Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 1/9/2003 3:12:38 AM   
rawink

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 4/30/2002
From: Tallahassee, FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]You know, the nuke carriers making 40+ kts, I can buy. Long ship, lots of power, off they go.

The BBs, with 40 year old machinery, I can't. Now, since I don't know the right questions to ask, but can you go over to sci.military.naval, post your story, and ask for people to poke holes in it? :D

There's a guy out there now who is claming in the "fastest ships in other navies" thread where USS Edson (DD946) went 50kts, but his story has some holes.

If you've got a 40-kt BB, well, that'd at least be interesting. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I think the operative word his Xpav, is that it "CAN" do the speed.

but it is caveated with: it will tear things up for prolonged periods of time.. but it CAN do it. My car has a top speed of 160mph.. it will get their easily enough, but if I held it there for 2 hours, it would do damage more than likely. Big difference between the occasional romp up to 160mph, and daily driving at 80mph..

I dont think anyone is saying a BB or CVN is going to go across the Atlantic at full power the whole way. In fact these numbers were done in trials usually, where they push the ships to a max power setting to check for things breaking. it's called a shakedown cruise for a reason :)

_____________________________

Robert
Fly, die.. rinse and repeat

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 31
Re: Battleship top speed - 1/9/2003 3:14:25 AM   
Von_Frag

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by m0ngoose
[B]Well when I served on the USS New Jersey BB-62 (Iowa class) we did a speed trial and hit 39.8 knots at max speed.

You shoulda seen the rooster tail on that baby...!

Granted it was in '89 and I suspect the boilers might have been upgraded since WWII but that's still **** fast for such a monster! [/B][/QUOTE]

I was an OS in the Navy from 89 to 93, served on a frigate and the Virginia, CGN-38. An officer and I were in CIC discussing the Iowa's one day. Wisconsin ran aground during or shortly after WWII, which broke her keel. After the extensive repairs she could only make about 27 knots. Can anyone verify this?

Just an off topic aside. 2 years before I transfered to Virginia, we were just outside GITMO when Virginia came out, she poured on the coal and I tracked her on radar doing around 40 knots. Just like Mongoose said, you shoulda seen the rooster tail. She was a beautiful ship. the last pictures I saw of her she was at Bremerton with her sisters, cut down to the main deck, awaiting disposal of her reactors, sad.

Von Frag

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 32
Re: Re: Battleship top speed - 1/9/2003 3:51:14 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von_Frag
[B]I was an OS in the Navy from 89 to 93, served on a frigate and the Virginia, CGN-38. An officer and I were in CIC discussing the Iowa's one day. Wisconsin ran aground during or shortly after WWII, which broke her keel. After the extensive repairs she could only make about 27 knots. Can anyone verify this?
[/quote]
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_wwii.htm#iow-cl

"Operational: It has often been reported that Missourisuffered severe, permanent damage from her 1950's grounding, and that she was restricted to 15 knots when reactivated in the 1980's. These reports are untrue; the damage caused by the grounding was minor, confined mainly to some torn bottom plating, and was repaired immediately after the grounding. All four ships reached 30+ knots during their 1980's reactivations."

This is why I don't believe sea stories.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 33
- 1/9/2003 3:53:22 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		My brother (Knavey) was a nuke on the TR (CVN-71) from about 1989 - 1992, including the Gulf Conflict.

A while ago, I asked him just how fast they could go.

...

Can't say. Suffice to say we're the fastest ship in the fleet.

You're kidding, faster than the Aegis guys?

Yep.

But don't they go like 35 kts?

The Aegis cruisers? Yeah, something like that.

And y'all are faster than that?

Yep.

How fast did you say?

I didn't. In your book it says we go 32+ knots. That little "+" means we go "really, really, fast". Believe it.

...

-F-

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 34
- 1/9/2003 4:18:53 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Feinder
[B]My brother (Knavey) was a nuke on the TR (CVN-71) from about 1989 - 1992, including the Gulf Conflict.

A while ago, I asked him just how fast they could go.
Can't say. Suffice to say we're the fastest ship in the fleet.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Without any public figures, of course everyone on a 30+ kt ship is going to declare their ship the fastest ship in the fleet.

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-028.htm

edit: Waitaminute, shp for the nukes isn't public. Ok, fine, 40kts.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 35
- 1/9/2003 4:34:56 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		It seems to me Xpav, that anyone with

18 F-14s Tomcats
54 F/A-18 Hornets
4 EA6B Prowlers
4 E2C Hawkeyes
6 S-3 A/B Vikings
2 ES3A Shadows
8 SH60 F Seahawk Helicopters

at their disposal can say they anything they want, and it becomes truth.

(* grin *)
-F-

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 36
- 1/9/2003 4:42:37 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Well, I won't argue with them. :D

One last thing: On sci.military.naval, there is a guy who was a chief engineer in the South African Navy. He tells of many times where he had a hard time convincing that "no, this ship can't go that fast".

And he was talking to his own crew.

If the crew doesn't on a ship doesn't believe the chief engineer, then nothing I say will convince the people on this forum that these ships aren't going as fast as some of these claims. :D

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 37
- 1/9/2003 4:43:39 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		Mongoose,

hey now, I want the credit for saying Iowa was a PR ship first--I quote (myself :rolleyes: )

I think that the battleships remain, as they were in their own age, most important *symbols* of national power. Destroyers might cost much less to build and man, but they simply do not such elicit such emotional reactions from the public as Mighty Mo and others. In Japan they're still bemoaning the loss of Yamato, but does anyone care about Yukikaze?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 38
I laugh at your silly PR ship! - 1/9/2003 4:53:49 AM   
m0ngoose


Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Actually, the ship that got all the press was the Missouri BB-63 who was moored on the other side of the pier from us.

Those pussies got all the attention! Cher even shot her video there.

The Jersey and the Iowa did all the work. You guys had the east coast and we had the west coast.

We laughed when they ran an article on the Missouri about "tearful farewells" for a 40 day deployment.


We had just come back from a six month west-pac.

Yeah, those wimps.....

And you shoulda seen our stack of ribbons! Most decorated ship in the Navy...

Gotta luv it.

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 39
- 1/9/2003 11:11:29 PM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		A little clarification on the Nimitz class carriers. As Feinder said, I was stationed on the TR for a few years.

Speed was not really an issue, and truthfully, we NEVER tested in the 4 years I was on it, how fast we could go. Oh, thats not to say that we didn't want to. Do you know any teenager that HASN'T put the pedal to the metal in the family car?

We had many "limits" affecting how fast we were able to go.

Reactor Power (100%) - but we could very easily taken that set of reactors to pressures and temperatures above what we were allowed in the book. After all, if there is a torpedo in the water after your ***, the book goes out the window. There was a Battleshort switch that would disable many protective features. By enabling the BS switch (and this is no BS) you could push a lot more juice out of the reactors in into the turbines which are attached to the shaft which is attached to the screws, which move that pile of metal.

The main number that limited us, was actually the torque applied to the shaft. The number was needless to say, quite high. In the MILLION FOOT LBS of TORQUE range. I forget the exact length of the shaft, but at flank speed (>30 knots) the shaft twisted around it self over 2 times. Condidering that the shafts were several hundred feet long, that is a considerable stress on those things. The rumor was that at one time the Big E decided to see just how fast she could go (before they put shaft torque limits in place) and she busted one of the shafts. Don't know if its true, but if one of those things let loose, it would probably be just like a big bomb going off in respect to damage done.

So, I suppose my point is, TR could go really fast, you can probably find the number on the web somewhere, but its sorta fun knowing something that my brother doesn't (hehehe fein), and if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW, join the Nav, become a nuke, stand a few watches as throttleman, and look at the indicator posted just to the starboard side of the EOS door on the TR when they ring up a Flank 171 bell, but just don't forget to watch that shaft torque.

Gawd that post brings back some memories...hope you fellow EX squids don't mind.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 40
- 1/9/2003 11:34:56 PM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		Ahem. Polls aside, I'm wondering if people would be interested in stating *why* they voted for a particular ship...what is it about a particular class of battleships that is attractive?

Back to the regularly scheduled programming.

:)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 41
- 1/10/2003 12:12:32 AM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline 		The Yamatos were beautiful ships to look at (not necessarily designed well internally), but had that kind of streamlined aggressiveness that all battleships should have.

The Iowas fit into the same category. They look like what battleships should be, big, mean, but still really, really nice to look at. Its a shame that they've lost their place in national arsenals, but once aircraft and missiles matured, it was only a matter of time till they hit the scrapyards.

It would have been nice to see a real slug-fest between the US & Japanese battlewagons at Leyte (and would have too if Halsey hadn't taken his BBs north against the decoys). Of course, besides Yamato, the other two BBs were fairly old & obsolete, so the Iowas would have cleaned their clocks.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon.....

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 42
- 1/10/2003 2:23:10 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		I like the CombinedFleet.com battleship comparison. Check it out, its got some great info.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 43
- 1/10/2003 2:27:36 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		Rawink,

If your friend was on the RKT during the Gulf War, then the Nimitz class carrier he was referring to was the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). We were the only nuclear (Nimitz) CV in the gulf during Desert Storm. We had relieved the Ike, and were relieved by the Lincoln (I think) when it was all over.

There were 5 other CVs in the gulf with us...but all were conventional.

The beginning of that speed story was the departure from Norfolk, VA on the way to the Persian Gulf. We formed up 2 battlegroups, one with the TR, the other with the America. They put us at Ahead Flank 150 which translates to about 30 knots...when they finally let us off that bell, if you had looked around, the only ship that was within 2 days of us was a nuclear powered cruiser (Mississippi, I believe). If you had looked ahead, we were sitting at the entrance to the Suez Canal. We actually had to wait a couple of days before we could make the transit because they wanted the air cover from the America overhead while we were in the ditch.

It is not necessarily speed that counts...its the ability to maintain that speed over an extended time. The America's battlegroup and most of ours also, could not keep up that pace without refueling. Unreps take a lot of time. As was mentioned before, when you open up the throttles on something that is made of metal and floats, it gets worse mileage than an poorly tuned up SUV.

The other caveat on staying power was the fact that we were on station in the Gulf for 7-8 days at a time before we had to unrep to get more av gas and bombs. The conventionals only had 4-5 days on station before they had to unrep. Nuclear power is definately an advantage in sustained operations.

Ok, enough for now, I wish I knew where that picture was that had all the carriers in Desert Storm in formation was. It was arguably the most powerful assembly of firepower on the planet...conventional or otherwise. 6 CV battlegroups...What in the hell was Saddam thinking, and you just have to wonder what he is thinking now.

I think these were the groups over there:

TR - mine
Ranger
Saratoga
Independence
Midway
America

The Missouri and the Wisconsin were the two BBs that were also in the gulf at the time. I have some pictures of the TR on one side of an unrep supply ship and the Missouri on the other side...the whole formation underway with helicopters buzzing between the ships ferrying supplies.

Really need to find those pics for these forums.



Ike had left during DShield, and missed DStorm.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 44
Re: Re: Re: Battleship top speed - 1/10/2003 2:57:26 AM   
Von_Frag

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_wwii.htm#iow-cl

"Operational: It has often been reported that Missourisuffered severe, permanent damage from her 1950's grounding, and that she was restricted to 15 knots when reactivated in the 1980's. These reports are untrue; the damage caused by the grounding was minor, confined mainly to some torn bottom plating, and was repaired immediately after the grounding. All four ships reached 30+ knots during their 1980's reactivations."

This is why I don't believe sea stories. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think this was intended as a sea story, the orificer in question was speaking on what he thought was valid info. Remember, this was over 10 years ago and the brain cells that held those memories may be defective now. On top of that, you don't strike me as someone who would know a sea story if it bit you on the a$$, and I have tons of sea stories I could sell you.
Everything you turn your nose at with that know it all high and mighty attitude, may not be "sea stories". mister.

Von Frag

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 45
- 1/10/2003 4:07:36 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		Now now troopers, let's not get personal and keep it civil.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 46
- 1/10/2003 4:33:22 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]Without any public figures, of course everyone on a 30+ kt ship is going to declare their ship the fastest ship in the fleet.

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-028.htm

edit: Waitaminute, shp for the nukes isn't public. Ok, fine, 40kts. [/B][/QUOTE]

xPac,

Just took the link above, its a pretty good argument but you have to be careful about sources...the info that he uses talks about the Truman so he is very up to date, but his data on the Big E is incorrect. She underwent a changeout of her reactors and if I remember correctly no longer has the 8 small reactors in her. I did not serve on her, but I one of the guys I went to nuc school with did during her retrofit.

I am not sure of her configuration, but I do remember him telling me that the 8 reactors were going away.

Tidbit: The reason behind the 8 reactors was that when the Enterprise was designed, the only available reactors were submarine ones, and so they used these to power her. They later came up with bigger ones for the nuc cruisers, and then even bigger ones for the CVNs.

Also, keep in mind that the argument on the site you mentioned was all over shaft horse power...but that was NOT the limiting factor on the shaft of a Nimitz class carrier...shaft torque limits were, and that is from someone who stood MANY throttleman watchs before he qualified Reactor Operator.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 47
- 1/10/2003 5:30:17 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Among other sources:

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-037.htm

I may not know a sea story if it bit me on the ***, but I know where to find people that can.

And that's where I get my info.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 48
- 1/10/2003 8:05:49 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		The David Miller series also says that the big E traded her 8 small reactors for smaller ones, but because of nuclear power tech at the time she was constructed. That's the most up to date of MY sources.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 49
- 1/10/2003 8:09:28 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		OK--so I repeat my question--why did people select their favorite battleship? Armament, armor, aesthetic appeal, combat effectiveness?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 50
- 1/10/2003 8:55:25 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Ok, I'll bite.

I picked Alaska, because I like "sleek". If you'd have put Hood up there, I'd have been the dumb-a$$ to have picked her. I rather like "shoot-n-scoot". I understand that any one of those bad boys listed would knock the snot out of Alaska (or Hood), but they were beautiful ships.

I sent you that turn bro. Sorry it's late, I fell asleep. I'll be up for a while tho, if you're goofing off, we can maybe get a couple of turns in tonight.

-F-

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 51
- 1/10/2003 1:01:24 PM   
rawink

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 4/30/2002
From: Tallahassee, FL
Status: offline 		yes, there have been some beautiful BB's.

My personal Fav is the Iowa class, for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread.

Others that catch my eye.. Yamato, Bismark, Graf Spee

_____________________________

Robert
Fly, die.. rinse and repeat

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 52
- 1/10/2003 1:19:22 PM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		If I hadn't of chosen Yamato, which after having built (mostly) a 1:300 scale model of her, I think was the ultimate in battleship aesthetics--I would probably have chosen the Richlieu, just because I think she was a darned beautiful ship. I don't know if it's the pictures or what, but she always looks like she was painted white.

Never cared much for the ww2 era Brit battleships, though. They look too low for me. Maybe the Brits learned to keep their heads down during Jutland.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 53
- 1/10/2003 3:23:17 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Like Feinder, I picked Alaska because of the aesthetic appeal. Compared to a fat battleship, Alaska und Guam look slender, elegant and even a bit fragile, IMO.
Another reason for me is their 'tragic' fate - constructed because of wrong assumptions about similar Jap ships, already obsolete before completion due to maturing of the CV, having no real role to serve in (albeit doing well as flak-platforms, but better not use them in a surface action against BBs), thus being scrapped after just a few years of 'life'. This somehow evokes sympathy.

In a 'name any ship'-poll I'd pick Atlanta and Juneau, for similar reasons (here the tragic was the way they were lost).

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 54
- 1/10/2003 3:37:34 PM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		Interesting thread, wish I had joined it eariler. :)

I thought that the Enterprise was still the fastest carrier in the fleet? Or maybe she's just still the largest.

And just how many carriers do we have in active use, anyway? I'd like to find a website that listed them by name and their class.

One big question -- is the end drawing for carriers also? I read last year that the newest round of war game sims done aganist China in the Pentagon showed the carriers could'nt get close to the Chinese coast due to their missle defences, rendering the carriers just about useless.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 55
- 1/10/2003 8:42:30 PM   
lupi

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 8/20/2001
Status: offline 		I think Enterprise is too much of an engineering prototpe to be the fastest.

For current OOB of sorts.

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/S_TYPE.HTM

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 56
- 1/11/2003 1:23:14 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		When I was in, she was considered the fastest carrier afloat. She did a round the world cruise/deployment prior to her massive overhaul, and the TR was the ship that received all of her packages that go boom prior to her entering the yards. Going to try to post a picture of that underway.

Keep in mind, that the argument about speed is pretty much moot until you take the "restrictions" off of the ships. Its sort of like having governors on your car engines...you don't really know how fast you can go, only brag about what you may (or may not be) capable of.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 57
- 1/11/2003 1:24:38 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		And finally another of the Enterprise during weapons offload.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 58
- 1/11/2003 1:31:40 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		If I knew how to put multiple pics in a post, I would do it but I don't...

Here is a postcard pic of the Persian Gulf Desert Storm fleet. Just to show you how memory fades, I thought there were 6 carriers in this pic, but only 4 are here. I think that the other 2 may have been in the Med at the time this was taken, and had never come into the PG.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 59
- 1/11/2003 7:29:56 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		I don't think being an engineering protype necessarily means that a ship will be slower--look at the Saratoga! Granted she was meant to be a battlecruiser, but she was faster than any other a/c around for quite a while--faster than her escorts!

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.688