RE: Incoming!

RE: Incoming! (Full Version)

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

Message

mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 3:41:27 AM)
quote: mdiehl, I wasn't dissing you (ok, maybe I was teasing you a little). Please don't take offense. I was trying to be playfull, and as usual, got a little heavy handed. Sorry. No offense taken. I'm very skeptical of claims of central tendency too except when I understand the data very well. quote: I like this part... Weeelll, it is a guess. An informed guess. I know what the hit rates for Japanese surface ship torps and under which circumstances. I don't know the hit rates for the US ones. Given the tendency of the Mark XIVs and Mark XVs to dud, run deep, &c, it's not a difficult call to make.

castor troy -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 7:09:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl That'd be incorrect (as usual), as I am the one who tends to rely on facts. If it really is the collective desire to rehash the whole discussion again (in which it will be demonstrated that the median and modal hit rates of Long Lance vollies was ZERO hits, and the mean 6.25, 12.25 at night at less than 8K yards, and 25% when the Allies didn't know that Japanese ships were in the area), we could do all that, and you could once again attempt to explain why the historical statistical mean, mode, median and circumstances associated with each don't matter. lol mdiehl. You´re making a fool of yourself and I don´t mean that offensive at all. I´m not interested in discussing something about the LL at all, nor about the uber Wildcat and the crappy Zero (which would be another of your favourite threads I guess). I only answered your post because of this: quote mdiehl: The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter. someone starts this thread and you post this as the second post? Well, you must have really good humor as I can´t believe you mean that serious when YOU are then the one that fills up this thread with posts. [&:] LOL Sir. I´m not agreeing nor disagreeing with what you´re saying about the LL or the Zero vs Wildcat but I do know that usually 80% of the other people disagree with you on that matter and most of them surely know more about those things than I do. Again, I only referred to your statement above as this really made me laugh.

herwin -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 7:30:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: IJN airborne torpedo hit rate was about 20%. Do you know whether or not that varied by platform (for ex B5N vs G4M)? quote: On the other hand, the maximum range of the Japanese oxygen torpedoes was much greater, and their detectability was much lower. Yes. That's why circumstances of firing made such a difference (IMO). It was pretty common for both USN and IJN skippers to assume they were taking torpedo fire more or less as soon as they were sure that their own ships had been identified by the enemy. When the Japanese could get a torpedo volley off before the USN knew they were taking fire, the Japanese could do rather well. Ditto for the USN at Balikpapan in 1942 and at Cape Esperence, and subsequent 1943 actions such as Empress Augusta Bay and the like. That's why Czernecki is correct (IMO) to suggest that the greatest asset of the Type 93A was its speed, rather than its range. Daylight shots had pretty poor success rates except under pretty weird circumstances, such as the USN DD/DE charge at the Battle of Samar. OPERATIONS RESEARCH and HISTORY The hit rate didn't vary by airborne platform, but it did vary based on pilot experience. The best pilots got about 20% hits. The Mogami was responsible for the merchie hits at Balikpapan. Surface-launched torpedo hits were pretty much random and reflected target aspect more than anything else.

Nemo121 -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 7:32:16 AM)
Bringing this back to the actual topic I think that a 6.5% hit rate is actually not at all inconsistent with IJN doctrine. If you assume that during a night combat action an IJN DD with 8 torpedo tubes would be able to reload once and fire those reloads that generates 16 torps from a single IJN DD. 16 torpedoes generates one hit. So, an average IJN destroyer flotilla of a half-dozen DDs and a CL should be able to generate 6 to 7 hits. Throw in the torpedo-heavy CLs with the ability to generate 80 launches in a night ( 40 tubes with reloads ? --- going from memory here ) and you have individual CLs which, according to the stats, could each generate an additional 5 hits. When you read Kaigun and read that the IJN seemed willing to expend these torpedo-heavy CLs and at least 30 or so DDs in this night surface action you can see that they could expect to generate at least 40 to 50 torpedo hits. The long range of the Long Lance was, at least in part, to be used to allow the IJN CLs and DDs to target the enemy battleline whilst still avoiding decisive engagement with any destroyer screens so one should expect that those torpedoes would be concentrated on CLs, CAs and BBs. Spreading 50 hits through the USN BBs, CAs and, to a lesser extent, CLs would have been pretty devastating. A single hit would have rendered pretty much any CL or CA less than suitable for combat while two would have seriously damaged any BB. The problem of course was not so much with the torpedoes ( given their purposes a 6.5% hit rate from long range actually achieved their purposes ) or the ships but with the fact that those ships were highly unlikely to ever get to fight the sort of action they were designed for. When they DID get to fight those sorts of actions in the early war years the Allied CLs, CAs and BBs tended to suffer --- but the kicker was that those actions were such a minority that even brilliant performance in them wasn't ever war-altering.

herwin -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:30:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 Bringing this back to the actual topic I think that a 6.5% hit rate is actually not at all inconsistent with IJN doctrine. If you assume that during a night combat action an IJN DD with 8 torpedo tubes would be able to reload once and fire those reloads that generates 16 torps from a single IJN DD. 16 torpedoes generates one hit. So, an average IJN destroyer flotilla of a half-dozen DDs and a CL should be able to generate 6 to 7 hits. Throw in the torpedo-heavy CLs with the ability to generate 80 launches in a night ( 40 tubes with reloads ? --- going from memory here ) and you have individual CLs which, according to the stats, could each generate an additional 5 hits. When you read Kaigun and read that the IJN seemed willing to expend these torpedo-heavy CLs and at least 30 or so DDs in this night surface action you can see that they could expect to generate at least 40 to 50 torpedo hits. The long range of the Long Lance was, at least in part, to be used to allow the IJN CLs and DDs to target the enemy battleline whilst still avoiding decisive engagement with any destroyer screens so one should expect that those torpedoes would be concentrated on CLs, CAs and BBs. Spreading 50 hits through the USN BBs, CAs and, to a lesser extent, CLs would have been pretty devastating. A single hit would have rendered pretty much any CL or CA less than suitable for combat while two would have seriously damaged any BB. The problem of course was not so much with the torpedoes ( given their purposes a 6.5% hit rate from long range actually achieved their purposes ) or the ships but with the fact that those ships were highly unlikely to ever get to fight the sort of action they were designed for. When they DID get to fight those sorts of actions in the early war years the Allied CLs, CAs and BBs tended to suffer --- but the kicker was that those actions were such a minority that even brilliant performance in them wasn't ever war-altering. HISTORY and OPERATIONS RESEARCH (based on Hughes, Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat) During a night action with capital ships and cruisers broadside-on, each major ship in the US Fleet would subtend about 200 meters of 500-1000 meters, so that a surprise torpedo attack launched at long range would get about 20-40% hits. If the major ships turned away, they would subtend about 25-30 meters, reducing the pHit to 2.5-6%. During the Solomons campaign, the pHit values seen ranged between 6% and 20%, with surprise the dominant factor.

whippleofd -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:35:41 AM)
OH - OH! Mr. Kotter?! Yes Horshack? He was SUNK! [>:] Whipple

m10bob -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:46:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RUPD3658 quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder It's a torpedo. Of course they hurt! [;)] [sm=00000613.gif] -F- Unless they are an early war Allied dud[:D] We also know not all of the U.S. subs were deployed with those dud torps...

mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 5:26:03 PM)
quote: You´re making a fool of yourself and I don´t mean that offensive at all. No, I'm not. Just noting that there are empirical realities and those who dismiss them. You know, trolls like you. You meant it to be offensive, because you are a troll. And now, green buttoned.

AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 5:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: mdiehl, I wasn't dissing you (ok, maybe I was teasing you a little). Please don't take offense. I was trying to be playfully, and as usual, got a little heavy handed. Sorry. No offense taken. I'm very skeptical of claims of central tendency too except when I understand the data very well. quote: I like this part... Well, it is a guess. An informed guess. I know what the hit rates for Japanese surface ship torps and under which circumstances. I don't know the hit rates for the US ones. Given the tendency of the Mark XIVs and Mark XVs to dud, run deep, &c, it's not a difficult call to make. I've always found that an excess of data leads to a shortage of interest (usually due to eyes rolling into the back of one's head followed by snoring. Having suffered from too many power point briefings , I've often felt that statistical data , (especially taken to extremes) should be considered as a deadly weapon, causing the person that it's being used against to seriously consider taking his or her own life! [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 5:37:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: You´re making a fool of yourself and I don´t mean that offensive at all. No, I'm not. Just noting that there are empirical realities and those who dismiss them. You know, trolls like you. You meant it to be offensive, because you are a troll. And now, green buttoned. Come on mdiel, that's insensitive! You know that the politically correct term is vertically and ascetically challenged person of indigenous Scandinavian decent who resides under public over passes (bridges)! [:D]

mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 5:38:34 PM)
quote: Bringing this back to the actual topic I think that a 6.5% hit rate is actually not at all inconsistent with IJN doctrine. The problem is that the 6.5% (ish, I got a slightly lower number when I tried to replicate the result) is not consistent across battles. It's only THAT HIGH because there are several engagements with extremely high hit rates. These outliers consistently occurred when the USN was not aware that they'd been detected. They're very useful outliers because they tell you alot about the circumstances in which a torpedo attack can be really devastating. You have to detect the enemy within reasonable torpedo range (less than 8.000 yards-ish for the IJN, 6,000 for the USN), with sufficient time for a firing solution, and with sufficient more lead time for your torps to be in the water BEFORE the enemy starts to maneuver as a reaction to your existence on the battlefield. The modal hit rate (the mode is the most frequent outcome) is zero hits and the median (if you splut the distribution into two halves, the one in the middle of the distribution is the median) is also zero hits. So unless that Decisive Battle occurs at night at less than (generously adding 25%) 10,000 yards against a USN TF that doesn't know the Japanese are there (or doesn't think they've been detected) the decisive battle isn't going to be a success. The second thing to note is that after Tassafaronga (which was generally a tactical fubar on the US adm's part) and in some instances before it became standard practice for US ships to maneuver to avoid presumed torpedo launches when engaging the Japanese. So the necessary conditions (night, surprise, in torpedo range) were only likely to occur a couple of times anyhow, before the US "catches on." And it's only likely in 1942, because US radar improvements made it most likely that the USN would always know that the Japanese were closing to torpedo range after 1942 (excepting Japanese subs running submerged). quote: given their purposes a 6.5% hit rate from long range actually achieved their purposes They're not going to get 6.5% from long range. They're only going to get 6.5% ON AVERAGE if they surprise the USN in a couple of battles at ranges less than 10K yards. At long range their average will be alot lower. And the modal hit rate will still be zero. That is, in most battles, all torpedoes that the Japanese launch will all miss.

mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 5:39:50 PM)
quote: Come on mdiel, that's insensitive! Well, maybe I was a bit Gruff!

AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 5:45:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: Come on mdiel, that's insensitive! Well, maybe I was a bit Gruff! [&o][&o][&o][:D]

Dili -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 7:02:16 PM)
If you fire your torpedos at 15km obviously you will get less hits. If the doutrine says to fire at 2km there will be more, all other things equal.

castor troy -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 7:23:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: You´re making a fool of yourself and I don´t mean that offensive at all. No, I'm not. Just noting that there are empirical realities and those who dismiss them. You know, trolls like you. You meant it to be offensive, because you are a troll. And now, green buttoned. lol, now I´m trolling... I didn´t mean it offensive. I do mean that offensive: you seem to be an idiot... clearly able to judge that from your post. You´re dumb enough to do the second post in this thread coming up with empirical realities pissing on people that didn´t even say something. That´s just like going out of the house screaming into the road: HEY! You are all stupid... lol, you´re absolutely an idiot. Am I allowed to say that? Guess not. But how do I respond to someone calling me a troll... Well, I don´t care. I must be an idiot myself as I´ve alsways thought he would be a heck of a tough guy because he always insisted in things like it would be the bible, no matter if a hundred priest would tell him that he´s interpreting the bible the wrong way. And that even made him kind of symphatic, not because I´ve agreed with him, but because he stood by what he thought. Well, he obviously is just an idiot... oops, repeat mode...[8\|]

AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 7:34:05 PM)
Common guys, lets cool it with the name calling. Step back, cool off and take a deep breath. Think about what you are fighting about and ask yourself, "Is this issue so important, so vital, that I'm willing to get personal and maybe get bannished for a while?". Frankly , does anyone outside of this particular thread really care how accurrate the Japanese torpedos where ?(exempting people who where on the receiving end of them that is). Seriously, if you were talking a a person on this subject , would you feel passionate enough to throw a punch at him over this? Of course not! So why not step back , be reasonable, and let the issue die? You surely can't convice the other fellow, so why not do something more fun and profitable? And if you can't deal with it , "green-button it". You both have given me a lot of help and information in the past , and I'd hate to see either of you banned over such a silly issue. [:)]

castor troy -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 7:58:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Common guys, lets cool it with the name calling. Step back, cool off and take a deep breath. Think about what you are fighting about and ask yourself, "Is this issue so important, so vital, that I'm willing to get personal and maybe get bannished for a while?". Frankly , does anyone outside of this particular thread really care how accurrate the Japanese torpedos where ?(exempting people who where on the receiving end of them that is). Seriously, if you were talking a a person on this subject , would you feel passionate enough to throw a punch at him over this? Of course not! So why not step back , be reasonable, and let the issue die? You surely can't convice the other fellow, so why not do something more fun and profitable? And if you can't deal with it , "green-button it". You both have given me a lot of help and information in the past , and I'd hate to see either of you banned over such a silly issue. [:)] like mentioned before, I don´t have anything to say about the LL issue. All I said is that I (first) found it funny that someone posts something like mdiehl did on post no TWO of this thread and again, I didn´t even mean my reply offensively. I do mean my last post absolutely offensive though. Why not? If a dog jumps around in the street I can surely laugh about it, having no problem at all that the dog is jumping around. If he comes along and poo poos on my shoes, I will give him a kick. Sorry AW1Steve, I don´t see why I should step back if someone punches me for no reason at all... knowing that as a grown up I should just laugh about it in front of my TFT, shaking my head and just think by myself: what an idiot. Obviously I´m either an idiot too, not grown up enough or just too pissed off.[8\|] Too many valuable long term members left this forum because people were pissing them off and they never really punched back... they just left and that´s not something I think (is) was great... while the people that usually pissed others off just staid, trying to find other people to aim at...

Ursa MAior -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 8:20:25 PM)
wow. I am gone for some time but the show goes on. That shows how little potatoes we are.

mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 8:52:52 PM)
quote: Think about what you are fighting about and ask yourself, "Is this issue so important, so vital, that I'm willing to get personal and maybe get bannished for a while?". Who's fighting? I'm talking torpedoes. Castor is trying to see how much insult he can get away with if he says he's not trying to be insulting. The green button was meant for "guys like him" and I'm good with using it. Ask yourself if he's said anything about torpedoes yet or is he still trying to hump my leg?

castor troy -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: Think about what you are fighting about and ask yourself, "Is this issue so important, so vital, that I'm willing to get personal and maybe get bannished for a while?". Who's fighting? I'm talking torpedoes. Castor is trying to see how much insult he can get away with if he says he's not trying to be insulting. The green button was meant for "guys like him" and I'm good with using it. Ask yourself if he's said anything about torpedoes yet or is he still trying to hump my leg? I´m honoured to be green buttoned by you. it´s a pity you can´t gb yourself, would help you to come along with your pitiable life in your pitiable world... I have yet to say anything about torpedos, but I keep insisting that this "guy" is totally nuts... oh, I changed my wording for him... lol, when have I the last time dealt with someone who´s so off... and knowing how "guys like him" really are, he can´t resist from un-green button me anyway just to read how im humping his leg... [sm=sign0063.gif] GREEN BUTTON ME AGAIN, QUICK!!! [sm=sign0063.gif]poor little fellow, but hey, he´s the one that has been insisting for years that a F4F-4 could outturn a Zero in every given situation... lol, I should not have become battling someone who obviously is on the run from gerontopsychiatry... he´s talking about insults, while his signature is an insult to everyone that doesn´t agree with him anyway, as is post no 2 of this thread.

CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:30:24 PM)
Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(]

castor troy -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:36:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(] because he´s one of the very few people here that is what some people (like a couple of dumb European like me for example) have called guys that can´t respect anything not being American made. I don´t know why but it is like this. And I´m saying he´s one of the few. It is German (Nazi German), it is crap. It is Japanese, it must be even more crap. Crappy tactics, crappy strategies, crappy soldiers, crappy aircraft, crappiest ships, all just **** on Earth. [8\|] The good guys won the war and I´m happy about that, even if I wouldn´t know that I should be happy if the German would have won the war as then I could now be like mdiehl insisting everything the British, American and Russian built was crap.

AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:38:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(] Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(]

CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:41:14 PM)
But even fan of statistics shoul'd know that if they were so crappy and had 0% hit rates, and that their crappy ships blew and suffered from spontanious self combustion- the US woul'd won the war by mid '42 at the worst scenario...

castor troy -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(] Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(] Steve, please tell me that you don´t find Zuikaku´s post insulting or a try to piss Mr. M off. Either I don´t know English at all (perhaps I should start discussing in German but I guess Mr. M would find speaking German crappy - sorry, can´t resist [;)]) or why isn´t this a permitted question as it definetely begs some truth in it? [&:]

CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:46:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(] Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(] Sorry. It was not my intention to do so. I'm also slightly off balance cause of AE being delayed a bit... again [;)]

mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:47:41 PM)
quote: Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? I'm not particularly eager to fight about anything, but I'll stand by any claim that is best supported by facts, and I don't back down just because someone feels that the facts are not as they should be. Is there a problem here? The modal and median hit rates of Type 93As was 0% (per battle), and the mean hit rate around 6%. My position is that these measures of central tendency reflect the realities of the range of historically possible usages of the weapon, and therefore any good consim will produce a similar distribution. If we agree, then there's nothing to argue about. If someone disagrees, they have the choice of demonstrating that the numbers derived by Czernecki are inaccurate and that some other set of numbers is more accurate, or else they have to claim that the stats don't matter. If the stats don't matter, then all one is left with is competing subjective claims.

CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:48:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(] Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(] Steve, please tell me that you don´t find Zuikaku´s post insulting or a try to piss Mr. M off. Either I don´t know English at all (perhaps I should start discussing in German but I guess Mr. M would find speaking German crappy - sorry, can´t resist [;)]) or why isn´t this a permitted question as it definetely begs some truth in it? [&:] Well, I'm not a native english speaker, and my english is very crappy, but I hope it was not insulting... sorry if I was...

AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:49:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(] Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(] Steve, please tell me that you don´t find Zuikaku´s post insulting or a try to piss Mr. M off. Either I don´t know English at all (perhaps I should start discussing in German but I guess Mr. M would find speaking German crappy - sorry, can´t resist [;)]) or why isn´t this a permitted question as it definetely begs some truth in it? [&:] I find it very much so. But I still feel that there is no reason why educated adults need to resort to name calling and getting personal. Your English is Outstanding! There are several native English speakers on the forum that I seldom understand, but your English is impeccable. (It makes me ashamed that I speak no German, Spanish,Croatian or any of the other languages of some of our forum brothers). I know that you and Mdiel don't get along. That's fine , some people just rub each other the wrong way. But personal attacks will get you both banned. And the moderators have been concerntrating on AE, so a lot of poor behavior has gone unpunished. But AE is done, they are just waiting for the printer to do his job. So the policemen are back. Please mind the insults. Because they will be. And both you and Mdiel are assets to the forum. So play nice , or ignore each other. Please. I for one , don't want to see either of you banned. [:(]

AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(] Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(] Steve, please tell me that you don´t find Zuikaku´s post insulting or a try to piss Mr. M off. Either I don´t know English at all (perhaps I should start discussing in German but I guess Mr. M would find speaking German crappy - sorry, can´t resist [;)]) or why isn´t this a permitted question as it definetely begs some truth in it? [&:] Well, I'm not a native english speaker, and my english is very crappy, but I hope it was not insulting... sorry if I was... Yeah , I'm afraid it was. [8\|]If your not sure about your English , please fell free to PM me, or one of the other forum brothers who speak English as a primary language. [:)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875