Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Favorite Battlecruiser!

 
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 >> Favorite Battlecruiser! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Favorite Battlecruiser! - 1/12/2003 12:28:33 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline
Well, North Carolina, i.e. Showboat, narrowly beat out Yamato in the Favorite Battleship Poll; and then Iowa beat out all comers by a wide margin the the Favorite Uber-Battleship poll; with the 140k ton paper monster German H class, "Fuhrer," trailing by a wide margin.

So--here is the chance to vote on your favorite battlecruiser of the second world war! Sorry if someone's favorite didn't make it in, I tried to include only those ships that were at least around during ww2. However, feel free to mention any and all of your favorite battlecruisers from other eras as well!



:)

_____________________________

"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.
Post #: 1
- 1/12/2003 1:44:41 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline
Also, the same request goes for this poll: please explain the "why" of why you selected a certain class of ships!

:)

_____________________________

"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 #: 2
- 1/12/2003 4:37:39 AM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline
Scharnhorst. Surely one of the most beautiful and elegant ships ever built, at least one it had the clipper bow rather than the original straight stem.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/i01000/i01559.jpg

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 3
- 1/12/2003 5:34:20 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
Hood. Best fireworks display of all the British "exploding battlecruisers."

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 4
THE BEST BATTLECRUISER OF ALLTIME - 1/12/2003 6:34:49 AM   
walk70

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/7/2003
From: Florida
Status: offline
Since things advance through time and the way I read this thread the best Battlecruiser of all time was the Soviet Navy's KIROV class 26,000 ton, Top speed 35+ knots, 16 SSN-19 ASCMs, two twin 130 mm dual purpose guns, SA-N-6, SA-N-9 SAMs and various other weapons that I can't list right now because I do not have my Jane's fighting ship sitting next to me right now.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 5
- 1/12/2003 6:48:05 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline
Walk70, I would agree with you! However that's not a ww2 ship :(

_____________________________

"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 #: 6
- 1/12/2003 6:50:11 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline
Surprised no one voted for the Kongos so far. Big guns and good armor.

Paternaski, LOL about the 'Ood. Yep, that's about what those Brit Battlecruisers did.

I wonder, if the Alaska's had been kept around--they might still be in action--probably less resource hogging than battleships to have around, maybe less costly to maintain (?), use less fuel (?). Might make a good carrier escort, and the 12" guns could still be used for shore bombardment.

_____________________________

"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 #: 7
Re: THE BEST BATTLECRUISER OF ALLTIME - 1/12/2003 7:35:35 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by walk70
[B]Since things advance through time and the way I read this thread the best Battlecruiser of all time was the Soviet Navy's KIROV class 26,000 ton, Top speed 35+ knots, 16 SSN-19 ASCMs, two twin 130 mm dual purpose guns, SA-N-6, SA-N-9 SAMs and various other weapons that I can't list right now because I do not have my Jane's fighting ship sitting next to me right now. [/B][/QUOTE]

If we were to reach beyond WWII, I would vote for the five German WWI battlecruisers, Lutzow, Derfflinger, Moltke, von der Tann, and Seydlitz. Just for the romantic value of "what could have been" and the "death ride of the battlecruisers" at Jutland. What did the two Kirovs do other than become tin geranium planters?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 8
- 1/12/2003 9:06:02 AM   
Admiral Scott


Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline
The Alaska has always been one of my favorite ships. I wish she entered the war sooner.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 9
- 1/12/2003 12:17:24 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I've always loved the lines of the Alaskas (not quite as beautiful as the Scharnhorst with clipper bow, but well balanced). I always wondered what would have happened if they had arrived when the IJN was still putting up a fight. Could their superior gunnery control have overcome the weak armor in combat with the Kongos? I've always wondered...

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 10
- 1/12/2003 3:40:10 PM   
walk70

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/7/2003
From: Florida
Status: offline
ric27 your post said best battlecruiser "of all time", but as I voted in the poll, if limited to WW2 I think the Scharnhorst was the sleekest and best balanced of the Battlecruisers. My favorite Dreadnaught class of WW2 was the IOWA's and my favorite Heavy Cruisers were the Indianapolis class.
There were so many destroyer classes that it would be hard to say so I won't go there.
:)

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 11
- 1/12/2003 4:02:01 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline
The best:
IMO, pride of place has got to go to Hood. She was big, fast, and powerfully armed; and if her armor wasn't up to slugging it out with BBs, well, it would still give good service in this crowd. Had she still been around by 1944-45, I would expect her to have spent at least one refit period in a US yard being refitted with the latest electronic gizmos and additional deck armor to keep her viable. Just her bad luck to have tangled with a for-real battleship before she could get that far - but no other ship on this list would have done better in the same situation. And of course Hood was a good-looking ship, too.

The rest:
Alaska had a very good 12" gun. The superheavy 12" shell, developed specifically for this class, gave it almost as much hitting power as a standard 14" shell, and the radar fire control was as good as any in the world at the time. Good flak ships, too. But the armor was on cruiser scale. All in all, I'd give Alaska slightly better than even odds vs. a Kongo - but she cost almost as much to operate as the considerably more powerful Iowa. For that reason, I can't honestly say I think they were a good investment.

The design of Kongo was based on that of the WW1 RN BCs which made such a name for themselves at Jutland. Kirishima graphically demonstrated that even with extensive modernization, this class wasn't up to mixing it up with battleships; but that was to be expected, as Hiei had showed their vulnerability even to cruiser and destroyer guns just the night before.

Dunkerque was a pretty good ship, and the armor looks pretty good in this company. But that's still not enough to make up for the relative lack of hitting power - or the freakish all-forward main armament, which is a design I've never much liked, just on aesthetic grounds. Had either of these ships survived to see the Liberation of France, they would likely have received comprehensive refits in US yards to bring their fire control and air defenses up to par; this would give them one up over Kongo, and possibly Alaska as well. They'd still come up short against a modernized Hood, though.

The 15"/42cal mounted by Renown (and many other WW1 RN capital ships) was one of the classic naval guns. But... only 6 of them? Six < Enough. After extensive refitting, her protection ended up a lot less marginal than it started (if only Hood had been refitted instead...), but still not enough to claim top spot - or even break into the top 3.

As for the Germans... Scharnhorst was extremely poorly armed for a 40k ton ship. She had lots of armor, but it wasn't especially well laid out - very inefficient. Also inefficient is the choice of a [URL=http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-036.htm]triple-screw proplusion layout[/URL]. Alaska would eat this ship alive. To Hood, she would be little more than a light snack.

If the guiding principle of the battlecruiser is "to outgun anything you can't outrun, and outrun anything you don't outgun," then philosophically Deutschland must be the anti-battlecruiser. At 26 knots (they made 28 on trials, but never in service) they were too slow to run from cruisers, battlecruisers, or even the majority of modern battleships; and their armament was too light to give them favorable odds vs. contemporary USN or IJN heavy cruisers, much less the big post-Treaty US ships. (11" guns might seem to be a big advantage vs. 8"- or 6"-armed ships, but that largely goes away when you factor in the number of guns on each ship. The excellent New Orleans heavy cruisers were almost exact contemporaries of Deutschland, and I'd give NO good odds vs. D. OTOH, contemporary British cruisers, designed with economy foremost in order to get the maximum numbers of hulls into the water, were a completely different story - one class of British heavy cruisers had only 6 X 8", and contemporary British light cruisers had only 8 X 6", older vessels even less!)

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 12
- 1/12/2003 9:38:17 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
I've voted for Alaska in the BB poll, but now with Scharnhorst for choice... - they are both beautiful ships, but as a German it is my 'patriotic duty' ;) to vote for Scharnhorst & Gneisenau (with the 'Atlantic bow' of course).

_____________________________


(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 13
- 1/13/2003 12:46:28 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline
Thanks for the informative post, CynicAl.

I think that if the battlecruisers had been used in the ways that they were intended--as you said, to outgun anything smaller and outrun anything bigger--they would have had much more of an impact, but using them as ships of the line--as at Jutland, was dangerous and wasteful, as we've seen.

_____________________________

"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 #: 14
- 1/13/2003 12:48:14 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Well not to be nit-picky or anything but.....

Deutchland, Dunkerque*, Hood and Scharnhorst were not battlecruisers.

:)

*more so Strassbourg than Dunkerque

That narrows the choices a bit ;)

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 15
- 1/13/2003 1:05:20 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline
Then they were...what? Miller's "Warships 1860-present" lists all of the ships you mention under the category of Battlecruisers.

_____________________________

"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 #: 16
- 1/13/2003 1:24:19 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Well, Dunquerque, Hood and Scharnhorst have been listed as battlecruisers by most publications I've read over the years. However, in checking Nicademus' statement out I looked in my "Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII" (mostly taken from the 1946/47 edition) and found that those three are listed as Battleships, as are the Kongo and Repulse (but not the Renown). I consider those listings as typos (very disappointed in Jane's for that), as they are just column headings which ar easily overlooked.

I've never considered the Deutschlands as battle cruisers. Jane's called them "Armoured Ships".

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 17
- 1/13/2003 2:04:23 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
The Deutschlands have always been a classification problem, being only somewhat larger than your run-of-the-mill CA and carrying a main armament of only six rifles, and merely 11-inchers, at that. Further, at 27 knots or so, they hardly fit the classic battlecruiser definition of "able to outrun what they can't outgun." The River Plate action kind of indicates that there weren't many ships above destroyer size that they could handle with ease, either, what with being fought to a standstill by two weak, old CLs and a small, obsolete CA with only six eight inch guns.

Still, they were mighty pretty and had a colorful role in naval history. Reminds me of what the little boy put on the sign over the grave of his goldfish: "He was fun while he lasted."

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 18
- 1/13/2003 2:41:20 AM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Well not to be nit-picky or anything but.....

Deutchland, Dunkerque*, Hood and Scharnhorst were not battlecruisers. [/B][/QUOTE]

Don't leave us in suspense, what do you think they where then? :)

Deutchland and co were described as 'Panzerschiffe', which is means armoured ship. They don't fit in to any conventional scheme (nor should they have to of course). They were designed and built at the start of German re-armament and were much influenced by the politics of the time - see 'German Capital Ships of WWII' by M. J. Whitley.

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 19
- 1/13/2003 3:31:20 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rlc27
[B]Then they were...what? Miller's "Warships 1860-present" lists all of the ships you mention under the category of Battlecruisers. [/B][/QUOTE]

Admitedly the interpretation of "battlecruiser" can vary from author to author, and historian to historian. I made my statement with not a small dash of tongue in cheek. But i will explain my reasonings.

First off, let me define my interpretation of "battlecruiser"

A "pure' battlecruiser in my mind is a captial ship sized warship armed with battleship caliber weapons but armored on the scale of a cruiser.

I say "pure" battlecruiser as my pet defination of the type as originally defined by the British with the debut of HMS Invincible, the world's first. She was essentially, an armored cruiser armed with 12 inch guns. Other battlecruisers were less so in design, hence not "pure" battlecruisers. the best examples being the later German BC's of the Moltke, Seydlitz and particularily the Derflinger class which were more akin to pseudo-fast battleships.

Obviously with that definition alone, one could rank Dunkerque as a BC or even Deutchland in an extreme situation given their light armor but i also define a BC by its designation and perceived role as defined by the building nation. The French navy for example never classified or considered the Dunkerque to be a BC, but a "light battleship", designed to counter the Deutchlands and was designated as such as "batiments de lignre" (The French parliment did call them variously Battleships, battlecruisers and even "armored ships")

The Americans did the same thing with Alaska designating them CB "Large Cruisers" in what i've always felt was an effort to distance them from the BC concept (given its unpopularity traditionally within the USN design bearu) but unlike Dunkerque, the Alaska class had many design features that clearly put it in the BC catagory.

As such i will go to the specific examples :)

1) Deutchland

Easiest of the examples. She was no battlecruiser, either in design or in designation. The Germans never designated her as such, starting with the obscure but descriptive "Panzerschiff" (armored ship) and later simply "CA" (Schwerekreuzer or Heavy Cruiser) once the mystique of the type wore off and their capabilities were more known.

While i define a BC as BB armed ship armored to cruiser scale, the design usually attempts to provide "some" level of protection against heavy shells. Even the Invincible's had some measure of protection against the heavy 1904-06 shells of the time and her design focused not on rejection of a heavy shell but on localization of the damage when hit by one. Later generations of British BC's had in limited places more substantial armor that gave them better protection against heavy shells which at the same time made them very resistant if not immune to cruiser shells. (BC's were as a general rule at least as heavy or heavier than BB's and ususally longer to preserve the beam to length ratio needed for high speed, thus that part of my definiation that says "capital ship sized vessel")

Deutchland had none of these properties. She was smaller than a BB or BC and her protection was purely light cruiser scale. Even her armament was below par for a capital ship. Finally she was slower than most cruisers, all surviving battlecruisers (by a signifigant margin) and even some newer battleships soon to debut. In the end she was nothing more than a very heavily gunned cruiser. Sort of a modern version of the Couragious class "Large Light Cruisers" of Fisher's fancy.

2) Dunkerque.

Although the concept started as Croiseur de Combat, once the announcement was made that the Germans were building a 10000 ton cruiser of the Deutchland class the French ceased work on it and began planning a ship in which protection and armament would be stressed.....hence the light battleship concept.

"light" in terms that the French merely designed a battleship not to establish or meet the status quo (that being a 35,000 ton BB armed with a maximum caliber of 16 inch guns) but one to meet a percieved threat and role. That being 11 inch armed cruisers and/or battleships. For this the powerful 13 inch gun was considered fine (and was as it was very powerful for its size) as the protection against 11 inch shellfire was considered adequate as well (9 inch on the belt, but inclined to increase protection substantially)

Strassbourg was even more of a light BB than her sister as she was heavily modified on learning of the Scharnhorst and more importantly Italy's decision to build two 15 inch armed BB's. Hence her thicker protection, 11 inch on the belt, inclined and thicker deck and turret armor.

The reasoning behind them was simply that France was not a rich nation and most of her funds went naturally to her huge army guarding the border with Germany, as such it was hard to get BB's approved for the navy....and what were, were authorized only to the specs felt necessary to meet a percieved threat....hence two light BB's not built to the maximum stats allowable.

True they are fast, but all battleships of this era were "fast" so speed alone is no longer a valid definition of a battlecruiser. By that token South Dakota, or Bismarck could be considered battlecruisers too. :)

With the announcement though, of full sized treaty BB's being made by her traditional naval rival, Italy, A light BB would no longer due hence the move to the full sized BB class of the Richelieu design.

3) Scharnhorst.

Again, never designated a BC in German circles. The only reason they are often classified as BC's in some sources is due to their armament, which like the Dunkerque, was simply not as large as allowable under current treaties. The decision to arm them with 11 inch guns was "purely" a political move on Hitler's part so as not to upset or disturb the British whom he was still courting at this time. In all other characteristics though, they were BB's, particularily in protection which, on the verticial at least was quite substantial for the time. As such, Hitler did want them later armed with 15 inch guns and Geneisenau was taken in hand after damage for this purpose. The navy never wanted them armed with 11 inch in the first place and it would prove their greatest weakness in the coming war.

4) Hood

Hood was originally designed as a battlecruiser and had far different stats than she came out with. However after Jutland, naturally the British re-considered the BC, (which was actually never popular in Admiralty circles in the first place) and she was redesigned to the best extent possible to debut as the world's first true fast-battleship.

However, because her design was in an advanced state at the time of the change, only so much could be done hence she debuted as a classic incremental armor design with the weight of her protection focused on the verticle (flat trajectory shellfire) vs a true "all or nothing" armor design which would be a standard on most battleship designs till it's demise in 1945.

This was still adequate for 1920 but proved totally inadequate for WWII and it was this weakness that killed her, not the fact that she was lumped as a "battlecruiser"

Her side protection was quite formidable at full BB scale, 12 inch, inclined to 11 degrees along the citidel and improved and better protected main armament, particularily in regards to the turret roofs. Ironically she also incorporated far better though somewhat complicated safetey interlocks within her gunhouse and shell/powder handling rooms

However she never received the modernization so desperately needed and her multiple armor decks (avg thickness 1-1.5 HT steel) were wholely inadequate to protect her at the ranges fought and against the better quality shells deployed in WWII.

While the exact nature of her demise can never be known the best theory is that a high velocity 15 inch shell from Bismarck, penetrated her middle 7 inch belt (characterisic of the incremental designs of WWI), slammed through two thin armored decks and exploded either in the 15 inch aft mag or the outer 4 inch mag settting them off (another theory is that the shell penetrated to the aft engine room causing an explosion which went through the thin bulkhead aft into the aft mags)

British cordite did the rest.....despite improvements and saftey interlocks, it still is amiable to detonation though in fairness, any shell detonating inside a magazine will often set it off.

On a note on "designation" it should be realized that the British changed the classification after WWI. This was done both to differentiate the two types of BB they envisioned as well as to define their roles. Hence capital ships designed for the line, with the emphasis being on the heaviest possible armament and protection, speed a distant third, were designated "Battleships" while 'fast' capital ships which accepted a smaller amament and scale of protection for greater speed, but one that still put them clearly in the battleship catagory were designated "battlecruisers". Such ships would fill the role such as that utilized by the 5th battlesquadron at Jutland. (Corresponding designs were, N3 and G3, both never built)

the remaining Hood's of course were never built as it was realized that even with the modifications that not all of the lessons learned during the war could be incorporated hence her design was too expensive to justify for ships that would be expected to carry the Royal navy into the 1920's and even beyond.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 20
- 1/13/2003 3:45:51 AM   
rlc27

 

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

:cool:

So I guess I should change the name of this poll to "Favorite Battlecruiser, Armored Ship, Croiser de Combat, Light Battleship, Panzerschiff, Large Cruiser, and Large Light Cruiser." :p

_____________________________

"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 #: 21
- 1/13/2003 5:22:03 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
LOL :D

Yes, that sounds fine to this anal-retentive sort :cool:

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 22
- 1/13/2003 7:09:07 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rlc27
[B]Fascinating...

:cool:

So I guess I should change the name of this poll to "Favorite Battlecruiser, Armored Ship, Croiser de Combat, Light Battleship, Panzerschiff, Large Cruiser, and Large Light Cruiser." :p [/B][/QUOTE]

... constructed before 1945 (so as to not get the Kirov...)

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 23
- 1/13/2003 9:26:18 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
I believe the proper description of a battlecruiser was "an eggshell armed with hammers.":)

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 24
- 1/13/2003 10:42:28 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
The 15" gun barrels designed for the Scharnhorst class were actually put into coastal batteries.
The second biggest guns ever put ashore....

So the Scharnhorst is actually a battleship with a battlecruiser armament. On the other side Hood is a battlecruiser with battleship armament....)

Here's a link to the battery homepage:
http://home.no.net/bttvara/homee.htm

It's a tourist attraction now, but fully operational :)
So if you have to take the family to see a fjord or something else less interesting....be sure to make a detour in her ;)

Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Favorite Battlecruiser! 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

0.781