American DDs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

American DDs

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 >> The War Room >> American DDs

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

American DDs - 10/22/2004 1:20:34 AM

ColFrost

Posts: 145
Joined: 10/29/2003
From: South St Paul, MN
Status: offline

What do you look for in the tasking of Destroyers to certain tasks? Do you only go by ASW stats for escort DDs? Because I've noticed some high ASW stat DDs have good combat values?

I've also heard you only put your older class DDs in escort duties. What do you all think?

_____________________________

...the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out and meet it.

-Thucydides

Post #: 1

RE: American DDs - 10/22/2004 2:34:16 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Flush decks are fragile little boats with little AA but decent ASW.

I use them early on in the defense of the DEI (generate some expereince to make them that much more effective as escorts) , then move them back to form escort/ASW groups to protect shipping.

Porter class DDs have 8 x 5" guns and are more durable, not to mention thier AA ratings don't become par with other classes until after 42. Use them for surface TFs.

Gridley/McCall and Bagley class have 16 torp tubes, so I add them into the mix of surface TFs.

By the 4/42 upgrades, the remaining classes have 6 ASW and 155-162 AA ratings, although the Sims are more durable than most.

With addition of Fletcher class DDs, I spread them out due to thier radar, durability, 5 x 5" guns and 10 torpedo tubes among surface and CV TFs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColFrost

What do you look for in the tasking of Destroyers to certain tasks? Do you only go by ASW stats for escort DDs? Because I've noticed some high ASW stat DDs have good combat values?

I've also heard you only put your older class DDs in escort duties. What do you all think?

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to ColFrost)

Post #: 2

RE: American DDs - 10/22/2004 11:48:42 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

Let's see. How I use mine.

First off, I would have liked the ability to have been able to organize my ships in squadrons and divisions which would have reduced the player workload substantially in the long run. Instead of constantly picking through individual ships (that capability would have still been possible of course) I could have selected CV Wasp, Cruiser Division 4 (CA Astoria, New Orleans, Minneapolis), and Destroyer Division 12 ( Destroyer Squadron 22 and 23) when making a CV TF. DD Sqn 22 already formed of DDs Aaron Ward, Buchanan, Meade, Woodworth and DD Sqn23 formed of DDs Farenholt, Laffey, Duncan, Frazier.

A further possible benefit, the fact that these ships were part of a specific unit as opposed to single ships could have helped the surface combat routines, because the division or squadron could have been dealt with regarding being sighted or not sighted (not individual ships), thereby improving the feel of the combat as the player could see they were acting as a unit and not running around willy nilly which is the impression I get presently.

As for selecting which classes for which roles, well this depends alot on the respective class refits. Generally though, as stated above, I use the them as follows...

Flushdeckers as blue water (long range) convoy escorts because they have low durability, weak gun armament, even weaker AA armament, and they are without refits until 1943.

Farraguts as fleet DDs but as new ones arrive, they are sent to convoy escort as their radius is short in comparison to later DDs. Nothing worse than having to replenish the short legged DDs in the midst of a CV exchange.

Porters and Somers as surface combat and convoy escorts due to single purpose armament. Waste of space in a CV TF.

Mahans are excellent. Multi role puppies.

Bagleys and Gridley/McCalls have long legs 8000 nm radius so good for CV screen and 16 TTs good in a surface combat TF.

Benhams at the start have decent ASW as all but Benham and Ellet were refitted for the Neutrality Patrol in the Atlantic.

Sims were refitted prior to the PH so have decent ASW, AA, TT and SC radar. CV TF escorts all the way.

The Bensons, Bristols, Fletchers, Sumners and Gearings are all excellent all purpose ships so I use them in CV TF and surface combat TFs mainly, and relegate the older DDs, especially Gridley/McCalls which never recieve 40mm at all due to stability problems, to subsidiary roles such as convoy/amphib escort as the newer DDs arrive in increasing numbers.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 3

RE: American DDs - 10/22/2004 7:28:44 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

First off, I would have liked the ability to have been able to organize my ships in squadrons and divisions which would have reduced the player workload substantially in the long run. Instead of constantly picking through individual ships (that capability would have still been possible of course) I could have selected CV Wasp, Cruiser Division 4 (CA Astoria, New Orleans, Minneapolis), and Destroyer Division 12 ( Destroyer Squadron 22 and 23) when making a CV TF. DD Sqn 22 already formed of DDs Aaron Ward, Buchanan, Meade, Woodworth and DD Sqn23 formed of DDs Farenholt, Laffey, Duncan, Frazier.

Oh wow ... being able to have squadrons (along with a squadron leader?) and divisions (also with division leaders?) including in a task force would really be great ... and also how task forces were organized. Good idea

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 4

RE: American DDs - 10/22/2004 9:32:43 PM

ColFrost

Posts: 145
Joined: 10/29/2003
From: South St Paul, MN
Status: offline

I wouldn't mind being able to organize divisions, if the Theatre Commanders (that's us) could set the divisions.

_____________________________

...the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out and meet it.

-Thucydides

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 5

RE: American DDs - 10/22/2004 9:40:50 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

Historically and currently (at least 20 years ago when I was in the Navy), the US Navy was very versatile in creating task forces and sub task forces from larger ones.

A cruiser division could be a task force on its own or be combined with a destroyer squadron to form a larger task force. The thing is though that task forces weren't really organized the way they have on this game. You would have the overall task force and within it divisions and squadrons and the individual divisions and squadrons would be themselves commanded by a division or squadron commander.

I can't speak for other navies but I'm sure they were able to organize in the same way.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to ColFrost)

Post #: 6

RE: American DDs - 10/22/2004 9:41:22 PM

tanker4145

Posts: 190
Joined: 4/19/2004
Status: offline

I just wish it'd show the class in the TF formation screen. I can't remember what class each DD, CL, CA, heck even BBs and CV's are.

(in reply to ColFrost)

Post #: 7

RE: American DDs - 10/22/2004 10:18:16 PM

The Dude

Posts: 422
Joined: 7/28/2004
From: Abbotsford, BC, Canada
Status: offline

yeah i have to agee on that one

(in reply to tanker4145)

Post #: 8

RE: American DDs - 10/23/2004 10:27:44 PM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

I use my DD's as ASW TF's along with some MSW and PG's, but then again I am playing against the Jap AI with sub doctrine on so I dont usualy need escorts for my merchants. so far I have sunk over 25 jap subs with these 'DD wolfpacks' curently in 4/42

(in reply to The Dude)

Post #: 9

RE: American DDs - 10/23/2004 10:29:35 PM

ColFrost

Posts: 145
Joined: 10/29/2003
From: South St Paul, MN
Status: offline

Thanks for the advice, but I can't do that with my PBEM opponents. They'll eat me alive.

I don't think I'll ever play the AI. It's too much fun against a human opponent.

_____________________________

...the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out and meet it.

-Thucydides

(in reply to Gem35)

Post #: 10

RE: American DDs - 10/23/2004 10:40:47 PM

medicff

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tanker4145

I just wish it'd show the class in the TF formation screen. I can't remember what class each DD, CL, CA, heck even BBs and CV's are.

You can find out the class of each ship and general weapon loadout on the TF creation screen by right mouse clicking on each ship. At the bottom of the top half of the screen will give you the readout. You must click on them before they enter the task force (ie on the top 1/2 of the screen).

(in reply to tanker4145)

Post #: 11

medicff rules! - 10/23/2004 11:00:01 PM

tanker4145

Posts: 190
Joined: 4/19/2004
Status: offline

medicff, thanks for the info, I didn't know that. You are my hero now because I can't stand trying to find each ship off the excel sheet I got off of Spooky's site to see if it's one I want in a certain type of TF. Thanks again!

(in reply to medicff)

Post #: 12

RE: American DDs - 10/23/2004 11:30:03 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

Thanks for the advice, but I can't do that with my PBEM opponents. They'll eat me alive.

Why not? This is a war game. In war, unless they can stop you, you can do pretty much whatever you want. The objective of war isn't to play fair but to win. There's nothing in the rules to say ASW task forces have to give the submarines a fair chance - and shouldn't be.

If I know there's a submarine somewhere I'll do just what they did in real life ... everything including the kitchen sink to send the sub to the bottom for good. If I have 50 destroyers I can send after 1 sub you can bet I'll send those 50 and be looking for another 50 to send too.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to ColFrost)

Post #: 13

RE: American DDs - 10/24/2004 3:58:14 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

There are a bunch of people on this board that insist ASW is to powerful and so insist on house rules where by you can only have 4 to 6 ASW ships in an ASW task force. Personally if you have excess DD laying about you must not be using your ships effeciently ). My usuall ASW TF consists of 1 to 4 DD and 2 to 4 MSW and I can only usually make 2 or 4 TF mask with my available assets.

And I really must be playing a different game then some of you, since every sub sighting results in a sunk DD or MSW just about.

(in reply to ColFrost)

Post #: 14

RE: American DDs - 10/24/2004 6:18:48 PM

ColFrost

Posts: 145
Joined: 10/29/2003
From: South St Paul, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

quote:

Thanks for the advice, but I can't do that with my PBEM opponents. They'll eat me alive.

Why not? This is a war game. In war, unless they can stop you, you can do pretty much whatever you want. The objective of war isn't to play fair but to win. There's nothing in the rules to say ASW task forces have to give the submarines a fair chance - and shouldn't be.

If I know there's a submarine somewhere I'll do just what they did in real life ... everything including the kitchen sink to send the sub to the bottom for good. If I have 50 destroyers I can send after 1 sub you can bet I'll send those 50 and be looking for another 50 to send too.

When I said they'll eat me alive, I didn't say that they would do so out of game. One of my favorite tactics is to send carrier TFs against these super ASW task forces, because it really hurts things. Risking 2-3 DDs on subpatrol is okay. Risking 10+ when the other guy has Kates/Dauntlesses whatever is risky.

I have no problem with the tactic out of game. My comment was more about my preference for PBEM. The AI is not good enough to make adjustments (much like the Joe Gibbs' Redskins!). That's why I don't to play any thing but PBEM.

< Message edited by ColFrost -- 10/24/2004 10:21:46 AM >

_____________________________

...the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out and meet it.

-Thucydides

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 15

RE: American DDs - 10/24/2004 11:25:45 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

I think that using large ASW hunter killer groups is an exploit on a weakness in the game model.

"Overusing" an obvious weakness or bug to your advantage is "gamey". They should be addressing the issue of huge ASW groups being overly effective in the 1.3 patch. Given I am still involved in a PBEM in 1.21, neither my opponent or I engage in the gamey tactics (mostly for the reason that Twotribes metions, I have to many places and things to do to spare more than 6-8 DDs in any one hunter-killer ASW group or escort group).

The amount of time and dedication one must commit to play a PBEM, it is less a game than a simulation of history, so alienating your opponent by exploit game shortcomoings will most likely shorten your game.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to ColFrost)

Post #: 16

RE: American DDs - 10/24/2004 11:52:35 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

If you have an advantage over an enemy you DO use that so you can destroy you enemy with less loss to yourself. Putting a limit on the number of ships in an ASW task force is unrealistic because there wasn't in real life.

The only "exploit" is your inability to come up with a good anti-asw tactic. You have to remember, your submarines may be attacked by massive asw forces but the other person is using submarines too and you can use the same tactics against them.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 17

RE: American DDs - 10/25/2004 1:05:56 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

I guess we are using "realistic" in a different context.

I maintain that a design oversight in the game that produces "unrealistic" effects (and has subsequently been designated as an issue for correction in a patch) if used to excess is an exploit.

Understand the dynamic of it working both ways, although it seems to hurt the IJN player more so than the Allied.

Not sure as to the comment "The only "exploit" is your inability to come up with a good anti-asw tactic."

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

If you have an advantage over an enemy you DO use that so you can destroy you enemy with less loss to yourself. Putting a limit on the number of ships in an ASW task force is unrealistic because there wasn't in real life.

The only "exploit" is your inability to come up with a good anti-asw tactic. You have to remember, your submarines may be attacked by massive asw forces but the other person is using submarines too and you can use the same tactics against them.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 18

RE: American DDs - 10/25/2004 1:22:26 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

Actually it should favor the Americans over the Japanese as the Americans did have better ASW tactics than the Japanese who didn't even start using ASW until later in the war. Also the newer American fleet submarines had an advantage over the Japanese submarines in that they could dive faster. Also, another thing American submarines did -- which nobody here has ever brought up -- was that they frequently ATTACKED the very ships coming to drop depth charges on them.

I remember posting something like this on another thread but according to a book I read about the Pacific War Japanese dept charges used a depth setting to explode and it wasn't until an American congressman blurted out in a press conference that American subs were surviving depth chargings because the Japs were setting them too shallow that the Japs set them deeper and started damaging American subs to a large degree. American depth charges were of the proximity type so they would explode when close to a Jap sub or when actually coming in contact.

Just like with torpedo warfare it should favor the Japanese as they had their Long Lance torpedo and much better night fighting tactics until sometime in 1943 when the US learned how to fight at night with radar.

To say the Allied and Japanese forces are evenly matched is not realistic as they were not.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 19

RE: American DDs - 10/25/2004 1:51:17 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I think that using large ASW hunter killer groups is an exploit on a weakness in the game model.

"Overusing" an obvious weakness or bug to your advantage is "gamey". They should be addressing the issue of huge ASW groups being overly effective in the 1.3 patch. Given I am still involved in a PBEM in 1.21, neither my opponent or I engage in the gamey tactics (mostly for the reason that Twotribes metions, I have to many places and things to do to spare more than 6-8 DDs in any one hunter-killer ASW group or escort group).

The amount of time and dedication one must commit to play a PBEM, it is less a game than a simulation of history, so alienating your opponent by exploit game shortcomoings will most likely shorten your game.

As usual, you are are on the money.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 20

RE: American DDs - 10/25/2004 3:03:35 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Not sure where this one comes from. I think it is commonly believed that USN had much better appraoch to ASW, and it is modeled as such. I only point out the already better ASW capability of the USN is somewhat magnified by this "exploit".

It has been discussed in great detail that in a depth charge attack on a single sub that there is a practical limit to how many ships can be employed to conduct a coordinated depth charge attack. Simply put, 20 ships in an ASW TF should not equate to 20 ship conducting the attack. There is a questionable value of having more than 8 DDs actually execute the attack. The more DDs would make detection easier, but not neccessarily add more attack value to a DC attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

[snip]
To say the Allied and Japanese forces are evenly matched is not realistic as they were not.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 21

RE: American DDs - 10/26/2004 4:04:12 AM

Belce

Posts: 130
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

I always thought that depth charges were set to explode at a preset depth, there is a contact asw weapon in the game and that is the hedgehog.

What makes it difficult to use more than 8 destroyers in a depth charge run was being able to coordinate all of the ships to pass over the contact with some accuracy. Good asw destroyers had rear and center racks so that a wider pattern of depth charges could be fired in a single pass. The resulting explosions in the water would blind sonar detection from the distrubance and as more destroyers passed and more time was consumed the place of the submarine grows into a larger area of uncertainity. Its this factor, that is not well tended in the game, that causes large asw groups to have greater than realistic success. Unsuccessful depth charge runs actually provide cover for a sub to evade and disengage.

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 22

RE: American DDs - 10/26/2004 5:48:54 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

I always thought that depth charges were set to explode at a preset depth, there is a contact asw weapon in the game and that is the hedgehog.

This is concerning Japanese depth charges.

Page 337, The Pacific Campaign: The US-Japanese Naval War 1941-1945:

"They had time fuses rather than the more sensitive but complicated hydrostatic (pressure-operated) fuses favored by the Allies and Germans. The maximum setting of sixteen seconds would cause the depth charge to go off at eighty meters (over 250 feet). Originally they were set to go off sooner, but Congressman Andrew Jackson May, a member of the Military Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives, changed all that. After a tour of the Pacific war zone, he gave a press conference at which he said that American submarines were surviving well because the Japanese were setting their depth charges to go off too soon. This was a leak of which, unlike those of American cryptanalytic successes, the Japanese took full cognizance. Admiral Lockwood was furious, reckoning (somehow) that this unpardonably stupid indescretion cost the US Navy eight hundred men and ten boats."

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Belce)

Post #: 23

RE: American DDs - 10/26/2004 9:55:44 AM

Belce

Posts: 130
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

Thanks Derek

The Japanese depth charges were time delayed and the American ones were set for depth.

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 24

RE: American DDs & ASW - 10/26/2004 3:19:03 PM

kayjay

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: JS J4 Pentagon
Status: offline

Although the DDs are effective ASW air is not - note the huge number of Emily/PBY/you name it ac attack SS at hex xyz every turn - yet how often is the SS sunk or damaged ? Never.

_____________________________

Kevin Kelley

(in reply to Belce)

Post #: 25

RE: American DDs & ASW - 10/26/2004 5:33:47 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kkelley

Although the DDs are effective ASW air is not - note the huge number of Emily/PBY/you name it ac attack SS at hex xyz every turn - yet how often is the SS sunk or damaged ? Never.

Well, considering these spotted submarines should not have been spotted anyway given that they usually were submerged during daylight in areas of high enemy air activity evens the score on this.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to kayjay)

Post #: 26

RE: American DDs & ASW - 10/26/2004 5:41:02 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

Only problem is that aircraft can spot even submerged submarines at a depth of maybe 150-200 feet. Ocean water is quite clear surprisingly enough so the subs didn't have to be on the surface to be spotted. Of course that doesn't mean that just because they were SPOTTED that the aircraft could successfully depth charge them - it was better to catch them on the surface.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 27

RE: American DDs & ASW - 10/26/2004 7:01:22 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Any idea what the number of historical instances subs were spotted, vs attacked, damaged and sunk?

I think that would be a much better starting point for evaluating the model.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kkelley

Although the DDs are effective ASW air is not - note the huge number of Emily/PBY/you name it ac attack SS at hex xyz every turn - yet how often is the SS sunk or damaged ? Never.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to kayjay)

Post #: 28

RE: American DDs & ASW - 10/27/2004 7:52:44 AM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

hmm..lets see, I agree to not be 'gamey' with my asw TF's if the jap AI promises to not sail that uber CV TF of his wherever and whenever he chooses, blowing away anything in its way.

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 29

RE: American DDs & ASW - 10/27/2004 12:51:57 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

hmm..lets see, I agree to not be 'gamey' with my asw TF's if the jap AI promises to not sail that uber CV TF of his wherever and whenever he chooses, blowing away anything in its way.

Whats gamey about 3x2CV TFs in the same hex?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Gem35)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> American DDs

Page: [1] 2 next > >>