RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (Full Version)

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



Message

mjk428 -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 4:47:58 AM)

I haven't seen that Allied ASW is overpowered in my game.

From 12/7 thru 12/28 four IJN subs have been sunk (AFAIK). 3 of them in the first 2 days near PH. I don't know if it's allied ASW is too powerful or that it's just that the IJN subs are too aggressive for its own good. 3 of the 4 subs that were sunk were attacking ASW TFs made up of only DDs (4-5 each TF).

As for damage they've done: They've sunk 1 AP, 1 AK, 2 DDs, seriously damaged 3 other DDs and seriously damaged 3 CLs in the span of 3 weeks. At least half the damaged ships would have likely sunk if they hadn't been so close to a major port. That's with me being careful, providing escorts and plenty of air ASW around the ports. Also, I haven't had any planes make any attacks.

I'm playing scenario 15 against the AI with Historical doctrine.



joey -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 5:06:49 AM)

I have been playing the long campaign. I have not seen the awesome allied ASW that keeps being discussed. I have lost a number of ships to IJN subs. The only success I have had against these IJN subs is with huge 15+ASW task forces, and even then I lost a number of ASW ships.



Black Cat -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 5:32:59 AM)

Clearly from my experiences in 3 ongoing Scenario 15 games as the US vs the AI, and the above two posts as well as others, the overpowering US ASW is not the big issue some people seem to want to make it out to be.

Tinkering with what has to be a complex code at this early stage in the Games general release with the US ASW effort when Garry et al have at last got the US Ships to make attacks is very unwise IMHO.

Matrix, with all due respect, do you remember what happened when you started screwing around with reducing the "supposed" super duper lethal allied LBA and the B-17`s in UV ? It took 2 patches to undo the unintended effects of that and get it somewhat right.

I make my plea again, let s get some full campaign games finished against the AI and then revist the issue based on whats happened there.

Bug patches Now, enhancement Patches later...please[;)]



moses -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 5:58:46 AM)

I love the ASW task forces because it stops players from being able to park their subs in ports and landing hexes almost with impunity as often happened in UV. The ASW is however too strong at least in deep water hexes. I ran some tests and found that a 6 destroyer ASW force in deep water with a single unspotted Jap sub will kill the sub 1/3 of the time each day. You have about a 50/50 chance of a killing or damaging the sub. This was at beginning of the war using the forces around PH.



Raverdave -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 6:11:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Clearly from my experiences in 3 ongoing Scenario 15 games as the US vs the AI, and the above two posts as well as others, the overpowering US ASW is not the big issue some people seem to want to make it out to be.

Tinkering with what has to be a complex code at this early stage in the Games general release with the US ASW effort when Garry et al have at last got the US Ships to make attacks is very unwise IMHO.

Matrix, with all due respect, do you remember what happened when you started screwing around with reducing the "supposed" super duper lethal allied LBA and the B-17`s in UV ? It took 2 patches to undo the unintended effects of that and get it somewhat right.

I make my plea again, let s get some full campaign games finished against the AI and then revist the issue based on whats happened there.

Bug patches Now, enhancement Patches later...please[;)]


Yes and that was the problem with making a change just before the release. IIRC making a change to the Allied ASW code would have effected the IJN ASW and involved a great deal of testing, and would have delayed the release.



Tankerace -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 6:38:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

ASW - things I think should happen

2. When a sub is spotted the sub should duck and run, dive and sail away several hexes before is returns.



This is unrealistic. Having been a long time player of SUbmarine simulations, based on my expeirence, this would be highly unrealistic. Considering each hex is roughly 60nm, you are suggesting a sub dive, and run 120 or more nautical miles from a DD or aircraft. Considering an evading sub would dive and stay submerged, running at 1 or 2 knots (Silent running) for say, 10 hours. This equates to 10 to 20 nautical miles of evasion. That isn't even a half of a hex in WiTP. A sub would stay in the same hex, and probably would only move out of a hex if it is charging batteries after a length period of staying submerged.

However, if the said evasion takes place in shallow water, such as the Yellow Sea, then a sub might travel 1 or 2 hexes, so that it can go deep to properly evade Japanese ASW efforts. However, if the sub is attacked by aircraft, it will simply submerge, and scoot off about 30 nm and wait for a target.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 3:00:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Clearly from my experiences in 3 ongoing Scenario 15 games as the US vs the AI, and the above two posts as well as others, the overpowering US ASW is not the big issue some people seem to want to make it out to be.

Tinkering with what has to be a complex code at this early stage in the Games general release with the US ASW effort when Garry et al have at last got the US Ships to make attacks is very unwise IMHO.

Matrix, with all due respect, do you remember what happened when you started screwing around with reducing the "supposed" super duper lethal allied LBA and the B-17`s in UV ? It took 2 patches to undo the unintended effects of that and get it somewhat right.

I make my plea again, let s get some full campaign games finished against the AI and then revist the issue based on whats happened there.

Bug patches Now, enhancement Patches later...please[;)]


Pretty bold statement considering the time you've spent with the game. There will be no IJN subs left after 43 except the ones coming off the ways if you go the full length of the campaign, and frankly, I don't think people would want to wait 6-12 months for a result vs the AI. It should not take anyone that long to see a problem. I've seen tweaks to ASW code during BETA and it had no unpleasant aftershocks that I could see.

As for the "supposed" uber nature of Allied LBA in UV, well...all I can say is it was truly uber. That kinda stuff has to be dealt with quickly and it was and dealt with in a very decisive and effective manner.



Black Cat -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 3:53:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Clearly from my experiences in 3 ongoing Scenario 15 games as the US vs the AI, and the above two posts as well as others, the overpowering US ASW is not the big issue some people seem to want to make it out to be.

Tinkering with what has to be a complex code at this early stage in the Games general release with the US ASW effort when Garry et al have at last got the US Ships to make attacks is very unwise IMHO.

Matrix, with all due respect, do you remember what happened when you started screwing around with reducing the "supposed" super duper lethal allied LBA and the B-17`s in UV ? It took 2 patches to undo the unintended effects of that and get it somewhat right.

I make my plea again, let s get some full campaign games finished against the AI and then revist the issue based on whats happened there.

Bug patches Now, enhancement Patches later...please[;)]


Pretty bold statement considering the time you've spent with the game.



Hmmmm......that`s a little unkind Ron.

How many FULL 1941 - 1945 Campaign games have _you_ played VS the AI with the release version and what are the results, in numbers, of INJ Sub loses in each Game ?

You supply a lot of opinions, but few facts on the subject.



Nikademus -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 6:02:46 PM)

Running full length campaigns against the AI would be a rather inefficient way to test an aspect of the game engine. Were that done, we'd still be in beta. Instead, I set up multiple tests under different conditions (different water types (Shallow vs Deep), different time period, different ASW platform etc etc.

In all of the tests, Allied ASW was frightfully effective. Over a dozen subs sunk within a short period of time, even in deep water. This is not an isolated incident and has been borne out by test PBEM games as well. (I have lost over a dozen Iboats in my game with Kid thus far, most of them in deep water)

Why wasn't it changed? Raverdale said it.....an across the board ASW tweak would have negatively impacted IJN ASW which is working just fine. A more refined tweak was called for , but we were too close to Gold to address it.



Captain Cruft -> As an aside (7/8/2004 6:59:59 PM)

One partial cause of this problem is that the chances of a sub attack occurring are far too high (IMHO).

I can't remember the exact figures but isn't it true that a majority of German subs in the Atlantic never even saw any ships to attack? The Pacific is bigger and the Japs are less sophisticated.

In UV the base chance for a sub "event" to occur was 33% (haven't got that far in the WitP manual yet). Should be more like 2% if you ask me. I suppose some might consider this a bit boring but, on the other hand, if you're playing the full campaign how else are the boats going to last that long?



Nikademus -> RE: As an aside (7/8/2004 7:10:22 PM)

not exactly. Using "Ultra" the British were able to commonly divert convoys around suspected Uboat concentrations. This did cause alot of misses but such a situaiton would not exist in the Pacific.



Xargun -> RE: As an aside (7/8/2004 7:13:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

One partial cause of this problem is that the chances of a sub attack occurring are far too high (IMHO).

I can't remember the exact figures but isn't it true that a majority of German subs in the Atlantic never even saw any ships to attack? The Pacific is bigger and the Japs are less sophisticated.

In UV the base chance for a sub "event" to occur was 33% (haven't got that far in the WitP manual yet). Should be more like 2% if you ask me. I suppose some might consider this a bit boring but, on the other hand, if you're playing the full campaign how else are the boats going to last that long?


I don't agree with the sub occurance. I have many susb on patrol (some are 2 or 3 to a hex) and have watched TFs pass right over head of them and nothing... IN my PBEM Rob has been moving merchies in and out of Manilla and Singpore right over top of my subs and I have yet to have a single attack. Same thing near PH. I watch as spotted TFs sail right over top my subs and nothing happens. The only time I get good attack % is when I camp at a port - and you figure the sub is outside the port mouth waiting for lunch.

As for loosing subs, my loses have dimished greatly from the first week of the war. I have half a dozen damaged subs limping home (a couple might actually make it) and the others are doing fine. I'm gonna wait more now and see how it progresses to make my final judgement - although it seems the Allies need like 3 DDs in a TF to hunt subs, and IJN needs like a dozen for the same chance. I know IJN ASW skills weren't the best, but not that bad.. Oh well... we will see.

Xargun



Nikademus -> RE: As an aside (7/8/2004 7:24:36 PM)

my west coast campaign turned up almost zilch...(bagged on Tanker and damaged another AK (sub sunk!))

Kid must be routing them far off the beaten path



Tankerace -> RE: As an aside (7/8/2004 8:01:36 PM)

Isn't one reason that Allied ASW is effective is that, plain and simple, it historically was? The British were veterans of the Atlantic, fighting German Type VII and IX Uboats which had better commanders than Japanese I boats, and the Americans had also been veterans (though not to the same extent) as the British. In addition, one potential reason of the high sucesses is that IRL, the Japanese didn't use subs that effectively, and when they did, they often suffered high losses. If this weren't true, how could the Destroyer Escort England sink 6 subs (5 I boats, 1 RO) in 5 days? Since the human player knows how better to employ his subs, and employ them more often, he will t hus run the risk of higher casualties. If the Japanese player plays like Japan did historically, and only really use subs for sneak attacks (occasionaly) and supply runs, and maybe scouting, then the casualties will be at a more historically level.



Nikademus -> RE: As an aside (7/8/2004 8:14:31 PM)

The british were far mor experienced in 1941 than the Americans, but the overall kill rate by this period was still not all that great. Blair considers it a bit of a "Draw" (the first phase in which Great Britian faced the Uboats alone by the simple expediate that Britian "survived") The kill rate on subs did not start to skyrocket until the latter half of the war with the refinement and introduciton of aircraft (many on CVE's or ultra long range B-24's)

US ASW was not so hot initially but would quickly ramp up by 43. Problem being exhibited in the games and tests was that whether 41, 42 whatever, ASW was acting like it was 1944 and the DE was the England



mdiehl -> RE: As an aside (7/8/2004 8:34:37 PM)

quote:

Isn't one reason that Allied ASW is effective is that, plain and simple, it historically was? The British were veterans of the Atlantic, fighting German Type VII and IX Uboats which had better commanders than Japanese I boats, and the Americans had also been veterans (though not to the same extent) as the British. In addition, one potential reason of the high sucesses is that IRL, the Japanese didn't use subs that effectively, and when they did, they often suffered high losses. If this weren't true, how could the Destroyer Escort England sink 6 subs (5 I boats, 1 RO) in 5 days? Since the human player knows how better to employ his subs, and employ them more often, he will t hus run the risk of higher casualties. If the Japanese player plays like Japan did historically, and only really use subs for sneak attacks (occasionaly) and supply runs, and maybe scouting, then the casualties will be at a more historically level.


You hit the nail on the head. Historically, Japanese submarines were not sunk at a very high rate, initially, because the Japanese did not employ them in areas with high merchant traffic. If the present suite of Japanese player complaints are coming as a result of their efforts to interdict convoy lanes, or hang around in close proximity to major league airbases like Hawaii or the US west coast, then they deserve the losses they get and the model is accurate. Even in 1941, German submarine losses ran on the order of several boats per month. The reason why the Japanese are running out of subs given that sort of attrition rate is that the Japanese don't have German production levels.

Japanese submarines were also not nearly as resistant to ASW as German boats. They had shallower rated dive depths (more like US S-boats), and many of them were way too big for their own good and had poor diver characteristics.

quote:

Using "Ultra" the British were able to commonly divert convoys around suspected Uboat concentrations. This did cause alot of misses but such a situaiton would not exist in the Pacific.


You mean "duid not exist before 1943 in the Pacific." By mid 1943 US vessels were given pretty accurate decrypts of IJN submarine patrol areas. By 1944 the H-K groups were mowing down Japanese submarines like scythes through tall grass.



Black Cat -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 9:01:44 PM)

Nick, since it seems any comments on Patching the ASW Game routines from the people who just got the Game is not welcome by the Testers I make this my last post on the subject.

Please consider it a friendly and hopefully thoughtful one[8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Running full length campaigns against the AI would be a rather inefficient way to test an aspect of the game engine. Were that done, we'd still be in beta.
quote:



Understood, but now that the Game is out, there is time to let people play out the historical Japanese Sub doctrin ON Campaign and report back on ASW, there may be people out here with a lot of experience of Grigsby PW Games.


quote:

Instead, I set up multiple tests under different conditions (different water types (Shallow vs Deep), different time period, different ASW platform etc etc.

In all of the tests, Allied ASW was frightfully effective. Over a dozen subs sunk within a short period of time, even in deep water. This is not an isolated incident and has been borne out by test PBEM games as well. (I have lost over a dozen Iboats in my game with Kid thus far, most of them in deep water)
quote:



Understood, maybe he is actively hunting them with large ASW TF`s, something that didn`t really start in the Pacific until very late in the War.

You know Nick, the Game will allow you to do 1944-45 type operations in `41-`42 but if you do, and get strange ahistorical results, it not the fault of the programming IMHO[;)] Then again maybe your right and it is an issue[8D].

quote:

Why wasn't it changed? Raverdale said it.....an across the board ASW tweak would have negatively impacted IJN ASW which is working just fine. A more refined tweak was called for , but we were too close to Gold to address it.


My point again is why are some of us , who are playing historically, not seeing this deadly effective US ASW in the AI Campaign Game from the escorts ? In three different Games up to 3/1/42I have sunk one sub in 2 and none in the others, and had about 10-12 contacts or sub attacks in each. i`m not making this stuff up you know ....



Lemurs! -> RE: As an aside (7/8/2004 9:03:10 PM)

Hi all,

It is not well known that in 41-42 American Sonar was very primitive as they had done very little inter-war work in the field. Japanese equipment was actually pretty even or even better than American equipment on Dec 7th but America vastly improved their equipment AND their doctrine where Japan really did neither until mid '44 when it was way too late.
People have commented on the ineffectiveness of the Q1W Lorna ASW aircraft (100 built, 0 American subs killed) but it must have been interesting trying to be serious sub hunters when you are running from Hellcats and screaming like a little girl!

One thing i disagree with that was posted above is saying that supply runs were safe and convoy attacks were more dangerous; that is not born out by stats. The Japanese loss rate using subs to resupply island garrisons was horrific after middle '43 when the Americans broke the Japanese operational codes.

To change the subject, yet another sterotype is the intel in game, the Americans get loads of info while Japan gets 3 or 4 radio transmissions. Everyone knows about the miracle of Midway, few know that Japan regularly broke many mid level American codes. The Japanese usually knew where the American carriers were during '41-'42 while I as a Japanese player in WitP have no clue where they are.

I am amused by the Allied Fanboy bleat 'Gary Grigsby is biased towards Japan!'
Umm, yeah.
[:)]

Mike



Nikademus -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 9:27:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Nick, since it seems any comments on Patching the ASW Game routines from the people who just got the Game is not welcome by the Testers I make this my last post on the subject.

Please consider it a friendly and hopefully thoughtful one[8D]



Your comments are always welcome. If your reffering to Ron's comments towards you, i think his miff stemed from the impression you seem to be putting forward that we (the testers) havn't really tested this issue out and are basing our comments on faulty or inadequate information. I was meerly trying to set the record straight.

quote:



Understood, but now that the Game is out, there is time to let people play out the historical Japanese Sub doctrin ON Campaign and report back on ASW, there may be people out here with a lot of experience of Grigsby PW Games.



Thats fine, however all IJN "Sub doctrine" being on is going to produce is less contacts which will naturally result in less IJN sub sinkings. Thats not the issue here



quote:


Understood, maybe he is actively hunting them with large ASW TF`s, something that didn`t really start in the Pacific until very late in the War.


Correct....thats why i tested a variety of different combinations....ASW TF's, regular escort, escort classes, and different targets (surface combat, transport TF etc) and lastly, the # of total escorts and diffferent time periods in the game.

quote:


You know Nick, the Game will allow you to do 1944-45 type operations in `41-`42 but if you do, and get strange ahistorical results, it not the fault of the programming IMHO[;)] Then again maybe your right and it is an issue[8D].


I understand that. However if one is consistantly getting near 100% lethality for I-boats in 1942 as if it's 1944......then there's a problem

quote:



My point again is why are some of us , who are playing historically, not seeing this deadly effective US ASW in the AI Campaign Game from the escorts ? In three different Games up to 3/1/42I have sunk one sub in 2 and none in the others, and had about 10-12 contacts or sub attacks in each. i`m not making this stuff up you know ....


Never said you were....i was [again] clarifying our (the testers) viewpoint, that we are seeing it in tests, and in games ( i can list the losses in the current PBEM for you if you like) From the comments from other players, this is not an isolated incident. Now i may be misinterpreting, but from what you are describing by "playing historically" you have both doctrine on and are not aggressively using your subs....under such conditions i would expect you to not be experiencing large scale losses.

Hope this clears things up.



Nikademus -> RE: As an aside (7/8/2004 9:42:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

You mean "duid not exist before 1943 in the Pacific." By mid 1943 US vessels were given pretty accurate decrypts of IJN submarine patrol areas. By 1944 the H-K groups were mowing down Japanese submarines like scythes through tall grass.


I meant what i said. Bought the game yet?



Black Cat -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 9:46:16 PM)

Ok My really, really last post on this.[;)]

First ,it was never my intention to question Rons work or statements.

He is one of the good guys here, has always been helpful, and like the rest of the Testers have helped Garry in giving us a great Game experience. I thank them them all, they are better men then me.

FWIW: I composed a long and friendly PM to Ron prior to the last exchange and of course the PM gave me a CTD when I tried to enter it.

FWIW: All my Games are as US in Scenario 15 with all historical options ON.

Thanks for clearing things up Nik.[;)]



Nikademus -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 9:55:35 PM)

no problem. It always amazes me how much can be misinterpreted or how emotions/implications/suggestions etc etc etc can be gleaned off of printed language forums. The downside of an otherwise wonderful new piece of technology that promotes open communication between people.

(god Drongo is gonna ream me for printing such a goodie toosho feel good type statement)

[;)]



mdiehl -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 10:09:50 PM)

quote:

I meant what i said. Bought the game yet?


What you meant and said was incomplete, then, because it is incorrect to state that the US did not have subtantial detailed knowledge of IJN submarine locations... at least starting in 1943.

Nope, I've not bought the game yet. I'm waiting for enough AARs to be posted before I'll know whether or not the game is interesting to me.



Nikademus -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 10:15:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


What you meant and said was incomplete, then, because it is incorrect to state that the US did not have subtantial detailed knowledge of IJN submarine locations... at least starting in 1943.



Thats not what i said or meant, and i made clear distinctions on early vs late war. Thanks

quote:


Nope, I've not bought the game yet. I'm waiting for enough AARs to be posted before I'll know whether or not the game is interesting to me.


Didn't think so [:)]



mdiehl -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 10:29:46 PM)

quote:

Didn't think so


And effing proud of it too, am I. [:D] I might even wait until I can pick this up for ten bucks on ebay if I don't like what I read in the AARs.

quote:

Thats not what i said or meant, and i made clear distinctions on early vs late war.


I missed it I guess. I read the following --

quote:

Using "Ultra" the British were able to commonly divert convoys around suspected Uboat concentrations. This did cause alot of misses but such a situaiton would not exist in the Pacific.


-- to mean that you felt that strategic intel did not give the US capacity to determine where IJN subs were patrolling. Since you did not revisit your comment vis "Ultra" in detail or in any way qualify it with "prior to 1943" it seemed like you left something out. Your other posts seemed generic in nature and not specific to the issue of strategic intel.



Charles2222 -> RE: As an aside (7/8/2004 10:30:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The british were far mor experienced in 1941 than the Americans, but the overall kill rate by this period was still not all that great. Blair considers it a bit of a "Draw" (the first phase in which Great Britian faced the Uboats alone by the simple expediate that Britian "survived") The kill rate on subs did not start to skyrocket until the latter half of the war with the refinement and introduciton of aircraft (many on CVE's or ultra long range B-24's)

US ASW was not so hot initially but would quickly ramp up by 43. Problem being exhibited in the games and tests was that whether 41, 42 whatever, ASW was acting like it was 1944 and the DE was the England


Yes, the greatest tonnage sank by the uboats was in March of '43 I believe (the Germans had changed their codes IIRC). It was ramping down somewhat up to that time, and every month after 3/43 it was ramping down again. I don't think the uboat mess off the coasts of the US in early '42 were involving that much ASW warfare from the more traditional ships used in the Pacific, but it certainly didn't indicate strength (same time period as this game starts).



Nikademus -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 10:35:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

And effing proud of it too, am I. [:D] I might even wait until I can pick this up for ten bucks on ebay if I don't like what I read in the AARs.



i'm sure you are [:)]

quote:


I missed it I guess. I read the following --

quote:

Using "Ultra" the British were able to commonly divert convoys around suspected Uboat concentrations. This did cause alot of misses but such a situaiton would not exist in the Pacific.


-- to mean that you felt that strategic intel did not give the US capacity to determine where IJN subs were patrolling. Since you did not revisit your comment vis "Ultra" in detail or in any way qualify it with "prior to 1943" it seemed like you left something out. Your other posts seemed generic in nature and not specific to the issue of strategic intel.


I understand. Incorrect. Thats not what i felt or meant



mdiehl -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 10:36:04 PM)

Bueno.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 10:45:31 PM)

What is the historical ratio between Japanese sub losses vs Allied ships sunk?



Tankerace -> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW (7/8/2004 10:52:06 PM)

I don't have an exact figure, but it is a very large ratio. The only US capital ships to be sunk by Japanese subs were the carriers Wasp and Yorktown, and the cruisers Indianapolis and Juneau, and the only 2 destroyers (I know of) being the O'Brien and the Hamman (sunk with the Wasp and Yorktown, respectively). While several destroyers might have been sunk, only 71 US destroyers sank in WW2, and most of those due to air attack and losses in the Atlantic. Not sure how many Merchants were sunk, but the main point is that Japanese subs were not that effective.

There main contibution was mainly in putting ships out of action (Like the Saratoge and the North Carolina).



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.312988