|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 30, 2019 11:10:37 GMT -6
I was perusing RTW and RTW2 threads and I noticed a few, maybe more, threads about surface raiders, and submarines essentially trade warfare or maritime warfare. This got me to thinking that maybe a thread on this forum would be a good place to discuss real history and possibly how it can be used in the game. I don't know if there is already a thread on this subject and I don't care.
The start date for this discussion is 1900. I chose it not because of the game, but because all the technology that changed maritime warfare from the Age of Sail was available except the aircraft and by 1910 it was available in limited quantities for naval and land based forces. Submarines, steel ships, long range guns, wireless radios, torpedoes, mines and many other developments radically changed how maritime warfare would or could be conducted. I believe that it is important.
Maritime warfare dates back to ancient times, when Egypt, Greece, Crete, Persians and Roman's traded goods amongst themselves and hence, pirates attacked their ships. Privateers paid to perform such attacks were present so that naval vessels had to maintain the trade lanes. Forts and ports were attacked and many times blockaded. It's a rich history. During the Anglo-Dutch Wars of 1652-1674 maritime warfare was conducted by both the British and the Dutch. The War with Spain had maritime warfare conducted. It has been prevalent throughout the centuries.
However, with addition of all the new technologies, different strategies had to be developed. You could no long use a close blockade but a distant blockade due to submarines and mines. If you used trade warfare with individual ships, wireless radios could provide emergency signals like "QQQ Shelled by Raider", providing your current position and this gave nearby naval forces a chance to try to catch the enemy raiders. While raiding by surface ships was conducted in both world wars, it was never very successful. Trade warfare by submarine was successful on both sides. The use of the submarine required the use of the convoy, although this formation was used in the Age of Sail, it was improved on by adding more and better escorts. So, maritime warfare or trade warfare changed. With the addition of long range seaplanes and other aircraft, you could maintain a decent coverage of many of the trade lanes.
Anyway, enough brief history.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 30, 2019 11:36:19 GMT -6
I would look at some difference between submarines and surface raiders but I am not expert at this topic.
Submarines used stealth not only submerged but on surface as they were small vessels difficult to see in bad weather and especially at night from other ships. Surface raiders has not that advantage as their visibility means that they need to evade enemy suraface forces (so they cannot operate near enemy coast as there is too much traffic so surface raider can be easily catch by enemy force) and they cannot submerged so their speed and change of operational area was their way how to be difficult to catch. Another difference comes from range. As submarines are difficult to spot they can raid enemy trade quite close to coast. This is not case of surface raiders and they need to raid far from enemy forces. This mean long range and support. This was quite important for surfaces raiders and Royal Navy especially in WW2 hunt a lot of these support ships. Raider far from home without support ships has difficult time to continue with his mission.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 30, 2019 13:44:38 GMT -6
I would look at some difference between submarines and surface raiders but I am not expert at this topic.
Submarines used stealth not only submerged but on surface as they were small vessels difficult to see in bad weather and especially at night from other ships. Surface raiders has not that advantage as their visibility means that they need to evade enemy suraface forces (so they cannot operate near enemy coast as there is too much traffic so surface raider can be easily catch by enemy force) and they cannot submerged so their speed and change of operational area was their way how to be difficult to catch. Another difference comes from range. As submarines are difficult to spot they can raid enemy trade quite close to coast. This is not case of surface raiders and they need to raid far from enemy forces. This mean long range and support. This was quite important for surfaces raiders and Royal Navy especially in WW2 hunt a lot of these support ships. Raider far from home without support ships has difficult time to continue with his mission.
From what I am reading, you have the right idea and probably know more than you think. Surface raiders need to move from sea to sea and ocean to ocean especially after some actions in a particular area, they also need intelligence information about the locations of enemy supply ships. Surface raidERS not only have guns, but torpedoes and mines, so they can do multiple acts. They need fuel and food, and eventually will have to head back home for repairs and updates. This is a problem unless their nation has overseas ports. Generally surface raiders, excluding the German WW2 pocket battleships and their use of large warships, are slow moving like transports because most are just modified transports. This slow speed can be a hinderance in finding and hunting down in the trade lanes. Surface raiders of the ex-transport type have to disguised and change that disguise after raiding for a while and after moving to another area. In other words, you have to look like a ship that does trading in the area. We can move on to submarines and warships as raiders. Submarine do have stealth but limited range and due to the circumstances of their raids and searches, have to head back to port to rest and refit the ship and crews. Submarines, they can also provide scouting for surface raiders and lay mines around trade lanes and especially near ports. So, you have to have some submarines headed to their patrol areas, some on their way home and a group already deployed to their hunting areas. All of this depends on the nation doing the raiding and whether it really needs to do it. Does Italy really need surface raiders? Austria-Hungary? How about Russia which is almost land locked? . The only nations that could use it effectively would be Germany, Japan, CSA, France or the USA(maybe). I don't see the British wasting ships on this because their primary enemies are right across the pond from them and in the Mediterranean Sea which because of its narrow length and closeness to Italy and the North African coast is not a good spot for a surface raider but submarines can be effective. Anyway, just some thoughts. I think you have the correct idea.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 30, 2019 15:41:53 GMT -6
One interesting question is did the Russians, with limited access to the oceans have a commerce raiding strategy? Yes, after the loss in the Crimean War, the Russian's felt isolated and defeated. They needed a new strategy to deal with the Anglo-French coalition. The placed two fleets, one in the Baltic and one in the Gulf of Finland. However, offensive operations on the high seas were to be executed by commerce raiders. They got the idea from the Confederate Raider Alabama which did take a huge toll of Union shipping. The first two ships converted to auxiliary cruisers were the Petersburg and the Smolensk, this was accomplished in 1904. Two more were completed, the Orel and the Saratov. The Petersburg had a range of 12,000 miles when fully loaded with 2800 tons 0-F coal. She had seven 120mm, six 47mm and ten 37mm guns. The ships were three-mast cruisers with two funnels and engines rated at 11,000 HP for a maximum speed of 19 knots.
Their area of operation in case of war was the southern end of the Red Sea. There were other operations by other ships; the Baltic ships prowled( authors words) the Atlantic off of Gibraltar and four regular cruisers based in Vladivostok hit the coasts of Japan, especially the south and east coasts.
Based on evidence, this was a very successful operation but only for a very short time. Typical of most auxiliary cruiser operations. It seems to illustrate to me, the auxiliary cruiser warfare against trade can work, if planned well but only for a very short time. Germany's operations of this sort in both wars supports this. Is this kind of warfare, the strategy of the weak? It might be, and do you want to expend the money and time to accomplish a temporary goal.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 31, 2019 5:17:24 GMT -6
I will use bullets to show different view on maritime warfare. Sometimes I will just mention to RTW2 when it seems it works opposite but without any details.
1. what can be used for maritime warfare a) warships Their need long range, good organization of supply ships. They are dependent on intelligence as was proved in WW1. They need to operate in open spaces Ocean, change operational area. As time progress they get better range, with aicraft better scouting ability but aicrafts has efect that they need to operate in areas without their coverage. As time progress they can get better intelligence report but on other side their possition after revealed are quickly shared between enemy. So they always struggle to be effective as they are expensive but their speed can help them only till they are intercepted by some faster ship.
b) armed merchant cruisers At the beginning of 20th century it seems as cheap possiblity to fight maritime warfare. As time progress however it is more and more difficult to hide. But still they can be effective in some way forcing enemy to dispatch ships to hunt them.
c) submarines They are certainly most effective weapon platform of maritime warfare. Their main disadvantage is range so at any operation which need larger range they need to be build larger thus decreasing their main advantage of stealth and cheap. As time progress ASW started to be more effective but it is always some balance between ASW and improvements of submarines. Aicrafts change it quite a lot as they can provide cover in distant area in their reach quite easily. Another change is real "submarine" which change the ability from submersive vessel to submarine.
d) aircrafts They are game changer as they can provide much help using their speed and range.
2. which nations can be affected by maritime warfare a) USA and Russia/USSR I do not know exact all resources needed for both countries to run their domestic economic but I think that Russia is self sufficient and USA too. So effect of blockade, sinking of merchants are more about limit their ability to use force projection but has little economic effect
b) British Empire British Isles are dependent on maritme supply of a lot of important natural resources. As time progress the industry power of colonies increases more than home country however it does not decrease important to protect their trade c) France There are 2 areas. Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean is more important on trade between French North Africa colonies, Atlantic give access to whole globe and supplies. Question is if blockading / sinking merchants in Atlantic has more effect than the Mediterranean. It would depends mainly on UK and willing use of Suez. d) Italy
It could be easily affected as Suez and Gibraltar are choke points and all global trade need to go through one of these two choke points e) A-H Similar to Italy but even worse situaton as all trafic needs to go through Adriatic sea. f) Germany Easily blockade as North Sea is key if Germany is not able to get resources from Russia g) Japan Quite dependent on maritime traffic.
3. how each nation has geographic position to use maritime warfare a) UK
With bases around the globe, it can easily use blockade or maritime warfare against any nation except USA (but it would have no effect - see point 1) b) USA
Without bases any action against European powers is limited by range and have difficulty to attack enemy shipping except Japan c) France With good European position and colonies through the world it has good position to se maritime warfare or blockade as long as it has ability to supply such bases.
d) Germany For the first 20 years in the 20th century it has bases around the world which put it in similar position as France but it would be much more difficult to supply such distant bases against any colonial empire e) Italy It has good position to blockade A-H and attack merchant shipping of France and UK in the Mediterranean but nothing more f) A-H Similar to Italy but worse position g) Russia It has difficult to use their force for maritime as their basis in Baltic are easily blocked, Murmansk are far to north and their east bases can only affect Japan
Overall it seems that all surface raiders effectivity is dependent on organization and ability to track enemy merchants. On opposite their survivability depends on how many ships enemy can provide to hunt them and ability to track enemy raider by communication system. Aircrafts change it a lot.
For submarines it is always battle between submarines and ASW, sometime submarines have edge, sometimes ASW. But it seems that they are still effective as they are extremely cheap and sinking even one ship means loosing merchant ship with whole cargo.
And all of this is dependent who and to whom maritime warfare is commenced.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 31, 2019 9:05:44 GMT -6
I will use bullets to show different view on maritime warfare. Sometimes I will just mention to RTW2 when it seems it works opposite but without any details.
1. what can be used for maritime warfare a) warships Their need long range, good organization of supply ships. They are dependent on intelligence as was proved in WW1. They need to operate in open spaces Ocean, change operational area. As time progress they get better range, with aicraft better scouting ability but aicrafts has efect that they need to operate in areas without their coverage. As time progress they can get better intelligence report but on other side their possition after revealed are quickly shared between enemy. So they always struggle to be effective as they are expensive but their speed can help them only till they are intercepted by some faster ship.
b) armed merchant cruisers At the beginning of 20th century it seems as cheap possiblity to fight maritime warfare. As time progress however it is more and more difficult to hide. But still they can be effective in some way forcing enemy to dispatch ships to hunt them.
c) submarines They are certainly most effective weapon platform of maritime warfare. Their main disadvantage is range so at any operation which need larger range they need to be build larger thus decreasing their main advantage of stealth and cheap. As time progress ASW started to be more effective but it is always some balance between ASW and improvements of submarines. Aicrafts change it quite a lot as they can provide cover in distant area in their reach quite easily. Another change is real "submarine" which change the ability from submersive vessel to submarine.
d) aircrafts They are game changer as they can provide much help using their speed and range.
2. which nations can be affected by maritime warfare a) USA and Russia/USSR I do not know exact all resources needed for both countries to run their domestic economic but I think that Russia is self sufficient and USA too. So effect of blockade, sinking of merchants are more about limit their ability to use force projection but has little economic effect
b) British Empire British Isles are dependent on maritme supply of a lot of important natural resources. As time progress the industry power of colonies increases more than home country however it does not decrease important to protect their trade c) France There are 2 areas. Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean is more important on trade between French North Africa colonies, Atlantic give access to whole globe and supplies. Question is if blockading / sinking merchants in Atlantic has more effect than the Mediterranean. It would depends mainly on UK and willing use of Suez. d) Italy
It could be easily affected as Suez and Gibraltar are choke points and all global trade need to go through one of these two choke points e) A-H Similar to Italy but even worse situaton as all trafic needs to go through Adriatic sea. f) Germany Easily blockade as North Sea is key if Germany is not able to get resources from Russia g) Japan Quite dependent on maritime traffic.
3. how each nation has geographic position to use maritime warfare a) UK
With bases around the globe, it can easily use blockade or maritime warfare against any nation except USA (but it would have no effect - see point 1) b) USA
Without bases any action against European powers is limited by range and have difficulty to attack enemy shipping except Japan c) France With good European position and colonies through the world it has good position to se maritime warfare or blockade as long as it has ability to supply such bases.
d) Germany For the first 20 years in the 20th century it has bases around the world which put it in similar position as France but it would be much more difficult to supply such distant bases against any colonial empire e) Italy It has good position to blockade A-H and attack merchant shipping of France and UK in the Mediterranean but nothing more f) A-H Similar to Italy but worse position g) Russia It has difficult to use their force for maritime as their basis in Baltic are easily blocked, Murmansk are far to north and their east bases can only affect Japan
Overall it seems that all surface raiders effectivity is dependent on organization and ability to track enemy merchants. On opposite their survivability depends on how many ships enemy can provide to hunt them and ability to track enemy raider by communication system. Aircrafts change it a lot.
For submarines it is always battle between submarines and ASW, sometime submarines have edge, sometimes ASW. But it seems that they are still effective as they are extremely cheap and sinking even one ship means loosing merchant ship with whole cargo.
And all of this is dependent who and to whom maritime warfare is commenced.
First, I like the form of your comments and I will use this format also. Second, I've copied your comments to a separate document to study and I will comment on them in posts separately. My first comment is on your last statement. One of the central themes in most professional documents such as the ones I have from the Naval War College do state that Maritime warfare is the strategy of the weak and I agree. If we examine the nations that used it like Russia after the Crimean War, Germany. Those nations were weak both economically and socially but also in Naval power. Its hard to fathom that with the High Seas Fleet existence but we have to assess its size, how much it cost the nation and its operational area. The only successful auxiliary raider for the Germans in WW1 was the SMS Wolf which sank 30 ships and did return to Germany in 1917 after about 30 months of sailing. But her crew was never happy due to the dichotomy between the officers and the men. The officers ate good healthy food, but the sailors did not. This was typical of the German Fleet and nation. This was the reason for the uprising and eventual overthrow of the Kaiser. Japan never used maritime warfare even with her submarine fleet whose job it was to scout for the fleet and attack the enemy fleet. The U-boat campaigns were both effective for the German's. Both had a decided effective on Britain but technology overtook the German's. They could not build enough long range boats and deploy them fast enough to do the job. So your comment is correct, in my opinion, that it is dependent on who and to whom the maritime warfare is commence. As I have state numerous times on the forum, examine a map. Geography controls your naval stategy. I am going through your statements and then I will post comments individually. Postscript: Two interesting books on raiders is A. Wolf B. Ship 16- This was the German Raider Atlantis. The first is about the SMS Wolf. There is another that I have found in a while, German Raider Atlantis by Bernhard Rogge its captain.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 31, 2019 13:36:46 GMT -6
A) warships Their need long range, good organization of supply ships. They are dependent on intelligence as was proved in WW1. They need to operate in open spaces Ocean, change operational area. As time progress they get better range, with aircraft better scouting ability but aircrafts have effect that they need to operate in areas without their coverage. As time progress they can get better intelligence report but on other side their position after revealed are quickly shared between enemy. So they always struggle to be effective as they are expensive but their speed can help them only till they are intercepted by some faster ship. Here is an article on German surface raiders in WW1. We can compare with statistics the effectiveness of each type of raider. This might give us some insight as to which one is more effective. www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-i/surface-raiding-ships-world-war-one.html
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 31, 2019 16:56:05 GMT -6
B) armed merchant cruisers
At the beginning of 20th century it seems as cheap possibility to fight maritime warfare. As time progress however it is more and more difficult to hide. But still they can be effective in some way forcing enemy to dispatch ships to hunt them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 31, 2019 20:20:08 GMT -6
c) submarines They are certainly most effective weapon platform of maritime warfare. Their main disadvantage is range so at any operation which need larger range they need to be build larger thus decreasing their main advantage of stealth and cheap. As time progress ASW started to be more effective but it is always some balance between ASW and improvements of submarines. Aircrafts change it quite a lot as they can provide cover in distant area in their reach quite easily. Another change is real "submarine" which change the ability from subversive vessel to submarine.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 1, 2019 0:13:31 GMT -6
I will have time later. There is one point I disagree. Maritime warfare is not only for weak side but for any side which cannot use blockade for any reason and target nation has at least some dependency on naval trase routes. (Best example is USN in WW2)
Most important to blockade of enemy nation is combination of geography, than naval strength - ability to maintain blockade no matter of enemy strength and enemy naval strength with comparison of strength of blockading Navy.
If there is no possibility to blockade (eg. hypothetical conflict USA vs. UK) than Maritime warfare is reasonable possibility to weaken enemy.
There can be 2 targets. The first one is dependent on economy as it is disrupting flow of resources to target nation and some nations are not so much dependent on it. (eg. Japan and UK in WW2) The second one is disrupting flow of resources to forward bases limiting power projection. (eg. Malta or Guadalcanal in WW2)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 1, 2019 10:07:50 GMT -6
I will have time later. There is one point I disagree. Maritime warfare is not only for weak side but for any side which cannot use blockade for any reason and target nation has at least some dependency on naval trase routes. (Best example is USN in WW2) Most important to blockade of enemy nation is combination of geography, than naval strength - ability to maintain blockade no matter of enemy strength and enemy naval strength with comparison of strength of blockading Navy. If there is no possibility to blockade (eg. hypothetical conflict USA vs. UK) than Maritime warfare is reasonable possibility to weaken enemy. There can be 2 targets. The first one is dependent on economy as it is disrupting flow of resources to target nation and some nations are not so much dependent on it. (eg. Japan and UK in WW2) The second one is disrupting flow of resources to forward bases limiting power projection. (eg. Malta or Guadalcanal in WW2) Historically, except for the US unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japan, it was the weaker nations that used the maritime warfare. I don't think you can say that we were weak, but our opponent was weak economically and especially in the area of natural resources which is why the executed the Southern Operation to gain natural resources. The avowed stance of the US throughout the Interwar period was no unrestricted submarine warfare but in fact, the US Navy had been designing and testing submarines capable of executing an unrestricted submarine operation against Japan. The problem was the we never announced it and we caught the Japanese completely by surprise which is why they never designed destroyers or other ships for convoy duty and never even tested convoying. Except for our poor torpedoes, eventually it worked to perfection. But I can't disagree, but historians feel the maritime warfare is the warfare of the weak. You are correct, in my estimation though.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 1, 2019 10:40:49 GMT -6
D) aircraft
They are game changer as they can provide much help using their speed and range.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 1, 2019 20:38:40 GMT -6
Comments:
Assessing which nations are susceptible to blockade is complex. It involves physical geography, economic geography, political geography, just to name a few. Here are some general facts. Trade warfare has always been a central part of any navy’s mission throughout history. Both a weak and strong fleet perform such strategy. The difference is the weaker fleet will attack the enemy’s maritime trade and the stronger will generally protect. I think that 20th century history shows this to be true.
Attacks on maritime trade are generally more effective against island nations but not as much against continental nations especially those with good connections to neighboring countries. The objectives of attacks on trade are generally traffic reduction, in a given sea or ocean for a specified time. This means interfering or interdicting enemy maritime trade. There are two methods of determining the effectiveness. The first is by the reduction in traffic and second is expressed in the number of ships sunk or total tonnage sunk.
Hampering means a reduction in transport volume by 25 to 30 percent. Curtailing means a reduction of 30 to 60 percent. Interruption means a reduction of 80%. Maritime trade reduction must be accomplished over a large area and against all maritime trade. Ships at sea, in ports, almost everything including railroads are included. An example would be the efforts of the Italian fleet attacking the Pedestal convoy. The Italian navy was almost out of fuel but failed due to lack of support from the Italian Air Force. This example should be a wakeup call for the game. Naval and land-based air must work together to succeed.
I hope this small amount of information is helpful.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 2, 2019 9:12:57 GMT -6
2. which nations can be affected by maritime warfare a) USA and Russia/USSR I do not know exact all resources needed for both countries to run their domestic economic but I think that Russia is self-sufficient and USA too. So, effect of blockade, sinking of merchants are more about limit their ability to use force projection but has little economic effect b) British Empire British Isles are dependent on maritime supply of a lot of important natural resources. As time progress the industry power of colonies increases more than home country however it does not decrease important to protect their trade c) France There are 2 areas. Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean is more important on trade between French North Africa colonies, Atlantic give access to whole globe and supplies. Question is if blockading / sinking merchants in Atlantic has more effect than the Mediterranean. It would depends mainly on UK and willing use of Suez. d) Italy It could be easily affected as Suez and Gibraltar are choke points and all global trade need to go through one of these two choke points e) A-H Similar to Italy but even worse situation as all traffic needs to go through Adriatic sea. f) Germany Easily blockade as North Sea is key if Germany is not able to get resources from Russia g) Japan Quite dependent on maritime traffic. 3. how each nation has geographic position to use maritime warfare a) UK With bases around the globe, it can easily use blockade or maritime warfare against any nation except USA (but it would have no effect - see point 1) b) USA Without bases any action against European powers is limited by range and have difficulty to attack enemy shipping except Japan c) France With good European position and colonies through the world it has good position to se maritime warfare or blockade as long as it has ability to supply such bases. d) Germany For the first 20 years in the 20th century it has bases around the world which put it in similar position as France but it would be much more difficult to supply such distant bases against any colonial empire e) Italy It has good position to blockade A-H and attack merchant shipping of France and UK in the Mediterranean but nothing more f) A-H Similar to Italy but worse position g) Russia It has difficult to use their force for maritime as their basis in Baltic are easily blocked, Murmansk are far to north and their east bases can only affect Japan Overall it seems that all surface raiders effectivity is dependent on organization and ability to track enemy merchants. On opposite their survivability depends on how many ships enemy can provide to hunt them and ability to track enemy raider by communication system. Aircrafts change it a lot. For submarines it is always battle between submarines and ASW, sometime submarines have edge, sometimes ASW. But it seems that they are still effective as they are extremely cheap and sinking even one ship means loosing merchant ship with whole cargo. And all of this is dependent who and to whom maritime warfare is commenced.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 2, 2019 12:42:27 GMT -6
I thought I would move the discussion towards the tools and strategy especially targets. Maritime trade warfare is not limited AMC's and in fact, they are very ineffective despite the records. What matters is how much damage they actually did not only the economy but combat operations. Maritime warfare is very useful against combat operations. But you must have combined arms of surface, submarine ships and aircraft both land based and carrier based. Targets were not only ships at sea but in port, port facilities and repair yards. They all contribute to the movement of supplies and men. For seas that are vulnerable, here is a quick list. 1. Baltic 2. North Sea 3. Mediterranean 4. Black Sea 5. Red Sea 6. Persian Gulf 7. Gulf of Oman 8. Gulf of Thailand -formally the Gulf of Siam 9. Malacca Straits 10. South China Sea 11. East China Sea 12. Sea of Japan 13. Yellow Sea 14. Coral Sea
This list is from the Google Earth Pro application that I have, it is free.
There are numerous historical accounts of trade warfare in many of these regions. You can find them easily. As to the issue of aircraft, here are some aircraft that were used as maritime attack aircraft. Typically the best were twin engined light bombers, fast and able to carry different kinds of weapons. With forward firing .50 cal and 20mm guns along with their bombloads, there were effective aircraft. I did not put Japanese aircraft up here like the Nell or the Betty because they were ronson lighters. One shot and the explode. For carriers, torpedo bombers and dive bombers but fighters when equipped, could also do the job. A. German JU-88 and the HS-129 B. British Beaufighter and the DH Mossie C. US B-26, B-25 and the P-38. All three were extensively out of Port Moresby to attack Japanese transports moving between Rabaul and New Guinea.
|
|