unrealistic air combat... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

bigbaba -> unrealistic air combat... (5/23/2008 7:21:41 PM)

first of all, this is NOT a whine-posting.[:-]

i am in a PBEM against a little nasty gaucho[;)] and at the day, we have nearly 1:1 air loses. it is the night air combat what upsets me a little bit.

he slams the PM airfield night by night with 300 or more kate/vals from his carriers..even through rain or thunderstorm. and the cap is simply ineffective against such raids. even with 50 FB flying night cap, the results of night CAP and operational loses are nearly zero for him.

from what we now, the japanese started only ONE major night attack from their carriers in 1942 in the battle of coral sea. this raid resulted in a disaster with 21 of 27 japanese planes lost.

i think, in a further patch, this should get some attention and should be fixed. night air combat should be more realistic imho, because 1942, night carrier operations "put in childs shoe". even the US navy got its first night air operations capable carriers at 1944 and the japs were even more behind.

edit:

one general question:

how do the allied night fighters with radar preforme in UV? i hope much better then the ones without radar.



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/23/2008 7:58:38 PM)

quote:


i am in a PBEM against a little nasty gaucho


[:D][:D][:D]



[image]local://upfiles/19240/04B8FF36834844269B0CD5D9654B4DB6.jpg[/image]



SuluSea -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 4:01:03 AM)

quote:

i think, in a further patch, this should get some attention and should be fixed. night air combat should be more realistic imho, because 1942, night carrier operations "put in childs shoe". even the US navy got its first night air operations capable carriers at 1944 and the japs were even more behind.



No question about that should be patched.

Why am I surprised that the fellow who has spent a year complaining about the long lance  also exploits gaming tactics as opposed to keeping it real?



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 7:41:16 AM)

quote:

No question about that should be patched.

Why am I surprised that the fellow who has spent a year complaining about the long lance also exploits gaming tactics as opposed to keeping it real?


Japanese carriers were night capabale Sula and they did have a landing system for night landings in 1942. Japanese carriers were not ¨behind¨ compared to US carrier night operations. The opposite is true actually. They were more advanced compared to US carrier capability at night.

Same as the Long Lance was superior to any torpedo of the western Allies btw. [;)]

¨The apparatus, called chakkan shidoto (literally, landing guidance light), was invented at the Kasumigaura Naval Station in 1932 as a night landing aid. It was fitted on Japan's first carrier, Hosho, in 1933 and after being proved on Hosho, adapted to the other carriers. It was used both day and night from about 1934 onward.

The red and green lights were one kilowatt, variable in intensity, and each had a refractory mirror to produce a relatively narrow cone of light. The red light was mounted 10 to 15 meters (approximately 30 to 45 feet) aft of the green light.

It could be raised or lowered to adjust the separation between the two to vary the glide slope between four and six degrees, depending on the type of aircraft in the landing pattern.

The angle was usually 5.5 degrees for fighters and 5 degrees for attack aircraft.
As the pilot rolled in astern of the carrier with wheels, flaps and hook down while maintaining his own interval, he adjusted his flight path until he had both pairs of lights in sight. Losing Sight Of one or the other pair of lights indicated that the pilot was right or left of the ideal lineup, and called for a correction to regain the errant pair of lights and land on centerline.

The pilot adjusted his approach path so that the green light was
superimposed immediately over the red. If he could see only the red light, the aircraft was below the desired glide slope. If the red light was on top of the green, he was dangerously below glide slope. Conversely, if the green light was far above the red, he was too high on glide slope.

Due to the offset from the centerline and the narrowness of the cone of light, the pilot would lose sight of the landing aids somewhere prior to touchdown. Presumably, if he had kept the lights lined up properly just before he lost sight of the lights while close to the deck, he would be in the ideal “cut” position.

From here, as with his U.S. counterpart, he would then make final lineup corrections and land."



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 7:58:48 AM)

quote:

No question about that should be patched.


I agree, the US night carrier operations are represented way to good.

[;)]

Interrogation of: Captain YAMAOKA, M., IJN, Operations Officer, Staff 5th Air Flotilla at Battle of CORAL SEA, 7-8 May 1942.

Interrogated by: Captain C. Shands, USN.

Q. Had your pilots been trained to land on the carriers at night?

A. Yes, about 2/3 of all pilots were thoroughly trained at night.

Q. When did you first start night carrier operations?

A. About 1933.

Q. Was one carrier used for night operation or did you have pilots on each carrier?

A. Each carrier had a few night pilots at first, then increased. About 2/3 of all pilots on each carrier were thoroughly trained in night carrier operation. About 1/3 were familiar but not so well trained.

Q. How did you land at night?

A. We used a green and red light which were lined up for a flight path to come aboard. We also used a signalman.

Q. Did he control the speed during the landing?

A. No, after a night battle, only signal used was O.K. and should land, or that he was not O.K. and should be waved off; in which case he made another approach. During the training more signals were used to indicate speed and altitude. These signals were given by blinker guns at night.

Q. What accidents incurred in training?

A. Thorough basic training was given at night on land; therefore, we had very few accidents in night landings aboard ship.



bigbaba -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 1:20:22 PM)

whatever this little japs cptn. says...fact is, that nearly all japanese carrier operations in 1942 (all naval attacks and even the attacks on bases like darwin, colombo or the attacks on handerson field at guadalcanal) were started after daylight and the only known japanese night attack resulted into a fiasco for the japs with 23 of 27 planes lost.

now, if the japs KB-pilots and carriers were realy that good at night air operation, they would try to use this advantage for sure instead of attacking only after daylight.

i have read a book about the attack on PH (the book "aircraft carriers in 1st and 2nd WW" from Clark G. Reynolds) about Fuchida in his kate TB waiting for several zero-fighters to bring them home after the day attack, because they simply had not a radio direction finder to find their carriers self.

so, i dont think, that the japs were able to start huge and massive night attacks with 300 planes from their carriers at 1942 without forcing the commander to write a lot of letters for the widows of the pilots at the next day.[:-] [;)] whatever my respected "ike san" says.



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 1:49:40 PM)

quote:

i have read a book about the attack on PH (the book "aircraft carriers in 1st and 2nd WW" from Clark G. Reynolds) about Fuchida in his kate TB waiting for several zero-fighters to bring them home after the day attack, because they simply had not a radio direction finder to find their carriers self.


Well someone had a radio beam detector because they used the Honalulu radio stations signal to guide them in to Pearl Harbor before the attack.



HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 1:58:00 PM)

Take the high road bigbaba.

Honor your committment and finsh the current game.

Then strike him off your list of potential opponents.

After all, since according to him, he has plenty of people who want to game against him the loss of you as a potential opponent won't be any skin off his posterior.

I suspect that if he keeps this up long enough against enogh different people he will eventually find no one willing to play against his exploitative rear end.


Let him reap what he sows.



SuluSea -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 2:21:03 PM)

LMAO did the Lexington or Yorktown have these landing lights? I'm certain you won't see this next sentence but here goes..... If the Japs were so proficient at night ops how do you explain the airmen trying to land on a U.S. Carrier during the Coral Sea engagement?

On another note there's a difference between taking off and landing in the dark and being proficient at night attacks. I think most here are able to see that. Bigbaba produced a statistic to back up his assertions and you produce nothing to counter it as per usual. No question you're using gaming tactics against him and the game going forward needs to be patched.



bigbaba -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 2:26:47 PM)

its ok guys. the days of ikes carrier supremacy are over soon.[;)] 



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 2:28:22 PM)

quote:

Take the high road bigbaba.

Honor your committment and finsh the current game.

Then strike him off your list of potential opponents.

After all, since according to him, he has plenty of people who want to game against him the loss of you as a potential opponent won't be any skin off his posterior.

I suspect that if he keeps this up long enough against enogh different people he will eventually find no one willing to play against his exploitative rear end.


Let him reap what he sows.



(1) Family Language. Use of offensive language will not be tolerated. This will be treated as a family site. So use language you would be comfortable with your wives, mothers, girlfriends, kids, grandkids, etc. viewing. This include limits on thinly veiled words, like using obvious substitutes or pictures. So if we can figure out that you are using offensive langugage, then you are using offensive language.




HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 3:29:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Take the high road bigbaba.

Honor your committment and finsh the current game.

Then strike him off your list of potential opponents.

After all, since according to him, he has plenty of people who want to game against him the loss of you as a potential opponent won't be any skin off his posterior.

I suspect that if he keeps this up long enough against enogh different people he will eventually find no one willing to play against his exploitative rear end.


Let him reap what he sows.



(1) Family Language. Use of offensive language will not be tolerated. This will be treated as a family site. So use language you would be comfortable with your wives, mothers, girlfriends, kids, grandkids, etc. viewing. This include limits on thinly veiled words, like using obvious substitutes or pictures. So if we can figure out that you are using offensive langugage, then you are using offensive language.





Pot-Kettle-Black


See Ike's "**** you" response to me in another thread.



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 4:17:04 PM)

Ike you quote the forum rules and yet violate them in a way worse than any other I have ever seen. You are truly a self serving character with very low standards. This forum is about a game and as such doesn't warrant such extreme behavior. If this is how you are in the RL world then I pity those who have to deal with you on a continual basis.

In other words behave yourself or do us all a favor and pull a disappearing act.



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 4:36:23 PM)

What is being lost in all of this dirt is that many of us play the game for the sheer fun of it and win, lose or draw we enjoy it.  If somebody does things that we consider an abuse of the game system and there were no HRs agreed to then we have to live with it unless both see the problem it causes.  This is why I usually ask for HRs against a new opponent and once I know what kind of person I'm dealing with I'll play against them in the future without them.  Most of us are honorable and believe that certain things shouldn't be done as they are so far from the reality of what actually happened 65 years ago we won't do them. 

CV ops at night?  OK name the USN Admiral who ordered the famous LIGHT THEM UP command for a late returning airstrike.  Never did strikes launch at night with a planned night return simply because you can't land on what you can't see.  Make yourself visible to returning planes and the enemy can see you too.  Modern electronic systems have changed all of this and yet a daylight CV landing is more stressful to the pilot than actual combat.  Now imagine night landings.  This was discovered and confirmed by monitoring pilot's respiration rates so it's not even a topic for debate.  The navigation methods of the early 1940s were not capable of accurate fixes even if trying to "ride the beacon."  Don't believe me?   Then look at Europe and what the British and Germans tried to do for night bombings and this was for LBA and land targets and was inaccurate at best. 





HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 5:48:54 PM)

That would be the premier carrier admiral of the war: Marc Mitscher



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 6:56:41 PM)

We have a winner!
As Bruce Willis said in the original Die Hard movie, "Hans........................."



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 9:12:37 PM)

"They were more advanced compared to US carrier capability at night."

That claim is incorrect. All USN and IJN carriers had the capability to land and launch at night, but at no time during or prior to WW2 did the Japanese train extensively at it, because operational losses were (unsurprisingly) high (in both navies) and because the IJN's pool of pilots for replacing those operationally lost was low.

Several USN CVs trained extensively at night operations prior to the war (but it was not until 1944 when it became common in the training of USN pilots but not for IJN pilots -- for example USS Enterprise operated in late 1944-e.1945 as a solely night-operations CV and was home to Night Operations Group 90, and other such as USS Saratoga trained extensively for it but were not exclusively dedicated to the job as was Enterprise). Examples include USS Ranger, USS Hornet, and USS Enterprise, all of whom conducted training in night launching and landing, and night torpedo attack, glide bombing, and radar directed fighter intercept. Needless to say, night dive bombing was right out, and really effective night operations required good moonlight or good radar (the Japanese lacked the latter). Royal Navy Swordfish squadrons also trained extensively in night torpedo attack, as they were the first (IIRC) naval aviation squadrons to be equipped with on-board radar on their aircraft.



bigbaba -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 9:29:46 PM)

because we are talking about night air combat...here is a intresting youtube-link for the 5 parts of "Dogfights - Nightfighters" from history channel also with some navy F6F and army P-61 nightfighter combat at 1944-1945.

it is not totaly on-topic but may be intresting for you.

thats the first part about the navy hellcats. for the 4 other parts, just scroll at the right side of the screen.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=lDH_qFOZHE8



HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/29/2008 11:25:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

We have a winner!
As Bruce Willis said in the original Die Hard movie, "Hans........................."



Hans Gruber was one of the best bad guys of all time in the movies.

Then again Rickman just seems to be perfectly typecast as a quintessential bad guy, his Sherrif of Nottingham was great as well.



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (5/30/2008 1:55:16 AM)

Rickman is one of my favorite lead actors these days, and he's not limited to villains. He was a real hoot in Galaxy Quest.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/2/2008 4:21:34 AM)

At first I thought this was "gamey" too, but this nagged at me and I did a little surfing.

It turns out that the Japanese were indeed training their Carrier Pilots in Carrier night landings from around 1933. The system involved use of Red & Green lights, similar to that later used by the USN. By the way Japanese planes also carried Radio Beam Detectors.

The UV rules PDF allows night missions ( including Naval Attacks ) for various aircraft types ( including Dive Bombers & Torpedo Bombers) and does NOT bar Carrier based Aircraft from these missions.
It would appear to have been rather easy for the game programmers to have to have blocked this if they had wanted to, and note it accordingly in the rules.Is it safe to presume this was an oversight?
( There are of course penalties for night missions ( 2 x usual Operational losses & a -1/0 DL level for attacking a base/sighting a TF), although none extra specifically for Carrier Aircraft. Although not stated as %'s, I presume even day ops losses due to Carrier landings would be higher than Airfield landings. )

It therefore seems to me that IKE99's tactic should not be defined as "gamey". The Japanese could have done carrier based night operations at any time during 1941-3. ( It was noted on one site that night ops were considered during the PH raid, but were not carried out.)

The application of the "gamey" idea is that the tactic in question was never used ( read THOUGHT OF ) during the appropriate game period. Carrier night ops were not only thought of but trained for, the Japanese just CHOSE not to use it ; 2 x Ops losses with a -1 / 0 DL makes any gain small / minimal I would think, although I note IKE99 is sticking to Airfield / Port attacks at a DL of -1 only. Perhaps a worthy risk.

By the way, has anyone considered WHY the USN started Carrier night Ops if it was so dangerous? Rader may get you to/from a ship but it does not help you land, so advances & advantages here count for nought.
Might it not be in response to the Japanese usage, which appeared to start during 1943, as a response to the efficency of the USN CAP & AAF
during that year.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/2/2008 4:37:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Pot-Kettle-Black

See Ike's "**** you" response to me in another thread.


So, two wrongs make a right?

Don't get me wrong, IKE99 has yet to give an understandable answer as to why his "From" is "Tojo's Loins". I can only presume that what I suspect is true is in fact true.
He also fails to understand why Britain has a Commonweath, which includes India, whilst the Chinese still hate the Japanese as witnessed during a Soccer match not so long ago, as he equates Imperial Japanese control over China with Imperial British control over India.



SuluSea -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/2/2008 2:59:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

At first I thought this was "gamey" too, but this nagged at me and I did a little surfing.

It turns out that the Japanese were indeed training their Carrier Pilots in Carrier night landings from around 1933. The system involved use of Red & Green lights, similar to that later used by the USN. By the way Japanese planes also carried Radio Beam Detectors.

The UV rules PDF allows night missions ( including Naval Attacks ) for various aircraft types ( including Dive Bombers & Torpedo Bombers) and does NOT bar Carrier based Aircraft from these missions.
It would appear to have been rather easy for the game programmers to have to have blocked this if they had wanted to, and note it accordingly in the rules.Is it safe to presume this was an oversight?
( There are of course penalties for night missions ( 2 x usual Operational losses & a -1/0 DL level for attacking a base/sighting a TF), although none extra specifically for Carrier Aircraft. Although not stated as %'s, I presume even day ops losses due to Carrier landings would be higher than Airfield landings. )

It therefore seems to me that IKE99's tactic should not be defined as "gamey". The Japanese could have done carrier based night operations at any time during 1941-3. ( It was noted on one site that night ops were considered during the PH raid, but were not carried out.)




I guess I'll start off by saying, Show us were the IJN made a succesful night attack?

I still think Ike was using a gaming tactic. Some may differ but my definition of a gaming tactic is something that didn't happen historically and the player exploits it to his/her advantage while playing against the AI or someone else.
The game allows quite a few things that aren't historically correct.

Erik said it better than I ever could in another thread regarding the same issue. I agree completely.

quote:

For the record, if someone agrees to a game without any house rules, then everything goes. However, I think that since this is a historical game, most players will not be happy about repeated use of tactics that were not historically possible. In the vast majority of cases, the game won't allow that, but there are a few loopholes as no game is perfect. I advise all players looking for PBEM games to ask the community in advance about house rules to decide if you want any, otherwise realize that anything goes.


Have a great day!!!!!



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/3/2008 10:43:17 PM)

I can't because they did not as you well know.

Show me were the Japanese attacked the Australian mainland, New Caladonia or the New Hebrides, or where the Allies attacked Shortlands, Buin, Buka, Santa Isabel to name a few. Same arguement.

As for the "gamey" definition, in general terms I agree, but to me this one falls into something of a Grey area rather than a Black/White one. Note that the Allies can do it as well as the Japs so there is a balance here. Also as noted before it has risks which mean it may well never be employed; I just don't think it should be barred. Also as noted before, if this was not possible ( per game designers ) this could easily have been
"ruled out", therefore, I don't think this falls into a loop-hole. If it does then it's poor programming.

quote:

If the Japs were so proficient at night ops how do you explain the airmen trying to land on a U.S. Carrier during the Coral Sea engagement?


Did anyone say they were highly proficient? Anyway, anyone can make a mistake in the heat of battle.

quote:

On another note there's a difference between taking off and landing in the dark and being proficient at night attacks.


If they trained at one, why not at the other, especially as the Japs preferred night attacks.

quote:

Bigbaba produced a statistic to back up his assertions and you produce nothing to counter it as per usual.


Ike99 produced a FACT, that's better than a statistic. Before you discount Ike99's fact's ( not difficult given his views on WW2 history ), try checking them out.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/3/2008 11:11:42 PM)

For those who do not believe Ike99's stated interview, see the following:
http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-10

What this does is Question the rules that allow the ALLIES to use night ops from carriers. The Japs are OK.



bigbaba -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/3/2008 11:18:09 PM)

@DEB:

it is simply unrealistic, that japs attack PM in the middle of 1942 with 300 carrier crafts at night! and lose only 2-3 bombers.

what ike has, is the opinion of ONE japs officer while i never saw in a book about the pacific war (and i read a lot of books about that), that the japs were able to launch massive and succesfull night attacks from their carriers. they never did..and why? because they knew, that the operational loses would be too high and not just 2-3 aircrafts of 300!

after the WW2, allied officers spoke with general adolf galland and he said realy, that there were no nazis inside the german luftwaffe! its his personal opinion without any facts. is it true? no.

same goes for this one japs officer. and since the japs knew, that their pilot training is poor and their planes easy to shoot down, be sure, that they would use this "advantage" of night attacks a lot of time in the war, to save their planes and pilots...if the loses were acceptable, which they were not. the japs launched only ONE major night attack from their carriers in 1942 and that resulted into a disaster with over 90% loses.

in 1942, japs were far behind the allies and even germany in radar and guide beam technology. even the british and german, who were far ahead in such things were not able to let their aircrafts to attack a static target like a huge city with any success at night, because the sheer from the course was too high. and you say, that the japs with their poor electronic technology were able to launch 300 planes from tiny carriers at night, attack a city precise (like ikes bombers did at least 15-20 times at PM in our game) and find their small flight decks without any problem (2-3 planes lost of 300)?

no sir.



HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/3/2008 11:24:23 PM)

Furthermore, how credible are the anecdotal claims of a captured officer who can be expected to make false boasts out of false pride, especially after bearing the humilation of defeat?



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/3/2008 11:49:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

it is simply unrealistic, that japs attack PM in the middle of 1942 with 300 carrier crafts at night! and lose only 2-3 bombers.


The 2-3 bombers lost are the ones you know about! Given the AAF cannot see what they are shooting at thats not a suprise. Other ( operational ) losses will occur at take off / landing ( mainly the latter ).

quote:

what ike has, is the opinion of ONE japs officer while i never saw in a book about the pacific war (and i read a lot of books about that)


Even if it's a not well known or published fact , it's still a fact.

quote:

they never did..and why? because they knew, that the operational loses would be too high and not just 2-3 aircrafts of 300!


See above....

quote:

after the WW2, allied officers spoke with general adolf galland and he said realy, that there were no nazis inside the german luftwaffe! its his personal opinion without any facts. is it true? no.


Thats like asking someone in the Communist Party if they know if someone is a KGB member or not.

quote:

and since the japs knew, that their pilot training is poor and their planes easy to shoot down


Are you sure you read all those books correctly? That applies to 1943 and onwards not 1942.

quote:

the japs launched only ONE major night attack from their carriers in 1942 and that resulted into a disaster with over 90% loses.


Did I miss that. You AGREE that a night attack was made from carriers!
We all appear to be commenting on the plausability of this event not the results.

quote:

in 1942, japs were far behind the allies and even germany in radar and guide beam technology. even the british and german, who were far ahead in such things were not able to let their aircrafts to attack a static target like a huge city with any success at night, because the sheer from the course was too high. and you say, that the japs with their poor electronic technology were able to launch 300 planes from tiny carriers at night, attack a city precise (like ikes bombers did at least 15-20 times at PM in our game)


You really don't read these things do you! It was LIGHTS not electronics technology that enabled night landings. Finding a static point on a map is down to map-reading and compasses. If you read about the PH attack you will find the Japs "zeroed" in on the Island's Radio station, as a means of confirming their course. To do that you need a director finder, so they had them. Facts, facts, facts.

quote:

and find their small flight decks without any problem (2-3 planes lost of 300 )?


Also, see previous comments.





DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/4/2008 12:28:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Furthermore, how credible are the anecdotal claims of a captured officer who can be expected to make false boasts out of false pride, especially after bearing the humilation of defeat?


No idea. See another of my posts, have a read yourself. It does not read that way. See also the comment noted below, from:
http://www.cv6.org/1945/nightops/nightbirds

"Night flying from carriers is NOT new, but there has never been anything like Admiral Gardner's new night carrier group devoted exclusively to after-dark operations."




tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/4/2008 1:19:56 AM)

In the early years of WWII the problem of co ordinating a large carrier strike was shared by the USN & the IJN, though the IJN was better at it.  This of course was daylight ops, not night, and the USN got better at it as the IJN deteriorated.  Navigation in the 1940s was not very accurate and many a mission failed to find the assigned target.  To have repeated night raids against a base from CVs is very unrealistic, though if you have no HRs it's a footloose & fancy free game.  I would load my CVs with Marine Corsairs the moment they arrived and give my night raiding opponent a dose of his own medicine. 

I believe that 2 players should set their parameters before a game and if something happens during it try to settle, like BR & I did, as gentlemen.  No HRs, but maybe historical common sense?



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.046875