RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Cap Mandrake -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 3:16:33 AM)
I blame General Sill (AKA "Gettysburg" Sill) http://www.nps.gov/gett/naturescience/geologicformations.htm

JeffroK -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 3:50:38 AM)
Only 1706?? My lot got chased out of England and scarpered to the new World in about 1670. A couple of murderers in the family later, they headed west, to Illinois!!

RCHarmon -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 3:51:35 AM)
Jeb Stuart is the one to blame. The eyes and ears of the army was gone and Lee was blind. Lees only chance for a victory was on day one and Stuart could have provided invaluable service. What is funny is that Longstreet advised that if Stuart was to march off(as he did) that Hampton's cavalry brigade remain with the army. Instead Stuart took with him all his best troops. Even one brigade of well lead cavalry would have served Lee very well.

vettim89 -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 4:19:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Matrix updated these games so they can be run by new computers. I REALLY wished they did more then that but it was nice to get them playing again. Jeff makes my point regarding an assault up the Cemetery near the end of Day One. Would have been VERY costly! Forstchen and Gingrich have Lee actually take 'in hand' his two new Corps Commanders and THEN listen to Longstreet for Day Two... I have to agree with this point. If Cemetary Hill had been taken on Day one, the assaulting Confederates would likely had been spent. Unless reinforcements had been moved in very quickly, they likely would have been pushed back off on Day Two. Of course that changes the complete nature of the battle. I would make a point about asigning blame. This is likely one of the most studied battles in history (Along with Waterloo, Agincourt, etc). It is very easy to make judgements far away from the actual moment the decisions were being made. To say General Such-and-Such should have done this or that in hind sight is an easy thing to say. This battle was possibly one of the most confusing ones of the ACW. We know where the Union lines were weak and strong; the Confederates did not have such a luxury. Intel was gained exclusively at the human level, and it is well documented how inaccurate HumInt can be. Considering the Union OOB was changing by the hour on Day One and Two, how can anyone really fault any of the decisions that were made? The battle was in flux so much during the first hours of the battle that neither side really had that dependable of an estimate of where the enmy was strong vice weak. I might also point out that of the scenarios presented here follow the assumption that the alternative tactic would have been successful. We don't know that to be true. The only provide a different possibility for how things would have played out ( emphasis on possibility) Lastly, I hate to lay the blame on R.E. Lee. That said, much of the Confederate success prior to Gettysburg had been based on superior leadership by he and his subordinates. They had repeatedly won with inferior numbers by using maneuver and bravado to their advantage. At Gettysburg, the terrain foiled his efforts time and again. Also, the Union Generals were finally able to counter his moves effectively. Perhaps he "went to the well" one time too many. The mistakes Lee made at Gettysburg are amazingly parallel to McClellan's at Antietam: failure to concentrate his force at the point of the attack and exploit the advantages when he had them. As to the PTO/ACW parallel, consider this: the entire Gettysburg Campaign was Lee's attempt to win a substantial victory thereby threatening Washington, DC and force Lincoln to the negotiating table. Final Decisive Battle anyone? Also, Picketts charge could be considered an expression of Confederate hubris equating to "Victory Disease". Just saying

Cribtop -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 4:53:48 AM)
I've certainly argued in the past on these very boards that in some broad sense the Southern and Japanese strategic positions are similar. The similarities are balanced by differences, but some of the imperatives are the same. That's probably why I'm a JFB, I suppose. Not much doubt where a Texan descended from South Carolinians falls on the Reb/Yank spectrum. [:D]

geofflambert -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 4:56:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert I'm from West Virginia originally, but if I were from the South, I would blame Buford, Hancock and Chamberlain in that order. Yep, good point. We focus on what the Confederate commanders did wrong but have to take into account what some very fine Yankee officers did right as well. Buford's excellent delaying action. Reynolds quick reaction to Buford's appeals for help and Meade trusting in the judgement of his officers and decision to change his plan on the fly and concentrating his army as fast as possible on Gettysburg. Even Abner Doubleday had a good day, and Abner was not known for having good days...[;)] I would make one caveat to what I said though, if not for Sickles we probably would not remember Chamberlain.

ilovestrategy -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 6:18:16 AM)
I think the battle was already lost when the Yankees took the high ground. shakes fist

Blackhorse -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 1:03:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCH Jeb Stuart is the one to blame. The eyes and ears of the army was gone and Lee was blind. Lees only chance for a victory was on day one and Stuart could have provided invaluable service. What is funny is that Longstreet advised that if Stuart was to march off(as he did) that Hampton's cavalry brigade remain with the army. Instead Stuart took with him all his best troops. Even one brigade of well lead cavalry would have served Lee very well. But J.E.B. did leave Imboden's brigade of cavalry behind. . . . oh, wait. You said well led. [:)]

crsutton -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 3:14:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zuluhour I just hung up with a local school pal who shares an interest in military history, he concurs on the Longstreet proposal to draw the Union Army back towards a prepared and previously surveyed position and allow the Union to impale itself. I will look for the source. If I recall (I'm not positive it was Lee, some help here) it was an ambiguous order to men in the sunken road which unhinged the Confederates at Sharpsburg. My humble yankee conclusion; something is wrong with Gen Lee and compounded by his "open" style of giving orders were to much to overcome yankees on their own soil with far better leadership than the previous months in Virginia. No one will deny the elan of the men in grey those three days, did not Lee admit so to his own men in the rain whom was to blame for this? I have always had a lot of difficulty with this theory. The first is the nature of all large Civil War Armies-especially Confederate. Lee took sufficient ammo with him on the campaign but for the most part the Confederate army relied on foraging for food and remounts when on an active campaign. The assumption was that basic food stock would have been gathered while the army moved. But if an army sits in one spot, near forage soon runs out. This is fine if the enemy is not around as you can send out foraging parties to outlying areas. However, when in close contact with the enemy, in enemy territory, the abiltiy to forage is lost-unless possibly you have a vast superority of cavalry. So, in reality it would have been very difficult for Lee to sit anywhere for any extended period of time as his army would have run out of vittles. The second flaw in this Longstreet theory is that it always is based on the assumption that the Yankee army would find the Rebs and "impale" themselves on the prepared position. Well, what if Meade-having the interior position to the capital maneuvered with the Rebel army and then just "sat" himself? Meade was a very good general and his actions after Gettysburg during the pursuit of the Rebel army showed that the last thing he would have done was impale himself on the Rebel army. When considering this the flaws in the Longstreet scheme start to look pretty large in that. 1. Meade was too competent to allow the Confederate army to march around his flank and position itself between him and Washington. 2. Meade was a good field general but not necessarily the most aggressive. No way he would have impaled his army on a strong Confederate position 3. Meade possesed more men and had plenty of reserves in is rear. 4. Meade possesed the interior position, was in friendly territory and had clear line of supply to his rear. 5. Meade had more cavalry and at the time probably better cavalry. 6. By simply choosing to sit and wait himself Meade would have given Lee only two options-to attack him or to eventually withdraw to Virginia. I just can't get my teeth into this Longstreet thing. Longstreet was a good general but he was not Lee. I can't for one minute think that Longstreet really had a better grasp of the overall stategic situation and would have come out of this with more success than Lee. Gettysburg was not a battle of Lee's choice. But after the first day he only had two options. Attack and win or retreat. The postion of the armies and his own supply and strategic situation had pretty much dictated that the campaign of maneuver was over.

Cap Mandrake -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 3:24:05 PM)
Meade's idea was to fight at the Pipe Creek Line. Buford's notion to fight at McPherson Ridge and his call to I Corps set the whole thing in motion. Let's say XI Corps got chased off Cemetery Hill on day 1. Meade most likely would have re-organized at Pipe Creek. The Union Army of 1863 was no longer the same army. They were competent. [image]http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/09/84/93_big.jpg[/image]

Cap Mandrake -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 3:30:49 PM)
[image]http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/09/84/91_big.jpg[/image] Pipe Creek in relation to Baltimore

mdiehl -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 4:43:09 PM)
quote: The second flaw in this Longstreet theory is that it always is based on the assumption that the Yankee army would find the Rebs and "impale" themselves on the prepared position. Well, what if Meade-having the interior position to the capital maneuvered with the Rebel army and then just "sat" himself? Meade was a very good general and his actions after Gettysburg during the pursuit of the Rebel army showed that the last thing he would have done was impale himself on the Rebel army. You've hit upon one of the major considerations, IMO. If Hooker had been the Army Commander, "impalement" might have been a reasonable hypothesis. But with Meade in charge, that was very unlikely to happen. We may, perhaps, excuse Longstreet's theory on the grounds that Meade had been made army commander a mere three days prior to the battle. It is entirely possible that Longstreet thought that the Army of the Potomoc was still under Hooker's command. Hooker was an aggressive, competent commander who is often remembered for his worst day than his many good days, and had no trouble following orders to aggressively attack into Stonewall Jackson's division at Antietam.

Alfred -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 5:00:55 PM)
You won't get too many southerners admitting this but the simple fact is that no Confederate general, and this most definitely includes Lee, had any idea how to win the war for the south. In this they were exactly in the same position as Japan. In both instances they were really relying on third party actions, for the Confederacy the intervention of Britain or France, for Japan Germany and Italy winning in the West, for sufficient external pressure to be brought to bear indirectlyh on their opponents to break their appetite (or capacity) to continue the war. The entire march north of the ANV was essentially a tactical exercise in response to a far deeper strategic problem, which essentially revolved around logistics. As such it was poorly thought through and executed. Once checked at Gettysburg by the presence of any substantial Union force there was no sound reason for Lee to seek any sought of battle. The initial idea of raiding Union territory for foraging purposes dictated that Lee should have declined battle and moved elsewhere to forage anew. If not possible then a retreat was the only sensible decision. The fault lay with Lee. For all his tactical acumen, Lee was not strong on strategy. His inability to come up with an overall viable strategy was clearly demonstrated the following year as he consistently won tactical battles against Grant but still failed utterly in stopping Grant from achieving his strategical objectives. Alfred

Canoerebel -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 5:15:34 PM)
The summer of 1863 was the point of decision for the Confederacy. They had just prevailed at Chancellorsville in Virginia. The Union Army was in a bit of disarray and was feeling some pressure. But in the west, things were a mess for the Confederacy. Grant was besieging Vicksburg and Rosecrans had taken Middle Tennessee and was threatening northern Alabama and eastern Tennessee. This was a dire situation and called for prompt and decisive action. Longstreet urged Lee to send him west with two divisions (those two divisions hadn't been engaged at Chancellorsville, so were fresh and ready to go). Longstreet wanted to join Bragg near Tullahoma, Tennessee, have that combined force then joined by Johnson coming up from Jackson, Mississsippi, and then this large army would move into Kentucky and threaten Cincinatti. Longstreet felt this was the best way to offer succor to Vicksburg. Lee disagreed, in part because he hated to ship off an important part of his army. Instead, Lee wanted to invade north. He felt that doing so mgiht force the Union to draw Grant back from Vicksburg. He was probably wrong. Even had things gone badly for the Union in Pennsylvania, it's doubtful that the Union would have recalled a force as distant as Grant's, especially considering its position and closeness to victory. So Lee was probably wrong, but he had to try to win the war somehow. Taking the offensive in the wake of Chancellorsville made sense. He surely knew it was a longshot, but it offered him something proactive and probably better than just remaining on the defensive and slowly getting bludgeoned to death (the course of action that Johnston adopted to some extent in Georgia the next year). Lee was not a perfect man, but he is probably one of the truly great men that America has produced. He merits the accolades he receives.

Cap Mandrake -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 5:49:55 PM)
I agree with you CR. Hard to fault Lee for doing something to stir up the mix. Clearly, he couldn't sit idle and let the Confederacy be carved up. A march directly on Washington would have encountered substantial prepared fortifications and the entire Army of the Potomac. He lacked the resources for a landing by sea. A mobile campaign with the hope of defeating the Army of the Potomac in detail was probably the only choice he had.

Nikademus -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 7:00:27 PM)
Havn't seriously studied the American Civil War since I was a teenager. Might have to revisit it after i've gone through my current Wish List items on Kindle. Any recommendations? lol.....had a conversation recently with an old high school friend who's a big US Civil War nut and wanna-be Confederate. He was telling me with great enthusiasm how if only one or two things had been different at Gettysburg, then D.C. would have fallen and had that happened, we'd be flying under a different flag today. I smiled, nodded and said "Really? wow...." ....and tried not to think of all the Moscow arguments. [:)]

Canoerebel -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 7:19:21 PM)
Yeah, the Rebels weren't even close. The "high water mark" of Pickett's Charge is analogous to the Confederacy's position as a whole - through great effort and sheer bravado they were able to get some men into the heart of the Union position, but it was too few too late too desperate and doomed to fail. The Rebs weren't close to winning Gettysburg and even had they managed to do so it wouldn't have made any difference barring the very slim chance that the Union leaders panicked and did something really dumb like lose the will to see the war through. Michael Shaara's Killer Angels is a spectacular book that is so beautifully written that it borders on the poetic (that's meant to be praise, not condemnation). I'd read it first. Next, as long as I enjoyed detailed history, I'd go to the books by Peter Cozzens, a historian from Illinois who knows how to write. His This Terrible Sound about Chickamauga is the second best work of history I've ever read (second only to We Were Soldiers Once). If you enjoy that, his The Shipwreck of Their Hopes (Missionary Ridge and Lookout Mountain) and No Better Place to Die (Stones River) are excellent.

Nikademus -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 7:23:29 PM)
Thx!

Cribtop -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 7:32:27 PM)
I believe that both Alfred and CR are correct. Lee wasn't perfect, but his strongpoint was tactics. Also, neither Lee nor anyone else had an idea how to win strategically, but in part this is because the strategic situation facing the South was fraught with possibly insurmountable challenges. IMHO, in the end the South failed when Sherman and Grant ignored the conventional operational wisdom (we suffered a set piece tactical reverse and must withdraw) and began to use their numbers and logistical advantages to either serially outflank the CSA forces (Sherman) or pound them relentlessly without much regard for casualties (Grant). In the end, this is how they burned my family's house. [:D] It is also, IMHO, the beginnings of later US approaches to war (and even over-engineering, but that's another story) through the end of WWII - we have more material and we will use it. Interestingly, after WWII the US went with a more "Germanic" quality of force approach, in part because of the massive size of the Red Army. Lee was what he was, a brilliant Napoleonic tactician who didn't realize that modern technology didn't always favor Napoleonic tactics. IMHO the vilification of Lee is an example of magnification of his shortcomings through what I call the "thesis effect" of history, in which grad students and later professors are drawn by various institutional factors to write theses that challenge the existing academic status quo, which for some time held forth that Lee was a god. He couldn't solve the South's strategic dilemmas, but then I'm not sure anyone could have, at least by military means. PS - despite it all, the South still had a chance because Texas seceded. [:D]

Canoerebel -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 7:47:09 PM)
FDR had his Brain Trust. I'm thinkin' AE Forumites are collectively knowledgeable about nearly anything to do with history (plus, undoubtedly, lots of other stuff to boot, though I'm not sure Chickenboy's knowledge of every exotic vacation locale in the world counts....). In recent months you guys have helped me identify photos taken at various locations in England during World War II and helped me get my mind wrapped around Early's performance at Gettysburg. This was not an advertised benefit of purchasing AE, but I appreciate it nonetheless. A tip of the cap to the Forum. You guys are great.

Cribtop -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 8:48:45 PM)
As are you for starting many interesting and "community oriented" threads of late, CR. [&o]

mdiehl -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 8:53:49 PM)
quote: or pound them relentlessly without much regard for casualties (Grant). Catton and a couple of others have shown that was not Grant's strategy at all. His casualty rate per engagement was in most cases lower than the casualties that US and rebel armies suffered under the command of other general officers. About 2:1 overall which was, considering the time period, very good. Grant's strategy was rather more one of remaining constantly engaged. So there were fewer "one big battle" events and more a constant stream of casualties. It robbed the Army of Northern Virginia of the only thing its commanders could use to good effect -- strategic initiative. Once Lee was pinned down by the Army of the Potomoc, the rest of the US armies were free to run wild.

Nikademus -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 9:25:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel FDR had his Brain Trust. I'm thinkin' AE Forumites are collectively knowledgeable about nearly anything to do with history (plus, undoubtedly, lots of other stuff to boot, though I'm not sure Chickenboy's knowledge of every exotic vacation locale in the world counts....). In recent months you guys have helped me identify photos taken at various locations in England during World War II and helped me get my mind wrapped around Early's performance at Gettysburg. This was not an advertised benefit of purchasing AE, but I appreciate it nonetheless. A tip of the cap to the Forum. You guys are great. Never trust a Chicken......Boy. [:D]

Chickenboy -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 9:37:01 PM)
All this expression of Southerly love is making me uncomfortable... Just for those comments, Canoerebel, I'm not bringing you back any kumis the next time I go to Kazakhstan! [:'(] ETA: I am going to San Diego this summer for a convention. We're having a party on the deck of the Midway at harbor there. No pictures for you! [:'(]

JWE -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 9:51:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse But J.E.B. did leave Imboden's brigade of cavalry behind. . . . oh, wait. You said well led. [:)] Darn, gotta hand it to the cavalry!! But then there was Jenkins that was actually supporting Ewell, and then there was Robertson and Grumble Jones. A really good book out about that, recently. Superlative reviews from people like Col. C.C. Kingsleed (USMA, West Point), G.C. Bradley (USAMHI, Carlisle); all of whom seem to wear (or used to wear) crossed sabres on their collars. Guys who wrote the book were over 12 years old, been in the field for years and have the respect of the community. Think you might just like it. I'll send you a pm. You might find some names in the dedication section that just might sound a bit familiar [;)] Ciao. John

Cribtop -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/22/2012 10:56:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: or pound them relentlessly without much regard for casualties (Grant). Catton and a couple of others have shown that was not Grant's strategy at all. His casualty rate per engagement was in most cases lower than the casualties that US and rebel armies suffered under the command of other general officers. About 2:1 overall which was, considering the time period, very good. Grant's strategy was rather more one of remaining constantly engaged. So there were fewer "one big battle" events and more a constant stream of casualties. It robbed the Army of Northern Virginia of the only thing its commanders could use to good effect -- strategic initiative. Once Lee was pinned down by the Army of the Potomoc, the rest of the US armies were free to run wild. I actually agree with this point, it was what I was trying to say, but I'm sure the "without regard to casualties" comment threw me into the ditch, so to speak. My point was that before Grant the Army of the Potomac would lose a tactical engagement and withdraw to DC or Arlington to try again in a few months. Grant would attack (a change of its own as in the past the Union advanced and the ANV would attack them), suffer higher casualties, but not necessarily proportionally higher than previous engagements and not necessarily proportionally higher than the CSA forces engaged. Then, unlike prior Union commanders, Grant stood his ground and attacked again, knowing that the attritional numbers in repeated engagements were on his side. In other words, I agree that his logic was not that of the Iranian mass wave attacks of the 80s, but rather using the sort of Lanchester's Law approach that Nemo has discussed. This was very different from Sherman's approach, operational offensive using maneuver to avoid direct assaults on the rebs.

Joe D. -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/23/2012 12:21:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl ... But as to calling it a matter of blame... ultimately, Lee chose to make the fight on that ground against well prepared US forces on Day 2 and Day 3. I'd say that the blame lies with him. Day 3 was especially ill advised. The late Shelby Foote said Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having a Robert E Lee. It was as if Lee was desparately trying to win the war with this one battle.

vettim89 -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/23/2012 1:06:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy All this expression of Southerly love is making me uncomfortable... Just for those comments, Canoerebel, I'm not bringing you back any kumis the next time I go to Kazakhstan! [:'(] ETA: I am going to San Diego this summer for a convention. We're having a party on the deck of the Midway at harbor there. No pictures for you! [:'(] To go OT on an OT: hey, Poultry lad, this convention you make reference to, is it AVMA? I was planning on going this year. We should meet up for drinks

USSAmerica -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/23/2012 1:14:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy All this expression of Southerly love is making me uncomfortable... Just for those comments, Canoerebel, I'm not bringing you back any kumis the next time I go to Kazakhstan! [:'(] ETA: I am going to San Diego this summer for a convention. We're having a party on the deck of the Midway at harbor there. No pictures for you! [:'(] To go OT on an OT: hey, Poultry lad, this convention you make reference to, is it AVMA? I was planning on going this year. We should meet up for drinks Wow, I had better steer my wife away from that conference! [:'(]

geofflambert -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/23/2012 2:56:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel The summer of 1863 was the point of decision for the Confederacy. They had just prevailed at Chancellorsville in Virginia. The Union Army was in a bit of disarray and was feeling some pressure. But in the west, things were a mess for the Confederacy. Grant was besieging Vicksburg and Rosecrans had taken Middle Tennessee and was threatening northern Alabama and eastern Tennessee. This was a dire situation and called for prompt and decisive action. Longstreet urged Lee to send him west with two divisions (those two divisions hadn't been engaged at Chancellorsville, so were fresh and ready to go). Longstreet wanted to join Bragg near Tullahoma, Tennessee, have that combined force then joined by Johnson coming up from Jackson, Mississsippi, and then this large army would move into Kentucky and threaten Cincinatti. Longstreet felt this was the best way to offer succor to Vicksburg. Lee disagreed, in part because he hated to ship off an important part of his army. Instead, Lee wanted to invade north. He felt that doing so mgiht force the Union to draw Grant back from Vicksburg. He was probably wrong. Even had things gone badly for the Union in Pennsylvania, it's doubtful that the Union would have recalled a force as distant as Grant's, especially considering its position and closeness to victory. So Lee was probably wrong, but he had to try to win the war somehow. Taking the offensive in the wake of Chancellorsville made sense. He surely knew it was a longshot, but it offered him something proactive and probably better than just remaining on the defensive and slowly getting bludgeoned to death (the course of action that Johnston adopted to some extent in Georgia the next year). quote: Lee was not a perfect man, but he is probably one of the truly great men that America has produced. He merits the accolades he receives. Perhaps. He did create the Port of St. Louis, bet many of you were unaware of that.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.109375