View Full Version : Evasive tactics: easier in real life???
Hi all, Iīve been reading about GWX making Destroyers even more deadly :huh: and Iīve been reading pages and pages about "evasive tactics" ... now Iīve also read MANY books on real U-Boat warfare (as Iīm sure many of you did as well), and hereīs what I conclude from my reading:
Authentic U-Boat diaries and reports say little or nothing about "evasive tactics" - it doesnīt seem to be an important issue. Real U-Boat men like Buchheim and Hirschfeld describe being chased and depth-charged like a very ordinary thing. Unlike in Das Boot the crew stayed very calm and wouldnīt freak out and scream and shout etc. (Buchheim, the author of Das Boot, was very angry about these scenes and called them "Hollywood Nonsense"
Thereīs some historical footage confirming how quietly the crew reacted under attack, too.
Whatīs more interesting is that real Commanders didnīt have any super-clever evasive "tactics", on the contrary, when you read Buchheim, Hirschfeld, Topp or other eye-witnesses, you are surprised how NAIVE the commanders and the crew often were. :o When under attack, they usually ran silent and just WAITED while keeping the course. Reportedly, commanders very often just lay on their bed, reading (or at least pretending) or slumbering and nothing much happened. Every now and then they would ask for sonar contacts or dive a little deeper when they were pinged. Destroyers, on the other hand, were very inefficient especially in early war, partly because the crews were not well trained, partly because ASDIC was easily disturbed and inaccurate sometimes.
So what am I getting at? Profound evasive tactics may add to gameplay, but do not really seem to reflect the real thing. In real life being depth charged was a bit like playing Hide and Seek with a lot of good/bad luck involved on both sides. It was a common "tactic" to just sit and wait and keep running silent in one direction. Considering how SLOW U-Boats were at silent running, it wouldnīt have made much sense to change course too often because they would end up staying at the same place forever instead of getting away.
Just something to think about....:know:
Cheers, AS
Hmmm...this is a good question.... We also have to remember the "human factor" in all this (Well shown by Johann in "das Boot"). this could have hit the uboatcrew aswell as the DD crew. And bad weather could have different impact on different people, making the scenario very different. But again, this is a really interesting question....:hmm:
Good one, AS!
THE_MASK
12-03-06, 09:14 PM
As deep as i can go and i mean deep(if you have any hull damage then forget it) . I try never to travel in shallow waters . Then i just travel at 1 knot for as long as it takes . Now i am talking pre 1943 . Late war with NYGM in shore campaign mod , i have no idea because i havnt really been there . Regarding GWX i just hope its realistic but scary and fun at the same time .
I think its also worth noting that both sides during the war, probably from around mod 1941 onwards were both well aware of the fact that ASDIC was ineffective if the target got under a thermocline and one of the main reasons the germans did not develop an effective bathythermograph was that in the Atlantic the thermocline was usually below 500ft-600ft, well below the diving capabilit of most uboats. In the Pacific the layer could sometimes be found within 200ft of the surface.
One thing that annoys the crap out of me is the accuracy of allied sonar/ASDIC when detecting my uboat when I'm in the middle of a convoy going at some speed. In RL under these circumstances they hydrophones are next to useless and even an acitve ping will be very lucky to locate a shallow submarine in amongst all the hull movements in the convoy. Then the escorts come charging in and dropping DC's in amongst the convoy lines. Something a RL DD commander would turn pale at.
One thing that annoys the crap out of me is the accuracy of allied sonar/ASDIC when detecting my uboat when I'm in the middle of a convoy going at some speed. In RL under these circumstances they hydrophones are next to useless and even an acitve ping will be very lucky to locate a shallow submarine in amongst all the hull movements in the convoy. Then the escorts come charging in and dropping DC's in amongst the convoy lines. Something a RL DD commander would turn pale at.
True. i often use the convoys as a "shield" against enemy sonar, but they always seems to find me, no matter what i do..:damn:
totally agree with AS! According to Otto Kretschmer, in early war years the U-boat could approach a convoy on surface (lack of radar) and follow it, then attack even when there were escorts. Kretschmer said, the DDs usually didnt notice him. instead of this, the in-game AI starts just to be "suspicious" when she is near your position. just because you are within short range!!! now tell me how could a DD take suspicion without any sign of your presence? (if you are quiet and no trail on the surface). I think the GWX team should stay focused on things like that, rather then making DDs "deadly"...
Im not intending to hijack this thread; But what about the tactics used by surface ships when they attack eachother? I looked into this topic before,after my video "the convoy", where german ships encountered a british taskforce. It was IMHO the most stupid tactics i have ever seen, from both partys.
mr chris
12-04-06, 03:57 AM
I can say that the DD's are a bit more Deadly in GWX but not massakistic as people are thinking they will be... But when you get to the business end from mid 42 to 45 you will want to be a bit more carefull when planing a attack. It is possible to attack and get away its just a little bit more challanging.
Anyways that was my 2 cents:)
melnibonian
12-04-06, 05:30 AM
DDs in GWX are very dangerous and accurate in their attacks to U-Boats. That of course doesn't mean that you cannot survive an attack. Obviously it depends on the year as the later in the war you are the more dangerous things will get (as in real life). In GWX you can still outsmart Destroyers, you can still sink them and you can still get away from them but it's a bit more difficult than in GW 1.1a. In my opinion if you do not attack in a guns blazing way and you use clever tactics you can get away most of the times.
Heibges
12-04-06, 08:58 AM
If you look at the Uboat Commanders Handbook, I think they used the KISS principle.
1. Move away from aggressors giving them the smallest possible silhouette.
2. Don't zig zag.
...which brings us back to my original post. To cut a long story short, Iīm just hoping the GWX dev is not to keen on making the most out of the Destroyer AI while history tells us that patience and good luck on the U-Boatīs side was a factor rather than any clever underwater tactics.
Another point is that reportedly U-Boats could get very close to Destroyers at nights without being noticed. Iīm just reading an authentic book which states that a big type IX was passed several times by a destroyer within 200m without takijhng any notice.
In another chapter the author reports that a merchant tried to shoot at their U-Boat but couldnīt because they were so close that the merchantīs guns couldnīt take the angle to aim...
Important details which depict a war far different from what weīve seen so far in subsims.
Cheers, AS
plastik
12-04-06, 02:42 PM
hi everyone!
been reading this interesting thread and i have a couple of short questions (have recently started playing SH3):
1. is there ANY possibility of attacking a convoy (at night of course) from the surface without being detected?? (how the AI detects you is another story, as was pointed out!)
2. if you are within a convoy at shallow depth, do you still have to make the rig for silent running and keep the speed low, or is the AI unrealistic here too?? ie. how fast can you go before they find you??
3. when apprached by a destroyer on ASDIC, the minimum profile is perpendicular to their course??
many thanks!
melnibonian
12-04-06, 02:53 PM
1. is there ANY possibility of attacking a convoy (at night of course) from the surface without being detected??
Yes you can attack and not be detected if it is total darkness and you manage to avoid the search lights once the fireworks begin. It's a bit difficult though and takes time and experience. In reality U-Boats did attack on the surface at night without being detected.
2. if you are within a convoy at shallow depth, do you still have to make the rig for silent running and keep the speed low, or is the AI unrealistic here too?? ie. how fast can you go before they find you??
Inside the convoy you can get away without using the silent running, as long as you keep really close to the merchants. Once the DDs start passing between the lines if you are not using silent running they can find you. It's more difficult than in the open sea but they still do. As long as you stay close or even under the merchants you're safe from the charges but they can still use their guns to fire at you.
3. when apprached by a destroyer on ASDIC, the minimum profile is perpendicular to their course??
No the minimum profile is paralel to their course. That way you give less of a target. If you are though inside their cone of search (their sonar) they usually find you
many thanks!
You're welcome :D :D
mr chris
12-04-06, 02:54 PM
hi everyone!
been reading this interesting thread and i have a couple of short questions (have recently started playing SH3):
1. is there ANY possibility of attacking a convoy (at night of course) from the surface without being detected?? (how the AI detects you is another story, as was pointed out!)
2. if you are within a convoy at shallow depth, do you still have to make the rig for silent running and keep the speed low, or is the AI unrealistic here too?? ie. how fast can you go before they find you??
3. when apprached by a destroyer on ASDIC, the minimum profile is perpendicular to their course??
many thanks!
Hi mate iam no u boat ace some of the guys from the MP side would call me a mad man but here we go.:arrgh!:
1) I have attacked many convoys on the surface in my SH3 career but always fired my torps at a distance of 1000m - 2000m. Some times i get dected but other times not. Its a bit hit and miss. Give it a go and see how you get on. It also depends on what mods you are playing with.
2) When in with the convoy i like to let lose my fish then dive deep to reload. I try to keep to about 4 knt or lower but sometimes you just need to have aburst of speed to get the best angle.
3) yep you are right. Dive deep and remember Bold is your best friend in the later years of the war:up:
plastik
12-04-06, 03:52 PM
thanks for the answers. i'm not clear as to point 3, though (maybe it was not clear the way i wrote it). when surfaced, it obviously helps to "face" the enemy so you will be harder to spot. when submerged, however, is it also "facing" the enemy (melnibonian) or perpendicular (mr chris)???
not sure if i misunderstood you.
no bold yets (1941). cu!
mr chris
12-04-06, 03:57 PM
Not a problem mate.:up: This what we are here for to help.:yep:
As for problem 3 you are best to show the smallest shilloute to the emeny to aviod detection.
Hope this helps:up:
According to the book "U-Boat Killer" (http://uboat.net/books/item/260) written by the Royal Navy's top U-Boat hunter Donald Macintyre, in the early pre-radar days a U-Boat in poor visibility was safer on the surface because she probably would not be seen.
Macintyre sank Kretschmer's U-99, and he states that Kretschmer told him afterwards that a junior officer saw Macintyre's destroyer and panicked - he ordered a dive, which allowed Macintyre to pick up the U-99 on asdic (sonar). Kretschmer stated that if he had been on the bridge he would have slipped away on the surface without being seen.
Macintyre also has many problems fighting surfaced U-Boats. They can turn inside him and keep so close that the guns cannot depress sufficiently to engage (as stated previously on this thread). On one occasion he resorted to ramming, but his ship was so badly damaged that a general order was issued forbidding intentional ramming of U-Boats. Macintyre also discusses the ineffectual gun armament of the smaller escort vessels and the general poor marksmanship of the crews, who of course rarely had the opportunity to aim at a moving surface vessel...
Of course, Macintyre generally succeeds in sinking these U-Boats eventually - I don't think any U-Boat skipper chose to fight on the surface unless forced to by damage. What they DID do (at least before radar was introduced) was avoid the escorts on the surface. The U-Boat was so much smaller that they would virtually always see the escort before they were spotted themselves and take avoiding action. U-Boats would cruise up and down the rows of ships inside the convoy at night, picking out targets...
I don't think any version of SHIII, with any current mod, allows accurate early-war U-Boat tactics to be successfully used. The enemy spots you too easily, and shoots too accurately.
Sailor Steve
12-04-06, 05:59 PM
I have always loved McIntyre's book, and yet Nicholas Monsarrat, who was a corvette officer and captain, describes using the 2pdr (40mm) pompom to wipe out a surfaced u-boats gun and bridge crews, forcing them to surrender.
As to the original topic, while the u-boatmen who wrote about it may not mention evasive tactics, just sitting there and doing nothing obviously doesn't work all the time-after all, 264 u-boats were sunk by ships.
I'll bet someone somewhere talks about evasive tactics, and I'll bet they used every one they could think of.
According to the book "U-Boat Killer" (http://uboat.net/books/item/260) written by the Royal Navy's top U-Boat hunter Donald Macintyre, in the early pre-radar days a U-Boat in poor visibility was safer on the surface because she probably would not be seen.
They could not be heard when surfaced either when operating a slow speeds or on electrics. Something else not modelled in SHIII.
Jimbuna
12-05-06, 08:23 AM
Hi mate iam no u boat ace some of the guys from the MP side would call me a mad man Yeah after that homing torp experience on MP the other night I reckon I just might lol :D
Regarding GWX i just hope its realistic but scary and fun at the same time
Well then...you might just be pleasantly surprised :up:
Hi!
@ Sailor Steve: the fact that so many U-Boats were sunk does not mean that U-Boat skippers were too stupid to use evasive tatctics or would have survived if only they had used them. As you probably know most U-Boats were sunk when the technical develpments were on the Alliesī side - Radar (and Dönitzīs inability to react to it) killed more U-Boats then anything else.
Hirschfeld describes how his Type IX U-Boat was hunted by 6 destroyers at close range and they got away at only 60m and without ever changing direction. That was in late 1940!!!
@ Loaf: good one. What you describe is confirmed by any real U-Boat man Iīve read about. Using electric engines at surface was a common tactic. Buchheim desribes an incident where a destroyer accidently came closer to the U-Boat. The commander, Lehmann-Willenbrock, ordered flank speed for a couple of minutes, not so much to get away, but in order to hide behind the smoke from the diesels.
Another point is that U-Boats frequently out-ran destroyers on the surface in that they zigzagged and suddenly disappeard in the night, fog, or simply behind the waves. In SH3 itīs never possible to get away on the surface once youīve been detected.
My two cents.
Sailor Steve
12-05-06, 11:43 AM
I'm sorry, I just can't picture them not trying to evade an attack underwater, even to using flank speed submerged once the destroyer is overhead. I don't know how they handled it, I'm just refusing to be convinced it was that easy.
On the other hand, in the game I use the Depth Charge Mod, so it takes one getting really close before I'm actually in trouble. And I agree, it should be possible to escape on the surface, at least some of the time.
@ Sailor Steve: Maybe it all becomes clearer if I explain my original intention.
Everybody was talking about submerged "evasive tactics" while the GWX-Devs seemd to be very proud to announce that Destroyers would be "even more deadly" now. In fact, history tells me by way of many examples that U-Boat skippers didnīt give order after order being extremely clever about using all the great super-secret tactics they had learned in U-Boat academy... I mean, seriously, what tactics could you employ when at 2 knots, moving forward slower than average walking speed while your battery capacity is your biggest problem? I agree they would go to flank speed occasionally and use the pumps when depth charge explosions allowed that, but in most cases they would have waited hoping to get away. What Iīm trying to get at is that in reality it seems depth charging was very different from anything subsims and movies have tried to make us believe. Here are some examples given by people who actually served on U-Boats and wrote about it:
-Topp pretended to read a detectiv story while being depth charged. He didnīt give any orders but played his role to keep crew morale up (problem was he held the novel upside down)
- Fischer was depth charged by at least 3 destroyers. He didnīt give any orders. As the U-Boat got heavier and heavier while he avoided using the pumps (noise!). By the time they had reached 200m they had to speed up a bit, noticing that they had got away by then. - In another incident, the only order that was given while being depth charged was "coffee for everyone" (no joke)
- sometimes it was the LI rather than the skipper who asked for "more speed" to be able to hold depth. This is another very important element that is not simulated in SH3: the longer a sub dives, the heavier it gets (U-Boats were ALWAYS taking on water, even if undamaged). When pumps were too loud to use them, more speed enabled the LI to keep the U-Boat on a given depth.
- Buchheim tells about several incidents were they waited for hours and hours, unsure whether the destroyer had gone or was waiting for them somewhere. Uncertainity was the word, not non-stop action
- after an attack the destroyer lost contact and unlike in SH3 couldnīt automatically establich a new contact at once. So it wasnīt that easy for the destroyers to keep in touch
- the sea has different temperature and different layers in every part and depending on the weather. All these things heavily influenced the sensors of any ship and sub. Hirschfeld, who was a radio and sonar man, says that around the Canarys the water was so "dense" that he couldnīt hear 6 destroyers that were only 4000m away and confirmed by the captain who saw them in the periscope. On the other hand, those 6 (!) destroyers were not able to detect the U-Boat for the same reasons and the U-Boat got away at only 60m!
- there were other incidents were the destroyers were around but the U-Boats battery was too low to really get away. Sometimes they just had to surface, but often they were lucky: Iīve read about U-Boats that surfaced 500m away from a destroyer in the night with the destroyer not noticing.
- U-109 escaped a destroyer although having a heavy oil trace. No wonder, if you think about it: the trace can distract from the place where the sub actually is, it might be difficult to see oil in the night, the waves will blurr the pattern etc.
In simple terms: evasive tactics seem to be a big issue in SH3 (and GWX) while they werenīt such a big issue in reality. On the other hand: keeping the sub stable by using speed, dive planes, pumps etc. and keeping and eye on battery power was the MAIN factor in reality, while it doesnīt play ANY role in SH3.
I conclude that SH3 gives you a somewhat unrealistic and blurred impression of real U-Boat "tactics" because it confronts you with problems they didnīt actually have while ignoring others they DID have.
Just some remark to be thrown into consideration.... Cheers, AS;)
FUBAR295
12-05-06, 06:06 PM
AS,
Interesting thread topic you have introduced here.
Just to add, the former Uboot Kommader Jürgen Oesten who was UBI's advisor ( much like Topp was for SH2 )had played SH3 said something to the effect that everything was so easier in real life. I would take it that he was referring to the convoy attack and the Destroyer evasion. So you may not be to far off the mark.
Good Hunting,
FUBAR
Sailor Steve
12-05-06, 07:32 PM
I do have one minor reference, for what it's worth against the weight of others. It's from Eyewitness Naval Battles. The quote is from Heinz Wilde, a radioman on U-110. "The commander changed the direction of the boat and we went to a great depth. I think the depth charges exploded above us. They shook the interior violently, but didn't cause andy damage. We then tried to escape the ASDIC detection by constantly changing the direction and the depth of the boat."
Alright, before this is gonna go on for ages, canīt we just agree on the following:
- SH3 (and, sadly, other subsims) tend to be over-accurate when it comes to destroyer sensors and aiming abilities
- they do not really take into account coincidence (good/bad luck on both sides), human flaws, technical problems (ASDIC) or Bernard doing the watch:88):doh::o
- they confront you with problems, real U-Boats didnīt have (e.g. being ALWAYS spotted when near a convoy), while leaving out others that U-Boats DID have (as I said before: U-Boat physics, battery capacity, water-gaining, noise of pumps - pumps? Yes, - never been actually simulated in any subsim!:damn:) etc.
And please donīt forget the reasons why I have started this thread (see way above:o)
Cheers, AS:sunny:
" they do not really take into account coincidence (good/bad luck on both sides), human flaws, technical problems (ASDIC) or Bernard doing the watch"
Oh yes, this has been simulated. Last night my watch crew spotted a C3 Cargo when it was already putting holes in my sub at a range of 300 meters.
But then again i don't think this has anything to do with simulation, but something with a very blind watchcrew (bug) :shifty:
Grtz Tijn
Corsair
12-06-06, 10:22 AM
If you had heavy fog, this is quite normal as your crew will spot at very short distance. This is why by heavy fog I only stay surfaced for reloading batteries, had my share of surprises...:cry:
Think you're lucky, could have been a couple of DDs...;)
Sailor Steve
12-06-06, 11:31 AM
Alright, before this is gonna go on for ages, canīt we just agree on the following:
- SH3 (and, sadly, other subsims) tend to be over-accurate when it comes to destroyer sensors and aiming abilities
- they do not really take into account coincidence (good/bad luck on both sides), human flaws, technical problems (ASDIC) or Bernard doing the watch:88):doh::o
- they confront you with problems, real U-Boats didnīt have (e.g. being ALWAYS spotted when near a convoy), while leaving out others that U-Boats DID have (as I said before: U-Boat physics, battery capacity, water-gaining, noise of pumps - pumps? Yes, - never been actually simulated in any subsim!:damn:) etc.
And please donīt forget the reasons why I have started this thread (see way above:o)
Cheers, AS:sunny:
Well, when you put it that way...
I find absolutely nothing to disagree with in this post.:lol: (I said that rather negatively, but I really do agree with every point-not that you need my agreement).
Nope no fog. I know this happens from sometimes, but with my previous career it happened alot. I have a feeling that the watch officer has to be elite to eliminate this problem.
Grtz Tijn
@ Sailor Steve: well, donīt be too modest, I do appreciate your opinion very much. :yep:On the other hand...what does my score say? "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong" :rotfl:
Good hunting, AS:arrgh!:
Jimbuna
12-06-06, 04:53 PM
@ Sailor Steve: well, donīt be too modest, I do appreciate your opinion very much. :yep:On the other hand...what does my score say? "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong" :rotfl:
Good hunting, AS:arrgh!:
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Sailor Steve
12-06-06, 05:04 PM
I agree with that.:p
There's a scene in Fiddler On The Roof, in which the Rabbi's son and the young Communist are arguing, while Tevye and Lazar Wolf are listening. At one point the Rabbi's son makes an argument and Tevye jumps in with "You're right"
The Communist makes a quick retort and Tevye says "You're right, too!"
Lazar Wolf: "He's right; he's right! Tevye, how can they both be right?"
Tevye thinks for a minute, then replies "You know what? You're right, too!"
Youīre right, but I donīt agree with you.:rotfl:
robj250
12-07-06, 07:40 AM
Hi all, Iīve been reading about GWX making Destroyers even more deadly :huh: and Iīve been reading pages and pages about "evasive tactics" ... now Iīve also read MANY books on real U-Boat warfare (as Iīm sure many of you did as well), and hereīs what I conclude from my reading:
Authentic U-Boat diaries and reports say little or nothing about "evasive tactics" - it doesnīt seem to be an important issue. Real U-Boat men like Buchheim and Hirschfeld describe being chased and depth-charged like a very ordinary thing. Unlike in Das Boot the crew stayed very calm and wouldnīt freak out and scream and shout etc. (Buchheim, the author of Das Boot, was very angry about these scenes and called them "Hollywood Nonsense"
Thereīs some historical footage confirming how quietly the crew reacted under attack, too.
Whatīs more interesting is that real Commanders didnīt have any super-clever evasive "tactics", on the contrary, when you read Buchheim, Hirschfeld, Topp or other eye-witnesses, you are surprised how NAIVE the commanders and the crew often were. :o When under attack, they usually ran silent and just WAITED while keeping the course. Reportedly, commanders very often just lay on their bed, reading (or at least pretending) or slumbering and nothing much happened. Every now and then they would ask for sonar contacts or dive a little deeper when they were pinged. Destroyers, on the other hand, were very inefficient especially in early war, partly because the crews were not well trained, partly because ASDIC was easily disturbed and inaccurate sometimes.
So what am I getting at? Profound evasive tactics may add to gameplay, but do not really seem to reflect the real thing. In real life being depth charged was a bit like playing Hide and Seek with a lot of good/bad luck involved on both sides. It was a common "tactic" to just sit and wait and keep running silent in one direction. Considering how SLOW U-Boats were at silent running, it wouldnīt have made much sense to change course too often because they would end up staying at the same place forever instead of getting away.
Just something to think about....:know:
Cheers, AS
I agree with AS and don't forget the human factor. TGW and GWX are a little unbalanced with their "realistic" AI. Escorts do NOT always spot a sub on the surface, unless you're in the Movies. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Jimbuna
12-07-06, 12:00 PM
Hi all, Iīve been reading about GWX making Destroyers even more deadly :huh: and Iīve been reading pages and pages about "evasive tactics" ... now Iīve also read MANY books on real U-Boat warfare (as Iīm sure many of you did as well), and hereīs what I conclude from my reading:
Authentic U-Boat diaries and reports say little or nothing about "evasive tactics" - it doesnīt seem to be an important issue. Real U-Boat men like Buchheim and Hirschfeld describe being chased and depth-charged like a very ordinary thing. Unlike in Das Boot the crew stayed very calm and wouldnīt freak out and scream and shout etc. (Buchheim, the author of Das Boot, was very angry about these scenes and called them "Hollywood Nonsense"
Thereīs some historical footage confirming how quietly the crew reacted under attack, too.
Whatīs more interesting is that real Commanders didnīt have any super-clever evasive "tactics", on the contrary, when you read Buchheim, Hirschfeld, Topp or other eye-witnesses, you are surprised how NAIVE the commanders and the crew often were. :o When under attack, they usually ran silent and just WAITED while keeping the course. Reportedly, commanders very often just lay on their bed, reading (or at least pretending) or slumbering and nothing much happened. Every now and then they would ask for sonar contacts or dive a little deeper when they were pinged. Destroyers, on the other hand, were very inefficient especially in early war, partly because the crews were not well trained, partly because ASDIC was easily disturbed and inaccurate sometimes.
So what am I getting at? Profound evasive tactics may add to gameplay, but do not really seem to reflect the real thing. In real life being depth charged was a bit like playing Hide and Seek with a lot of good/bad luck involved on both sides. It was a common "tactic" to just sit and wait and keep running silent in one direction. Considering how SLOW U-Boats were at silent running, it wouldnīt have made much sense to change course too often because they would end up staying at the same place forever instead of getting away.
Just something to think about....:know:
Cheers, AS
I agree with AS and don't forget the human factor. TGW and GWX are a little unbalanced with their "realistic" AI. Escorts do NOT always spot a sub on the surface, unless you're in the Movies. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Or GWX :arrgh!: :rotfl: :rotfl:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.