RAMMING SPEED!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RAMMING SPEED!

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RAMMING SPEED!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 2:12:28 PM

Chickenboy
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if AE is coded to account for intentional rammings. IRL, this was a not unheard method of dealing with submarines that had been forced to surface or last ditch efforts to inflict damage on a superior surface combatant (e.g., Glowworm vs. Admiral Hipper).

Thoughts?

Post #: 1

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 2:57:52 PM

herwin
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if AE is coded to account for intentional rammings. IRL, this was a not unheard method of dealing with submarines that had been forced to surface or last ditch efforts to inflict damage on a superior surface combatant (e.g., Glowworm vs. Admiral Hipper).

Thoughts?

This was the preferred way of sinking a surfaced sub, since 5" shells wouldn't penetrate.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 2

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 3:06:25 PM

John Lansford
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Oh nonsense, Herwin. Ramming a sub was considered a last resort for anything DD sized or smaller, since serious hull damage could be inflicted on the ramming ship as well as the sub. A 5" shell was more than capable of penetrating a sub's hull as well, considering the huge number of subs sunk by that sized shellfire.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 3

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 3:22:52 PM

herwin
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Oh nonsense, Herwin. Ramming a sub was considered a last resort for anything DD sized or smaller, since serious hull damage could be inflicted on the ramming ship as well as the sub. A 5" shell was more than capable of penetrating a sub's hull as well, considering the huge number of subs sunk by that sized shellfire.

See D. K. Brown, Nelson to Vanguard, 2006, where he discusses this. Yes, it produced serious hull damage, but no RN destroyer gun could penetrate the hull of a German U-boat.

_____________________________

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 4

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 3:50:41 PM

JWE
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

From June ’43 to June ’44, 2nd Support Group sank 23 U-boats, 6 by gunfire, none by ramming. One of the 7 was sunk by DD gunfire, the remaining 6 were sunk by 4” gunfire from Sloops.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 5

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 3:53:46 PM

anarchyintheuk
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

The RN had a hodgepodge of dd weapons from a 4", two different 4.5s" and a 4.7". Always wondered why they didn't settle on one.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 6

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 4:11:43 PM

JWE
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
The RN had a hodgepodge of dd weapons from a 4", two different 4.5s" and a 4.7". Always wondered why they didn't settle on one.

Beat's heck out of me. Our Brit OOBeings gave me the impression that the QF 4.7" was the standard battery piece for A-Class on, till the QF 4.5" HA was developed. Oh, well ...

Found some neat stuff on the QF 4.7". According to Scott Sorenson, your typical u-boat pressure hull was from about 18mm to about 21mm (some say up to 28mm). Your 4.7”, shootin SAP, could penetrate about 76mm (normal incidence) at about 6,000 meters. Not quite a hot knife thru soft butter, but not a bad gun. Could probably do the deed quite nicely even at engagement ranges of 7-9,000 meters.

< Message edited by JWE -- 8/27/2009 4:57:06 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 7

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 6:25:30 PM

JWE
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Hi anarchy. Been looking, and found that just about any naval rifle, including the short 3”, had quite sufficient muzzle velocity, and were provided with appropriate ammunition (SAP and the like), to routinely penetrate a submarine pressure hull at all nominal engagement ranges. Even merchant ship armament was quite sufficient in this regard.

Just about all naval vessel load-outs were mostly SAP, with some small % HE early, and then, when AA got important, up to 40% AA, depending on warship mission. An AA shell wouldn’t do it because its primary burn is deflagration, but HE certainly could. The detonation front would stress the pre-stressed hull material locally. Bad news, not to mention spall. I’ll bet that there were way more subs that should be counted in the gunfire column; you know, get whacked, dive, implode, and who’s to know.

Yeah, basically, you got a naval gun, you can sink a sub.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 8

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 6:25:48 PM

fbs
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The RN had a hodgepodge of dd weapons from a 4", two different 4.5s" and a 4.7". Always wondered why they didn't settle on one.

I guess the same reason why they had a hodgepodge of tanks... lack of planning before the start of the war, and when shooting started they continued to produce what they had available, as a mish-mash was better than nothing.

They also seemed to have a lot of different aircrafts for bombing and patrol too...

Cheers
fbs

< Message edited by fbs -- 8/27/2009 6:27:14 PM >

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 9

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 10:39:01 PM

herwin
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

From June ’43 to June ’44, 2nd Support Group sank 23 U-boats, 6 by gunfire, none by ramming. One of the 7 was sunk by DD gunfire, the remaining 6 were sunk by 4” gunfire from Sloops.

DK Brown (2000) Nelson to Vanguard. Chatham Publishing. p 129: "It proved very difficult to sink a surfaced submarine as the shells would usually bounce off the rounded pressure hull. Ramming was more certain, and by May 1943 some twenty-four U-boats had been sunk in this way. However, damage to the escort would typically mean 7-8 weeks in dock and ramming was discouraged as shallow-setting depth charges became available."

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 10

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 10:48:37 PM

JWE
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Perhaps Mr. Brown did indeed say that in his book. There are a lot of books that say lots of things, or a lot people saying that books say a lot of things. But this idea that naval shells bounce off pressure hulls suggest a certain amount of rectal cranial infarction going on.

Anyony who took even the basic course at Ft Sill recorgizes the absurdity of that statement. Probably a good time to graciously quit.

< Message edited by JWE -- 8/27/2009 11:00:37 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 11

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 10:59:35 PM

Panther Bait
Matrix Hero

Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline

Re: Shells hitting subs. It's probably not a pure penetration issue so much as a deflection/ricochet issue. Much of what you see above the surface on a WWII sub is not the pressure hull, it's fairings for better seakeeping on the surface and the bridge/sail, and holes in the fairings/sail aren't going to sink a sub most likely. Assuming the top of the actual pressure hull is rounded, shots may glance off the round surface rather than penetrating, despite the fact that the gun and SAP shell have more than enough penetration to go through a flat plate of similar thickness as the sub's hull. It probably depended a lot on range, plunging fire would probably penetrate, but a sub is a pretty small target at those ranges. Flat trajectory fire would be tough unless you could get waterline hits where the shot angles are more perpendicular.

Now, I have no idea how a deflected hit from a 5" shell may or may not compromise the pressure strength of the pressure hull. Maybe it creates a weak spot, maybe not. I also have no idea on the relative frequency of ramming versus kill by shellfire. I just wanted to dispell any notions of 5" shells rebounding or shattering on a sub due to some super-tough quality of the sub's hull.

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 12

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 11:03:22 PM

Barb
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Flat trajectory, high seas, rounded pressure hull on top, could ricochet some rounds.

_____________________________

(in reply to Panther Bait)

Post #: 13

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 11:04:43 PM

JWE
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait
I just wanted to dispell any notions of 5" shells rebounding or shattering on a sub due to some super-tough quality of the sub's hull.

Quite right. All naval rifles, down to 4", 3" and certain high velocity 2", were able to easily penetrate submarine pressure hulls at nominal engagement ranges. Period.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Panther Bait)

Post #: 14

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 11:11:41 PM

herwin
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Perhaps Mr. Brown did indeed say that in his book. There are a lot of books that say lots of things, or a lot people saying that books say a lot of things. But this idea that naval shells bounce off pressure hulls suggest a certain amount of rectal cranial infarction going on.

He retired as Deputy Chief Naval Architect of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors in 1988 and has been Vice President of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects. He had some 130+ articles in the field before he died last year. He also mentions that a special 4" shell for attacking surfaced U-boats, "Shark", was entering service as the war ended. It weighed 96 lbs. He wrote Atlantic Escorts: Allied Anti-submarine Vessels, 1939-1945.

The problem was not the thickness of the pressure hull per se, but the very high obliquity that the shells hit it at. We are talking about crush depths of 200-300 meters.

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 15

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/27/2009 11:55:46 PM

JWE
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

I don't care if he's the Archangel Gabriel. To any decent artillerist, a gun is a gun, and obliquity is something we know about more than most. Who gives a crap about crush depth. Hull thickness was 21mm (some say 28mm). Kinetics is kinetics and no amount of smoke and mirrors changes that. I know, because we studied fiziks at gun skool. We learned about penny-trashun makaniks, detonation velocities, and other kool stuff like that. It was a real eye popper to me because I was just a dumbass physicist from MIT, and these were real people, shooting real rounds, from real tubes, at real targets, in real engagements. golly gee willikers it was like a jumpin frog on a hot rock.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 16

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 12:43:31 AM

sadja
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline

Water can cause shells to ricochet, also shatter high velocity rds. Your right 28mm shouldn't stop anything mounted on combat ships, but water will cause esp high velocity rounds to ricochet.

_____________________________

Your never Lost if you don't care where you are.

Tom Massie GPAA

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 17

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 1:30:30 AM

witpqs
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

What is the 'S' in SAP? [Assuming the AP = Armor Piercing.]

(in reply to sadja)

Post #: 18

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 1:30:53 AM

Zebedee
Matrix Hero

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

From June ’43 to June ’44, 2nd Support Group sank 23 U-boats, 6 by gunfire, none by ramming. One of the 7 was sunk by DD gunfire, the remaining 6 were sunk by 4” gunfire from Sloops.

Are you sure that's correct JWE? 2nd Support Group only claimed 16 in that time period, with 6 or 7 more coming from July 1944 til the end of the war. Of those 16, U-119 was by depth charges and ramming, and of the u-boats given as kills to the group in that time period only 2 involve gunfire - Starling 'sinking' one with depth charges and gun fire (U-202 - forced to the surface with depth charges and gunfire actually damaging the conning tower and then the u-boat was either sunk with depth charges while it was on the surface or was scuttled as the crew abandoned ship) and as for what happened with U-462, who knows, but the Germans were adamant that they had abandoned ship due to the damage caused by the Halifax several minutes before shellfire from the sloops started to appear around the already sinking u-boat. All the other U-boats were destroyed by depth charges, as far as I can tell. (I may know nowt about guns but your numbers have confused me ;) ).

Oddly enough Donald Macintyre reported problems similar to those herwin states. The 3" gun on his frigates seemed to have difficulty sinking u-boats.

I'm sure there's a very good technical explanation for why the RN was not sinking many u-boats with gunfire on the surface, even when the u-boat was unable to submerge. The eyewitness accounts were that shells (however ridiculous it may sound) were bouncing off the u-boat hulls (3" and 4" shells). I appreciate that it sounds crazy but that is the evidence of one of the foremost RN ASW experts from the war. I'd truly appreciate any elucidation on what may have been causing such an effect.

With the utmost respect,

Zeb

< Message edited by Zebedee -- 8/28/2009 1:39:09 AM >

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 19

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 1:38:33 AM

John 3rd
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

When I think of Epic Ship vs. SS Actions in WWII, I cannot help but remember the New Zealand (or was it Aussie) ship that rammed a Japanese I-Boat off of Guadalcanal not once, not twice, but THREE times??!! What a great story!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 20

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 2:21:18 AM

JWE
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee
Are you sure that's correct JWE?
Zeb

Woops, yep, you’re a better data looker than me. Got excited and just counted. According to the final report by Commander Wemyss to the Admiralty, it was 17 confirmed from mid ’43 to mid ’44, with 6 more confirmed from mid ’44 to the end. 1 of those last 6 was gunfire.

Of the rest, Starling (Black Swan class sloop) got credit for 2 with guns alone, Wild Goose (Black Swan class sloop) got credit for 1 with guns alone. Kite (Black Swan class sloop) whacked one with guns and Woodcock (yet another Black Swan class sloop) dropped on the slick for the kill confirmation. Then another where Goose whacked one and Starling dropped on the debris field for the kill confirmation. And then there was a multi-ship group grope, where somebody (Kite claims it was her) opened up U-462 “like a tin of M&V”.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 21

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 3:10:15 AM

Local Yokel
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Am I right in recalling that there were a number of cases in which merchant ships under submarine attack attempted to turn upon their tormentors by attempting to ram? Did Richard O'Kane describe such an incident in his account of Tang's patrols? Several thousand tons of merchant ship making a bee-line for my periscope with a bone in her teeth would certainly incline me towards breaking off an attack and going deep.

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 22

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 3:16:30 AM

Zebedee
Matrix Hero

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Woops, yep, you’re a better data looker than me. Got excited and just counted. According to the final report by Commander Wemyss to the Admiralty, it was 17 confirmed from mid ’43 to mid ’44, with 6 more confirmed from mid ’44 to the end. 1 of those last 6 was gunfire.

Of the rest, Starling (Black Swan class sloop) got credit for 2 with guns alone, Wild Goose (Black Swan class sloop) got credit for 1 with guns alone. Kite (Black Swan class sloop) whacked one with guns and Woodcock (yet another Black Swan class sloop) dropped on the slick for the kill confirmation. Then another where Goose whacked one and Starling dropped on the debris field for the kill confirmation. And then there was a multi-ship group grope, where somebody (Kite claims it was her) opened up U-462 “like a tin of M&V”.

Thanks JWE and many thanks for including a reference to your source. On the U-462 incident, perhaps a POW report would provide different light on the matter.. http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-462INT.htm

quote:

In U.462 the vents were opened and the Captain gave the order to abandon ship.

(N.I.D. Note: At 1216 the damaged U-boat came to a standstill and was seen settling slowly on an even keel, while a number of the crew were seen taking to dinghies. Just before the conning-tower, from which smoke was still emerging, finally disappeared, splashes were seen in the sea and sloops were sighted in the distance. No shells were seen to fall nearer than 500 yards from the U-boat, which disappeared ten to fifteen seconds after the shelling was first seen. Position of sinking was given as 45008'N, 010058'W.

The third U-boat dived and is believed subsequently to have been attacked with depth charges by H.M. Ships of 2nd Support Group and sunk at 1543 in position 45033'N., 010046W. There were no survivors.)

There's obviously a lot of discrepency between the primary sources ;)

< Message edited by Zebedee -- 8/28/2009 3:18:16 AM >

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 23

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 3:20:37 AM

Chickenboy
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

So, to bring this discussion back on to track-the ramming track, that is-any ideas why this activity was not included as a last ditch attack in WiTP or AE? If we have accidental collisions between ships, surely this wouldn't be too hard to model?

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 24

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 3:28:19 AM

JWE
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee
There's obviously a lot of discrepency between the primary sources ;)

Oh, yeah, you got that right. As to where the shells bouncing off comes from, who knows. I bet it’s War-I short barrel, low velocity, relics, where the gunners are trying to get the Ordnance peoples attention.

The modern 4”, used by those sloops, and lots of others, had a muzzle velocity of over 800 m/s shooting a ballistic capped SAP projectile of a bit over 17 kg. Your 4.7” also had a muzzle velocity of over 800 m/s shooting a ballistic capped SAP projectile of a bit over 22.5 kg. That’s actually better than the US M5 ATG shooting APCBC. Just think about it.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 25

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 3:38:35 AM

Zebedee
Matrix Hero

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Oh, yeah, you got that right. As to where the shells bouncing off comes from, who knows. I bet it’s War-I short barrel, low velocity, relics, where the gunners are trying to get the Ordnance peoples attention.

The modern 4”, used by those sloops, and lots of others, had a muzzle velocity of over 800 m/s shooting a ballistic capped SAP projectile of a bit over 17 kg. Your 4.7” also had a muzzle velocity of over 800 m/s shooting a ballistic capped SAP projectile of a bit over 22.5 kg. That’s actually better than the US M5 ATG shooting APCBC. Just think about it.

That certainly makes a lot of sense to me and goes a long way to reconciling the differing views. What really surprised me is that the US coastguard was sinking u-boats with the very same gun that Macintyre's frigates were complaining were firing the bouncing shells (3"/50?). It does make you wonder what on earth was going on and whether ramming (which was actually a method of last resort in the Admiralty's book) was being 'excused' on the grounds of 'inadequate equipment' by certain commanders. Although it does have to be said that many works post-war do indicate very few u-boats were sunk by gunfire - on what grounds they come to that conclusion from the differing primary sources, well, who knows now?

It would be 'nice' to see ramming in the game - there is a lot of evidence for it being a 'solution' for close range encounters but I'm guessing the combat model does not allow for it (and wouldn't without a disproportionate amount of work) hence why it's not in the game?

< Message edited by Zebedee -- 8/28/2009 3:41:06 AM >

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 26

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 3:48:48 AM

Mynok
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I have zero historical knowledge on the subject, but it seem totally logical to me that we have a DD depth charging a U-boat and driving it to the surface in close proximity. Gun depression issues come to bear and it seems prudent to the commander to run down the U-boat rather than try to hit the only target he has which is the conning tower.

But my brain works differently than you humans.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 27

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 5:05:25 AM

Scott_USN
Matrix Hero

Posts: 715
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

From June ’43 to June ’44, 2nd Support Group sank 23 U-boats, 6 by gunfire, none by ramming. One of the 7 was sunk by DD gunfire, the remaining 6 were sunk by 4” gunfire from Sloops.

That was just funny for some reason. I think the Sloops won out... Nerf the Sloops!

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 28

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 5:18:29 AM

witpqs
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

What is the 'S' in SAP? [Assuming the AP = Armor Piercing.]

Bump

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 29

RE: RAMMING SPEED! - 8/28/2009 7:41:26 AM

Fishbed
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

SEMI-Armor Piercing

(that will be 5 bucks, got my paypal account right?)

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RAMMING SPEED!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

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

1.000

Slitherine

RAMMING SPEED!