RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

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: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 6:45:03 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Ok this site gives CAP details:

23 Dauntless dive bombers shot down 4 torpedo-planes (the rest of the CAP was out of position), so 23 of the 27 destroyed are from flak. Though it doesn't say how many of the 69 are zeroes.

I'm seeing conflicting information as to AA vs. Cap losses (look at pages 68-71). The strike package numbers were "twenty fighters and seventy attack planes". The one thing everyone agrees on is that Japanese losses were 27 aircraft:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bNtS8A6UOn8C&pg=RA1-PA74&lpg=RA1-PA74&dq=japanese+aircraft+losses+at+coral+sea&source=web&ots=WiwHkEltCu&sig=6EJUsfc1x2tmqzxEQ4xjAToKjqo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA1-PA69,M1

As an interesting side note, the same book notes that the Japanese strikes on Neosho and Sims cost them six planes. Obviously there was no CAP in that engagement and the AA had to be paltry in comparison to that Carrier Task force, yet it still claimed six planes.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 91

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 10:50:37 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

CORAL SEA Continues...

Immediately following the brutal attack of CARDIV 5, Shoho launches her small AirGroup less 6 CAP Zekes. The strike is extremely effective, finding both American CVs in the throws of pitched damage control battles and blind without Radar. The Airborne CAP of 6 Cats does well to bag 2 Zekes from the meager escort, but fails to cut into the Strikers. The result is a 33% hit rate for the Shoho Kates. Lex seems all but doomed.

The Shoho takes advantage of a an enemy while it's down...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Cooktown at 98,138

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-21 Zero x 6
B5N2 Kate x 6

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-21 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 4 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet (EIII-3 Daitai / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet (EIII-3 Daitai / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 92

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 12:31:00 PM

PeteG662

Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

From this example looks like strikes may be more brutal on the receiver.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 93

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 12:55:26 PM

cantona2

Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Remember that Miss Betty carries a very teeny-tiny bombload.

Its the damn torpedo she carry's thats the problem

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 94

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 1:19:48 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

From this example looks like strikes may be more brutal on the receiver.

It's not as bad as it looks. FoW is on. Lex is not in too bad a shape. At least not for having received 4 torpedoes. She'll make port and fight again.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to PeteG662)

Post #: 95

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 1:41:04 PM

moose1999

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

Is it possible to turn FOW on and off - also during a game, not just at the beginning?
Is it possible to turn FOW on/off just for the combat reports?
If not, would any of the above be possible through modding?

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 96

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 3:36:15 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

In Elf's last example it looks like the Zeke's did a good job of protecting the bombers and keeping the Wildcats busy...Nice..So much damage to the bombers with the escort, It would be a waste to send un-escorted bombers against a defended target.

_____________________________

(in reply to moose1999)

Post #: 97

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 3:44:00 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

Is it possible to turn FOW on and off - also during a game, not just at the beginning?
Is it possible to turn FOW on/off just for the combat reports?
If not, would any of the above be possible through modding?

No, no and no.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to moose1999)

Post #: 98

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 3:44:56 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In Elf's last example it looks like the Zeke's did a good job of protecting the bombers and keeping the Wildcats busy...Nice..So much damage to the bombers with the escort, It would be a waste to send un-escorted bombers against a defended target.

Plus, there's also now a significant risk of unescorted bombers turning back before reaching the target, or inbound strikes breaking up into smaller packets.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 99

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 6:50:04 PM

PeteG662

Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

Its going to be interesting.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 100

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 8:51:48 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Fascinating stuff - as always when it's the analysis of a carrier engagement!

However, just to demonstrate that I am not a completely unreconstructed JFB, the criticism I have of this particular attack is that the Japanese CVL's did not have the capability of launching a torpedo strike. Shoho's deck just wasn't long enough to permit a Type 97 to lug a torpedo into the air, even if it were the B5N2 model rather then the B5N1's probably embarked in this carrier.

It pains me to have to admit it, but strictly speaking some way should be found to curtail the Japanese ability to launch torpedo strikes from any carrier smaller than Junyo and Hiyo.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 101

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 10:35:12 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Fascinating stuff - as always when it's the analysis of a carrier engagement!

However, just to demonstrate that I am not a completely unreconstructed JFB, the criticism I have of this particular attack is that the Japanese CVL's did not have the capability of launching a torpedo strike. Shoho's deck just wasn't long enough to permit a Type 97 to lug a torpedo into the air, even if it were the B5N2 model rather then the B5N1's probably embarked in this carrier.

It pains me to have to admit it, but strictly speaking some way should be found to curtail the Japanese ability to launch torpedo strikes from any carrier smaller than Junyo and Hiyo.

This is true. Unfortunately it didn't make the cut. We could go on all day about things that can or can't be done in this game that should or should not be possible.

If we stopped to smell every flower how long do you suppose it would take us to get out of the garden?

How much time do you want to spend in the garden...?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 102

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 10:42:46 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

Coral Sea Continues: The Americans Strike back...

Unaware of the conflagration experienced by their sea bound comrades, the Yorktown and Lexington AirGroups Find and Fix their opposites in CARDIV 5. The Response of the IJN Defenses is slow and Flak bursts are blooming around the tight USN formations even as interceptors scramble to join the 6 Zekes standing guard over head.

The initial picture...The CAP is unprepared to repulse the American attack

The response is swift though belated and the lack of radar among the IJN is telling. Though the CAP savages the Wildcat Escort the SBDs and TBDs are relatively untouched before they deploy and attack.

The CAP peaks at 26 Zekes but they are too late as the American Divebombers are well into their dives before they can have an effect on the outcome of the day. The Escort Wildcats have performed admirably, though at a cost in men and machine...

CARDIV 5 under duress from the Lexington and Yorktown Air Groups. How will this look in the morning?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Milne Bay at 101,138

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-21 Zero x 19

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 19
SBD-3 Dauntless x 36
TBD-1 Devastator x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-21 Zero: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 8 destroyed, 3 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 23 damaged
TBD-1 Devastator: 4 destroyed, 16 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CA Haguro, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
DD Ushio

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VS-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
2 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
1 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VS-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
3 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
1 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
1 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VS-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VS-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
3 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 103

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 10:45:48 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

Would it be possible to define a B5N1a that can only carry bombs, and have it only on the CVLS? And not allow it to upgrade to the torpedeo carring one?

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 104

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 10:46:35 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

No different than defining any other aircraft type, and plenty of slots in the new database.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 105

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/20/2008 11:52:22 PM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

Of course the same should be done for the US TBF/TBM as, IIRC, only the Sangamons had torpedo carrying ability (as well as being the only US CVEs to carry F6F)

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 106

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/21/2008 12:06:37 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Good modder-fodder.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 107

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/21/2008 12:17:16 AM

Elouda

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 108

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/21/2008 3:07:43 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda
I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?

Brilliantly simple. Great solution.

(in reply to Elouda)

Post #: 109

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/21/2008 9:57:15 AM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda
I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?

Brilliantly simple. Great solution.

Great idea - nice and simple!

BTW, it should be used for both sides...

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 witpqs)

Post #: 110

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/21/2008 9:59:39 AM

Elouda

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda
I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?

Brilliantly simple. Great solution.

Great idea - nice and simple!

BTW, it should be used for both sides...

Leo "Apollo11"

Well, IF its doable, it should be used where historically accurate - so AFAIK, only the Sangamons would be able to launch torpedo strikes, and probably only carry enough torpedoes for a few.

Im sure the people working on AE are more aware of what could and couldnt launch torpedo planes than I am.

(Edit - I guess Mini-KB just lost its teeth.

)

< Message edited by Elouda -- 9/21/2008 10:00:49 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 111

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/21/2008 10:07:04 AM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda
I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?

Brilliantly simple. Great solution.

Great idea - nice and simple!

BTW, it should be used for both sides...

Well, IF its doable, it should be used where historically accurate - so AFAIK, only the Sangamons would be able to launch torpedo strikes, and probably only carry enough torpedoes for a few.

Im sure the people working on AE are more aware of what could and couldnt launch torpedo planes than I am.

(Edit - I guess Mini-KB just lost its teeth. )

Let's hope this is doable (i.e. the WitP-AE tem can implement it without much fuss in just few minutes of editing official scenarios)!

BTW, it would be interesting if this simple and elegant solution can be implemented that it originated from WitP player reading WitP-AE thread and not from within the WitP-AE team (many times such simple and elegant solutions are ideas brought from the outside - the inside team is always busy and sometimes the "trees hide the forrest")...

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 Elouda)

Post #: 112

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/21/2008 12:55:56 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda

Well, IF its doable, it should be used where historically accurate - so AFAIK, only the Sangamons would be able to launch torpedo strikes, and probably only carry enough torpedoes for a few.

Agreed!

quote:

Im sure the people working on AE are more aware of what could and couldnt launch torpedo planes than I am.

(Edit - I guess Mini-KB just lost its teeth. )

In the immortal words of Alec Guiness, "What have I done?"

OK, for full historical verisimilitude, now find a way to limit Junyo/Hiyo to launching only 6 torpedo-armed Kanko apiece

While I'm about it, I count 20 torpedo drops by the TBD's. With Sho. charging around with a 34 knot capability and the Mark 13's having a speed IRO 33.5 knots, isn't a 20% hit+detonation rate just the teensiest bit on the fortunate side?

< Message edited by Local Yokel -- 9/21/2008 1:03:52 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Elouda)

Post #: 113

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/21/2008 12:59:44 PM

cantona2

Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline

Good news for AFB's then

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 114

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/21/2008 1:35:40 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

While I'm about it, I count 20 torpedo drops by the TBD's. With Sho. charging around with a 34 knot capability and the Mark 13's having a speed IRO 33.5 knots, isn't a 20% hit+detonation rate just the teensiest bit on the fortunate side?

If the torpedo bombers were able to deploy properly on both bows in the classic "Anvil Attack" then the speed benefit would be much reduced. The storyline indicates that the Japanese CAP was weak and pretty much completely tied up by the escort so the short version would be that the TBDs got into the proper positions. One could even postulate that they got onto both bows and both quarters so Shokaku was in the deep p00p no matter which way she turned. IRL Shoho got tagged mulitple times when the US strike blew through its CAP.

quote:

Would it be possible to define a B5N1a that can only carry bombs, and have it only on the CVLS? And not allow it to upgrade to the torpedeo carring one?

I tried something like this with the "old database" but it didn't work. I had different "types" of G3Ms and G4Ms as well for a Mod that I worked on but they all started using torpedos in spite of being defined as a bomb-bomber. The problem may have been redefining a slot previously used for a torpedo bomber. Perhaps it was hard-coded, I never investigated.

(in reply to cantona2)

Post #: 115

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/22/2008 4:27:12 AM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

I am enjoying this AAR. Thanks Elf.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 116

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/22/2008 6:11:55 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

This is excellent work and highly informative. Nice pick-up for a simple solution regarding the smaller CVs.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 117

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/22/2008 9:05:43 AM

moose1999

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

Is it possible to turn FOW on and off - also during a game, not just at the beginning?
Is it possible to turn FOW on/off just for the combat reports?
If not, would any of the above be possible through modding?

No, no and no.

Damn, damn and damn.

Still going to be the best wargame ever, though!

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 118

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/22/2008 10:08:55 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

While I'm about it, I count 20 torpedo drops by the TBD's. With Sho. charging around with a 34 knot capability and the Mark 13's having a speed IRO 33.5 knots, isn't a 20% hit+detonation rate just the teensiest bit on the fortunate side?

Are you saying that 24 Virtually unscathed TBDs should NEVER be able to score 4 Torp hits on a CV?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 119

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/22/2008 11:17:17 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Yeah, didn't know you were such a JFB, LY...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 120