Very interesting...

Very interesting... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Apollo11 -> Very interesting... (6/17/2003 11:24:21 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42 Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97 Japanese aircraft J7W Shinden x 81 Allied aircraft B-29 Superfortress x 106 Japanese aircraft losses J7W Shinden x 1 destroyed J7W Shinden x 4 damaged Allied aircraft losses B-29 Superfortress x 11 destroyed B-29 Superfortress x 27 damaged PO2 B.Sugiyama of 30th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 2 Port hits 3 Port fuel hits 3 Port supply hits 1 Attacking Level Bombers: 11 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 18 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 18 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 8 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 15 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 12 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 2 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 2 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet 3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/B][/QUOTE] Very interesting... What happens if you alter altitudes and test several times using each alt? BTW. such looses are unacceptable from bomber group standpoint... Leo "Apollo11"

mdiehl -> (6/18/2003 12:09:37 AM)
The combat losses for the Japanese seem too low. Integrated f/c system on the 29s should have resulted in roughly 10x the number of casualties seen in this AAR. Even light damage to a Shinden engine (with poor reliability at best to begin with) would result in the destruction of the plane. And the damage rate is far too low. Should be about 1 for 1 when attacking B29 bomber boxes. Also I do not understand why there are all these "3 bombers" and "2 bombers" targeted. USAAF bomb groups did not fly that way as a matter of doctrine or even as a frequent matter of fact.

Apollo11 -> Any historic info on B-29 fire control system and remote turrets? (6/18/2003 12:19:45 AM)
Hi all, [QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]The combat losses for the Japanese seem too low. Integrated f/c system on the 29s should have resulted in roughly 10x the number of casualties seen in this AAR. Even light damage to a Shinden engine (with poor reliability at best to begin with) would result in the destruction of the plane. And the damage rate is far too low. Should be about 1 for 1 when attacking B29 bomber boxes. Also I do not understand why there are all these "3 bombers" and "2 bombers" targeted. USAAF bomb groups did not fly that way as a matter of doctrine or even as a frequent matter of fact. [/B][/QUOTE] I think I read somewhere that remote turrets in B-29 (as opposed to manned turrets in almost all previous bombers) proved big failure (including fire control system)... Anyone knows anything more about this? Leo "Apollo11"

mdiehl -> (6/18/2003 12:27:45 AM)
They did not. The defensive armaments were mostly removed owing to lack of aerial opposition. There were some initial bugs in the observation-bubble to gun turret slave systems but these were worked out in early 1945. There was also an integrated fire control system where multiple turrets could be slaved to a single observation bubble to concentrate fire on a single approch target. An analog computation device allowed the turrets to track and accurately lead a/c at speeds in the 600 mph range (bearing in mind that the relative speed between such a/c and a high flying B29 was only 250 mph). There is (was) a B29 fire control officer working in the B29 hangar at Pima Air and Space Museum. His complaint was that the B29s were not allowed to bomb from the same altitudes as B17s. He was confident that he could track and accurately lay fire with 8x.50cal out to about 1000 yards ANY aircraft in the German or Japanese arsenals. He said the tracking only became difficult when the relative positions were so close that the rate of deflction angle change was very very high and other B29s got in the way.

mdiehl -> (6/18/2003 12:30:42 AM)
B29 Specifications: [QUOTE] Dimensions: Wing Span 142' 3", Wing Area 1,736 Sq.Ft., Lenght 99', Max Height 27' 9" Weight: 70,140 Lbs. (empty) - 135,000 Lbs. gross with a 12,000 Lbs. payload Powerplant: 4x 2,200 Hp - 18-cylinder Wright R-3350 Cyclone with 8x GE B-11 Superchargers Range: 3,250 miles @ 25,000 ft. with a 5,000 lb. payload (4,100 with auxiliary tanks) Max Speed: 375 mph. @ 25,000 ft. Service Ceiling: 31.850 ft. Climb rate: 38 minutes to 25,000 ft. with full load Fuel load: 8,198 gallons, raised to 9,548 with auxiliary tanks fitted in the bomb bays Defensive armament: 10x .50-cal. remote-controlled machine guns, 1x 20mm. cannon (later removed) Bomb capacity: 5,000 lbs. over a 1,600-mile radius at high altitude, 12,000 lbs. at medium altitude Crew: 11 (pilot, co-pilot, bombardier, flight engineer, radio operator, navigator, 3 gunners in the Central Fire Control station, radar operator, tail gunner) [/QUOTE] And here are some comments on the teething problems: http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b29.html [QUOTE]Then there were problems with the huge, 161/2' Hamilton Standard propellers which caused "run-a-way" engines, problems with the 4 remote controlled gun "barbettes, problems with the "fire control blisters" where gunners were stationed to aim the barbettes; the blisters sometimes blew out when the craft was pressurized and flying at high altitude. (Gunners were advised to wear a safety line in order to avoid being blown overboard if a blister popped). There were problems with booster controls for the rudder and problems with the radar. [/QUOTE] These problems were worked out by late 1943. [QUOTE]It was armed with the General Electric auto-computing fire control system composed of eight remotely-controlled .50 caliber machine guns installed in 4 barbettes located on the top and bottom of the fuselage fore and aft. Later models added 2 more machine guns to the top forward barbette to assist in defending against frontal attacks. Control of the 4 barbettes could be transferred to a single gunner or shared between front, right, left and top gunners. The tail-gunner controlled two more .50s plus a 20mm cannon. It was estimated the tail gunner accounted for 75% of all enemy planes destroyed by the Superfortress. One reason for this was the 20mm cannon. Another was the slow closing rate of an enemy approaching from the rear which allowed more time for the tail gunner to sight on the intruder. [/QUOTE] The late war variants were VERY impressive. FLown from altitude it was unlikely taht any aircraft in the Japanese arsenal could catch one, much less shoot one down. Note the [B]400 mph[/B] airspeed at 30K feet: [QUOTE]Boeing B-29A Superfortress Dimensions: Wing span: 141 ft. 3 in (43.05 m) Length: 99 ft. 0 in (30.17 m) Height: 29 ft. 7 in (9.02 m) Wing Area: 1,736 sq ft (529.13 sq m) Weights: Empty: 72,208 lb (32,752 kg) Maximum Take-Off: 140,000 lb (63,502 kg) Performance: Maximum Speed: 399 m.p.h. (642 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9,144 m) Service Ceiling: 23,950 ft (7,299 m) Combat Ceiling: 36,150 ft (11,018 m) Normal Range: 4,200 miles (6,759 km) (with 18,000 lbs. (8,164 kg) bombs) Powerplant: Four Wright Aeronautical R-3350-57 Twin Row Radial 2,200 hp (1,640 kw) take-off, 2,500 hp (1,864) WE, Air Cooled Armament: Eight or twelve 50-cal. machine-guns. One 20mm cannon. Maximum bomb Load: 20,000 lbs. (9,0710 kg)[/QUOTE]

mogami -> Secret weapon (6/18/2003 3:43:45 AM)
Little known Japanese fighter. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42 Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A8M1-Mog x 108 Allied aircraft B-29 Superfortress x 103 Japanese aircraft losses A8M1-Mog x 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses B-29 Superfortress x 31 destroyed B-29 Superfortress x 27 damaged PO2 G.Obayashi of 30th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 2 Port hits 7 Port fuel hits 3 Attacking Level Bombers: 19 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet 22 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet 13 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet 3 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet 4 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet 8 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet 2 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet 1 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet 3 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet 3 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mdiehl -> (6/18/2003 3:55:15 AM)
Un huh. Would that be the wire-guided A8M1 anti-ballistic Rooster Booster, Mogami variant? If I recall that was a little publicized and highly secret project inspired by the US bat-guided bomb research, courtesy of a clandestine Spy Ring run by Mr. Moto. Almost won the Japanese the war too. If only the Mystery Machine had not been parked on the launch site. D@mn those meddling kids!

mogami -> All 99's (6/18/2003 3:58:31 AM)
Hi, In this action all pilots are 99's (it don't help the Japs much) I'm going to lower the US pilots 25 at a time. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42 Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A6M8 Zeke x 108 Allied aircraft P-51D Mustang x 188 Japanese aircraft losses A6M8 Zeke x 88 destroyed A6M8 Zeke x 4 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-51D Mustang x 18 destroyed P-51D Mustang x 2 damaged FO R.Dionne of 11th BG is credited with kill number 7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A6M8 Zeke x 51 Allied aircraft P-51D Mustang x 164 Japanese aircraft losses A6M8 Zeke x 49 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-51D Mustang x 4 destroyed P-51D Mustang x 3 damaged FO G.Brors of 5th BG is credited with kill number 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apollo11 -> Any info about actual combat results? (6/18/2003 4:04:14 AM)
Hi all, [QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]They did not. The defensive armaments were mostly removed owing to lack of aerial opposition. There were some initial bugs in the observation-bubble to gun turret slave systems but these were worked out in early 1945. There was also an integrated fire control system where multiple turrets could be slaved to a single observation bubble to concentrate fire on a single approch target. An analog computation device allowed the turrets to track and accurately lead a/c at speeds in the 600 mph range (bearing in mind that the relative speed between such a/c and a high flying B29 was only 250 mph). There is (was) a B29 fire control officer working in the B29 hangar at Pima Air and Space Museum. His complaint was that the B29s were not allowed to bomb from the same altitudes as B17s. He was confident that he could track and accurately lay fire with 8x.50cal out to about 1000 yards ANY aircraft in the German or Japanese arsenals. He said the tracking only became difficult when the relative positions were so close that the rate of deflction angle change was very very high and other B29s got in the way. [/B][/QUOTE] This is all nice (and for the most part it reads just like something taken directly from arms manufacturer's promo material)... But what about actual combat results? Is there info on how many B-29s were shoot down by enemy fighters (or possibly AAA if they flew low)? Is there info on how many enemy fighters B-29 remote turrets shoot down (if some of them remained before being stripped away)? Leo "Apollo11" P.S. While writing this my eyes keep glancing over 1:48 diorama B-29 model I build when I was 14 (almost 20 years ago) and which is still in great condition (please note that 1:48 B-29 is really big plastic "thing")...

mdiehl -> (6/18/2003 4:14:25 AM)
Well. Aviation history link just gives the facts. Doesn't say anything about effectiveness. The opine I gave on effectiveness of teh targeting computer is basically the paraphrased opinion of a B29 fire control officer. Since he flew, IIRC, 14 combat missions and had extensive pre-combat training in aerial gunnery with the thing, I've assumed he has some knowledge whereof he spoke. I'll see what I can find for substantiating links. This will likely take a few days, as the usual Japanese propaganda about fleets of crashing Allied planes won't do for a source. I know what you mean about 1:48. I have a ProModeler Black Cat PBY I'm itching to assemble, along with an F102. Since they are in 1:48, I'm saving money for an addition to my house.

mogami -> Test 2 (6/18/2003 4:15:46 AM)
Japanese pilots 99 USAAF pilots 75 AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42 Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A6M8 Zeke x 101 Allied aircraft P-51D Mustang x 188 Japanese aircraft losses A6M8 Zeke x 109 destroyed A6M8 Zeke x 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-51D Mustang x 18 destroyed P-51D Mustang x 5 damaged FO N.Franklin of 11th BG is credited with kill number 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A6M8 Zeke x 33 Allied aircraft P-51D Mustang x 163 Japanese aircraft losses A6M8 Zeke x 34 destroyed A6M8 Zeke x 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-51D Mustang x 4 destroyed P-51D Mustang x 1 damaged FO D.Irwin of 5th BG is credited with kill number 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101 Japs destoyed 14 P-51 destroyed 16 damaged.

mdiehl -> (6/18/2003 4:18:17 AM)
Forgive me if I miss the point, Mo. Why are you bouncing 2:1 odds of P51s against Zekes? If this is a test of the internal mechanics of air to air, should you not be using equal numbers of a.c?

mdiehl -> (6/18/2003 4:25:19 AM)
Not definitive, and it's a web link (so of unknown value) but this UK site stipulates that B29s in Korea shot down more jets than were shot down by jets. If true that'd be 4 years of improvmenet in the analog fire control computer, but then much better opposition in the MiGs than anything Japan could field in WW2. http://www.raf-waddington.com/specials/museum/b29/b29.htm

Apollo11 -> (6/18/2003 4:25:20 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B] I know what you mean about 1:48. I have a ProModeler Black Cat PBY I'm itching to assemble, along with an F102. Since they are in 1:48, I'm saving money for an addition to my house. [/B][/QUOTE] I have around 30 1:48 diorama models (and many 1:72)... :-) Leo "Apollo11"

mogami -> Test 3 (6/18/2003 4:31:59 AM)
Hi, currently the US player does not have to worry about trained pilots just production These USAAF pilots were 10's versus Japanese 99's (Don't faint this is why I'm testing) Personally I think untrained pilots are at a disadvantage no matter how good their aircraft (unless it flies it's self) It appears currently the aircraft are more important then who is flying them. (But at least in this test, skilled pilots can achive equal kills) I'll raise the number of Japanese aircraft to see what weight the numbers difference made. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42 Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A6M8 Zeke x 108 Allied aircraft P-51D Mustang x 188 Japanese aircraft losses A6M8 Zeke x 91 destroyed A6M8 Zeke x 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-51D Mustang x 14 destroyed P-51D Mustang x 2 damaged WO of is credited with kill number 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A6M8 Zeke x 48 Allied aircraft P-51D Mustang x 128 Japanese aircraft losses A6M8 Zeke x 25 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-51D Mustang x 4 destroyed P-51D Mustang x 1 damaged FO D.Rea of 5th BG is credited with kill number 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 A6M8 destroyed 87 P-51D destroyed 22 damaged.

mogami -> numbers (6/18/2003 4:35:15 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]Forgive me if I miss the point, Mo. Why are you bouncing 2:1 odds of P51s against Zekes? If this is a test of the internal mechanics of air to air, should you not be using equal numbers of a.c? [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, Yes that is true. But for my own interest I am also trying to find out what impact numbers have. (Since I expect the Japanese to face greater numbers) I'm trying to discover the weight each factor has on results Aircraft Pilot Number

mdiehl -> (6/18/2003 4:46:41 AM)
Leo - Here is a decent unit action record for the 9th BG (very heavy). It's a PDF file so you need Adobe Acrobat. On most of these missions the lack of opposition is apparent. One may assume that the flak was heavy, but inaccurate since not that many suffered damage. Almost all the "damaged" a/c survived their missions. It should be pretty accurate in re US losses (not necessarily Japanese ones). http://www.9thbombgrouphistory.org/Chapters/Chapter_07.pdf Of particular interest are the numerous instances in which precision daylight raids were mounted from middling altitudes (10-20K feet). Significant damage inflicted on many of these. Anyhow: 32K mission hours of which 93% were combat sorties (the rest Super Dumbo, Show of Force, Leaflet etc. missions) in 2012 sorties. 494 a/c combat losses (this appears to include operational losses in theater), 264 losses in training stateside. Their claims of course are the usual stuff of bomber crews. For what they're worth (very little, IMO), they are credited with 714 Japanese a/c destroyed and 456 "probables." Without talleying the results mission by mission, it looks like the overwhelming proportion of B29 losses were to flak.

Apollo11 -> Thanks for info (and links) "mdiehl"! (6/18/2003 5:19:18 AM)
Hi all, Thanks for info (and links) "mdiehl"! Leo "Apollo11"

Yamamoto -> Re: Test 3 (6/18/2003 10:58:54 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, currently the US player does not have to worry about trained pilots just production These USAAF pilots were 10's versus Japanese 99's (Don't faint this is why I'm testing) Personally I think untrained pilots are at a disadvantage no matter how good their aircraft (unless it flies it's self) It appears currently the aircraft are more important then who is flying them. (But at least in this test, skilled pilots can achive equal kills) I'll raise the number of Japanese aircraft to see what weight the numbers difference made. [/B][/QUOTE] This is really, really disheartening. It means that there is no reason to protect your pilots or try to raise their skill. In fact, you could completely eliminate skill in this game it seems. I assume that UV must be the same way. They really need to change it so that skill is the most important thing. I believe that is how reality is, how history shows, and what would be the most fun for the player. After all, who would care that your new pilots were coming in with skill in the 10's if you never noticed a difference in their performance? Yamamoto

mdiehl -> (6/19/2003 12:58:45 AM)
No they don't need to change it so that "skill is the most important thing." An adequately trained pilot in a greatly superior aircraft should routinely shoot the tar out of an expert pilot in an inferior design. That's just the way air combat works. Note the emphasis on "adequately trained." That said, the results turned in by Mogami's tests are awkward. I'm not sure what Exp=10 is supposed to reflect in terms of training and tactics. In PW it would have represented the worst of the late war Japanese student-aviators. If one can barely control one's aircraft, one can hardly fly it to its optimum specs, could one. Of course, if one had lots of student pilots with no real training taking a hot plane like the P51 (or P47, 38, 39Q, or F4U) into combat, one should see really appalling operational loss rates. It's hard to say how much effect "exp" will have in the real game since we do not know the range of variation. If it's got the absurd assumptions of GGPW then having a combat profile in which experience is largely irrelevant seems reasonable.

Chiteng -> (6/19/2003 1:20:56 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]No they don't need to change it so that "skill is the most important thing." An adequately trained pilot in a greatly superior aircraft should routinely shoot the tar out of an expert pilot in an inferior design. That's just the way air combat works. Note the emphasis on "adequately trained." That said, the results turned in by Mogami's tests are awkward. I'm not sure what Exp=10 is supposed to reflect in terms of training and tactics. In PW it would have represented the worst of the late war Japanese student-aviators. If one can barely control one's aircraft, one can hardly fly it to its optimum specs, could one. Of course, if one had lots of student pilots with no real training taking a hot plane like the P51 (or P47, 38, 39Q, or F4U) into combat, one should see really appalling operational loss rates. It's hard to say how much effect "exp" will have in the real game since we do not know the range of variation. If it's got the absurd assumptions of GGPW then having a combat profile in which experience is largely irrelevant seems reasonable. [/B][/QUOTE] I dont agree. Since 6% of all pilots account for 80% of all actual air to air kills (Dunnigan - How to make War) I think skill matters quite a bit.

mogami -> Bad Numbers (6/19/2003 5:44:34 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]I dont agree. Since 6% of all pilots account for 80% of all actual air to air kills (Dunnigan - How to make War) I think skill matters quite a bit. [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, I think you better reread the numbers. If you took all the pilots who became aces. (from all countries) Add their kills together you would not have 80 perecent of the air to air kills. It fact most air to air kills were achived by pilots that finshed with 1 or 2 kills. (It is not a few doing a lot, it is many doing a little.) (Unless Dunnigan is lumping all pilots (bomber transport search) together and then using those that had a kill.

Chiteng -> Re: Bad Numbers (6/19/2003 6:04:33 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, I think you better reread the numbers. If you took all the pilots who became aces. (from all countries) Add their kills together you would not have 80 perecent of the air to air kills. It fact most air to air kills were achived by pilots that finshed with 1 or 2 kills. (It is not a few doing a lot, it is many doing a little.) (Unless Dunnigan is lumping all pilots (bomber transport search) together and then using those that had a kill. [/B][/QUOTE] I dont have the resources to dispute Dunnigan, nor the desire. He also isnt the only author to make that statement, we could in fact ask Al Nofi himself thru Matrix, for an opinion.

mogami -> Pilots (6/19/2003 8:00:01 AM)
Hi, No I think we are both misinterpreting that statistic. Take P-47's for example. over 500,000 missions were flown by P-47's. They shot down 2700 enemy aircraft. (there were 15000 P-47's) This would mean 900 pilots had 1900 kills (6 percent killing 80 percent) This is not so difficult for me to swallow. (It's only 2 each) leaving 800 to be divided among the remaining 14100 pilots (of which more then half likely never saw an enemy aircraft) These numbers are of course not exact but do show (for me at least) that the 6 percent/80 percent is not as unreasonable as I first thought

mdiehl -> (6/19/2003 9:42:08 AM)
That claim has always been very suspect, IMO. IIRC (dimly) it was based primarily on Axis strategic analyses during the war that were discovered after the war. Two problems. 1. The thing is based on pilot claims and "verified" kills. Not worth squat. 2. The "victory distribution" probably varies by major power and theater. Given the US policy of rotating veteran pilots into training duty and producing better trained pilots (on average) than the other powers, one would expect the US distribution to be, err, "flatter."

Chiteng -> (6/19/2003 4:26:04 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]That claim has always been very suspect, IMO. IIRC (dimly) it was based primarily on Axis strategic analyses during the war that were discovered after the war. Two problems. 1. The thing is based on pilot claims and "verified" kills. Not worth squat. 2. The "victory distribution" probably varies by major power and theater. Given the US policy of rotating veteran pilots into training duty and producing better trained pilots (on average) than the other powers, one would expect the US distribution to be, err, "flatter." [/B][/QUOTE] So what? It still indicates that SKILL matters. Quite a bit.

Mike_B20 -> (6/19/2003 8:21:10 PM)
I agree with HMSWarspite regarding his comments on unrestricted player control of production resulting in artificially inflated numbers of 'perfect' game weapons. Two weeks into release every player will have nothing but the most combat effective aircraft/ships in production. Perhaps there should be a toggle switch at startup for player control of production. No doubt there will be many house rules in this area. I don't envy the testers the job of testing and hopefully balancing the effectiveness of the different aircraft in the game. Great work with the air combat testing Mogami..I can see you are dedicated to making WITP as good as it can be. I hope the final results reflect more the historical results and less the results a lot of gamers think they should have been. Sometimes I wonder if the UV game engine can handle a project this huge. With all the debate regarding the accuracy of the UV modelling in the Coral Sea, the complexity of the whole Pacific theatre with production thrown in as well, it will be a miracle if all the grognards are satisfied.

Sonny -> (6/19/2003 10:09:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_B20 [B]...................... With all the debate regarding the accuracy of the UV modelling in the Coral Sea, the complexity of the whole Pacific theatre with production thrown in as well, it will be a miracle if all the grognards are satisfied. [/B][/QUOTE] I think by definition grognards are never satisfied.:D

mdiehl -> (6/20/2003 12:19:39 AM)
Whaddya mean grognards are never satisfied? WTF is with a thread where any yahoo can say a grognard's never satsified?Mutter mutter hang it all mutter mutter... gotta change the rules around here.. .mutter mutter. ;)

Snigbert -> (6/21/2003 2:42:36 AM)
You need to grumble, not mutter. It's in the Grognard rule book.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875