Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 4/12/2008 12:09:44 AM   
miral

 

Posts: 170
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline
Recommend most heartily Robert Citino's "The Defeat of the Wehrmacht - The German Campaigns of 1942". He explained some things about how the Germans waged WWII that had mystyfied me for years. And I think it offers great thought for wargames.

His approach is not to write of the German Army in isolation in the WWI - WWI era but to take the entire history of the Prussian-German army (essentially the officer corps) and try to locate its philosophy of war and the enduring strands of this that run through the centuries. If I may make a big paraphrase indeed, I believe he is saying that the Germans developed a kind of Teutonic Samurai approach to waging war.

First, they confused the operational with the strategic for centuries, but no where more than in the two World Wars. One of their manuals actually speaks of War as an Art and the general as an artist. Bad analogy. Thus Citino comments on the German generals 'manical pursuit of capturing Moscow' long past the point in 1941 where it was at all possible, as if the Russian War was a wargame: capture Moscow, game over!

Second, aside from being Strategically Challenged, the Germans, like the Japanese, disdained logistics. I did not know that the German army did not even use the term logistics under after WWII; they refered to it as 'supply', as if nothing had changed since the Napoleonic Wars. Thus, again like the japanese (many more parellels between the two than I had thought) they tended to start even major campaigns with lack of logictical support and infratstructure. In reading detailed accounts of the '41 fighting, especially Operation Typhoon, I am struck at the number of times that entire Panzer divisions came to a complete halt for a day, or two or three because - they had run out of gas. The units at the front screamed for gas, ammunition and food constantly and yet the High Command (the Generals, not just Hitler) made conversion of the Russian rail gauge among the lowest priorities.

Third, intelligence. Again, like the Japanese, German military intelligence was absolutely awful. On the Eastern Front the Germans misguessed almost every major Russian offensive. But then, German commanders did not pay any attention to their intelligence, even when it was correct.

In short, the German way of war was, and this is a quote from Frederick the Great, 'the Prussian Army always attacks'. To which his descendents in WWI would have added, 'in the most operationally elegant manner possible."

Citino had a wonderful phrase to describe the German's strategic situation in June 1940 and the autumn of 1942: "The Wehrmacht had conquered itself into a strategic impasse.'

Perhaps all wargames dealing with WWII and Germany might usefully incorporate some of this. For instance, German logistics weakness would cause, randomly, certain units to be unable to move. Or the Germans have complete FOW but the Allies only partial or none.

Perhaps his best line was about Rommel immobilized before El Alamein in autumn of '42, unable to conduct those oh so elegant operational moves beloved of generations of German generals. Citino comments that Rommel's writings of that time have the plaintive whine of a great artist forced to paint houses for a living.

Oh yes, and why did the German army, the generals as well as Hitler, plunge into the streets of Stalingrad in what they knew would become a hellish war of non-movement? Why, because they could not think of anything to do strategically to get them out of the dreadful mess they had gotten themselves into and, besides, 'The Prussian Army always attacks." Kursk? 'The Prussian Army always attacks'. No wonder they lost both world wars, thank goodness.

An excellent book, amusingly written for serious military history, with many insights that would be useful for wargaming.
Post #: 1
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 2/3/2009 8:48:12 PM   
KingHunter3059


Posts: 69
Joined: 12/24/2008
From: Maryland, USA
Status: offline
Excellent comments - In the game, OIL and Fog of WAR almost cover the German Blunders.

Jay

(in reply to miral)
Post #: 2
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 2/15/2009 5:07:52 PM   
Bennett

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 6/3/2001
Status: offline
I will second that.  This book makes reinforces the relevancy of oil in CEAW.  This author in this book recommended "Stopped at Stalingrad:  The Luftwaffe and Hitler's Defeat in the East 1942-43" by Joel. S. A. Hayward.  I am only starting the book but this already looks well worth the purchase.  Despite the title, it covers a fair bit of naval and ground events.  There are hidden gems of info on the usually neglected aspects of the war in the East.  One example is how Rumanian military staffs resisted German military training programs and often "re-trained" their personnel in the French Army style upon their return from a course.  Conversely, the author stated that the Bulgarians endorsed and adopted these methods...but still remained neutral due to their historical affiliation for Russia.

(in reply to KingHunter3059)
Post #: 3
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 3/2/2009 3:35:50 AM   
jbunnelle


Posts: 166
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: United States
Status: offline
Another good book along these lines--also published by KSU Press, like Stopped at Stalingrad--is called Inside Hitler's High Command, or something close to that. Deals specifically with WW2 but begins from the correct premise that Germany never had a hope of winning or even a clue as to how to go about it. Sections deal with uselessness of taking Norway, incredible lack of cooperation between Germany and Japan, self-defeatist policies on the Eastern Front, especially with partisans and scorched earth. Highly recommended.

< Message edited by jbunnelle -- 3/2/2009 3:38:27 AM >

(in reply to Bennett)
Post #: 4
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 3/3/2009 11:48:40 PM   
marklv

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
I think there is truth in saying that the German plans were strategically flawed, but I would certainly not call them 'idiots'. They were simply following their tradition - that the best form of defence is attack. On many occasions this appraoch actually worked very well, there was nothing idiotic about it. The main reason Germany attacked the USSR was that the USSR could not be trusted and was too powerful and dangerous a power to be left alone; Hitler's racial-ideological reasons were secondary in my opinion, not primary ones. Thus Germany was faced with a war against a massively powerful industrial nation, with huge manpower as well as territorial and economic resources. A total victory was never on the cards, but Hitler fought the war demanding unconditional surrender from Stalin - it would never happen. Even a partial German victory was unlikely, especially as Japan decided not to attack the Soviets from the East. The odds were too heavily stacked against Germany right from September 1939 - not even all the greatest generals who ever lived could make Germany win the war. As for WW1, it was even more hopeless.

(in reply to jbunnelle)
Post #: 5
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 3/25/2009 10:24:16 AM   
finnfanboy

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 3/25/2009
Status: offline
"not even all the greatest generals who ever lived could make Germany win the war. As for WW1, it was even more hopeless. "

I completely disagree. As regards WWI, the Von Schlieffen Plan would have worked had Ludendorf not panicked during the Russian attack vs. Konigsberg and diverted troops there, from the western front. Take a look at Guns of August ; wherein it states that Germany's failure to adhere to the VS plan @ 100% from the outset sealed their fate. Note also later in the war that the Russians surrendered, and the St. Michael offensive nearly succeeded, but lacked concentration and focus following the breakthrough. Both the French and British were nearly beaten, and their manpower as exhausted as the Germans. If not for the intervention of the U.S. (which could not have been counted on) with its manpower reserves and boost to Western Allies morale, Germany may well have prevailed.

As regards WWII Germany almost won DESPITE HITLER. Hitler's Generals (Guderian, Manstein, Von Braushitch, etc..) urged him not to attack Russia, at least until England was subdued, and then when the attack was to begin it was postponed due to Mussolini's misadventures in the Balkans. What Germany could have done with another couple of months in 1941 thankfully did not come to pass - Thank you Mussolini!! Hitler's racial attitudes prevented him from turning the Ukrainian and central asian troops against Stalin during the initial invasion. German Troops were initially greeted as liberators (greeted with bread and salt in the Ukraine, for ex..).  To Hitler, they were unworthy subhumans. Some generals (Manstein?) thought the war to be won,  but for Hitlers refusal to recognize the opportunities of Ukrainian independence, for example, and to turn these troops against Stalin.

Dealing with Hitler's  "subhumans" meant squandering/diverting/turning valuable resources away from and against Germany's war effort (i.e. human capital, rail networks, raw materials, etc..)

Hitler also kept second guessing both his Generals, the operational plan and even himself. Barbarossa was initially conceived as a drive by Panzer troops primarily vs. Moscow and the Southern step, involving massive pincer envelopments to destroy the Russian Armies and capture the Soviet capital. drive by Army group North towards Leningrad a third priority. Guderian constantly argued bitterly (one of the few generals who dared to speak up against Hitler) to keep Hitler from halting the panzers to "wait for the infantry to catch up", thereby allowing both demoralized troops and enemy resources to escape encirclement. In so doing, Hitler was  squandering the primary German advantage of "shock and awe" achieved in the initial blitzkrieg.  

Guderian and other generals similarly opposed diversion of Panzer troops by Hitler to the North vs. Leningrad and South vs. Kiev, as detracting from the primary objective -i.e. taking Moscow quickly via encirclement and destroying the Soviet army and communications in the process! By redeploying the Panzers vs. the drive on Leningrad, Hitler lost valuable weeks both in the drive on Moscow, and the chance to encircle and destroy additional Soviet armies hastily deploying to its defence. Hitler subsequently redirected them to Moscow, abandoning the drive on Leningrad; preferring to squander valuable resources (see below) to bomb it to rubble.

Hitler further squandered the advantage of combined arms tactics (again, over the objections of his generals) when he wasted his airforces in bombing Leningrad and Stalingrad to rubble, rather than using them to support his motorized divisions to bypass these cities to further encircle and destroy additional Soviet Armies and air forces in the process on the Soviet steppe while the weather was good and their tactics still "new" to the Russians.

In the first year of the war vs. Russia, the Russians needed to buy time to adapt tactics, rebuild armies and industrial production, establish supply chains (including lend lease), and to bring contemporary and superior designs (i.e the T-34 tank, for instance) into the supply chain in quantity. Both Mussolini and Hitler gave them time, squandering Germany's resources and its window of opportunity.





_____________________________

November 1939 - 3 Finnish Divisions vs. 99 Russian.

Determination and Innovation wanted!

(in reply to marklv)
Post #: 6
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 4/4/2009 8:17:47 PM   
leridano

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 12/9/2008
Status: offline
I think the only strategic idiot was Hitler, not the germans...

(in reply to miral)
Post #: 7
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 4/6/2009 3:50:15 PM   
SS Hauptsturmfuhrer


Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: miral

First, they confused the operational with the strategic for centuries, but no where more than in the two World Wars. One of their manuals actually speaks of War as an Art and the general as an artist. Bad analogy.



Patton said the exact same thing that good generals consider war an art rather than a by-the-book procedure. And it's pretty damn hard to say Patton was an idiot too considering he was the best general the allies had. I also totally agree with the war and art analogy.

miral, you are apparently very anti-German which shows in some of your extreme overgeneralizations, for example, the comment about German generals always ignoring their intelligence. That only happened in late war when Hitler had replaced his good generals with the witless yes men chosen from loyal nazis which resulted in disasters like the destruction of Army Group Centre, and later on, the 9th Army. The good generals used their intel very carefully.

Saying Germans are strategic idiots, even from someone decidedly anti-German, just doesn't make any sense at all. Their ongoing oversight regarding logistics is a worthwhile point, but looking at their tactical superiority over both the Russians and the Western Allies has to also be considered. On the ground, the Germans regularly gave the opposing armies good shlackings which is why so much supporting artillery and air power was needed to overcome German defences and break up their counterattacks. In Normandy and Italy, the British and Americans were paralyzed until entire heavy bomber airfleets turned vast areas into rubble and moonscape, and naval firepower repeatedly saved them from well-planned German counterattacks. The Russians were similarly dependent on artillery and air assets.

The Germans did make a lot of strategic errors, but most of those errors are traceable back to Hitler's usual blundering and meddling, as well as the effects of massive allied advantages in air power, code breaking, and equipment. Your theory is like saying a big, fat Hells Angels biker is a strategic genius after beating up a child who must be a strategic idiot, even though the biker is left moaning in pain from the kick in the nads and the poke in the eye the child gave him.

More correctly, Germany's strategic weaknesses were their inferiority in production/resources and having Hitler in control which was most probably their greatest strategic encumbrance of all.

_____________________________


(in reply to miral)
Post #: 8
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 4/24/2009 2:14:58 PM   
KingHunter


Posts: 26
Joined: 4/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer


quote:

ORIGINAL: miral

First, they confused the operational with the strategic for centuries, but no where more than in the two World Wars. One of their manuals actually speaks of War as an Art and the general as an artist. Bad analogy.



Patton said the exact same thing that good generals consider war an art rather than a by-the-book procedure. And it's pretty damn hard to say Patton was an idiot too considering he was the best general the allies had. I also totally agree with the war and art analogy.

miral, you are apparently very anti-German which shows in some of your extreme overgeneralizations, for example, the comment about German generals always ignoring their intelligence. That only happened in late war when Hitler had replaced his good generals with the witless yes men chosen from loyal nazis which resulted in disasters like the destruction of Army Group Centre, and later on, the 9th Army. The good generals used their intel very carefully.

Saying Germans are strategic idiots, even from someone decidedly anti-German, just doesn't make any sense at all. Their ongoing oversight regarding logistics is a worthwhile point, but looking at their tactical superiority over both the Russians and the Western Allies has to also be considered. On the ground, the Germans regularly gave the opposing armies good shlackings which is why so much supporting artillery and air power was needed to overcome German defences and break up their counterattacks. In Normandy and Italy, the British and Americans were paralyzed until entire heavy bomber airfleets turned vast areas into rubble and moonscape, and naval firepower repeatedly saved them from well-planned German counterattacks. The Russians were similarly dependent on artillery and air assets.

The Germans did make a lot of strategic errors, but most of those errors are traceable back to Hitler's usual blundering and meddling, as well as the effects of massive allied advantages in air power, code breaking, and equipment. Your theory is like saying a big, fat Hells Angels biker is a strategic genius after beating up a child who must be a strategic idiot, even though the biker is left moaning in pain from the kick in the nads and the poke in the eye the child gave him.

More correctly, Germany's strategic weaknesses were their inferiority in production/resources and having Hitler in control which was most probably their greatest strategic encumbrance of all.


Perhaps - those are good points.

Jay

(in reply to SS Hauptsturmfuhrer)
Post #: 9
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 4/24/2009 2:37:03 PM   
06 Maestro


Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline
Military leadership is both a science and an art; too much of one and not enough of the other leaves an officer wanting. The US Army taught this as well for decades (at least)-because it is true.

It is funny that an organization (German General Staff) which others around the world attempted to copy and was feared/respected enough to be mentioned in the peace treaty of WW1 (to ban it)is ridiculed in this way.

W/o having read the book I'm given the impression that it is revisionist garbarge put together for some fool to make a buck.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson


(in reply to KingHunter)
Post #: 10
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 4/28/2009 1:57:06 PM   
KingHunter


Posts: 26
Joined: 4/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

Military leadership is both a science and an art; too much of one and not enough of the other leaves an officer wanting. The US Army taught this as well for decades (at least)-because it is true.

It is funny that an organization (German General Staff) which others around the world attempted to copy and was feared/respected enough to be mentioned in the peace treaty of WW1 (to ban it)is ridiculed in this way.

W/o having read the book I'm given the impression that it is revisionist garbarge put together for some fool to make a buck.


Good thoughts...

Jay

(in reply to 06 Maestro)
Post #: 11
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 4/30/2009 3:28:48 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Also keep in mind the nature of the Wehrmacht. It was caught unprepared for war (Hitler had promised the generals that war would take place only from 1944/45 onwards - see plan Z for the navy). Its industry was unmobalised, stocks of strategic materials were low (see why they agreed with Stalin in 39) and in general the population of military age wasn't trained. They basically did on the fly. Consider this Germany in September 1939 had 40 infantry, 6 Pz and 2 mot Divisions. By June of 1940 it fielded 110 inf, 10 Pz and 4 mot divisions. If that isn't amazing I don't know what is...

Secondly it was created on the premise that it could launch short decisive campaigns (lilke the Imperial army after all). This worked like a charm till the Balkan campaigns.

Also the Wehrmact was intended to strike over a short range. All its campaigns prior to Barbarossa were conceived within a relatively small theatres of operations. Thus one or two deep penetrations (along well kept roads) normally dislocated the defences of countries in western and southern europe. France, Yugoslavia and Greece are the best examples. Russia was a different kettle of fish and they knew it (remember they had military missions in the 20's and early 30's there). It is worth noting that Halder had repeatedly pestered Hitler that they needed more than a year to prepare for Barbarossa, to lay down sufficient stocks, ammo, gather horses, increase mechanisation of the army, replace losses, mobilise a further 4 classes of conscripts etc etc. These objections were all overruled by the big man himself with obvious consequences. One should also keep in mind that despite this, the Wehrmacht came pretty close to destroying the USSR with battles netting them up to half a million prisoners (Kiev).

Another fallacy is that the germans were always on the attack because they had it in their blood. Please, the Germans had to attack or be overwhelmed and it was pecisely because of this that they took risks. They appreciated (in both wars) that the coalitions ranged against them would eventually overwhelm them because of greater manpower and material resources. Thus attack and a quick victory was the only option. It is worth noting that since the Renaissance the Germans were actually admired in defence (for their obstinacy) rather than in the attack. This changed from the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and the elder Moltke was more of a counterpuncher than a aggressor yet the blundering of his opponents allowed him to strike first. Thus was born the legend of german attack mindedness.

As to who was more sane in his supply arrangement, note British campaigns in the Mediterranean. Send an expeditionary force to Greece in a theatre which could be reached over the sea, where it was probable that the Germans would have the upper hand in the air. It makes sense. Or the operations of the armoured columns in Egypt or Lybia. Or the initial stages of Operation Torch and their half botched attempts at taking Tunis. Or the Italian campaign. Or the Dodecanese campaign mid-way through the war...And we can go on and on... The only power that reasonably covered logistics during WWII were the Americans and this stemmed mainly from the fact that they had an immensly strong economy to rely on. None of the other combatants really emerged with much credit in this field.

Frankly, many of these books coming out today simplify things to the absurd. It may be useful to note that the US army commissioned Halder and many other generals to write the military history of the war from their perspective in its aftermath for one simple reason - they wanted to learn the operational secrets of an army which though in many aspects was inferior to its opponents, still managed to do what it did.

(in reply to KingHunter)
Post #: 12
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 5/21/2009 11:33:19 PM   
EdinHouston

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 7/26/2008
Status: offline
Regarding logistics in the Soviet Union: the German army in 1941 would probably have needed to be far more mechanized (indeed, more mechanized than the available oil supplies would allow) to conquer the USSR in 1941. The German army was supplied primarily via rail, and that supply was limited by the need to convert the railroads, which meant that the german forces advanced far faster than the ability to resupply them. Given that the the Soviet army was far larger and tougher than German estimates, I doubt that Barbarossa could have succeeded under *any* German strategy. One exception might be if the Germans had treated Soviet prisoners well, and appealed to desires for independence by many non-Russian ethnicities in the USSR (especially the Ukraine)... but of course that couldnt happen because of Nazi doctrine, without which there wouldnt have been an invasion in the first place.

In any event, I agree that the strategy pursued by the Germans in Barbarossa was poor, especially since it was ever-changing, often based on the last commander who had talked to Hitler. After the initial invasion, Soviet strategy was superior throughout the war, despite the Soviet army's operational and tactical shortcomings.

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 13
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 5/26/2009 5:52:43 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline
One of the reasons that WWII games are so much fun to play, is you get to represent the tactical genius of the German army, and, with the power of hindsight, remove the strategic blunders.  This gives the illusion that you can do what they could not, and win WWII, before the americans ruin the day.

I mean think about it, suppose its 1939, and you are given the power to know exactly what forces your enemies can wield, the amount of arms they can produce, and where they can wield it.  Every unit in your army will do exactly as you say, move where you want it, and do so while the other army stands still and watches (in a turn based game).   You can also simulate, using the exact makeup of the enemy forces, a mock run to know exactly what their capabilities will be.  In short, we allow the axis to be strategic gods in games.



(in reply to EdinHouston)
Post #: 14
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 5/29/2009 7:11:14 AM   
Obsolete


Posts: 1492
Joined: 9/4/2007
Status: offline
I would like to take a moment and add something else.

I read a book recently that McDonald Douglas engineers were idiots too.  I mean, look at the DC-3.  The thing could have had a billion improvements, and somehow... their engineers left so much out.  In fact, they didn't even have oxygen masks available inside the cabins!  Hell, they were still using prop engines instead of jets.  Just pitiful. 

Look at how many ages past before their company finally came out with the DC-10?  And even that didn't stand up to Boeing's 747.

Idiots I tell you....




_____________________________



King-Tigers don't let Tiger-I's get over-run.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 15
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 5/29/2009 6:19:39 PM   
miral

 

Posts: 170
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline
The historian, Robert Citino, is a respected military who is an authority on the Prussian army from Frederick through WWII. And this is not revisionist history. Where have you been? The German army of WWI WWII has been criticized for 30 years now at least by a range of military historians for exactly this: limited vision and lack of strategic thought. The point is operations is not strategy. And the defenders of the German Army needs to explain how they lost both wars, without resort to the be all end all laying everying wrong in Hitler's lap, a theory also thoroughly debunked in the last generation or so.

Has anyone read the multi-vol Germany and the Second World War? It was written, from about 1995-2005 by a group of Germany's leading military historians and comes to the same conclusions that Citino reaches. Its depth is enormous. Read vol.4, The Invasion of the Soviet Union, not just the battle chapters but the exhaustive in depth study of the logistics failure, indeed, of the logistics impossibility of the conquest of the Soviet Union. These vols have become the standard for the study of Germany's military, and a deal of economic, history in World War II. Citino's bood is shorter and more enjoyably written, but the work of the scholars of The Potsdam Institute for the Study of Military History supports his argument with literally thousands of pages of scholarship and documentation.

Thanks

(in reply to Obsolete)
Post #: 16
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 5/29/2009 11:15:56 PM   
leridano

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 12/9/2008
Status: offline
All of those "after-battle" books and theories are for me an incredible waste of time... If the Germans would have won the war they would be considered strategic genius and a lot of books would have written narrating their incredible strategic abilities...

< Message edited by leridano -- 5/29/2009 11:16:21 PM >

(in reply to miral)
Post #: 17
RE: Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots - 5/29/2009 11:30:49 PM   
miral

 

Posts: 170
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline
Leriano, are you saying that all military history is a waste of time? A strange view for a player of wargames. Of course if the Germans had won they would be considered geniuses. But they lost. The question is why they lost. Military history is an attempt to answer such questions. You should try some, you might find reading history as much fun as playing wargames.

(in reply to leridano)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> Great Book - Why the Germans are Strategic Idiots Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.313