well sort of not dead

Like everyone else, I am really looking forward to Sub Command. I have one question though. I realize Sonalysts is in a very good position to have a lot of info about the 688I and Seawolf submarines and their systems. But how much info about the Akula in publicly known? I assume much of the info about its performance and systems capability is still very classified by the Russian government. Will its sim likeness be based mostly on speculation? Also, since the Akula is no doubt inferior in most respects to the 688i and Seawolf (exspecially in terms of electronics, detection sytems, computer integration and weaponry - the most important feautures of a modern sub) how will it be competitive in the multiplayer aspect? Will there just be more of them in most multiplayer (and single-player) missions?

The Akula IIs are hardly inferior to the 688Is. They have borrowed (read acquired) rafting technology from the west that has allowed them to operate previously noisy machinery at a quieter signature. She also boasts anechoic tiling. Ever notice that when a US sub is out of the water her prop is covered? Well it isn't just the shape that is classified, but also the methods and machinery used to mill them. Machinery the Russians were able to finagle from Hitachi several years ago. Also, despite our SOSUS nets, Akula IIs have approached US shores several times (6 times the year before) and remained undetected until they departed. The Russians are experts at bastion operations which is due to their under ice expertise. This will be the real battleground as America attempts to locate and sink Delta IVs and Typhoons guarded by Akulas. The Akula II is faster than a 688I and has a greater operating depth. Also she carries and 533mm torpedoes (21 inch) as well as an anti-surface ship torpedo that noses out at over 600mm. One could possibly sink a carrier. She is quite a lethal adversary. Of course I see her as the vessel of choice. The dynamic campaign will be interesting and they will doubtless include a mission builder as well. In this era of heightened US military presence and the liklihood that the Bush administration will enhance the military, we will probably see a grand rebirth in the Sim market.

I don't know where you got your info, but as a former STS1 (SS), I can tell you that the Akula and Akula II class boats ARE inferior in almost every way to our boats.

They are roughly on par with the 688 Flight I boats, but their sonar systems are no where near as good as ours. Not even remotely close.

Current 688i boats, Flight III and later, are more than a match for any Akula boat. Our boats are much quieter and far more automated. Our onboard sensor systems are several generations more advanced than their best systems, and our offboard sensors are several orders of magnitude better.

The Seawolf class currently has NO match.

Russian at sea tactics have changed as well. In the 70's, 80's, and the early 90's, they were doing the "Boomer Bastion" thing, but in recent years they have shifted to a new tactic of escorted roaming patrols. These patrols are still on quite a short leash, but they are not crippled like before into hiding under the ice in a pre-defined bastion. This, as you can imagine, makes things a bit more difficult for the hunters.

The Toshiba-Kongsberg scandal is old news, and although they were able to jump, almost overnight, several years ahead of where they were in terms of screw fabrication technology, the actual impact on submarine warfare was less effective than the impact of the traitor John Walker. Were their screws quieter afterwareds? Yes. But our sonar systems are so advanced that the quieting was nearly negated. Detection ranges decreased only slighlty overall.

There is a very slight speed difference, which I will not go into for security reasons, and yes, she does have a deeper rated crush depth.

The Akula is a nice boat, yes. But not by a long shot would she be the vessel of choice. I'll take the Puerto Rican Lady any day over an Akula.

-Skater

[This message has been edited by Skater (edited 04-12-2001).]

What our systems are capable of matters very little. The fact remains that despite our "superior sonar" the Russians have walked in to the beach, swatted our butt and walked back out before detection. Are you still in touch with your community? Apparently not or you would know that a single incident (hint Med area) has everyone waiting to see Trafalger grade towed arrays on Russian boats. And the bastion comment? Uh hello! We're talking about the game! Reality check. Ever hear of the mythical Janes 688I Under Ice Campaign? What every one wanted to see as part of the SubSim Review Save my 688 petition from Neal Stevens. We (gamers - that is those of us which are visiting this site that are currently in the service and all of the others that are not) will have the opportunity to spend long nights with imaginary Russians under ice. Sims have to brush up and wallow in realism to please some yet keep the game tense and exciting to please the rest. I've spoken with Kim Castro before and more than once. They will likely be aiming for more 'Hunt for Red OCtober' and less 688I H/K.

[This message has been edited by Hatchet (edited 04-12-2001).]

I doubt they have any more info on Seawolf than they do on Akula. A large share of 688I information is still classified, much less their latest and greatest darling.

This game will no doubt be making just as many guesses and fudges as their last sub game did.

------------------
-Mekhazzio Sssth'rhee, Magedragon at large

Hatchet is right, the Akula II is very much the equal of the 688(I) by all published accounts. The difference is the level of training and time at sea. Russia is cash-poor and their investment in training is less than the US.

I only know what I've read and what I've been told by those who claim to know, and I doubt they know as much as they claim. When dealing with military equipment, much is open to speculation. A good war would prove out the best stuff and hopefully that won't happen.

Neal

PS: Mek, you're certainly right, the game will have some guesswork built in and there probably will be areas where Sonalysts knows the true capabilities but they won't represent this 100% in the game. Otherwise one of the first orders would be Fed-ex'd to Red Square!




[This message has been edited by SUBSIM (edited 04-12-2001).]

Ok im gonna sound crazy..but Im not. The April 2001 issue of Popular Science has an article about the Kursk and a little thing about the torp it was testing. The 100-RU Veder torpedo (NATO, SS-N-16A Stallion). The torp looks quite deadly if Russia can get it to work. 200 mile range, capable of mounting a mini-nuclear warhead, rocket-propelled....quite nasty. If this is in the sim..either in the initial release or as a user-mod (if that can happen)....the Akula will be very deadly, very quickly....personally I cant wait to take an Akula out for a spin and take out some US ships.

------------------
You will never know I am there.....until you see me explode.

[This message has been edited by The Dead (edited 04-13-2001).]

Relax bro, I was not slamming you.

I am very much in touch with my community. In fact, I was at Groton last weekend. That incident in the Med should not pose to be a problem, we're pretty sure that the array worked itself loose and dropped away. The mechanical transients did not continue after a little more than an hour. Even so, replacement of their current tech TA's with reverse engineered western TA's is a very slim chance. VERY SLIM.

My comment on the Bastions was meant to inform, not ridicule. You're a bit touchy aren't you? While I have not played the 688I Under Ice Campaign (does it even exist), I have played 688I. I found it to be laughable in it's realism, and almost unlplayable because of the gross errors present in the game. I can't even call it a sim really. As a caveat, I never played it with any user-created mods or patches, so... It may be a whole different animal now. I got disgusted pretty quick, and it left my drive shortly thereafter. In my opinion, the best modern sub sim ever, was Sierra's Fast Attack. Too bad it was so buggy, and had NO support whatsoever from Sierra. I still have that one on my drive, and it still amazes me how good it was.

I'm lookinbg forward to this one, as I do with every sim that is to be released, but I will be viewing it with a jaded eye. 688I burned me, after all it's realism claims, and I never forgot that. Fleet Command burned me for the second time, and I'm not forgetting that either. So this is Sonalyst's third shot from my end... I hope they make good on their promises.

-Skater

I am in agreement for the most part, especially on the Akula II, but not on the Seawolf. These days, thanks to Mr. Clinton, info on Submarines is pretty widely available. Shocking things really. One needs to only watch a certain movie to see REAL displays and a REAL screw design, and REAL consoles, that I was always told, and as far as I know still is, CLASSIFIED. There is a lot of info out there on the Seawolf. Probably everything just short of actual performance values and onboard sensor capabilities.

Hell, the submarine community has virtually had to "sing" for it's supper in recent years, or face total emasculation at the hands of Mr. Clinton's bean counters.

As far as I am concerned, the Russians are still doing it right, and keeping their fringgin' mouths and their hatches closed to the outside world. That is why there is little public domain knowledge on the Akula II.

-Skater

I disagree Neal. The Akula II is, from my knowledge on the boat, closer to a Flight II 688. One boat I was on was the lead-in boat for the Flight III's, and believe me, she is much different in capability from the Flight II, and she has been further upgraded since. Her capabilities now, far outstrip her capabilities when she was launched. This is true for most of the Flight III boats. The Akula II is like the Flight II (late models) in acoustic signature, and like the early Flight II's in sensor capabilities. She has very advanced weapons systems however. Fire Control is still at about the 688 Flight I level however.

In my assessment, the Akula II is a step forward from the original Akula, but not a very big one. We still maintain the foward edge in the Flight III 688 class, the Seawolf class, and the new Virginia class boats.

-Skater

What movies have had the Seawolf in them? I liked Crimson Tide, but that was an Ohio.
The Jedi Master

Skater, What things about Fast Attack did you like better than 688(I)?

Well, the Fire Control Plot and the Passive Sonar were great. The Sonar display really reminded me of a lo-fidelity simulation of the old Q-5. Really nice.

I just felt it had a lot of realism to it, and one thing that was great was that you could not see out of the sub, gave you that nice, clausterphobic feeling of home (for a submariner anyway).

It was a very real feeling sim. Mind you, it was far from being a realistic simulation of any of the onboard systems, but at least it "looked" like the real things (close enough anyway).

-Skater

None, except for some cheesey B-movies that spliced in a few visuals of her.

But the movie I was talking about was Crimson Tide (I know it was an Ohio), and yes, some of those consoles and displays are real, as well as the shape and blade count of that screw. When I saw that movie I just about freaked out.

-Skater

Skater.

You are wrong. Crimson Tide did not feature the interior of an Ohio. The set (the control room, anyway) was a large room built on hydralics to simulate accurately the pitch and roll of a submarine. It was later used in episodes of the TV series Jag. The producers themselves admitted that it was based on declassified info and some speculation.

ADMIN EDIT: Dear thetruth....if you like to post on topics here, that's great. If you need to take every single opportunity you get to publically go after someone, I'd invite you to do it elsewhere. It's really very simple.

[This message has been edited by thetruth (edited 04-13-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Spoons - SimHQ (edited 04-13-2001).]

I know it was a set, I saw the making of Crimson Tide too, but the consoles, how they physically looked, at least for the sonar kit, was exactly how it looks in real life. Also, the shape of the screw and the number of blades was also entirely correct. Obviously it was a model, but I was shocked to see it so accurately depicted.

Excuse me "thetruth", but do I seem like an idiot to you? Of course it was a set. It was in a movie. I'd love to see how you could get movie cameras, dollies, lights, crew, etc. into the Conn or sonar shack on any boat.

ADMIN EDIT: Same rules for you, Ed. Stop the insulting and stop the baiting, both of you.


-Skater


[This message has been edited by Skater (edited 04-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Spoons - SimHQ (edited 04-14-2001).]

Roger that John, but I was not insulting him in any way... I simply asked him if he thought I seemed like an idiot. Baiting maybe, but not insulting.

-Skater

You mean shape and blade count of the Ohio's screw? Call me naive, but I wouldn't think you could tell much from a picture of the shape, and I'd think the count would've been widely known? All it takes is one guy seeing it in drydock/under construction with the screw on to see that.
As for the consoles and displays, well I've heard many posts on the net and other services going back many years from pilots/other military servicemen discovering things in computer games that they thought were still classified! In fact, many no longer were, but it wasn't widely publicized (no "CNN headline news item"), simply quietly removed from the list. Others WERE still classified, but the programmers' guesses turned out to be so close to real that it could be taken for the real thing with a mistake or two.

Ok, now there's a sticky issue: if you make something up, such as the performance parameters of an ASPJ, for example, and you publish them--but they're very close to the REAL parameters--what happens?
I could just make something up like: "at 25 miles a B-2 shows up like a B-52 on an SA-10's radar if the plane is heading away from it." Well, what if that's right? Or almost right? Since there was no leak of info, just a guess that may not even be based on ANYTHING, is there some official stance on this?
The Jedi Master

You mean shape and blade count of the Ohio's screw? Call me naive, but I wouldn't think you could tell much from a picture of the shape, and I'd think the count would've been widely known? All it takes is one guy seeing it in drydock/under construction with the screw on to see that.

The rear of US submarines, especially when in drydock, is always shrouded. Repairs on propulsion equipment is usually performed at night and with the drydock doors closed. Further, all repair crew are required to maintain strict security clearances. They can't work without them. I do not know of anyone being able to take an unclassified photo, or anyone who would risk selling or divulging classified material. It's just not worth it.

As for the consoles and displays, well I've heard many posts on the net and other services going back many years from pilots/other military servicemen discovering things in computer games that they thought were still classified! In fact, many no longer were, but it wasn't widely publicized (no "CNN headline news item"), simply quietly removed from the list. Others WERE still classified, but the programmers' guesses turned out to be so close to real that it could be taken for the real thing with a mistake or two.

I can see this happening, but some of those sonar displays, I KNOW are still classified. If they were a guess, it's a hell of a damn good one!

Ok, now there's a sticky issue: if you make something up, such as the performance parameters of an ASPJ, for example, and you publish them--but they're very close to the REAL parameters--what happens?
I could just make something up like: "at 25 miles a B-2 shows up like a B-52 on an SA-10's radar if the plane is heading away from it." Well, what if that's right? Or almost right? Since there was no leak of info, just a guess that may not even be based on ANYTHING, is there some official stance on this?

Not sure about that, but I have heard stories of writers and game developers being visited by officials and being quietly asked to alter or remove certain information, data, etc. They don't HAVE to, but most people want to help out with their country's National Security concerns.

I do not even know if these stories are true, they may be urban legends, but then again they may be true. It sounds plausible to me.

-Skater

Am I right in figuring that changing the screw on a sub to a different design is a non-trivial exercise (to use a term from my physics days--"non-trivial" can apply to anything from changing a frame of reference to assuming a star has no mass!)?
It would be nice if they could have a bunch of screws of similar planform but with different numbers of blades that they could rotate thru so as to make it more difficult to figure what you're listening to. But I'd think the flow of water over the back impinging on the screw could make a lot of noise if the blade count is different.
The Jedi Master

I will answer that in a vague way by saying this:

The shape, chord, milling, blade thickness, number of blades, angle of the blade trailing and leading edge, and blade twist, all incororporate to determine what you will hear from a sub class. However... small, unique characteristics can be detected from various ranges that can help to positively ID an individual hull.

The screw is a complex piece of functioning art. They are not easy to fabricate and not easy to replace. It takes a long time, and a lot of work. You then need to go through a fairly lengthy test phase to make sure everything is perfect, and no mechanical transients or undue cavitation is being given off by your new screw. You don't want to do this often.

However #2... The USN can replace a screw on a boat and test it to within operational tolerances faster than any navy in the world by several orders of magnitude.

I'll leave the speculation of what that means up to you.

-Skater

Skater, I'm curious as to what about Jane's 688i you disliked so much. I'm not flaming your opinion. I'm just curious to get some more info from someone who has some real-world info and has played both 688i and Fast Attack. In case you stopped playing 688i before their release, there have been patches produced that fixed the following common complaints:

1. The excessively fast rate of 688's turn.
2. Overly fast torpedo reloading times.
3. Removal of ability to use the 3-D viewer to guide weapons(at least in multiplay).
4. Modification to improve some of the dynamic aspects of the scripted missions.

And a few other smaller fixes as well that escape me a the moment. Were the fire control and passive sonar that much worse in 688i than Fast Attack? What other aspects of 688i bothered you?

Thanks.

What especially did you not like about it, or what compromise did you feel was not done right?



------------------
John Sponauer
Senior Editor
SimHQ.com
jsponauer@SimHQ.com

LOL, Crawl.....I wanted to ask that question last night, forgot to, and popped in this morning to add it...without checking to the end of the thread! Now there's two of us wondering the same thing.

------------------
John Sponauer
Senior Editor
SimHQ.com
jsponauer@SimHQ.com

Make that three.

Well guys, there were a number of things that irked me.

1. You could see through external views. While this may be cool in a cutscene, I did not like that you could always do it in 688I.

2. How easy it was to detect targets, deploy weapons, and how effective the wepaons were. Target detection in some cases should have been easier, while cleaning up and classifying the target should have been harder. Fire control, and the directing of weapons was rediculously easy, and you could even use the external view of the torpedo to do it. Torps should be MUCH more effective than they are in the game, and they should be not only more lethal, but smarter as well.

3. Fine control of the boat was waaaaaay to easy.

4. The displays did not look anything like they really do, and a lot, and I mean a lot, of the performance figures for various things was waaaaay off. Especially for the sonar kit.

There were other things that I hated, which escape me now, but those were the biggies.

-Skater

>I don't know where you got your info, but
>as a former STS1 (SS), I can tell you that
>the Akula and Akula II class boats ARE
>inferior in almost every way to our boats.

Uh-huh... Was this before or after you served with the Navy SEALS?

I understand that the Seawolf has TWICE the tactical speed of the 688I class, Flight II if memory serves. It is TEN TIMES quieter over the total speed range. That is incredible, should be far beyond the Akula II. Too bad there are only two in the water...

I won't comment on specific speed or acoustic signature, but the Seawolf is significantly quieter than the 688I boats (which begins with Flight III by the way).

The problem with the Seawolf is her vulnerability and lack of utility in the littorals. For blue water ops, she is THE boat to be on. Trust me, the Akula II can't touch her.

There will soon be a third Seawolf class in the water, although this boat will be a bit different, bigger, and tasked with the Special Missions role.

-Skater

Hey John, the more comments/questions/info/people involved, the merrier.

You too, Neal.

Skater, thanks for the reply. I know you said you hadn't played it in a while. The subsequent patches removed the external views used for targeting and weapons guidance(in fact, all exernal view ability) and fixed the too easy "fine control of the boat"(I assume you mean the handling of the boat was too jet-fighter like). How much would fixing those two factors change your opinion of the sim in comparison to Fast Attack?

I can't speak for the target detection, target classification, fire control, weapons effectiveness, or the other performance figures you mentioned as I have only played the patched version of 688i and I do not remember any info on patch modifications to those areas from the original release. I don't belive any of the displays were modified either. Perhaps John or Neal could answer that in more detail than I.

Right, third and final Seawolf under construction. It was George Senior who killed the program; who knows, maybe George Jr will resurrect it.

"Right, third and final Seawolf under construction. It was George Senior who killed the program; who knows, maybe George Jr will resurrect it."

That is very doubtful, as the new Virginia-class (NSSN) boats will be able to package much of the Seawolf's capabilities into a smaller, quieter, and far less expensive vessel.

[This message has been edited by Fishbed77 (edited 04-21-2001).]

Skater, thanks for the reply. I know you said you hadn't played it in a while. The subsequent patches removed the external views used for targeting and weapons guidance(in fact, all exernal view ability) and fixed the too easy "fine control of the boat"(I assume you mean the handling of the boat was too jet-fighter like). How much would fixing those two factors change your opinion of the sim in comparison to Fast Attack?

Well, it would make the game more realistic and more playable (to me), but it has more flaws than just those two.

I can't speak for the target detection, target classification, fire control, weapons effectiveness, or the other performance figures you mentioned as I have only played the patched version of 688i and I do not remember any info on patch modifications to those areas from the original release. I don't belive any of the displays were modified either. Perhaps John or Neal could answer that in more detail than I.

I just loaded it again, played it with the new 1.07 patch.

It seems a bit better, most improved is the maneuverability and the deletion of the ability to use the 3D external views, but the detection, tracking, and visuals are all wrong. Still a game for me, not a sim. Sorry to disparage your sim of choice, I do like it now, but it's just not a serious sim for me. Fast Attack is still the king for me.

-Skater

Correct, I doubt that any more of the Seawolf class will ever be built. The littorals are where it is at now, and the Virginia is the platform that will allow us to continue the mission there in a more effective manner.

-Skater

Hi Skater, all,

I haven't played 688i for a bit, but I've been thinking about diving in again, and my latest patch version is 1.05. Where can I get the 1.07 patch? I looked at janes/ea and the most recent one they have is 1.05.

Thanks!
Joe

**** Update ****

Geez... I just noticed that SimHQ has the 1.07 patch in their download section, so forget my request, LOL! Thanks anyway - I've been interested in this thread.



[This message has been edited by No609_Relent (edited 05-05-2001).]

Skater, please dont take this as a flamebait...
but maybe you could voice your stuff a little different?

Whenever I strike a topic with you in it, you seem to make it sound like "I know all my stuff, and therefore yada yada yada balala...and the rest of you can shut up as well." I know you dont say that, you possiple dont even mean it that way, but thats how it sounds. Ypu tend to pick part every single outlet of some other people and correct them with that "i know it better" attidude.

Many people here are active army guys, navy guys, whatoever...for example, Hornit is still an F-18 Driver. But somehow you are nearly the only one who always "kicks ass" the way he posts his knowledge. Mekazzhio sometimes comes close to that stil, bit not really close at all.

so please, rethink the voice in which you give us your advice...it has started to get annoying for me over the last months.

regards

RS

Ooh, was Skater in the Navy SEALS? He must be quite a guy then.

Hey Skater,

How you doing?? I was curious about something, I noticed your comment above about the set of Crimson Tide. Did you see The Hunt for Red October?? How accurate was the set of the USS Dallas in that movie??

Thx
Whistler

Does anyone know Skater's full name? If so, go tally it against the list on this site:

http://www.cyberseals.org/wos.htm

It's a site dedicated to naming and shaming those saddo's who falsely claim to have been navy SEALS. Might be interesting.

Troll...

No troll whistler. It's commonly known that skater falsely claimed to be a SEAL and had the real SEALs come down on him like a ton of bricks. Either you don't know the history, or you're running interference for him.

Your point?

Its obvious you brought that up to start a flame war.

"Obvious"? How so? Isn't it as likely that I'm in full agreement with those who say that people who masquerade as decorated vets should be hounded and exposed? Do you disagree with that Whistler?

Quoted from a SimHQ ex-staffer's post elsewhere:

"From what I read on hear Bad Boy has been sniping about someone who wasn't a pilot? Lest you forget, SimHQ have a bloated ego called Skater, that only through his own childish actions of pertaining to be a Navy Seal...amongst other things including a pilot, drew SimHQ into dispute for a while, its a long story, but suffice to say the then president of SimHQ lost his real world job directly through Skaters actions, it looked like SimHQ dealt with Skater properly back then but they never, He's still welcomed back..I quote..Troll SimHQ said, Skater is a valued member of the community, in actual fact private correspondence independent of SimHQ, Skater is on thin ice as far as the real Navy Seals are concerned, SimHQ presently claim Skater was asked to leave at the time, as a member of the staff at the time and privy to internal emails, I can confirm Skater went into hiding for a while when the story broke, and when Pete and John confronted him we never heard anything...for a while, then he crept back as if nothing had happened, disgraceful really. Skater now shouts his mouth off on SimHQ as he always did, and gets clean away with...perhaps because he's PC repairman and giver away of goods? he'll never buy my friendship.

Skater was one of the main reasons I *chose* to leave SimHQ staff, and his continued presence, that is accepted ( did you ever get back to Robert. John & Co?, he lost his job over him ) and ongoing draconian behaviour by current staff made me ask for my registration to be removed as well.

Sim HQ has lost the plot big time IMHO.

Colin"

David W.,

Warning #1....Knock it off. If you want to post like that, go find some other board to do it on, not ours. Or the alternative is that we can make that decision for you.

This is for Naval Sims, not attacking someone else.


------------------
John Sponauer
Senior Editor
SimHQ.com
jsponauer@SimHQ.com

[This message has been edited by Spoons - SimHQ (edited 05-23-2001).]

Sorry Spoons, I thought you guys were as much against the dis-respecting of vets as I am. My mistake.

Just wondering....how do the Brit boats hold up..??

Don't hear too much about them..

[This message has been edited by Goanna (edited 05-24-2001).]

Hmmmm... never thought of it that way. To be hnest, sometimes I do mean it that way, but most times I don't. I usually do not post with any type of "attitude", but I am a naturally terse type of dude, and that, I guess, comes out in the way I post. Nothing meant by it though. Most of the time.

Don't really know what I can do to change it, I think it's more a function of the readers perception really... I mean, how do you really determine the tone of text?

-Skater

I am. I buy all my friends beers. I'd even buy you a new dress Dave.

-Skater

I saw the movie a long time ago, and remember very little now. The two things bthat I remember chuckling about is the location of 700's sonar shack being wrong, don't even think there was a shack, just a WLR-like console station. Can't really remember though. Also, they had some kind of computer system for the sonar called SAPS Main or something like that... We have nothing of the sort. I thought that was pretty funny. Other than that, I can't remember...

Nothing really too accurate stood out and shocked me as it did in CT.

-Skater

Hmmmm... I know my real name. I don't seem to be there.

What a nimrod.

-Skater

Hahahaha... They did, did they?

What a maroon...

Hey Whistler, either you prescribe to their way of thought or you are in league with the devil! Confess witches and warlocks! Confess and be cleansed by the holy fire!

-Skater

Holy moly... What a load of BS!

-Skater

Pretty good actually. Their boats are a bit old, but very capable. Their crews are excellent as well. Very, very well trained. Their O's are top notch.

-Skater

Those who know know; those who don't can only wonder. Guess I'll leave it right there.

Siggi, you do know that Ed "Skater" Lynch's name doesn't appear in the SEAL Wall of Shame you posted the link to, right? Check for yourself. Don't you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?



[This message has been edited by Judge (edited 05-24-2001).]

Thanks for the name Judge (Skater's, not Siggi's). I'm on to the guys who track these fakes and will keep you posted on what I hear back.

BTW...Siggi? Wassup with that, dude?

One more personal comment by anyone about anyone and the thread is locked. The thread is about Jane's and naval sims.

Last chance, guys.....


------------------
John Sponauer
Senior Editor
SimHQ.com
jsponauer@SimHQ.com

[This message has been edited by Spoons - SimHQ (edited 05-24-2001).]

He's not Siggi... He's one of Siggi's lackeys from Siggi's idiotic IL-2 website.

-Skater

*sigh*

------------------
John Sponauer
Senior Editor
SimHQ.com
jsponauer@SimHQ.com