Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: DDs finding and destroying mines?

 
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 >> RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/15/2006 7:45:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I consider the way WITP handles DD minesweeping a minor flaw in the game. Paravanes were there to use, so DDs should be able to perform the task in a very inefficient manner (highly costly, as well, but absolutely necessary on those occasions that tend to send captains to their cabins for their brown pants). DDs are also able to perform ASW operations at full speed as well, so the problem isn't limited to minesweeping and shore bombardment.


This is quite correct. The main penalty for sweeping mines should be time. If you do not spend 100% of your ops points in the hex, you are not minesweeping! And the risk is higher than the same thing by real minesweepers would be. And you cannot do ANY OTHER operations in that turn. That would be reasonable (and even optimistic - since it takes more than 12 hours to clear a field). And if you move fast, you should be unable to detect a submarine that is not surfaced. [Of course, ALL submarines are basically ALWAYS surfaced - but that is a different problem.]

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 31
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/15/2006 7:58:01 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I was on a USN FFG. We had no minesweeping equipment at all. In GW-I my ship (USS Halyburton FFG-40) detected and avoided (and since we were the "low end" of the the "high low mix" we led the TF (The CV USS America CV USS JFK TF) No ship in this TF ever hit a mine. The TF moved normally at 22 knts or better.


The vast majority of USN ships damaged since the end of WWII have been damaged by mines. This includes ALL the USN ships damaged in the Gulf War. While the Mark One Eyeball is a good deal better than nothing, whole classes of mines are NEVER visible. Modern mines are laid in - or under - the seabed - and many of them come to you! [These include rising mines and homing torpedos planted as mines]. You were not in mined waters - and your lookouts were only looking for mines that had broken free from their moorings and were floating. We had sufficient problems with mines in the Gulf War we decided NOT to enter mined waters - even though that denied us the ability to flank over the beach.
We "solved" the naval mine problem by sending the Marines overland, around the other flank! This won't always be a feasible fix! And our decision not only to stop building minehunters, but to get rid of the entire mine force, and make minehunting the fourth mission of the Littoral Combat Ship, is not going to make it any better. Mine warfare is a poor cousin in the USN, and it won't have any advocates at all when we get rid of the last specialists. This is similar to the lighter than air program - which had a real set of technical advantages - but no one of flag rank to advocate them. Or submarines in IJN - which had a similar problem - staff officers for submarines were junior and expected only to implement orders to submarines - not advise on strategic and operational measures.
The only glimmer of hope is that this situation is constantly and widely described by JF Dunnigan, owner of FYEO, and a personal friend of the CNO. I know of no other reason to have even a 1 in 100 shot hope we might reform and give mine warfare its due.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 32
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/15/2006 8:01:11 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Actually, he wrote two books on the topic for the U.S. Navy. He worked with me, in writing the mine rules. Ad hoc minesweeping operations can only be conducted at low speeds, by the way. The routine checks how many hexes the destroyer has traveled on the turn in question.

Bye...

Michael Wood


If this was the intent, someone needs to check the code. It is not being implemented (branching around for some reason?). It is possible - even routine - to move at the full theoretical max speed distance with a single DMS and get the minesweeping effect.

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 33
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/15/2006 10:28:40 PM   
tabpub


Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

WITP has air-laid mines, and many players use them. You have to get to a certain date, however.


Which makes what kind of sense? Why cannot inventories of mines that already existed be used? Limit mine supply to historical levels, not the ability to deliver them. And allow minelayers to load mines of the right type in any port that has them of the right nation.


This is the 2nd time that you have mentioned "inventories of mines". There are no inventories of mines. And a ML/DM can load mines at any port that meets the requirements. Are you aware of what the requirements are to do this?

_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 34
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/15/2006 10:34:54 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The technology involved is paravanes. These are floats with wires attached strung from the bow - the mine cables catch the wires and that forces them up where riflemen can shoot them. Tricky, dangerous work, it was even done by my 16,000 ton APA (USS Francis Marion, APA-249, the last ever built).


Battleship USS Washington had paravanes. Don't recall if she ever used them.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 35
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/16/2006 1:04:15 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		That thread reminded me about some funny situation in Poland. It was 2 or 3 years ago. Somewhere on river between Szczecin (big port,inland) and Swinoujscie (smaller port,near sea) was found a naval mine. Now it had to be destroyed. Navy refused because, as they said, it was floating inland and it was Army task. Then Army refused because it was naval mine and it was Navy task. Possibly it was not sweeped yet.



_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 36
Turns out there are NOT air laid mines - except for B-29s. - 1/16/2006 9:13:10 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		It does not matter how many models existed - or what planes could lay them - you cannot lay air minefields in WITP - unless you have late war B-29s. So this is plain wrong.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 37
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/16/2006 9:16:33 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

This is the 2nd time that you have mentioned "inventories of mines". There are no inventories of mines. And a ML/DM can load mines at any port that meets the requirements. Are you aware of what the requirements are to do this?


Turns out what appears to be "inventories of mines" are "inventories of defensive minefields in the hex." And - no - I am not aware of what the requirements are - since they never work. It is said the port must be level 9, which, if correct, is bunk. The home port of a Dutch ML or sub should be able to load her with mines - at least the original home port.
Because it could. And would. Same for other nations. Mines should be available at any major naval depot - unless you have used them all. Not to mention for your bombers.

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 38
RE: Turns out there are NOT air laid mines - except for... - 1/16/2006 10:54:31 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It does not matter how many models existed - or what planes could lay them - you cannot lay air minefields in WITP - unless you have late war B-29s. So this is plain wrong.


Yes you can. B-24's for certain, maybe B-17's also. I haven't checked other types, but I believe it is either all heavies or all level bombers.

Select 'City' (or 'City Attack') for a mission. You will be presented with a target selection screen. In the lower left part of the screen is a 'Mine Port' button. Upon selecting it you are presented with a list of ports within range.

Someone above mentioned that this function might be date dependant. I do not know about that.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 39
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/16/2006 11:12:50 AM   
tabpub


Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

This is the 2nd time that you have mentioned "inventories of mines". There are no inventories of mines. And a ML/DM can load mines at any port that meets the requirements. Are you aware of what the requirements are to do this?


Turns out what appears to be "inventories of mines" are "inventories of defensive minefields in the hex." And - no - I am not aware of what the requirements are - since they never work. It is said the port must be level 9, which, if correct, is bunk. The home port of a Dutch ML or sub should be able to load her with mines - at least the original home port.
Because it could. And would. Same for other nations. Mines should be available at any major naval depot - unless you have used them all. Not to mention for your bombers.

A level 9 or greater port is considered to be a major naval depot, which is relatively easy to envision. Increasing a level 8 port to 9 is not impossible and has been done. Additionally, when you have created your MLE ships, now any port of 3 or greater size with 20k supplies (as I recall the requirements) is a mine depot when they are there. There are no limits on the amount of mines that you can create. Bombers will load mines at bases if they have enough supplies also. Believe the date to be Jan. 43, but I could be mistaken; I will have to check next time.

_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 40
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/16/2006 12:03:48 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

This is the 2nd time that you have mentioned "inventories of mines". There are no inventories of mines. And a ML/DM can load mines at any port that meets the requirements. Are you aware of what the requirements are to do this?


Turns out what appears to be "inventories of mines" are "inventories of defensive minefields in the hex." And - no - I am not aware of what the requirements are - since they never work. It is said the port must be level 9, which, if correct, is bunk. The home port of a Dutch ML or sub should be able to load her with mines - at least the original home port.
Because it could. And would. Same for other nations. Mines should be available at any major naval depot - unless you have used them all. Not to mention for your bombers.



Regarding dutch minelayers. IIRC the explanation was that the dutch only had mines on the minelayers in SRA and no existing stocks. So no lvl 9 ports are in the SRA area in the scenario start. You can however upgrade Sorebaja to a level 9 within one month. The jap player will most certainly be pleased.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 41
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/16/2006 3:09:19 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		"Every ship can be a minesweeper...once.."

Just lost a DD in game when I went to bombard Truk with BBs, after Argonaut laid mines there... "Own" mines can hurt too...

"DD Ammen hits Mk 12 mine"..those are rather powerful...couldn't save it even when owning Eniwetok nearby.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 42
RE: Turns out there are NOT air laid mines - except for... - 1/17/2006 3:37:08 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

It does not matter how many models existed - or what planes could lay them - you cannot lay air minefields in WITP - unless you have late war B-29s. So this is plain wrong.


Yes you can. B-24's for certain, maybe B-17's also. I haven't checked other types, but I believe it is either all heavies or all level bombers.


I hope you are correct. I asked and was told "B-29s only." But the lack of a real manual means no one at all can remember the details prefectly - and no one can look them up. IF you are correct, Japan should be able to lay mines with the G5 in present CHS, or G8 in the next one (assuming the G8 is added and G5 is turned into the transport it should be - both of which are in the proposed material). The problem with G8 is that it isn't available early.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 43
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/17/2006 3:41:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Additionally, when you have created your MLE ships


Which represents what in the real world?

MLE in US Naval nomenclature should mean "minelayer, escort" - a type common in the Japanese navy. It should mean a ship fitted to detect and engage submarines, and to protect convoys from surface and air attack, in addition to minelaying as a primary function.

Joe jokes MLE stands for "MineLayer Enabler" - but that is NOT a real world concept. And why do I have to "create one" at all? Why can a Dutch or British or American ML not load mines at a port like Soerabaja, Singapore or Manila? I do not understand the need for such complex coding. [Easier to just let ships work as designed than to code restrictions]. The lobby against mine warfare must be very strong indeed to make all this happen.

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 44
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/17/2006 3:59:03 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Additionally, when you have created your MLE ships


Which represents what in the real world?

MLE in US Naval nomenclature should mean "minelayer, escort" - a type common in the Japanese navy. It should mean a ship fitted to detect and engage submarines, and to protect convoys from surface and air attack, in addition to minelaying as a primary function.

Joe jokes MLE stands for "MineLayer Enabler" - but that is NOT a real world concept. And why do I have to "create one" at all? Why can a Dutch or British or American ML not load mines at a port like Soerabaja, Singapore or Manila? I do not understand the need for such complex coding. [Easier to just let ships work as designed than to code restrictions]. The lobby against mine warfare must be very strong indeed to make all this happen.


I suggested long ago that such things such as mine depots, ammo barges, anti torpedo defences etc be modelled like fortifications, and become available to build when a port reaches a certain minimum size (8) size. Would have avoided fictitious ships like MLEs and abstractly modelled gate and net auxilliaries, ammo lighters etc. The larger the "facilities" become (1-9) the larger the calibre of shell could be obtained, number of torps, mines, bombs available (all dependent on supply shipped in).


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 45
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/17/2006 4:57:12 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I consider the way WITP handles DD minesweeping a minor flaw in the game. Paravanes were there to use, so DDs should be able to perform the task in a very inefficient manner (highly costly, as well, but absolutely necessary on those occasions that tend to send captains to their cabins for their brown pants). DDs are also able to perform ASW operations at full speed as well, so the problem isn't limited to minesweeping and shore bombardment.


This is quite correct. The main penalty for sweeping mines should be time. If you do not spend 100% of your ops points in the hex, you are not minesweeping! And the risk is higher than the same thing by real minesweepers would be. And you cannot do ANY OTHER operations in that turn. That would be reasonable (and even optimistic - since it takes more than 12 hours to clear a field). And if you move fast, you should be unable to detect a submarine that is not surfaced. [Of course, ALL submarines are basically ALWAYS surfaced - but that is a different problem.]


On the nose, Cid. And as for subs, even this goofy system that has them being surface ships could have handled the "spotting" problem. If you move fast in WWII, you make smoke. Sub sees smoke and dives until you've passed, or it decides to take a shot at you. Obviously only a hyper-aggressive Sam Dealey type is going to take a shot at an ASW TF. The rest will let you "thunder by".


_____________________________


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 46
RE: Turns out there are NOT air laid mines - except for... - 1/17/2006 6:22:04 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

It does not matter how many models existed - or what planes could lay them - you cannot lay air minefields in WITP - unless you have late war B-29s. So this is plain wrong.


Yes you can. B-24's for certain, maybe B-17's also. I haven't checked other types, but I believe it is either all heavies or all level bombers.


I hope you are correct. I asked and was told "B-29s only." But the lack of a real manual means no one at all can remember the details prefectly - and no one can look them up. IF you are correct, Japan should be able to lay mines with the G5 in present CHS, or G8 in the next one (assuming the G8 is added and G5 is turned into the transport it should be - both of which are in the proposed material). The problem with G8 is that it isn't available early.


I did it with B-24's in current AI game. Not certain about other a/c (other than B-29).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 47
RE: Turns out there are NOT air laid mines - except for... - 1/17/2006 4:14:22 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

It does not matter how many models existed - or what planes could lay them - you cannot lay air minefields in WITP - unless you have late war B-29s. So this is plain wrong.


Yes you can. B-24's for certain, maybe B-17's also. I haven't checked other types, but I believe it is either all heavies or all level bombers.


I hope you are correct. I asked and was told "B-29s only." But the lack of a real manual means no one at all can remember the details prefectly - and no one can look them up. IF you are correct, Japan should be able to lay mines with the G5 in present CHS, or G8 in the next one (assuming the G8 is added and G5 is turned into the transport it should be - both of which are in the proposed material). The problem with G8 is that it isn't available early.


I did it with B-24's in current AI game. Not certain about other a/c (other than B-29).



An earlier thread said that ANY multiengined bomber could do it - even 2E jobs (according to one of the moderators - Mr. Frag, i believe). Of course, the smaller the payload, the fewer mines that can be delivered.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 48
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/18/2006 6:54:27 AM   
brandonbull

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/18/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I consider the way WITP handles DD minesweeping a minor flaw in the game. Paravanes were there to use, so DDs should be able to perform the task in a very inefficient manner (highly costly, as well, but absolutely necessary on those occasions that tend to send captains to their cabins for their brown pants). DDs are also able to perform ASW operations at full speed as well, so the problem isn't limited to minesweeping and shore bombardment.


This is quite correct. The main penalty for sweeping mines should be time. If you do not spend 100% of your ops points in the hex, you are not minesweeping! And the risk is higher than the same thing by real minesweepers would be. And you cannot do ANY OTHER operations in that turn. That would be reasonable (and even optimistic - since it takes more than 12 hours to clear a field). And if you move fast, you should be unable to detect a submarine that is not surfaced. [Of course, ALL submarines are basically ALWAYS surfaced - but that is a different problem.]


It should take a long time to sweep a minefield. The most a modern US minesweeper can find is 10 moored mines before the gear needs to be pulled in and the cutters have to be reloaded. That could take days and days to clear an area for amphib operations.

I can only imagine how long it would take to to deploy a moored mine area and then come back and add more mines to it. I wouldn't want to be the minelayer crew that gets to return and add mines to a minefield.

< Message edited by brandonbull -- 1/18/2006 6:55:19 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 49
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/18/2006 11:59:24 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

It should take a long time to sweep a minefield. The most a modern US minesweeper can find is 10 moored mines before the gear needs to be pulled in and the cutters have to be reloaded. That could take days and days to clear an area for amphib operations.


One way that is not modeled here is the ultimate way - using swimmers. Usually this is done in a single night. And it is a very dangerous job. But ops like Inchon would not have happened had it not been possible. And today, it probably is NOT possible. Modern, intelligent mines that are planted on (or even in) the seabed are very hard to deal with. We have had more than minor problems with ancient, low tech mines, even in this age. We have either never tried to defeat a modern minefield - or we tried and failed - depending on details of operations not yet completely described in the Gulf. What is clear is that we didn't cross the field, and wether or not we tried, we got hurt.

(in reply to brandonbull)
Post #: 50
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/18/2006 4:33:42 PM   
brandonbull

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/18/2006
Status: offline 		Can't expect much from US minesweepers when the main minesweeping gear is from the 1950's

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 51
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/18/2006 7:34:27 PM   
Oldsweat

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/23/2005
Status: offline 		Actually it's worse than 1950s, the Orepesa sweep that most of you are probably thinking of (paravanes, serrate wire, cutters) was introduced in the form of modified trawling gear around 1916. Normal sweep speed is around 4 knots, faster and an encounter with a mine cable will wreck your gear. Even at four knots the stress on the cables is formidable. Tensiometers are attached to the sweep cable to indicate when a mooring cable is struck, the change in tension is on the order of 10s of thousands of pounds. The cable is severed in one of two ways: the serrated portion of the sweep wire saws through it or it hits a cutter and a blank rifle cartridge (.45/70) drives a chisel through it. The mine case is then sunk by gunfire, typically rifle or machine gun since you don't really want cannon caliber shells ricochetting around. This works fine with most moored mines (there are antisweep mines around and the Soviets were big on systems designed to attack the minsweepers themselves). The sweepers usually move in an echelon or vee formation with the lead sweeper's sweep overlapping the path of the next ship in formation. Typically one moves in from the edge of a mine field and nibbles a path through it rather than plowing through per most depictions of the method. We had a picture, from the Korean War, in the wardroom of the sweeper I was on demonstrating the result of failing to follow proper technique. The photo capturesd the two halves of a minesweeper rising on the plume of a mine they had just run over.
Part of the problem with mine warfare in a game is the level of complexity you want to depict. By 1943 the US would have ground mines, which sit on the bottom and can't be swept with the various Oropesa methods, both sides would have some sort of magnetic mine and the US would have acoustic and automotive mines. The automotive mine is a modified torpedo that carries the mine to it's desired location, they are often used from submarines to foul the safe lanes, or Q routes, through an enemy's mine field. On the sweep front as well as the net and boom tenders already mentioned mineseeping boats (MSB) would be expected for use in sheltered harbors and shallow water areas and the US would field UDT swimmers. I suppose unit types in the vein of barges could be created to fill these roles. I am assuming that the minefields represented in the various ports at game start are controlled mine fields which were popular from the Endicott fortifiaction era through the beginning of WWII. There should probably be a different degree of hit probability for these against surface ships vice contact or influence mines (several Scandanavian countries still field controlled mines).
While the old gear (sweep wires, noisemakers, magnetic sweep tails) is still in use (there are lots of old design mines around, especially with various former and current client states and lower tier naval powers)most of the emphasis now is on ROV methods and AUV are being experimented with.

(in reply to brandonbull)
Post #: 52
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/19/2006 12:49:50 AM   
brandonbull

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/18/2006
Status: offline 		What I meant was a lot of the actual minesweeping gear was made in the 1950's. I was involved in replacing a few of the magnetic minesweeping cables and some were the Anaconda cables that didn't have the solid rubber jacket on them.

(in reply to Oldsweat)
Post #: 53
RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? - 1/23/2006 9:16:28 PM   
Oldsweat

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/23/2005
Status: offline 		Gotcha, we had a lot of trouble with magnetic sweeps as well, generally with insulation. I suspect that with the availability of computers to control things like ship counters and sleeper modes, the old methods of sweeping magnetic mines would only be effective with older designs. The general sophistication of modern mines is what's driving the ROV/AUV dominance in the field. Probably an improvement over the Mk 10 dispersal charge. This was a water heater sized bomb deployed from an inflatable boat that, hopefully, detonated next to the selected ground mine, destroying it. The operator, along with the lucky boat crew, received guidence from the mine sweeper for navigation to the release point and advice on the IP. Once the thing was launched the idea was to go to full throttle, hoping the outboard engine didn't stall, escaping the blast. Regular D ride.

(in reply to brandonbull)
Post #: 54
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: DDs finding and destroying mines? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

3.219