Japanese Depth Charges and ASW

[elcid]

EDIT NOTE: the values given below for depth in feet were correct - but the depth in meters was wrong - and it is here corrected.

For surface vessels the IJN had a basic series of depth charges. Apparently modeled on British concepts -
Japanese destroyers had served in the West during WWI - they did not complete any advanced technology
sensing DC during the war. They had not completed tests on magnetic DC - in common with USN and RN
who never got one into service either - and they had barely begun work on an acoustic one (which the
USN was ready to use by the time the war ended). So what we have is a series of smaller DC with generally
lesser depth settings than were used at any given time by the Allies. The Army had a completely different
series - possibly designed for aircraft use (more seem to have been used on planes than on ships) - that are
even smaller than the Navy series.

The Type 91 is apparently obsolete by 1941, but as with most Japanese munitions, pressed into service simply
because it existed This is a basic depth charge with a 100 kg charge and a 50 meter maximum depth (= 164 feet).
Newer ships were already using the Type 95 mod 1 when the war began. Identical in charge, it had an additional
depth setting of 60 meters (197 feet). Few submarines in the game have a depth rating of less than 200 feet.
An early modification (Type 95 Model 1 Modification 1) increases both charge and depth rating - to about 147 kg
and 90 meters (295 feet) - increasing both the lethal radius of the DC to something comparable to small Allied mines - and almost
equaling the start of war norm of 300 feet. In 1942 the Type 2 increases the depth rating - to 145 meters (476 feet0 - but the
chage almost returns to the orignal Model 91/95 level in weight - although they did change the type of explosive
in a way similiar to how the British did (achieving a smiliar effective radius with less charge). Two later mods of
the Type 2 both increase the charge - but not the depth rating. This is the best series of Japanese AS weapons.

IJA also developed a 120 kg DC and used it on both aircraft and surface vessels. With a 54 kg charge it has a much
smaller lethal radius than even standard Alied "small" DC do - and its maximum depth setting was 60 meters (197 feet).
It also had a 75 kg DC - apparently mainly an aircraft weapon adapted for use on small craft - with only a 34 kg
charge - and a simiar depth rating. About two of the 120 kg DC - or 4 of the 75 kg ones - were needed to approximate
the pk of a typical small Allied DC.

Japan did have early K guns or throwers dating from about 1931 - for exaple early minesweepers were fitted with two
to suppliment the DC racks - permitting them to double as escorts. Early Japanese ASW patterns - and patterns from
small vessels - were generally 4 - either two thrown and two dropped in a diamond - or four dropped in a line if no
throwers were present. Later in the war, Japan mounted typically 3 (4 in escorts) throwers on a side - so pattern size
increased to 9 (or 12 in escorts). There is a document indicating that patterns as large as 42 were considered very
late in the war, but I didn't include it.

The only really early ATW are shells for guns and mortars - neither of which was effective. The mortar fitted on escorts
fired a round vastly too small to have much effect - while the AS shells for larger caliber guns were not usually able to
engage a submerged submarine. Much more interesting is a 15 cm trainable AS mortar - but it was intended for use
on merchant vessels (to self escort) rather than on dedicated ASW ships - so it didn't have the benefit of support by
sonar Its projectile was only 27 kg - but still vastly larger than the 3 inch mortar shells on the escorts. Very late, in 1945,
a 15 cm rocket propelled DC was developed. Not used (almot no ships were going to sea in 1945) - it might be worth including
- but determining its effectiveness will be hard (sans statistical data to work with). Its range was 3 km (compared to the
range of 4 km for the 15 cm mortar described above). J

Additional note; Japanese ordnance nomenclature has some unique complexities,
and it is not entirely clear what a "three inch naval mortar" means in mm: it might have been anything from 70 mm to 81 mm -
with 76 mm not impossible but not something I have been able to get a weapon or ammunition associated with. Regardless,
the effect value must be in the range of under 10 - which ever specific weapon is described. I have asked for help from
the National Diet Library.

[inqistor]

The document you are seeking is TMJ SRT S-24 "SHIP AND RELATED TARGETS, JAPANESE ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE"
as plane DC weight seems very strange (probably someone converted weight from kg to some Imperial measurements, then someone else used some US weight to reconvert it to kg).

Maximum depth was that low, because Japanese Researchers thought, that enemy subs could not dive that deep. When it was discovered modification was quite simple.

Anyway, "pattern" was 9-12 but for every side, so you would get 9 on right side + 9 from rear + 9 on left side. On confirmed targets DDs used pattern of 36 charges.


Here is pattern drawings, the lower one is for patrol ship, showing how it looks from upwards, because there are actually 2 charges at most of depth points.

[Dili]

75 meter maximum depth (= 164 feet).
Newer ships were already using the Type 95 mod 1 when the war began. Identical in charge, it had an additional
depth setting of 90 meters (197 feet)

You have your meter to feet wrong.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Dili

75 meter maximum depth (= 164 feet).
Newer ships were already using the Type 95 mod 1 when the war began. Identical in charge, it had an additional
depth setting of 90 meters (197 feet)

You have your meter to feet wrong.

Way off! 1 meter = 3.28 feet. {By definition, 1 inch = exactly 25.4 millimeters. Derive everything else from there.}

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: Dili

75 meter maximum depth (= 164 feet).
Newer ships were already using the Type 95 mod 1 when the war began. Identical in charge, it had an additional
depth setting of 90 meters (197 feet)

You have your meter to feet wrong.

I agree - however - I was quoting the (British) reference without considering the data relationships as such.
I will review it - of course.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

The document you are seeking is TMJ SRT S-24 "SHIP AND RELATED TARGETS, JAPANESE ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE"
as plane DC weight seems very strange (probably someone converted weight from kg to some Imperial measurements, then someone else used some US weight to reconvert it to kg).

Maximum depth was that low, because Japanese Researchers thought, that enemy subs could not dive that deep. When it was discovered modification was quite simple.

Anyway, "pattern" was 9-12 but for every side, so you would get 9 on right side + 9 from rear + 9 on left side. On confirmed targets DDs used pattern of 36 charges.


Here is pattern drawings, the lower one is for patrol ship, showing how it looks from upwards, because there are actually 2 charges at most of depth points.

This is very interesting - but requires some study. The original compliment of DC for a destroyer was only 12. But the pattern you describe - the same off each side and dropped centerline - appears to hold even in the eary days - when we have

patterns of 4 (1 thrower port, 1 thrower starboard)
patterns of 9 (3 throwers port, 3 throwers starboard)
patterns of 12 (4 throwers port, 4 throwers starboard)

so clearly they preferred symmetrical when they were not forced to use racks only

The idea of two per point is also interesting. Anyway - I will study this and possibly add some late war patterns - when the DC suites got larger. The standard naval reference (chosen because it is universal) does not appear to have late war compliments included - a Japanese escort might carry 140 DC but it says the max was around 60-80 - probably true - but not so late. But early - the Etrofu (the first true escort) was designed with 12 - and so was the "standard" PC I think. It did not take long to revise this by adding 24 more - and then the numbers really started to grow. But destroyers (and on both sides) never seem to have got the numbers of the escort ships. And who ever did the AE data credits the Tacoma class with 200 - the most I ever heard of. In such cases - very large patterns are possible - and you can still repeat the process on a suspected target.

[oldman45]

I don't think the AE engine can model this, so the question is how is this information going to effect the game?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: oldman45
I don't think the AE engine can model this, so the question is how is this information going to effect the game?

None of this is 'news' Oldman. Been known for ages. But, yes, the game will accept all those pretty little numbers in their pretty little data boxes. There was an attempt to do just that in the initial release, particularly with Japanese E-types, and you know how that turned out: the game exploded and the howls of outrage are still reverberating.

First, one must understand how the ASW algorithm works. Second, one must understand how specific data values work and interact within the algorithm. I believe Don Bowen and I have provided sufficient hints that someone reasonably skilled in mathematics and programming can figure it out. Third, one must have a rational methodology by which 'historicity' can be abstracted into the algorithm. Merely dumping historical data is something any 9 year old, with Internet access, can do. Fun to read perhaps, but completely irrelevant to the game system.

So any "new model" that doesn't address 1, 2, and 3, is not a model that I would give much credence to.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I don't think the AE engine can model this, so the question is how is this information going to effect the game?

That is indeed the question.

In principle the code must use the data we feed it - so it will do that.

And in principle, the AE data - and mods using the stock data - are consuming their DC at too low a rate -
except in the case of ships with 1 or 2 DC racks only - where the number dropped per attack is correct.
The combo ships with racks and projectors consume at a lower rate per attack - the rate getting worse
as the number increases.

Also in principle, the AE data - and mods using stock data - are crediting each DC with vastly too great
a pk - effect value. By using a pattern we guarantee the correct number of DC for a standard doctrinal
attack on any given weapons suite - and we have a shot at getting the pk in the right range. I picked
a range that permits changing the k (constant) up or down - as testing reveals where it should be?
A test technician at one time (originally an electronics technician, and evolving from that through test
technician to systems integrator, requiring mastery of both software and hardware) - I know that
even the writer of complex code may not understand how it works? Doubly so for complex code worked
on by several or many people - that interacts with other code and data from yet other people. The only
safe rule is "test, test, test" whatever you do - and idealy more money and time are spent testing than
writing. But to make money, that step is rarely affordable to a game company - and we get lots of things
that were not ideal - and not just because of trade off decisions - but because of lack of comprehensive
testing. But unpaid volunteers can test - and certainly there is an obligation to do some of that if changes
are made. We will see what the impact of these changes may be?

However - this is not a raw - new concept. A simplified version of it was in RHS WITP - the slot limits meant
we used only generic "small DC" and "large DC" - so this is far more sophisticated an implementation -
and here Japanese "small DC" are not identical with Allied ones. Rather we get several kinds of both.
I also took the added slots to permit demonstrating the improvement of DC over time - in particular in
depth settings. And here I also added the first "smart ASW weapon" - the Mark 14 - simulating its acoustic
trigger by increasing accuracy value. Anyway - a simplified version of this
patterns concept was demonstrated successfully with this engine some years ago.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: JWE


First, one must understand how the ASW algorithm works. Second, one must understand how specific data values work and interact within the algorithm. I believe Don Bowen and I have provided sufficient hints that someone reasonably skilled in mathematics and programming can figure it out. Third, one must have a rational methodology by which 'historicity' can be abstracted into the algorithm. Merely dumping historical data is something any 9 year old, with Internet access, can do. Fun to read perhaps, but completely irrelevant to the game system.

So any "new model" that doesn't address 1, 2, and 3, is not a model that I would give much credence to.

Because this is civil in tone, it is due a respectful comment. And because I did 1, 2 and 3, perhaps some credence is due to me
as well.

I am old enough to remember when it was not considered ethical or professional to have ANY sort of code not FULLY documented
on a computer. In that age, I would combine a trouble report with a solution in code already written. But in this age - for a host of reasons -
code is no longer available to us - and if it were - not comprehensible in a reasonable time. It is also not considered acceptable to reverse
engineer the code - because of licence terms - and for ethical reasons (except in a battle) I will not use the tools that might permit that.
I have a note written by Joe that makes it clear that even after two years, "I thought I understood how land combat works, but yesterday
I discovered a branch, and today I am sure of nothing." This was a prelude to saying he thought I could understand code as well as
any programmer who works on it can - by testing. Testing at least indicates what comes out in the context of what goes in. And I have
years of testing on the WITP engine to show this approach fundamentally works. I have NOT tested this implementation because I have
not yet finished the data entery. I am posting because that is the path to a superior product as well as to credibility - feedback catches
errors and adds supplimental understandings. And I WILL test - I have an entire team of volunteers - and we have not yet released a single
thing - because we believe in testing. We will probaby get there - but not by assumption - positive or negative. By rational analysis, by
being open to constructive suggestions which we solicit openly (instead of keeping development secret), and by testing and revising as
required - or even rejecting a change if it does not work better than what we modified.

[elcid]

The Type 91 is obsolete - and is issued to very small auxiliary craft - generally minelayers,
minesweepers and patrol boat modifications of small craft (fishing boats, siezed Dutch
vessels, etc) - and occasionally to things called "sub chasers" that were not fitted with
real ASW detection suites or large DC compliments. Generally these vessels have a total
of 6 DC on one rack - or 6 on 2 racks - or even 6 on single mountings that simply release
them over the side. Regardless - for the Type 91 - which has a lower depth rating to
begin with - and which is associated with these lesser capability vessels - I use a pattern of
3 - vice the pattern of 4 associated with the Type 95. That permits a lower effectiveness
rating - which generally helps to simulate the lower capability of these craft in ASW. This
way a compliment of 6 DC also results in 2 shots - which is better than only 1 - and should
rarely permit re-engagement by these vessels. These tiny patterns of DC with low depth
ratings are not going to work very often - but they probablly have a theoretical change on
rare occasions - which is about right. Note that here "success" means causing slight
damage to a submarine - which is much more likely to happen - rather than just sinkings.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: elcid

Because this is civil in tone, it is due a respectful comment. And because I did 1, 2 and 3, perhaps some credence is due to me
as well.

I am old enough to remember when it was not considered ethical or professional to have ANY sort of code not FULLY documented
on a computer. In that age, I would combine a trouble report with a solution in code already written. But in this age - for a host of reasons -
code is no longer available to us - and if it were - not comprehensible in a reasonable time.

Of course it is. That's nothing but venal whining. Don and I have given the answers if one is smart enough to realize it.

It is also not considered acceptable to reverse engineer the code - because of licence terms - and for ethical reasons (except in a battle) I will not use the tools that might permit that.

Why not? We do. All the damn time. And give our players the benefit of our thoughts so they can tweak their own scenarios accordingly. You really need to come back down to earth.

I have a note written by Joe that makes it clear that even after two years, "I thought I understood how land combat works, but yesterday
I discovered a branch, and today I am sure of nothing." This was a prelude to saying he thought I could understand code as well as
any programmer who works on it can - by testing.

I don't believe a word of that. I understand exactly what Joe knows about the game context. If you are so pathetic as to invoke the "Joe secretly told me" thing, you deserve to go into the dumper where you belong. The team (of which you were purposely NOT a part) has everything in hand. We reported to Joe, but he has no clue what we did, to whom, and when, and why. He trusted us. So take your "Joe told me" crap and shove it up your keester.[/quote]

Testing at least indicates what comes out in the context of what goes in. And I have years of testing on the WITP engine to show this approach fundamentally works. I have NOT tested this implementation because I have not yet finished the data entery. I am posting because that is the path to a superior product as well as to credibility - feedback catches errors and adds supplimental understandings.

Yep. And that is what the Babes is all about.

And I WILL test - I have an entire team of volunteers - and we have not yet released a single thing - because we believe in testing. We will probaby get there - but not by assumption - positive or negative. By rational analysis, by being open to constructive suggestions which we solicit openly (instead of keeping development secret), and by testing and revising as required - or even rejecting a change if it does not work better than what we modified.

How simply lovely. Note that not one of them have ever asked one simple question from anyone who knows the algorithm, or plays with it every day. Despite the fact that the Babes people are more than willing to give deep info.

Obviously, you and your testers know nothing about what they are doing. Your testers are wasting their time, but if they wish to provide book, chapter, and verse of their test parameters, we might be able to use some of it. Otherwise, you people have no clue. Anyone listening to you, deserves everything they get.

[ed] I am so horridly sorry that I graced that nonsense with a response. It wasn't worth it for any of you all, but there might have been a couple 12 year olds that could figure it out and maybe reduce the pissy whining on the nominal forum. Likely not, but one must try. Seeing as how there are scores of people who play and participate in mod development, I find your claims of many testers to be disengenuious. Not a single one of your supposed testers has ever posted a single comment or asked a single question. I find them to be as invisible and irrelevant as everything else; of a piece with your false claims to secret communications from Joe.

Am very glad you have decided to limit your claims of military competence. As you know, any claims to special expertise, outside your actual experience will result in our publication of your military record. A bit of puffing never hurt nobody, but false military claims used to influence others, for any reason, is a felony. So far so good, but we'll be watching.

Ciao.

[DuckofTindalos]

Stop lying, Sid. It got old years ago, and everybody is wise to your lies now.

[elcid]

Reference the below material
which I believe is correct


There is the matter of implimenting it? Short of speculation, one needs to know on which
vessels larger patterns were actually used - and when? On the assumption the material
on depth charges in Naval Weapons of World War Two was incomplete and only generally
true, I went looking for this sort of information in class specific materials. I was able to find
cases where up to 12 throwers were installed in dedicated ASW escort vessels late in the war -
along with a DC rack - implying a pattern of about 18 - or 50% greater than the normal
case for dedicated vessels. When the war began it appears only two throwers were common -
or none. It did not take long for six or eight to become standards (three or four per side).
But in some vessels - six per side is documented - and in others "greater numbers" unspecified
are documented (often with landing of minesweeping gear or similar trade offs). So I added
a pattern of 18 to the set. If information appears indicating this document is more than an
evolutionary planning document - and that patterns still larger were actually used - I will of course
add still larger patterns. The pattern of 18 is only present with one type - the Type 2 Mod 2 -
and it is rated at 50% greater in area effectively engaged than the pattern of 12 of the same type
is. They are relatively small DC (although IJA DC are smaller stil) - they are the deepest set and
the best case for IJN ASW - particularly because they combine with later ATW - which are not
great but still better than the 3 inch mortar

On that "three inch mortar" I was able to establish it is really 81 mm - not three inch as we
would define the term.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

The document you are seeking is TMJ SRT S-24 "SHIP AND RELATED TARGETS, JAPANESE ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE"
as plane DC weight seems very strange (probably someone converted weight from kg to some Imperial measurements, then someone else used some US weight to reconvert it to kg).

Maximum depth was that low, because Japanese Researchers thought, that enemy subs could not dive that deep. When it was discovered modification was quite simple.

Anyway, "pattern" was 9-12 but for every side, so you would get 9 on right side + 9 from rear + 9 on left side. On confirmed targets DDs used pattern of 36 charges.


Here is pattern drawings, the lower one is for patrol ship, showing how it looks from upwards, because there are actually 2 charges at most of depth points.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: elcid

Because this is civil in tone, it is due a respectful comment. And because I did 1, 2 and 3, perhaps some credence is due to me
as well.

I am old enough to remember when it was not considered ethical or professional to have ANY sort of code not FULLY documented
on a computer. In that age, I would combine a trouble report with a solution in code already written. But in this age - for a host of reasons -
code is no longer available to us - and if it were - not comprehensible in a reasonable time.

Of course it is. That's nothing but venal whining. Don and I have given the answers if one is smart enough to realize it.

Possibly I should have issued some sort of credit for the things posted. And possibly you ought not to operate on negative assumptions
as is required to think this comment might be germane. But I do appreciate that you consider me smart for reading the answers you have
given. I do not consider them to be as good as reading code would be - which even in undocumented form I probably could use much more
efficiently than general statements permit - but hints (as Don put it) are better than nothing. It is substantially in the context of your answers that
I have made this effort. It is because I believe you that I consider the existing solution (never mind all solutions must be compromises) less than
really acceptable.

One of the principles Joe used to advocate is "get the data right and let the programmers get the code right." It may be that not every field is used at all in any given routine - but to the extent a field is used - we can give it good data. And if it ever is used - the good data will already be there. Thus - perhaps load cost is not used ? But if it is - no reason the Mark VII should not be rated in the form it had since before the Pacific War began. For more likely cases - the depth field - no reason not to show the full range of DC on both sides - it can only add. Even so - the effort stands on the shoulders of the previous one - and is not and cannot be a fundamental revolution. If it were possible I would deal with sensors directly. Because it is not I do so statistically. The Squid - depending as it does on special sonar - gets a higher pk to model its effects. So does the Mark 14 - with its local sonar in the DC itself. It is perfectly possible to crudely represent sensors in this way. It is a constructive concept and merits constructive comment.

If you have something constructive to say - inclluding criticism at any point that could be improved - it is welcome. Thanks for saying I am smart to read your comments. I did read them. But communication theory says perfect understanding is elusive - impossible in any complex matter - and feedback is the only defense against it. So I am - and always was - open to perfection of my understanding of what you write. But I am impervious to the implication I am not smart enough to do what I really did do - being untrue such things are not of use. And I see no point cluttering up a thread with anything not constructively intended?

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: elcid

It is also not considered acceptable to reverse engineer the code - because of licence terms - and for ethical reasons (except in a battle) I will not use the tools that might permit that.

Why not? We do. All the damn time. And give our players the benefit of our thoughts so they can tweak their own scenarios accordingly. You really need to come back down to earth.

I have a note written

It is SOP to put in boilerplate language of licence agreements that one agrees not to do so. I am often told, in person, that my ideas about honor are "old school" and no longer actual practice. But I find it wise to honor the deals I make unless the doctrine of necessity applies - which hardly is possible in re this matter. I agreed not to reverse engineer as a condition of use - and I don't need to either - since I can come to understand the code better by testing than one can do reading the (often imprefect) printouts of tools. Testing reveals what really happens - whatever the code seems to say - even without regard to what it was intended to do by its writers. So there is no excuse for a professional to dishonor the terms of use agreements - and I won't and don't.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: JWE

I have a note written by Joe that makes it clear that even after two years, "I thought I understood how land combat works, but yesterday
I discovered a branch, and today I am sure of nothing." This was a prelude to saying he thought I could understand code as well as
any programmer who works on it can - by testing.

I don't believe a word of that. I understand exactly what Joe knows about the game context. .

Rendering Joe perfectly right - and me completely wrong - to ever comment on negative comments. It does not do any good.
People who "know" their hostile and negative assumptions are "true" are beyong persuading - never mind the truth was plainly
stated up front - and no matter how much evidence is later offered. I get it. You have absolutely no clue who you are writing about,
what I believe or practice - or that my modus operendi under pressure in the real world is to dare to reveal inconvenient truths
as a path to credibility. You simply do not grasp I would never say anything that I did not believe at the moment I said it (which is
quite different from saying I might not be wrong and might not change what I say once that is pointed out - as indeed I did here above
in the matter of conversion of metric to English data) - I at least believe you - to the extent I believe you don't believe me. It says
a great deal more about you than it does about me.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: JWE

And I WILL test - I have an entire team of volunteers - and we have not yet released a single thing - because we believe in testing. We will probaby get there - but not by assumption - positive or negative. By rational analysis, by being open to constructive suggestions which we solicit openly (instead of keeping development secret), and by testing and revising as required - or even rejecting a change if it does not work better than what we modified.

How simply lovely. Note that not one of them have ever asked one simple question from anyone who knows the algorithm, or plays with it every day. Despite the fact that the Babes people are more than willing to give deep info.

It would require perfect knowledge - in an imperfect world - to make an assertion that not a single question was ever asked by anyone of anyone. And it only takes one instance to demonstrate it is a false assertion. I recall asking - and repeating - a question - of you when you offered "deep info" on a specifi matter (not directly in this algorithm but a different one) - but no reply has yet hit my inbox. Perhaps you are many weeks behind in reading your messages?

It is a total misunderstanding of why I post here to believe that I do not seek comments - of a constructive sort. Indeed - there is a thread in this forum whis is entirely and purely a question written by me that never drew a single reply.

I do get numbers of comments from people who have given up on the Forums as a useful and civil place to exchange information. I do not have a lot of time to be defensive. Either accept me as an innocent writer - or ignore me. If I am ignorant - enlighten me with the facts as you understand them to be. I will say thank you - not ouch. I admit - I do not agree with what was posted about how ASW using the standard pacwar theory (weapons on bearing) is a good model - but I do not require you to agree with me. I would value undertanding why you don't, however. Value - not complain - wether or not I found that understanding persuasive.

[JWE]

Problem with your posts are very simple. They have no bearing whatever on the AE algorithm. They confuse new and uninformed players and raise false expectations. And cause problems by their inaplicability.

The ASW system has been treated extensively by members of the original game development team to address various issues that come up with time. Their thoughts, conclusions, modifications and methodologies are an open book. Given your textual context, neither you nor any of your testers have read one word of months worth of informative posts on this specific issue.

As we have often said, and have had many people take us up on the offer, any legitimate questions will be answered to fullest extent of our ability, within the constraints of the terms of our NDA.

We are the people who understand how ASW is implemented in the game. We are the people who define the tweaks, and we only tell Joe if he is interested. So, in our area, the only “told me” worth anything is from Don Bowen or me. Clear?

[1EyedJacks]

Heck - I just though the Japanese used DC for fishing... You mean I can sink a sub with one of those? Cool Beans!

Hey - you know how to tell if Japanese DC are full of crap - yes? Well if they drop a DC and it floats...

ROFL

Mike