Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Baddest Battleship

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Baddest Battleship Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 6:19:35 PM   
mavraam


Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline 		I appologize if this has already been posted.

Baddest BB's of WWII:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm#categories

Who's my favorite? See Avatar!

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 6:37:58 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Always got a kick out of his breakdown, but I discount the Iowa simply because it is an entire generation beyond everything else in the list.

Hardly fair to compare it against the others.

Now if you want to add something interesting to the mix, factor in a closing / fleeing scenario when some turrets can not be brought to bear and adjust the numbers. Suddenly old tubs like the Rodney look pretty attractive.

(in reply to mavraam)
Post #: 2
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 6:52:56 PM   
mavraam


Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Always got a kick out of his breakdown, but I discount the Iowa simply because it is an entire generation beyond everything else in the list.


True, but the Iowa class did exist and fight in WWII. Its not like we're talking about a nuclear sub or an AEGIS class cruiser.

What's wrong with building bigger better machines? Isn't that what winning a war is all about?

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 3
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:05:08 PM   
furious

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/30/2002
Status: offline 		The Iowa may be top in your estimate but for sheer sex appeal HMS Rodney and HMS Nelson wipe the floor with anything else.

(in reply to mavraam)
Post #: 4
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:27:33 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		nothing is more sexier than a battleship with a tripod masts. Ah the golden age of Dreadnoughts. No woosie carriers around to hog the glory

_____________________________


(in reply to furious)
Post #: 5
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:34:28 PM   
barbarrossa


Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

nothing is more sexier than a battleship with a tripod masts. Ah the golden age of Dreadnoughts. No woosie carriers around to hog the glory


I love those old warships. As for the baddest....well I'm hardly objective

_____________________________

"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 6
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:35:00 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

True, but the Iowa class did exist and fight in WWII.


Oh, not debating that, but it really is the only BB to come into play with the knowledge that air power was now king and was altered to fit the bill. All the other BB's really predate air power so comparing post air power to pre air power is not really fair.

The Iowa class would fit in nicely with post war Russian monsters, it is beyond overkill for pre-war designs.

Only the Bis/Tirp really are close to being fair to compare and they were built still within the *fudged* treaty rules.

Japan is just not worth looking at because they had to beg/borrow all the materials to make them

(in reply to mavraam)
Post #: 7
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:35:27 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		visiting the Texas remains the highlight of my preserved warships visits

_____________________________


(in reply to barbarrossa)
Post #: 8
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:35:36 PM   
furious

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/30/2002
Status: offline 		Quite agree. I've nothing against carriers as such, they were okay when they kept things fair and limited themselves to HMS Hermes size, but 80 planes onboard! That's just not cricket

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 9
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:51:24 PM   
mavraam


Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Oh, not debating that, but it really is the only BB to come into play with the knowledge that air power was now king and was altered to fit the bill. All the other BB's really predate air power so comparing post air power to pre air power is not really fair.


Good point. Not really fair to take the AA into acount in the comparison IMHO. Had the Yamato been designed later, I'm sure it would have been equiped with a lot more AA as well. Wasn't that ultimately its demise? Taken out by air IIRC?

I'm partial to the Iowa because when I was 8, we took a field trip to Des Moines (capitol of Iowa) and right there in the main floor of the capitol building was a huge scale model of the USS Iowa and a full size barrel from one of its 16 inch guns. It left quite an impression on me. I snuck away from the rest of the group while they looked at boring stuff like the Governor's office and stared at the thing for what seemed like hours. It started my interest in WWII which still haunts me to this day!

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 10
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:56:13 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		i may get to see the Missouri (and the Arizona) in Oct.......fingers crossed

_____________________________


(in reply to mavraam)
Post #: 11
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:57:51 PM   
barbarrossa


Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline 		The Arizona memorial is the one place I've never been that I have to go to before I die.

_____________________________

"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 12
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 7:58:46 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

i may get to see the Missouri (and the Arizona) in Oct.......fingers crossed


The New Jersey is right across the river from me in Philly. I have no excuse but laziness for not visiting her yet. You get a good view of her when taking the Ben Franklin Bridge bewtween Phila. and Jersey.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 13
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 8:04:45 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		hopefully i wont get (nearly) arrested this time out

_____________________________


(in reply to The Gnome)
Post #: 14
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 8:10:06 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

hopefully i wont get (nearly) arrested this time out


Oh this story I *have* to hear!

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 15
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 8:30:36 PM   
tiredoftryingnames


Posts: 1919
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Chesapeake, Virginia
Status: offline 		Wisconsin is down the street from where I work with it's guns pointing right into all the office buildings.

< Message edited by tiredoftryingnames -- 7/16/2004 1:30:52 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to The Gnome)
Post #: 16
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 9:09:31 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I think throwing Iowa into the mix is perfectly valid. There were what... five years or so... separating the entire bunch with respect to the dates that the basic designs were approved, and all were drawing upon knowledge of architecture, metallurgy, and ballistics in general widely known at the time. I see the comparisons as valid and interesting especially to the extent that they shed light on whole philosophies of design.

Japanese designs. Crude application of lots of metal.

German. Overdesigned in the mid deck armor protection and underdesigned for aircraft protection.

US. Lavishly expensive. Caviar in every category. Optimized for efficiency in almost every way. Really just a supersizing of the SoDak design, IMO. The use of dual purpose 5" guns rather than separate AA and Anti-DD/Torpedo Boat defenses was a brilliant economy of design that maximized function per unit of weight.

I'm not too impressed by Rodney although she looks cool. Too much firepower forward to use all the guns at once as I recall. Those 16" guns might have served KGV better.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to tiredoftryingnames)
Post #: 17
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 9:11:26 PM   
carnifex


Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
Status: offline 		Of course the Yamato remains the greatest battleship of all time simply on the merits that it was the only battleship ever sent into space to fight the evil Gamilons. None of your fancy 16" slug throwers can compare to the awesome power of the Wave Motion Gun.


(in reply to tiredoftryingnames)
Post #: 18
bad nik....BAD nik! - 7/16/2004 9:14:36 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		well first off, you have to understand that the Texas was the first battleship i'd ever visited. I've been a battleship "fanboy" since, oh the age of 8 so this trip (yeah i booked an entire flight and took vacation just do this one thing) had me stoked behind even what a couple of Red Bull's and a quad latte could manage.

Thus my enthusiasm was shall we say, rather excessive to say the least.

off limits areas? pish posh i say! (and i did) Armed with sword and magic helmut, i began my quest to catalog all that which was the Texas. (ok, actually it was armed with flashlight and disposible camera) Given the rightiousness of my cause it was only a matter of time before the powers that be got tipped off that there was a subversive type running around the ship, "opening up hatches and peeking through doorways" (quote/unquote) Specifically someone saw me attempting to crawl under a metal screen blocking access to Turret III's magazine. (an as-yet, un-restored area of the ship) and ratted on me.

Enter a lovable character who I like to call "General Billy-Bob" (Billy for short) Intercepted in a crew berthing compartment on the Second Deck, there followed a 10 minute session where i got a thorough dressing down, the highlights including a disertation on the dangers of opening hatches and entering off limits areas and the illegalness of forcing open barriers meant to protect the public.

I was then advised in rather strong language not to attempt further intrustions on penalty of being thrown off the ship (not necessarily using the gangway employed to get on), and/or involving the Houston Police dept.

Had "Billy" known that in addition to trying to get into the beforementioned magazine, i'd also climbed on top of two main gun turrets, the main conning tower, sneaked down onto the platform deck to examine more closely the ship's recipricating engine, climbed up onto the upper bridge and last but not least.....climbed up and entered the ship's forward tripod mast to snap a photo from the highest reachable point on the ship......EMT crews might also have required involvement since his veins were already popping dangerously out from his large neck and forhead.

As it was i said sorry, resisted an impulse to salute (he was wearing a nicely authentic officer's uniform) and then proceeded to attempt entry into Turret III's gunhouse, only to be thwarted by an imposingly large padlock. (knew i forgot something in my explorers pack......a lock cutter!)

All in all a fun day.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 7/16/2004 7:15:59 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to The Gnome)
Post #: 19
RE: bad nik....BAD nik! - 7/16/2004 9:36:57 PM   
McNaughton

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline 		Since the question asked, which is the baddest WW2 battleship, then the Iowa class is COMPLETELY valid.

However, had the question stated, which was the badest WW2 battleship of an 'era'.

For example, which was the best post-war battleship (1918-1930)

Which was the best pre-war treaty battleship (1930-1940)

Which was the best post-treaty battleship (1940-1942)

Which was thte best post-treaty battleship built after war experience (1941-1944)

When we ask questions like this, then we can start putting things into 'reality', to find that very few nations built post-treaty battleships, let alone built with war expereince.

The Yamato and Bismark (Should it have been, the Tiger class as well) were indeed post treaty battleships, but were built with very little understanding of what war they would be fighting, and suffered SEVERELY for this. The Iowa was in a totally different generation than any other class, as it was built at a time where the weaknesses of all battleships were fully apparant, and the lessons could be applied.

It isn't fair to compare the Iowa, and say the King George V class, as both are generations apart, with one class facing severe size restrictions, while the other doesn't and was built with modern war experience.

So, basically, the original question, Which was the badest WW2 battleship, was already answered before it was asked.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 20
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 9:54:09 PM   
mccavage

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/5/2004
Status: offline 		Obviously the Iowa class is the pick of any litter but it is the others that are intriguing.

South Dakotas are actually a bit worse than their near-sisters the Washingtons since the attempt to compact the design resulted in a less habitable ship. Either these ships are pretty good in comparison to any other contender.

Yamato is really a bit of a disappointment given all the absolutes in their favor for size.

Richelieu is an amazingly good ship, very innovative and certainly not harmed by the "americanization" of her anti-air suite coupled with really great 15" mains. In some other comparisons I've seen, actually rates second among the treaty ships.

KGV's are really a pretty nice, well protected ship that ended up under-gunned because the UK never did figure out how to make a good 16" turret. (Nelson and Rodney had a poor ROF and the turrets themselves were too heavy for the bearings resulting in perpetual maintainence issues.)

Vittorio Venetos had that wonderful merger of a great gun and horrible fire control. Can't blame the Italians for trying the Pugilese underwater protection scheme - it just didn't work. Awful anti-air as well.

The Bismarck is always a sore spot for me. Preston calls them something like the most over-rated ship of all time and Conway's is less than awestruck. Really just an upsized Baden of WW1 ilk, they had poor anti air, poor horizontal protection and extremely vulnerable communication/control layout that left Bismarck helpless and toothless in the first 15 minutes of her second and final battle in which she scored no hits. Other than the ability to not sink, this has always seemed to be a pretty mediocre ship. Better than a Veneto but slap a decent 15 or 16 inch weapon suite on a KGV and I'd take it over a Bismarck and I'd expect a Richlieu or Washington to eat Tirpitz for lunch.

(in reply to mavraam)
Post #: 21
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 10:11:02 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Other than the ability to not sink, this has always seemed to be a pretty mediocre ship.


I'm not even convinced that Bismarck had that. She took far less of a beating than Prince of Wales and yet lasted only a comparable amount of time.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mccavage)
Post #: 22
RE: bad nik....BAD nik! - 7/16/2004 10:31:24 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

well first off, you have to understand that the Texas was the first battleship i'd ever visited. I've been a battleship "fanboy" since, oh the age of 8 so this trip (yeah i booked an entire flight and took vacation just do this one thing) had me stoked behind even what a couple of Red Bull's and a quad latte could manage.

Thus my enthusiasm was shall we say, rather excessive to say the least.

off limits areas? pish posh i say! (and i did) Armed with sword and magic helmut, i began my quest to catalog all that which was the Texas. (ok, actually it was armed with flashlight and disposible camera) Given the rightiousness of my cause it was only a matter of time before the powers that be got tipped off that there was a subversive type running around the ship, "opening up hatches and peeking through doorways" (quote/unquote) Specifically someone saw me attempting to crawl under a metal screen blocking access to Turret III's magazine. (an as-yet, un-restored area of the ship) and ratted on me.

Enter a lovable character who I like to call "General Billy-Bob" (Billy for short) Intercepted in a crew berthing compartment on the Second Deck, there followed a 10 minute session where i got a thorough dressing down, the highlights including a disertation on the dangers of opening hatches and entering off limits areas and the illegalness of forcing open barriers meant to protect the public.

I was then advised in rather strong language not to attempt further intrustions on penalty of being thrown off the ship (not necessarily using the gangway employed to get on), and/or involving the Houston Police dept.

Had "Billy" known that in addition to trying to get into the beforementioned magazine, i'd also climbed on top of two main gun turrets, the main conning tower, sneaked down onto the platform deck to examine more closely the ship's recipricating engine, climbed up onto the upper bridge and last but not least.....climbed up and entered the ship's forward tripod mast to snap a photo from the highest reachable point on the ship......EMT crews might also have required involvement since his veins were already popping dangerously out from his large neck and forhead.

As it was i said sorry, resisted an impulse to salute (he was wearing a nicely authentic officer's uniform) and then proceeded to attempt entry into Turret III's gunhouse, only to be thwarted by an imposingly large padlock. (knew i forgot something in my explorers pack......a lock cutter!)

All in all a fun day.


LOL ok, you just better let me know if you come here to visit the New Jersey.... I have to see you in action.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 23
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 10:43:38 PM   
McNaughton

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline 		The reason why the Bismark lasted so long (Saw a detailed documentary about this) was the fact that the British closed the range very fast, which meant that their shells were not plunging (which caused the greatest damage), but were firing into the side (which just destroyed superstructure, and killed crew). Even without the 16" Guns, the KGV was probably well suited in taking out the Bismark. Had the HMS Hood not have been destroyed at long range (when shots were plunging), the British Squadron could have easily annihalated the Bismark and Prinz Eugen. This was admiral Holland's plan, to close range with the Hood and Prince of Wales to the point where their heavy guns (8x 15", 10x 14" plus 6 destroyers vs. 8x 15", 8x 8") would just shatter the two German vessels into useless hulks (like what was eventually done). It was a lucky hit that sank the Hood and saved the Bismark.

The British did this during the Battle of Martapan (SP?), where the battleships closed in and annihalated 3 Italian Heavy Cruisers by first devestating their superstructure and eliminated their ability to fight back.

< Message edited by McNaughton -- 7/16/2004 8:45:18 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 24
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 11:31:00 PM   
Tenzan


Posts: 101
Joined: 6/5/2004
Status: offline 		Looking at it from the perspective of fleet support for surface combat units, I tend to favor any U.S. BB in a potency comparisons..The U.S. fleet had the iron and oil to put any ship wherever it wanted in top condition, and keep it there for as long as required.


But, all that aside..I feel the 'fast battleship' class boats are the real underdogs in the BB sum-up..They were all great ships, all of them

(in reply to mavraam)
Post #: 25
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/16/2004 11:56:00 PM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mccavage
The Bismarck is always a sore spot for me. Preston calls them something like the most over-rated ship of all time and Conway's is less than awestruck. Really just an upsized Baden of WW1 ilk, they had poor anti air, poor horizontal protection and extremely vulnerable communication/control layout that left Bismarck helpless and toothless in the first 15 minutes of her second and final battle in which she scored no hits. Other than the ability to not sink, this has always seemed to be a pretty mediocre ship. Better than a Veneto but slap a decent 15 or 16 inch weapon suite on a KGV and I'd take it over a Bismarck and I'd expect a Richlieu or Washington to eat Tirpitz for lunch.



Yep....I have a friend who currently is helping to design the DDX and LCS, in addition to being a long tine wargamer and naval history scholar, and he thinks the Bismarck was a piece of crap. I love how Preston put the Bismarck on the cover of his "worst ships" book.

Lots of Kriegsmarine fanboys out there who believe all the "Nazi Superweapon!!!!" nonsense of lame History Channel documentaries, however.

(in reply to mccavage)
Post #: 26
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/17/2004 12:01:36 AM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		The Bismarck was the BADDEST ship for what it was designed for. It was never intended to challenge the Royal Navy. It was supposed to be a heavily armed and fast Commerce raider. If it had broken into the sea lanes or gotten to eh southern Atlantic or IO it would have been tough to stop. It would have been stopped but what would that have done to the Home Fleet and the real worry from the U-boats? The Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gnesinaeu and the other ships of the North Atlantic fleet tied up a great deal of British and other allied forces. They didn't sink much but caused serious worry. How many air attacks did Coastal and Bomber command put up to Kill the North Sea Fleet? I do not think the Bismarck was the Greatest Battle ship ever made but I think it was more of a BC and at that it was Nasty.

UB

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 27
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/17/2004 12:02:56 AM   
hithere

 

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/13/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline
quote:

Lots of Kriegsmarine fanboys out there who believe all the "Nazi Superweapon!!!!" nonsense of lame History Channel documentaries, however.


I am def not a Kriegsmarine fanboys, but I always thought that the Bismarck was a superbattleship. I mean....Johnny Hortan even sang a song about it for pete's sake!!!! then a friend told me about combinedfleet.com . needless to say i was shocked. so i started reading somethings and found that it was not nearly has good as history leads us to believe. NOT saying it was avg....i still believe it was a very good ship, just not the end all that i thought it was

_____________________________

Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 28
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/17/2004 12:14:54 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

The Bismarck was the BADDEST ship for what it was designed for. It was never intended to challenge the Royal Navy. It was supposed to be a heavily armed and fast Commerce raider.


I do not think it was the baddest ship for the purpose of commerce raiding. IMO the "Pocket BBs" seem to me to better fit that description. And judging by success rates the notion of a "fast commerce raider" seens flawed. The best surface-ship commerece raider was Kormoran, IIRC, judging by the results. If Bismarck's purpose wasn't really to stand up to the RN, then the Kiregsmarine would have better been served by ships with lighter armament, lighter weight, more fuel, more speed, and more stores. It doesn't take 15" to penetrate the hull of a freighter.

IMO, Bismarck was supposed to be a prestige BB to rival the BBs of the Royal Navy. Otherwise something better at commerce raiding would have been built in her stead. Kudos for killing Hood before the latter could close the range, but even that wasn't really a case of Bismarck facing "the best" that the opposition could field.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 7/16/2004 10:15:56 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to hithere)
Post #: 29
RE: Baddest Battleship - 7/17/2004 12:16:47 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

IMO, Bismarck was supposed to be a prestige BB to rival the BBs of the Royal Navy. Otherwise something better at commerce raiding would have been built in her stead. Kudos for killing Hood before the latter could close the range, but even that wasn't really a case of Bismarck facing "the best" that the opposition could field.


The poor Hood ... doomed by design ... really ... the poor thing was a CL with BB guns stuck on top.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Baddest Battleship Page: [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

2.875