Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Best fighter in WW2???

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Best fighter in WW2??? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 7:02:03 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

Or the Buffalo?

We've had at least 1 Buff defender.

I am surprised though at the lack of defense for Japanese aircraft.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 181
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 7:03:13 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Allied high altitude stalwarts like the P-47 and P-51 were vastly superior to the ME-109 (you can pick any variant you want). The best of the German interceptors were all based on the FW-190 design.


*shrug* ok, I pick Me109K-10 vs P-47C.

List your reasons as to why you think the P-47C would be better at high altitude, where a Me109K-10 could fly in circles around it.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 182
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 7:07:36 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

Or the Buffalo?

We've had at least 1 Buff defender.

I am surprised though at the lack of defense for Japanese aircraft.


OK then, I choose the J2M. Because it has a cool lightning flash down the side




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 183
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 7:14:04 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Is there no one to defend the Lysander or the whirrawind? Or the the P-400? Or the Buffalo? Or even the Boomerang? Or on the other side of the world , the Defiant? Sad, so sad.

Yes it's sad - but as Frank Sinatra used to sing - "That's Life..."

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 184
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 7:25:34 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

Or the Buffalo?

We've had at least 1 Buff defender.

I am surprised though at the lack of defense for Japanese aircraft.


OK then, I choose the J2M. Because it has a cool lightning flash down the side



I'm sure it struck fear into the heart of allied pilots.


Actually, the Frank didn't make my list of best planes, mainly because they never had the chance to work out the bugs and the pilot pool was so bad for Japan by that time of the war. However, if I were an allied pilot I'm not sure I would want to go 1:1 with a trained Frank pilot.

I also don't think the Zero was the best fighter of WWII, but it was a very good fighter. Same can be said for the Tony.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 185
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 7:37:24 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
I was also such a highly standardized design that massively producing it for lend lease,


You're a Lend Lease design?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 186
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 7:53:06 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

... However, if I were an allied pilot I'm not sure I would want to go 1:1 with a trained Frank pilot.



All fighter pilots are so aggressive they wouldn't shirk taking on anything - or else they wouldn't be fighter pilots.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 187
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 7:56:06 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

... However, if I were an allied pilot I'm not sure I would want to go 1:1 with a trained Frank pilot.



All fighter pilots are so aggressive they wouldn't shirk taking on anything - or else they wouldn't be fighter pilots.

Which I am not, and probably never would be.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 188
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 9:04:09 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		@Pzetc

quote:

List your reasons as to why you think the P-47C would be better at high altitude, where a Me109K-10 could fly in circles around it.


At 30-40K feet the P47 was faster, could dive faster, could accelerate faster, could hit harder, could survive damage better, could out roll, out turn, out accelerate, out shine, out luster, and out dance any ME 109 ever made or dreamed of. And then after shredding a few 109s, it could land, reload and bust a train full of nazis with relative impunity compared to any 109.

@Speedy

quote:

You're a Lend Lease design?


Heh. Yep, all weather, all terrain, and generally reliable although not optimized for every possible argument!

_____________________________

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

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 189
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 9:42:23 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

At 30-40K feet the P47 was faster, could dive faster, could accelerate faster, could hit harder, could survive damage better, could out roll, out turn, out accelerate, out shine, out luster, and out dance any ME 109 ever made or dreamed of. And then after shredding a few 109s, it could land, reload and bust a train full of nazis with relative impunity compared to any 109.


Heh, you seem to hold the same level of knowledge on this subject as the one in the general forum.. Perhaps you missed that I wrote P-47C? Of cource you didnt, but still you must be quoting P-47N specs. Or maybe you are just making stuff up again?

Anyway, lets look at the stats.

P-47C
Entered service in September 1942. Plagued with problems recovering from high-speed dives (severe elevator compression at speeds above 500 mph).

Max speed at 30 000 feet was 353 mph.
Climb rate 2780 feet/min.
Ceiling 42000 feet.

Me 109K-10
Never had time to enter serial production, several prototypes made and some saw combat however. But lets compare with the K-4 that saw plenty of service though. K-4 entered service in October 1944. Already here you should realize just how stupid it is to try to compare the two, since K-4 is an entire generation newer than the P-47C.

Me109K-4
Max speed 445 mph at 25 000 feet
Rate of climb 5 800 feet/min
Ceiling 41 000 feet

So, if we look at these stats, a clear picture emerges. And no mdiehl, that picture is not that the P-47C would outshine the 109. Look at the climb-rate, that btw is also a function of acceleration. In a dogfight, the Me109 is faster and has an enormous climb advantage. That means the Me109K-4 will BnZ the P-47C until its dead.

Roll rates were tricky to find, in fact I could not dig them up with short notice, but we can look at sustained turn instead. The P-47C takes 25.5 seconds to do a 360 at 332 kph, the Me 109K-4 takes 21.5 seconds. Now, I know that this is not the same as roll-rate, but it gives an indication of general agility of the aircraft (for comparrison the number for the Zero is 18 seconds, and Spitfire I takes 19 seconds).

So, we have the Me109 K-4 being faster, better turn rate, much much better climb rate. Despite this you sit here and yap about the P-47C dancing around the Me 109K-4 at altitiude? That leaves two options. You either dont know what you are talking about, or you are making s hit up to fit your argument. Which is it?

< Message edited by Panzerjaeger Hortlund -- 11/29/2007 9:43:59 PM >

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 190
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 11:00:58 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Jaeger. You are "salting" the claim and playing "apples and oranges". You want to compare the late 1942 version of one A/C with the late 1944 version of another. By this logic, the P-47 could also be better because it's late '42 version was better than the late 1940 version of the Bf-109.

You guys need to pick choices from the same time frames before you start brandishing statistics at each other.

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 191
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/29/2007 11:14:19 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
before you start brandishing statistics at each other.

Yes, please there could be children about.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 192
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 12:05:34 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

Look at the climb-rate, that btw is also a function of acceleration.


Incorrect. It's a function of weight, airspeed, aerodynamics, and current altitude. Once again, was it a nice friendly contest where an ME-109K combat loaded were lifting off next to a P47 combat loaded, the ME-109 would win a race to altitude. It means nothing, because in 1944-1945, the general tendency was meeting engagements. At high alttiude the ME-109K was a pig. At 38,000 feet, the P-47 was, by comparison, nimble.

And yes, early P-47s had compressibility problems at speeds in excess of 500 mph. Face it, 500+mph was a mark that few powers actually had to worry about crossing. By comparison, the weak-kneed ME-109 couldn't make 500+mph in a dive (also because of compressibility problems) EVER. The ME-109K was real cute at 390mph below 30K feet, until it tried to dive away from a Jug. Then the ME-109K driver would learn why heavy poor-low altitude climbers were, well, HEAVY -- something to do with surviving a pounding under enemy fire, and why it may not have been the best fraking production decision to stick laminated wooden props on those 109s.

_____________________________

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

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 193
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 1:20:00 AM   
Shawkhan

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/1/2006
Status: offline 		...It should be obvious to anyone that the best fighter of WWII will be one of the last designs. Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the best fighter at various points in the war? The best fighter at December 7, 1941, the best fighter of 1942, etc. A plane should be compared to the other fighters it would most probably meet in combat at any given time.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 194
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 1:29:21 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Is there no one to defend the Lysander or the whirrawind? Or the the P-400? Or the Buffalo? Or even the Boomerang? Or on the other side of the world , the Defiant? Sad, so sad.



No, just truthful..

< Message edited by BrucePowers -- 11/30/2007 5:18:05 PM >

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 195
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 1:44:32 AM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Look at the climb-rate, that btw is also a function of acceleration.


Incorrect. It's a function of weight, airspeed, aerodynamics, and current altitude.


LOL no s hit?

Here you go buddy, see if you can follow this:
a = Force / mass
RoC = Force * TAS / Weight

(Weight = mass * g)

g = gravitational constant (32.2 feet/s^2)

All you have to do to convert a climb rate into an acceleration (at the climb speed), is to mutiply by g and divide by TAS.

A plane that will climb at 50 feet/s, with climb speed of say 220 feet/s, will have an instantaneous acceleration of

50 * 32.2 / 220 = 7.3 feet/s^2

quote:


Once again, was it a nice friendly contest where an ME-109K combat loaded were lifting off next to a P47 combat loaded, the ME-109 would win a race to altitude. It means nothing, because in 1944-1945, the general tendency was meeting engagements. At high alttiude the ME-109K was a pig. At 38,000 feet, the P-47 was, by comparison, nimble.


LOL, you are just making this up as you go along, dont you?

Well, lets see what the charts say, shall we?

Me 109 K-4 here







P-47C data found here







Let me know if you need an explanation on how to read those charts btw.





_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 196
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 1:56:16 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...It should be obvious to anyone that the best fighter of WWII will be one of the last designs. Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the best fighter at various points in the war? The best fighter at December 7, 1941, the best fighter of 1942, etc. A plane should be compared to the other fighters it would most probably meet in combat at any given time.

Well, yes and no. Several fighters mentioned here existed throughout the war. Like the Spit. It is pretty hard to pin down the "best fighter". In truth several fighters were very good and about equal in performance. Late war fighter planes do have the advantage of newer technology, but then some of what are considered the best early war fighters simply benefited from flying against planes that were obsolete. The Zero vs the Buf or the Zero vs the P-36 comes to mind.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Shawkhan)
Post #: 197
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 2:13:09 AM   
undercovergeek

 

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		id say an allied plane, especially to panzerjaeger......

because if german or japanese ones were that good, we'd all be speaking german or japanese

and we're not!



(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 198
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 6:15:03 AM   
Feltan


Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

id say an allied plane, especially to panzerjaeger......

because if german or japanese ones were that good, we'd all be speaking german or japanese

and we're not!





Very true. That is because the argument about the best airframe is pointless in the absence of discussing other equally important aspects such as organization, numbers, mainenance, training, logistics, etc.

In other forums, I've seen passionate people almost come to blows over which tank is best, or which rifle is tops. When viewed in isolation, such arguments are almost humorous to observe. In isolation, you might just as well be arguing over which flavor of ice cream is best.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 199
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 7:51:07 AM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

id say an allied plane, especially to panzerjaeger......

because if german or japanese ones were that good, we'd all be speaking german or japanese

and we're not!





Very true. That is because the argument about the best airframe is pointless in the absence of discussing other equally important aspects such as organization, numbers, mainenance, training, logistics, etc.

In other forums, I've seen passionate people almost come to blows over which tank is best, or which rifle is tops. When viewed in isolation, such arguments are almost humorous to observe. In isolation, you might just as well be arguing over which flavor of ice cream is best.

Regards,
Feltan


T-34, M-1 Garande. Best fighter Ta-152. Oh and Butterscotch!!! Hands down it's Butterscotch.

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 200
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 8:43:02 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Regardless of what the stats and graphics say - Me-109 and P-47 in whatever the variant are ugly - so why care?  

(in reply to okami)
Post #: 201
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 9:24:12 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

id say an allied plane, especially to panzerjaeger......

because if german or japanese ones were that good, we'd all be speaking german or japanese

and we're not!







that´s the same as saying the Sherman WOULD be better than the Panther. For me, UNDOUBTABLE the Panther is the better tank but that doesn´t help you if you face 15 Shermans... No, no, plz don´t start a discussion about tanks now...

what I want to say is that it only matters to a certain point how much better your plane, tank, ... is. Whenever you face too many of your enemies (which are "slightly" inferior to your equipment) you have a problem. And from 43 on there is only a slight performance difference of the fighters above Europe, not really decades between the opponents facing each other.

So in fact - IMO - the reason people aren´t speaking German is more a fact of the industrial output of Germany´s enemies, not the fact the Allied had better equipment. Put 50.000 Panthers against 50.000 Shermans (and all the other stuff that is needed, like fuel, spare parts, etc. etc. - which Germany didn´t have of course) on the battlefield and let´s see who wins...

Put 10.000 FW190 against 10.000 P47 into the air and watch... Yamato vs. Iowa... blah blah blah


It´s a nice discussion here though!


< Message edited by castor troy -- 11/30/2007 2:31:07 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 202
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 1:28:01 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

that´s the same as saying the Sherman WOULD be better than the Panther. For me, UNDOUBTABLE the Panther is the better tank but that doesn´t help you if you face 15 Shermans... No, no, plz don´t start a discussion about tanks now...


OK... no tanks... I respect that... but can we introduce Bismarck into this thread?


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 203
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 2:09:17 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline 		I don't know squat about German aircraft so I think I'll just kick the feet up and watch this time!

Chez


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 204
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 2:10:58 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

that´s the same as saying the Sherman WOULD be better than the Panther. For me, UNDOUBTABLE the Panther is the better tank but that doesn´t help you if you face 15 Shermans... No, no, plz don´t start a discussion about tanks now...


OK... no tanks... I respect that... but can we introduce Bismarck into this thread?


Leo "Apollo11"


OK.... the Bismarck would have blown away the KGV hands down with two turrets tied behind her keel if those other Brit ships hadn't ganged up on her!



Chez


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 205
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 2:20:40 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Obviously the "best fighter" would be dependent on the mission, time period, time in use, many variables.
One might easily say the Me 262, the P 51, P 38, A6m(series), Hawker Tempest(one of my favourites), gosh knows what else.
Even the Pzl.11 was good for its' day, or the Gladiator, C.R.42, etc..




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by m10bob -- 11/30/2007 2:26:37 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 206
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 2:31:47 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

that´s the same as saying the Sherman WOULD be better than the Panther. For me, UNDOUBTABLE the Panther is the better tank but that doesn´t help you if you face 15 Shermans... No, no, plz don´t start a discussion about tanks now...


OK... no tanks... I respect that... but can we introduce Bismarck into this thread?


Leo "Apollo11"



I knew I forgot something to mention!


_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 207
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 3:02:31 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		SCUTTLED!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 208
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 6:52:25 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Sunk by a critical 3" hit delivered by USCGC Modoc.

_____________________________

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

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 209
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 7:10:08 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

id say an allied plane, especially to panzerjaeger......

because if german or japanese ones were that good, we'd all be speaking german or japanese

and we're not!





Very true. That is because the argument about the best airframe is pointless in the absence of discussing other equally important aspects such as organization, numbers, mainenance, training, logistics, etc.

In other forums, I've seen passionate people almost come to blows over which tank is best, or which rifle is tops. When viewed in isolation, such arguments are almost humorous to observe. In isolation, you might just as well be arguing over which flavor of ice cream is best.

Regards,
Feltan


Which any rationale human being realizes is chocolate fudge.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Best fighter in WW2??? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890