Artillery AP Strengths (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

Panama -> Artillery AP Strengths (10/17/2010 2:25:17 PM)

How is the anti personel strength for artillery determined? Is it just related to shell weight or is there some other factor involved?



Telumar -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/17/2010 7:26:06 PM)

Rate of Fire obviously. That's why higher calibres have less AP than 105s and 155s i.e.

Don't ask me about ammunition types.. i am no expert on weapon technology.



josant -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/17/2010 8:06:20 PM)

multiplying high-end rates of fire by the HE projectile weight in kilograms.

Here are some examples:

1. 2S19 (acording to wikipedia) have a rate of fire 6-8 and a 152mm shell weight 43Kg
AP=43 x 8 = 344 the game give it a 330

2. 37mm AT Gun (acording to wikipedia) have a rate of fire of 25 and a shell weight of 0.56 Kg
AP=0.56 x 25 = 14 exactly as in the game

3. HMG (acording to wikipedia) have a rate of fire 600 and a shell weight of 0.046 Kg
AP=0.046 x 600 = 27.6 exactly as in the game

4. 122mmGun have a rate of fire 6-8 and a shell weight 21.76Kg
AP= 8 x 21,76 = 174 the game give it a 179

5. 203mmHowitzer have a rate of fire 0,5 and a shell weight 90,7Kg
AP= 0,5 x 90,7 = 45,35 the game give it a 47



Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/17/2010 9:06:18 PM)

Nice. Thanks for that, it will be of great help. [:)]



Kilian -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/19/2010 9:44:15 AM)

I've been making some equipment for my scenario and I’ve stumbled on the same problem with artillery.
quote:

ORIGINAL: josant

multiplying high-end rates of fire by the HE projectile weight in kilograms.

Here are some examples:

1. 2S19 (acording to wikipedia) have a rate of fire 6-8 and a 152mm shell weight 43Kg
AP=43 x 8 = 344 the game give it a 330

2. 37mm AT Gun (acording to wikipedia) have a rate of fire of 25 and a shell weight of 0.56 Kg
AP=0.56 x 25 = 14 exactly as in the game

3. HMG (acording to wikipedia) have a rate of fire 600 and a shell weight of 0.046 Kg
AP=0.046 x 600 = 27.6 exactly as in the game

4. 122mmGun have a rate of fire 6-8 and a shell weight 21.76Kg
AP= 8 x 21,76 = 174 the game give it a 179

5. 203mmHowitzer have a rate of fire 0,5 and a shell weight 90,7Kg
AP= 0,5 x 90,7 = 45,35 the game give it a 47


I think it is not correct. It seems to be working with only some of the equipment.

Norm in his designer notes said that:
“The lethality of a long range indirect fire artillery piece, for example, is based on the size of the round. Lethality per round is equal to the square root of half the caliber of the round (in millimeters) cubed. L=(c/2)^(3/2). Why? The amount of explosive in the round is based on the volume of the round, thus the cube. But the damage done by an explosive round falls off with the square of the distance from the point of impact. So a 150mm round is not simply twice as nasty as a 75mm round. It is almost 3 times as lethal. But lethality per round does not tell the whole story. If you look at the figures for these two weapons in the manual you will see that the 150mm gun is only about twice as lethal as the 75mm gun. Why? The 75mm weapon has a higher rate of fire. Indirect fire artillery lethalities are modified by a function intended to represent the effect of rate of fire on overall lethality”

This L=(c/2)^(3/2) is clear. But what is the “function intended to represent the effect of rate of fire on overall lethality”. I’ve tried to figure it out, without success. Anyone knows what the function is?

BTW
Since this is my first post on the forum I would like to say hi to all.



Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/19/2010 2:44:45 PM)

Hi Kilian and welcome.

I was given the manual from TOAWI/WOTY and COW. Neither of them have Norm's notes. The first does have the equipment data. It shows the AP for 75mm at 14 and 150mm at 35. Where did you find designer notes?

Also, those data in the printed manual no longer relate to the equipment database found in the current game. The numbers are way off. Looking at the Equipment List.rtf file that came with TOAWIII the numbers compared to the equipment.eqp are also way off. Is there something done within the game to change values from equipment.eqp file to the values found in Equipment List.rtf? If no, then why is Equipment List.rtf even there? If yes then what is the ingame formula applied?



Kilian -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/19/2010 6:07:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Hi Kilian and welcome.

I was given the manual from TOAWI/WOTY and COW. Neither of them have Norm's notes. The first does have the equipment data. It shows the AP for 75mm at 14 and 150mm at 35. Where did you find designer notes?

Also, those data in the printed manual no longer relate to the equipment database found in the current game. The numbers are way off. Looking at the Equipment List.rtf file that came with TOAWIII the numbers compared to the equipment.eqp are also way off. Is there something done within the game to change values from equipment.eqp file to the values found in Equipment List.rtf? If no, then why is Equipment List.rtf even there? If yes then what is the ingame formula applied?


The notes I’ve find here.
http://normkoger.com/oanote1.html
I know they are notes for vol. I but I don’t think so much has changes since then.

If a formula works for some equipment it doesn’t mean that it is correct. And in my opinion AP= shell weigh x rate of fire is incorrect. The fact that in some cases it works proves only that it might be a part o formula we’re looking for.



Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/19/2010 7:25:37 PM)

Perhaps when Matrix got hold of the game AP strengths were given a new formula. Can anyone verify if the formula in TOAW I and TOAWIII for Anti Personel strengths is the same? If it has changed how?

Thanks for the linkage. [;)]



ralphtricky -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/20/2010 1:00:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Perhaps when Matrix got hold of the game AP strengths were given a new formula. Can anyone verify if the formula in TOAW I and TOAWIII for Anti Personel strengths is the same? If it has changed how?

Thanks for the linkage. [;)]

There have been no changes between COW and III for AP that I remember. AT is modified to take the potential angle of attack into account.



Telumar -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/20/2010 11:03:50 AM)

Hasn't there been a change in the combat model from TOAW I to TOAW II, which is the predecessor of the COW.exe? I think there's been a change and iirc it was AT combat (as we know it today). 



Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/23/2010 6:47:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kilian
This L=(c/2)^(3/2) is clear. But what is the “function intended to represent the effect of rate of fire on overall lethality”. I’ve tried to figure it out, without success. Anyone knows what the function is?


This being the formula for the versions of TOAW before COW, what is the formula for COW and after? It has to be different since the Anti Personel strength for a 25 pdr in TOAW I is 17 and for TOAW III is 165. For a 107mm gun in TOAW I it is 23 and for TOAW III is 130.

So, what is the formula used to determine the anti personel strength of a shell in TOAW III? Josant's idea falls too far off too many times to be completely correct. Kilian's formula is for earlier iterations of the game.



Kilian -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/24/2010 5:25:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

This being the formula for the versions of TOAW before COW, what is the formula for COW and after? It has to be different since the Anti Personel strength for a 25 pdr in TOAW I is 17 and for TOAW III is 165. For a 107mm gun in TOAW I it is 23 and for TOAW III is 130.



Isn't the 25 pdr the same? I mean 165 value in the equipment editor would probably be 17 in game.



Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (10/24/2010 6:40:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kilian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

This being the formula for the versions of TOAW before COW, what is the formula for COW and after? It has to be different since the Anti Personel strength for a 25 pdr in TOAW I is 17 and for TOAW III is 165. For a 107mm gun in TOAW I it is 23 and for TOAW III is 130.



Isn't the 25 pdr the same? I mean 165 value in the equipment editor would probably be 17 in game.


I mentioned the 107mm gun in case someone replied with that answer. It isn't consistent.



Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (11/21/2010 12:58:30 AM)

The lethality of a long range indirect fire artillery piece, for example, is based on the size of the round. Lethality per round is equal to the square root of half the caliber of the round (in millimeters) cubed. L=(c/2)^(3/2). Why? The amount of explosive in the round is based on the volume of the round

If this was true then the 81mm mortar round would be more effective than the 75mm gun or howitzer round regardless of their disparate weights.

But lethality per round does not tell the whole story. If you look at the figures for these two weapons in the manual you will see that the 150mm gun is only about twice as lethal as the 75mm gun. Why? The 75mm weapon has a higher rate of fire. Indirect fire artillery lethalities are modified by a function intended to represent the effect of rate of fire on overall lethality”

Then the 81mm mortar would be vastly superior because it's ROF is 18 rounds per minute to the 6 round per minute of the 75mm M1, for example. And we can only wonder why the Austro-Hungarian 104's are rated 140/17.5 to the 105's 128/16. Could they really be fired faster? And why wasn't the world rushing to catch up with Skoda if their guns were that much better?

Then there is the problem with rate of fire. How measured, and over what period of time. Perhaps The M1 81mm was capable of 18 rounds per minute, but visiting other sites suggests that the number was closer to 8-10, was this a function of barrel wear, training, ability to supply? And somewhere, like wikipedia, someone might read that a 155mm howitzer could fire burst rates of 4 rounds per minute, or 40 rounds per hour.

Let's try another formula like the one found here:

1) The effect of the burster may be taken as being proportional to the square root of the weight of the bursting charge.

And here: During World War 2 there were far more calibres than now so one need was relating the effects of one calibre of shell to another. Using a standard target of 'men crouching in (British standard) slit trenches', a reasonable approximation of relative effect was the square root of the weight of explosive filling.

How might one begin to determine a rational formula absent any consistent measure of rate of fire?

Start with the equipment list mentioned earlier. A squad armed with rifles only has an AP value of 9/1.25. Add in the squad grenade and it's 19/2.35. Add in the LMG and it's 25/3.125. Add the light RPG to any squad and we find that the value it adds to a squad is 16/2.

What is the squad light RPG? Well, the M9 and the German P40 and P46 conveniently hold about 4oz or 113 grams each. All you have to do is a little math with a spread sheet to convert the sqrt of 113 to 16 for entry into the editor -- regardless of how fast they fire, or whether there was one, three, or five grenadiers in the unit. You can then use that process to modify everything from the 2 inch mortar on up.



Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/7/2010 11:51:36 PM)

I believe that the formula for non-mortars is the square root of the bursting charge in grams, plus the weight of the shell in kilograms, times the rate of fire.

Mortars just don't line up at all, at all, at least the lighter ones.

The sources for projectile weight and fill for the examples are mainly from US Technical Manuals where the measurements were in the English system carried out to two decimal places in many cases. So when I converted the numbers I was running out a few more decimal places than are really necessary. In the attached spread sheet, rate of fire per minute (ROFPM) has been decimaly adjusted to achieve Norm's published AP numbers.

The rate of fire for the QF 25 pounder corresponds to what Nigel F. Evans refers to as rapid fire. I believe that the numbers for the US heavies (over 8 inches) corresponds to what is called sustained. The US mediums are well over sustained, but not quite top speed. I haven't found much information on actual German ROF practice. I threw in three versions of 8.8cm shell and their ROFPM to see what people have to say about it. It may, or may not, suffer from the mortar problem depending on how you feel AA guns were fired when used as supporting artillery.

Enjoy.




Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 12:14:29 AM)

Nice work. [8D]

I don't suppose it works for small arms either.




Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 12:18:57 AM)

No it doesn't.

But a little later I'll post what I have on that. But instead of the mortar mystery, there's a 12.7mm mystery.




Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 5:10:46 AM)

In case you were wondering. I now think that just about everything I posted on 11/20 is probably wrong.

Since I mentioned the 12.7mm mystery, and subsequently deleted it from the attached spread sheet by accident, I'll just say that it is very hard to get Ma Deuce to AP 27 by ROF or weight of fire if Ma Deuce is compared to the other machine guns in the .30 caliber range.

If you want to scale it yourself before I get around to posting it, the methodology is to take the doctrinal rate of 40 RPM for sustained fire x the weight, followed by an AP modifier to get Ma to 27. Then you can compare Ma to the various 20, 37, and 40mm systems on a predictable scale and the results won't be too shocking.

I am not wild about AP modifiers, but since one seems to be required here, I suppose that it could be conceived of as some combined effect of extended range and the kinetic energy to punch through many forms of cover available to troops above ground level.

Since the attached spreadsheet is not well annotated, I'll just say that through trial and error converting grains to grams, I came to the conclusion that weight of fire from the squad is not much of a factor. A bullet is a bullet is a bullet. Divide by ten, and you're home free unless you think the Bren is only worth an AP of 6.

A few comments about the rate of fire for the various automatic weapons seems in order if you wonder why Norm rates "early" MG's higher than the MMG when they are generally the same water-cooled machine guns as fought WWI. I skimmed a lot of pre-WWI and inter-war government stuff on MG's and I'll just say that the change seems mostly doctrinal to me.

If you want your WWII water-cooled mg's to fire at a higher rate, they were certainly capable of it. But, for a variety of reasons, by the start of WWII, half a 250 cartridge belt a minute seemed pretty common for the Commmonwealth and Ami's at least. The Germans had something else going, and while I've seen some commonality on reported capability of the mg34 and mg42 on a bipod, I've seen a much wider swing when they get mounted on a tripod. So feel free to punch in your own numbers.

Some fans of the Bren may note that I knocked it down a bit from the proclaimed four magazines per minute standard. I ran across a British training book on scribd that knocked that number down to 112, and then a reported War Office test that discovered few operators were even capable of achieving that if aimed fire was desirable. Your mileage may vary. And that's fine. I am really after a way to give modders something that will give them an idea of how weapons scale if they plug in different numbers, and ideally within the design parameters that the game engine will understand.

At the very bottom of the attached spreadsheet is a small sample of building a weight of fire artillery scheme off the value of the US MK2 hand grenade. I haven't pushed it much since it involves an AP modifier. It tested OK with the weapons in the example -- except for the lighter mortars of course. I prefer the previously published spreadsheet because it doesn't appear to rely on any AP modifier.



ColinWright -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 7:27:52 AM)

And there's reliability. For example, British units in World War Two that were stuck with Lewis guns would have readily swapped two Lewises for one Bren.

...and there's how quickly the damned thing can be swung around. A 25 pounder might have the same rate of fire, etc as some WW1 piece throwing the same shell -- but it was a vastly superior piece of artillery for anything but a choreographed and scripted barrage. In particular, it was intended to be able to serve as an AT piece, and it should probably have several times the ability in that respect of some generic piece of the same caliber -- for reasons that have nothing to do with shell weight, muzzle velocity, or rate of fire.

...and there's portability. A 3.7" AA should be as good an AT piece as an 88 -- except it weighed about twice as much.

And there's training, doctrine, and equipment. The 3.7" was simply not used against ground targets. I doubt if the operators were trained in how to use it in such a role, and I'd be surprised if shells for it to be used that way were available.



Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 12:49:17 PM)

Wiki:

Field and Anti-tank
Like other Britsh guns the 3.7 had a secondary anti-tank role, this meant that if the gun position came under tank attack it would engage the tanks. However, during the campaign in North Africa the shortage of capable anti-tank guns led to some agitation to use the 3.7 in a primary anti-tank role, i.e. deployed specifically for anti-tank defence.

Guns did have their sighting arrangements improved to enable better anti-tank shooting. However, it was only used in one or two emergencies. The arrival of the 17-pr anti-tank gun in late 1942 made a primary role irrelevant for 3.7.

The 3.7 was inherently unsuitable as an anti-tank gun. The was big and heavy, almost twice the weight of the German 88, making it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. Additionally, heavy AA Regiments equipped with the 3.7 gun were relatively few in number in the field army and controlled by Corps or Army HQ, or at even higher level HQs, and command of them was not often devolved to the commanders at Divisional level where the anti-tank role might be required. Prolonged firing at low elevations (not part of the original specification) also strained the mounting and recuperating gear.

The guns were used in the field artillery role quite extensively in the second half of the war in Italy, NW Europe, Burma and the SW Pacific. Batteries were issued with the necessary fire control equipment. Counter-battery or counter-mortar fire was the usual role. However, their HE ammunition seems to have always been fuzed for airburst, this means maximum ranges were limited to 9,200 yards with No 199 fuze and 16,200 yards with No 208.

The gun was used as the basis for the Tortoise assault tank's 32-pounder anti-tank gun, but this tank, which is best described as a self-propelled gun, never saw service.




Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 12:51:48 PM)

I have to wonder about using the same formulas for a bursting shell and for a non bursting shell.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 4:10:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I have to wonder about using the same formulas for a bursting shell and for a non bursting shell.


And the difference between aimed fire (squads) vs. indirect fire (artillery). Plus, does the shell contain black powder or TNT, etc. And then accuracy - how big a pattern is formed by 100 shells fired at the same spot.



Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 4:51:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I have to wonder about using the same formulas for a bursting shell and for a non bursting shell.


The meaning of your comment is not apparent to me. I wasn't aware that I had.



Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 5:21:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I have to wonder about using the same formulas for a bursting shell and for a non bursting shell.


And the difference between aimed fire (squads) vs. indirect fire (artillery). Plus, does the shell contain black powder or TNT, etc. And then accuracy - how big a pattern is formed by 100 shells fired at the same spot.


And you think Norm spent a lot of time worrying about any of that in a game with this wide a swing in map and time scale?

You can account for black powder. Whether you really want to model pattern and accuracy in this game is up to you. I actually did fiddle some with the formula from Mr. Evans website that "lethal" equals "0.1 lb/sq yd gives 2% casualties to troops in weapon pits, 20% casualties to troops in open." Someday I may go back to that, but in this exercise I was trying to reverse engineer what Norm gave us rather than portray the 19th century weapons more accurately or prevent scenario designers from using the 3.7 AA gun as an AT weapon.

Anyway, here is some guidance on other fillers from a previous link:

Bursting Charge Power - The following approximations of explosive power may be used using TNT = 1.00 as a reference point.

* Before and during World War I
o Black powder = 0.33 to 0.50
o Guncotton = 0.50
o Picric Acid (British Lyddite, French Melanite and Japanese Shimose) = about 1.05 to 1.10
o USA Explosive D = 0.95

* After World War I
o German and Italian TNT = 1.00
o British Shellite = 0.96
o Japanese TNA = 1.05
o USA Explosive D = 0.95

* Other Explosives (torpedo warheads, mines, depth charges)
o Amatol (80/20) = 1.24
o DD (Dinitronaphthalene/Dinitrophenol 60/40) = 0.82
o PETN = 2.21
o MDN (Melinite/Dinitronaphthalene 80/20) = 0.88
o RDX = 1.94
o Tetryl = 1.39
o Torpex = 1.50
o German SW types = about 1.07
o Japanese Type 97 (TNT/hexanitrodiphenylamine 60/40) = about 1.07

Two rules of thumb about Burster Power
1) The effect of the burster may be taken as being proportional to the square root of the weight of the bursting charge.
2) For the same basic shell design, the size of the bursting charge is proportional to the cube of the bore size.




Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 5:32:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

The guns were used in the field artillery role quite extensively in the second half of the war in Italy, NW Europe, Burma and the SW Pacific. Batteries were issued with the necessary fire control equipment. Counter-battery or counter-mortar fire was the usual role. However, their HE ammunition seems to have always been fuzed for airburst, this means maximum ranges were limited to 9,200 yards with No 199 fuze and 16,200 yards with No 208.

The gun was used as the basis for the Tortoise assault tank's 32-pounder anti-tank gun, but this tank, which is best described as a self-propelled gun, never saw service.




From what I've read about the American use of the 90mm as artillery, they may have liked the airburst for its effect on troops, while not leaving large craters or holes in things they hope to be using in the near future, like roads and bridges.



Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 6:40:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I have to wonder about using the same formulas for a bursting shell and for a non bursting shell.


The meaning of your comment is not apparent to me. I wasn't aware that I had.


A bursting shell, meaning a 76 mm regimental gun M1927 Fragmentation-HE: OF-350. A non bursting shell, meaning a DShK 12.7mm cartridge.

How would Norm use the same formula for both examples? I wish we had him here to give us the low down on what went into his numbers for both types. It would make it easier to edit things in the equipment editor.

I do believe you are onto something with what you've done. But I don't think it's all there. Or maybe it is and he used something totally different for non fragmentation shells. Also, I think there is a good probability he used something different for mortars because of their trajectory. Seems I read that someplace.



Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/8/2010 7:11:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I have to wonder about using the same formulas for a bursting shell and for a non bursting shell.


The meaning of your comment is not apparent to me. I wasn't aware that I had.


A bursting shell, meaning a 76 mm regimental gun M1927 Fragmentation-HE: OF-350. A non bursting shell, meaning a DShK 12.7mm cartridge.

How would Norm use the same formula for both examples? I wish we had him here to give us the low down on what went into his numbers for both types. It would make it easier to edit things in the equipment editor.

I do believe you are onto something with what you've done. But I don't think it's all there. Or maybe it is and he used something totally different for non fragmentation shells. Also, I think there is a good probability he used something different for mortars because of their trajectory. Seems I read that someplace.


OK thanks. I was confusing myself. [:D] And I agree that it's not all there.

For squad weapons, and mgs below 12.7mm, I really think he just divided ROF by 10 rather than try to establish a formula that would scale from one squad rifle up to Anzio Annie.

So far, I have just been too lazy to cube the bullets from Mosin-Nagants, Manlichers, Enfields, et. al. per Norm's formula, or Tony DiGiulian's formula (which does not halve the diameter of the projectile.) But I suppose I should test them to see how they work since they don't rely on information about a bursting charge -- starting with the US 30-06 since Norm is from the States. It might help Ma Duece, but probably not the mortars.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 2:07:37 AM)

And accuracy is more complicated than just whether the tube is rifled or smooth or any other tube quality. There's whether the angle is found by pencil and paper then set by hand crank or is it all set up by computer control? Couple this with the increasing strength of modern explosives, and late model guns probably should be more deadly than the same caliber guns from earlier periods.

Then there's things like nape and grape.



Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 2:45:43 AM)

You left out elan vitale, esprit de corps, and joie de vie.

Not that any of your post tells us how Norm arrived at his numbers, or how they might be improved.




Oberst_Klink -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 8:28:41 AM)

Remember the Grognard who "accused" good'ole Norm, that his formulas for the TOAW system are bollox?
There are some little bits and bobs that might irk some players... The naval/air system and how it works etc. For monster scenarios, the simple solution for it is the event system. TOAW wasn't designed to create the "Hunt for the Bismarck" or the naval campaigns in the Pacific etc. Neither was it designed to re-create the "Battle of Britain" or "Piercing the Reich" style strategic air campaigns, no?

Here's Norm's answer (to this bloke) to many questions that have been addressed or still being addressed in the forum.

http://normkoger.com/truth.html

And remember - No battle plan survives contact with the enemy... HvM, the elder.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.466797