the spirit of game balance. My Us boats seem to have trouble landing hits. I am betting most of it is due to the torpedoes. I have only hit probably 4 ships with US boats and I am in Jan of 42 almost Feb (26th of Jan I think ). THe Dutch boats and UK boats have done much better with thier better torpedoes. Even so I beleive they have hit about 10 ships.

UB

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 2
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 1:54:05 AM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		Well my (US)subs hit things, but the torpedoes fail to explode, or if they do, they rarely actually sink much. My evil imperial oponent, may his Kami rot wherever Kamis rot, sends off a 30 ship ASW TF that proceeds to depth charge my valiant sub, which ends up having to be scuttled. So I think the sub play is probably balanced (If you are allied)

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 3
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 2:34:22 AM   
Warspite**

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/26/2002
From: CA
Status: offline 		Be fair, after all that I only managed to hit you with 2 depth charges.

(in reply to kaleun)
Post #: 4
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 3:34:23 AM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline 		Same here! I am in may 42 and my(allied) subs are not really sinking that much. I think it's set about right for the historical out come.
quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I will gladly trade some of my US subs for some of yours, in the spirit of game balance. My Us boats seem to have trouble landing hits. I am betting most of it is due to the torpedoes. I have only hit probably 4 ships with US boats and I am in Jan of 42 almost Feb (26th of Jan I think ). THe Dutch boats and UK boats have done much better with thier better torpedoes. Even so I beleive they have hit about 10 ships.

UB


_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 5
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 3:34:56 AM   
Top Cat

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 8/26/2002
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline 		I agree I'm late into Feb. 1942 as the Allies and the number of Japanese ships sunk is 120+, 90% due to submarines. At this rate Japanes merchant fleet is going to dissolve very quickly.

I'd also like to recruit the commander of one Japanese sub (the I-9 I beleive).
Sent a taskforce of 6 MSW on ASW duty to catch him and he's taken out 4 of the ships in less than a week. Thankfully I think he's run out of torpedoes.

I was under the delusion that subs were supposed to run and hide from ships equipped with sonar and depth charges.....

Cheers
Top Cat

(in reply to Warspite**)
Post #: 6
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 3:41:41 AM   
Platoonist


Posts: 1342
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Kila Hana
Status: offline 		I was curious...has anyone ever seen a sub sink (or attack) another sub either in Witp or UV? The first Japanese warship sunk in the war was an I-Boat sunk by the Gudgeon....one of several instances when a sub was ambushed on the surface by another of it's kind. I believe an I-Boat sank the Gato Class sub Corvina the only known instance of a US sub being sunk by a sub. Haven't seen it yet myself.

_____________________________


(in reply to Top Cat)
Post #: 7
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 3:45:35 AM   
Rendova


Posts: 405
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline 		Wasn't a Midget sub sunk by the USS. Ward before the air strikes on PH? Maybe a Midget sub doesn't count as a "warship".

(in reply to Platoonist)
Post #: 8
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 3:47:10 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline 		Yup. Just recently discovered, too.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Rendova)
Post #: 9
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 4:22:55 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline 		Just a question: Is that bizarre feature from UV still in whereby subs that are attacked lose a load of fuel point?

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 10
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 4:51:23 AM   
shoevarek

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 5/2/2004
Status: offline 		I must say i have not much against sub simulation in the game. It seems to me that this part of the game improved a lot when compared with UV. I passed only 2 months of game time however and only as Japanese with Allied AI.

At the beginning my ASW groups seemed to be useless but over a time (I guess after shakedown cruises) they became quite effective. It is beginning of Feb 42 and more then 10 Allied hunters are sunk. My ASW TF make a lot of unsuccessful attacks but from time to time they damage or kill subs. AI concentrates subs in few places that is why i managed to sink quite a few of them. Moreover my ships made a lot of attacks on previously damaged subs consequently sinking them.
My subs also have some successes although if caught by Allied DD they have almost no chance to escape (same like UV once spotted they can be treated dead) - just few times they were attacked and managed to escape. Maybe there should be more unsuccessful attacs or attacks resulting in damaged sub.
As for the shipping losses - yes it is true AI Allied sub are ineffective (as for now), although they made some attacks and damaged few ships. On the other hand my subs didn't score so many hits either, though when they attack they usually damage ships heavily or sink them. I could have been more aggressive but it would probably end up with many jap subs beeing sunk by escorts (i lost till now 5 or 6). So I concentrate on fleeing unescorted ships and halted production of all other subs - what is the point of producing fresh meet for strengthened allied convoys?

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 11
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 5:39:58 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Platoonist - There is no sub to sub combat in UV or Witp!
Unlike the movies sub to sub combat was very rare.

At the rate my subs are sinking Japanese ships, who need aircraft carriers!

< Message edited by pad152 -- 7/21/2004 3:54:41 AM >

(in reply to Platoonist)
Post #: 12
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 6:34:07 AM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Platoonist - There is no sub to sub combat in UV or Witp!
Unlike the movies sub to sub combat was very rare.

At the rate my subs are sinking Japanese ships, who need aircraft carriers!


I haven't noticed my US subs doing too much but I have a couple of Dutch subs that are wrecking balls. I watched one surface attack where they went absolutely bananas on a tanker with their 88 deck gun - not to mention the 4 torps they put into it.

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 13
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 8:22:53 AM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline 		Its now jan 9th in the grand campaign and i'm the US in it.My subs are acting fine,alot of US duds/fail to explode and misses.Dutch and brits are doing better but no major slaughter of ships by subs.I have had MANY,repeat Many subs depth charged acouple sunk but the majority damaged.Some of the damage is virtually hull paint scrapings,while other is ofcourse more serious.

(in reply to The Gnome)
Post #: 14
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 8:36:33 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		AFter six weeks of game time I must say the subs feel about right.. The first two weeks were a kill fest for the allied ASW and they mounted up a hefty kill sheet. But since then my losses have been a lot less with more misses and simple damage occuring. PLus, with Wake in my hands, its easier to get a damaged and leaking sub to port to get fixed...

I still do not enjoy watching my subs fire 6 or 8 torps at a single target and only have 1 hit, or all miss.. The thing that really makes me mad is when my subs fire 8 torps and they are all duds... Sometimes I wonder if the IJN bought so US torpedoes on the black market and didnt tell anyone.. WHat are the odds of all 8 torps being duds ? No very high is my guess...

I have lost 19 subs at my last count, with probably 85% of them right around PH - I figure a good 50% of my losses were in the first 2 weeks...

Most of my losses (and of the 12 allied subs I've killed) were sent (and left) in dangerous waters for too long and were pounced on by ASW TFs... One major problem is that the bulk of Japan's ASW is short range ships, whereas the allies have more ASW DDs with longer range... This allows the allies to pounce faster and from farther away than the japanese and will aid in his ability to kill IJN subs..

Xargun

< Message edited by Xargun -- 7/21/2004 6:38:09 AM >

(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 15
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 9:35:48 AM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Platoonist - There is no sub to sub combat in UV or Witp!
Unlike the movies sub to sub combat was very rare.


Actually I would bet that there were more sub vs. sub encounters than BB vs, BB encounters. Would you be so calm if BB vs. BB was not in the game ?

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 16
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 10:37:49 AM   
Platoonist


Posts: 1342
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Kila Hana
Status: offline 		There were sixteen instances of Japanese subs sunk by American subs and two of Japanese subs sunk by British subs during World War II . It certainly wasn't modern submarine warfare as practiced for through the Cold War deep in the depths. The encounters usually involved one sub running on the surface and the other being submerged in the right place at the right time. Comparatively rare...but it did happen.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 17
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 3:23:34 PM   
barbarrossa


Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline 		I actually had a DD try to torpedo a I-boat last night leeward of the Great Barrier Reef.

That's what it looked like.

_____________________________

"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model

(in reply to Platoonist)
Post #: 18
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 5:43:01 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Top Cat,

I do nto thin kin '42 that you have sonar. Not on MSW anyway. But yeah he is a serious bad boy if 4 of 6 in an ASW TF are dead from him !

UB

(in reply to Top Cat)
Post #: 19
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 5:50:40 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I had an ASW TF torpedoe a JP sub in the tutorial. It listed the torp as cause of death in the sunk ships list, and the Combat report said it as well. I am guessing that they caught them on the surface and BOOM! The sub did sink quickly with no depth chargeing.

UB

(in reply to barbarrossa)
Post #: 20
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 7:45:34 PM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

I had an ASW TF torpedoe a JP sub in the tutorial. It listed the torp as cause of death in the sunk ships list, and the Combat report said it as well. I am guessing that they caught them on the surface and BOOM! The sub did sink quickly with no depth chargeing.


Maybethe sub torpedoed itself. There was at least one instance that I know of, when a US sub operating IIRC in the area around Formosa, let off a spread of torpedoes, only to have one turn back and hit the sub, with wholly predictable results. IIRC only the people on the bridge survived. I am sure some forum grog will have the actual info.

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 21
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 8:02:59 PM   
daft

 

Posts: 406
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline 		USS Tang I assume. Some of the crew managed to escape from the forward torpedo room too.

_____________________________


(in reply to kaleun)
Post #: 22
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 8:05:18 PM   
Maliki


Posts: 2217
Joined: 12/25/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I will gladly trade some of my US subs for some of yours, in the spirit of game balance. My Us boats seem to have trouble landing hits. I am betting most of it is due to the torpedoes. I have only hit probably 4 ships with US boats and I am in Jan of 42 almost Feb (26th of Jan I think ). THe Dutch boats and UK boats have done much better with thier better torpedoes. Even so I beleive they have hit about 10 ships.

UB


quote:

Well my (US)subs hit things, but the torpedoes fail to explode, or if they do, they rarely actually sink much. My evil imperial oponent, may his Kami rot wherever Kamis rot, sends off a 30 ship ASW TF that proceeds to depth charge my valiant sub, which ends up having to be scuttled. So I think the sub play is probably balanced (If you are allied)


The US subs had a bad batch of torpedoes to start the war with,coupled with the fact that they were tested in Atlantic waters(apparently something about differing magnetic fields around ships(?) between the two oceans.Throw in the that most US sub skippers at the time were overly cautious and you have what is happening in the game.Starting sometime in 43 these problems were all rectified and thats when the US subs entered their heyday in the Pacific.


I wish i was having the same anti-sub luck everyone else here seems to be enjoying.Playing the guadacanal campaign for the loss of two subs,i keyed in on them with ASW groups,they took out a carrier,a couple cruisers and several destroyers.I spot them but my ASW groups just wait until one takes a shot at them,and even then not always,before they decide to react.

_____________________________

"..if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away."

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 23
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 8:43:31 PM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun
I still do not enjoy watching my subs fire 6 or 8 torps at a single target and only have 1 hit, or all miss.. The thing that really makes me mad is when my subs fire 8 torps and they are all duds... Sometimes I wonder if the IJN bought so US torpedoes on the black market and didnt tell anyone.. WHat are the odds of all 8 torps being duds ? No very high is my guess...


Take a look at these: http://www.ww2pacific.com/torpedo.html , http://www.battlebelow.com/subwar.htm , and http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm

Frankly, there should be more US duds, not less. In an event described in hte above articles, one sub fired 15 torpedos at a target - 13 were duds.

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 24
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/21/2004 11:25:11 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Thanks Oznoyng

This is what I was trying to point out, that for the first 6 months of the war US subs where not the ships killers they are in the game and US subs should be less effective in the early part of the war.

(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 25
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/22/2004 2:01:54 AM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Maliki

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I will gladly trade some of my US subs for some of yours, in the spirit of game balance. My Us boats seem to have trouble landing hits. I am betting most of it is due to the torpedoes. I have only hit probably 4 ships with US boats and I am in Jan of 42 almost Feb (26th of Jan I think ). THe Dutch boats and UK boats have done much better with thier better torpedoes. Even so I beleive they have hit about 10 ships.

UB


quote:

Well my (US)subs hit things, but the torpedoes fail to explode, or if they do, they rarely actually sink much. My evil imperial oponent, may his Kami rot wherever Kamis rot, sends off a 30 ship ASW TF that proceeds to depth charge my valiant sub, which ends up having to be scuttled. So I think the sub play is probably balanced (If you are allied)


The US subs had a bad batch of torpedoes to start the war with,coupled with the fact that they were tested in Atlantic waters(apparently something about differing magnetic fields around ships(?) between the two oceans.Throw in the that most US sub skippers at the time were overly cautious and you have what is happening in the game.Starting sometime in 43 these problems were all rectified and thats when the US subs entered their heyday in the Pacific.


I wish i was having the same anti-sub luck everyone else here seems to be enjoying.Playing the guadacanal campaign for the loss of two subs,i keyed in on them with ASW groups,they took out a carrier,a couple cruisers and several destroyers.I spot them but my ASW groups just wait until one takes a shot at them,and even then not always,before they decide to react.


They also never did a war shot i.e. fired a torpedo with a live warhead because it cost to much since the torpedo in question would be destroyed and unable to be recovered and recycled. So they didn't find out about the dud problem (both the magnetic detonator and the back up impact detonator) and the fact that with a real warhead installed the the torpedo ran circa 8 feet deeper than set it would pass underneath the ship. So the Mk 14 actualy had three interconnected problems caused by peent pinching REMF desk jockeys.

1) Magnetic detonator would only work properly in North Atlantic waters were it was tested.
2) When the torpedo struck the target at <15 degree angle the firing pin would jam our snap.
3) With a real warhead installed it ran to deep for either detonator to work porperly.

Fix the first problem and the next two bite you. That why it took months fix, plus the fact the the officer incharge of the Mk 14 torpedo development was either ComSubPac or ComSubSWPac (can't remember which, Lockwood or Christie) during the first year of the war and blamed all duds on the skippers and not the torpedoes and his own stupid actions.

Sorry for the rant, but the fact they never court-martialed that SOB still p!sses me off

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Maliki)
Post #: 26
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/22/2004 2:51:19 AM   
Hatamoto

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: near Munich/Germany
Status: offline 		Well, I´m as far as March 13th 1942, so far about 230 jap ships have gone down (+a few more I still don´t know about) compared to 70 allied, but most losses are due to bombing, especially those jap TKs, the AI likes to send to palembang, while 160 allied planes are sitting at Batavia, wating for more targets. Sub warfare seems to be ok, maybe there should be a few more duds for the allies (although Shokaku came away cause of these dammned duds). Lost 6 allied subs so far (8 more are badly damaged, but repairing rather quickly) against 11 jap ones, with approx. 5 or 6 more badly damaged.

One thing I noticed is to keep away from those jap APDs with their 8 DCs, 3 of my 6 losses are due to APDs doing ASW. the other 3 losses are caused by DDs (2 times Kido Butais escorts), jap PC/PGs and MSWs seem to be pretty useless, and AI doesn´t handle them well ( tends to send them with their TKs to palembang ;-) ), sunk about 20 !!! of them.

Jap AI seems to concentrate its subs at OZ eastern coast, and they cause a couple of losses on ASW TFs (nearly 1 ASW ship for 1,75 subs), MSWs are good at hunting them down, but also very vulnerable (none survived a single hit), had some success with those old 4 stackers too.

(in reply to tanjman)
Post #: 27
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/22/2004 6:18:22 AM   
Aficionado

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 7/5/2004
Status: offline 		In early January of my current (and first) game, I had US subs get shots off at TWO Jap flat-tops.

**Torpedo fails to detonate**




quote:


can't remember which, Lockwood or Christie


It was Christie. He was an LT when he was working on the MkXIVs. During the war he even went so far as to order skippers to NOT disable the magnetic detonator or change the depth controls. Just about all the higher-ups thought the skippers were at fault until some actual testing had been done. The Catch-22 was that there was no reason to do any testing, because the skippers were clearly at fault. That's the government for you. The establishment even went so far as to issue 'guidelines' for proper torp usage, and to occasionally send out Bureau of Ordinance "specialists" to help in the proper maintainence of torps. In classic "I'm from the government. I'm here to help!" fashion, one of the BuOrd techs set a gyro wrong and would've caused a circular run if the submarine crew hadn't noticed his mistake.

Lockwood conducted the first test of the MkXIV, to determine if it ran too deep, in June of '42. The torps were fired into a fishing net, with a fake warhead that had been weighted down somehow to have the same weight as a real warhead. Several torpedos were fired, and they all ran deep. However, the test wasn't 'scientific' enough for the Bureau of Ordinance.

So how many PP should it cost to promote Christie to Officer in Charge of Coffee Replenishment, Kiska Naval Base?

< Message edited by Aficionado -- 7/22/2004 4:22:17 AM >

(in reply to tanjman)
Post #: 28
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/22/2004 6:27:21 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		I read that the contact detonators would break on a head on hit, and thus not detonate, so an angled hit might be less violent and cause an explosion... the testing which was done finally did reveal that the skippers where not lying, can you imagine the outrage.. If I was a skipper and somone suggested I lied to cover my ass, when I knew torps where bad I would probably come unglued.....

(in reply to Aficionado)
Post #: 29
RE: Sub Warfare - 7/22/2004 6:32:43 AM   
Top Cat

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 8/26/2002
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

Top Cat,

I do nto thin kin '42 that you have sonar. Not on MSW anyway. But yeah he is a serious bad boy if 4 of 6 in an ASW TF are dead from him !

UB


Not sure about the Aussie MSW's but there was plenty of sonar around before WW2. A 30 second search Found the following at uboat.net.

In 1939, Great Britain had 165 destroyers and 54 patrol ships and minesweepers equipped with the active sonar. Before WW2, the United States had 60 destroyers equipped with the active sonar. Germany had many ships and submarines equipped with the sonar. In the German navy, the sonar was known as “S-unit”. In WW2 the sonar was improved in all navies involved in the war. The active sonar generally was fitted on surface ships. Submarines generally were equipped with passive sonar i.e. “Underwater sound detector”.

Anyway it's now about 9-1 to the Japanese off the coast of Australia in my current game, 2DD's and 7 MSW's for the loss of 1 sub. Think it's just a run of bad luck more than anything. These losses were inflicted on dedicated ASW taskforces of 6+ ships a piece.

Cheers
Top Cat

Cheers
Top Cat

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Sub Warfare Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.641