Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Aircraft Weapons and launch platforms, P-51 Mustang and P-38 Lightning.
heraldabc    12/22/2010 4:13:04 PM
Hypothesis: within the detection range of an engagement envelope there are two operation and decision cycles that are separate local events and that are mutually dependent upon each other. One local event is the launch platform which is the carriage and deploy mechanism. The other local event is the weapon as it operates across the interval from the launch platform to the target. The nature of the launch platform and the nature of the weapon act upon each other as an effectiveness ratio in doing work on the target. For this hypothesis we will use two concrete examples, the P-51 Mustang and the P-38 Lightning and discuss the shortcomings each platform had to the ideal solution that each tried to solve from its common military user perspective. Preliminary comments and questions welcome. H.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
heraldabc       12/27/2010 6:13:22 PM

I'll opt for the 6 12.7mm's...As one Website says, it's "Effective", not necessarily "Efficient."  Yes the USN wanted to move to 2cm weapon and failed to do so, but the 12.7mm served the US, well.  For what the US attacked, tanks, trucks, Light/Medium Bombers (Especially the Japanese Bombers), Fighters the 12.7mm HMG was more than adequate.  No need to waste resources on developing a new weapon and a new ammunition trail.  The 12.7mm did what needed doing...

 

Sure if you're a German you need to develop the Mk213C as soon as possible, in the 2cm and 3cm variants.  The Germans were attacking Heavy Bombers and Night Attackers, they needed the extra "oomph" to bring down the Heavies, or the A/c in fleeting attacks.  The US and the RAF. less so.

 

For the RAF the choice is 7.7mm or 2cm, realistically I'd go 2 cm.  And since we have the Hispano-Suiza I'd go with that.

"To many people, a 20mm cannon is a 20mm was a 20mm cannon. Sure they have different rates of fire and velocities, but they more or less do the same amount of damage from gun to gun per hit. In the Real World, there is a *huge* difference between the 20mm used in WW2, much bigger among, them than the 12.7mm and the 7.9mm classes.

First off let's dig into detail on the 12.7mm class of guns (.50cal class). On the top of the heap, in mamy opinions, is the Browning .50cal gun, which has an excellent ballistic shape (thus doesn't slow down as bad as it's counterparts), fires a 48 gram round (about 700 grains), with a decent rate of fire and very high initial velocity. The Russian 12.7mm gun (Berezin, which I think is superior) is similar in velocity and rate of fire and bullet weight. All the rest of the 12.7mm guns fire a much smaller round, ranging from 32-36 grams (this is why the Ki61 doesn't "feel" like it has quite the same punch as the P51B or FM2, despite having four .50cal guns, especially outside of 150 yards or so). On the flip side the lighter firing guns in general have much superior rates of fire, so things aren't always that simple. Plus, the Russian and US .50cal guns are quite heavy compared to the German and Japanese counterparts.

20mm cannon however, vary considerably, a brief look at the ammunition bears this out much better than just comparing bore-sizes . Weight of shell varies from 92 grams (German MG151/20) to 164 grams (Ho-5). An Mk108 30mm round weighs about 330 grams if you want a comparison. The Browning .50cal round weighs 48 grams. So when you assume that most WW II 20mm cannons operated as if they had the same "punch" of the Hispano Suiza model 404 approximately, which falls in the middle of the 20mm range, having an excellent muzzle velocity, medium-sized shell (130 grams), and average rate of fire, toy create a false reality of what a weapon system could do. The Hispano Mark V, along with the Ho-5, actually gets a ton of extra damage at point blank range from kinetic energy, due to weight of round and hitting velocity as opposed to the other 20 mm cannon out there. The lighter 20mms tend to be the MG151/20, MG FF (light round, low rate of fire). Mid-range as stated is the French Hispano Suiza HS 404 cannon, and the Japanese Navy Type 99 cannon (low rate of fire, but a large 142 gram shell), and on the high end is the Ho-5 20mm cannon found on the Ki84 and if the US gad invented it on our own fighters.

Now with regards to the MG151/20, there are a few things yo be noted, since it's a rather popular gun for the fanbois, especially amongst the FW 190 worshippers. The MG 151/20 was derived from the MG151/15 which was a .60cal machine-gun with an extremely high velocity. In essence it's really just a larger gas operated machine gun that fires an explosive round. The MG FF that the Germans used first fired a 115 gram round (depending on whether you're talking the Mine round (HE), Armor Piercing or whatever). Some research shows that the MG 151/20 fires either a 92 gram round or a 115 gram round. Rates of fire are the same, but the 92 gram round has a significantly higher velocity (660 m/s vs 710 m/s) than the 115 gram round, but naturally is smaller and thus has less explosive damage. At point blank the difference is negligible, since the smaller round makes up the difference in kinetic damage. However, vs fighters, the 92 gram round is probably better, because the higher velocity it is fired at means much less deflection and a shorter time-to-target with those rather low velocities. The heavier round had muzzle velocities much closer to the MG FF gun, albeit with a much higher rate of fire. Ballistic models show the 92gram round has a wobble dropout at ~400 meters for the MG151/20 for this reason of not enough ma

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Well...   12/27/2010 7:48:34 PM
Here's the thing, had the Mustang or the Hellcat had the Ho-5 2cm you are writing about, it would still be threatened by the Japanese/German version...the point you make, is a good one, but irrelevant to the question.  The Browning 12.7mm was GOOD ENOUGH FOR IT'S TARGET ARRAY...it's not relevant that the Hellcat would have been vulnerable to the Ho-5, because the question is, "What weapon ought I be using?"  Not "How armoured out I be?"
 
So an Ho-5 Japanese A/c or a Bf-109 or a FW-190 or a GM-4 or A JU-88 or Panther or an Opel Blitz are STILL vulnerable to the Browning 12.7mm...the targets the USAAF and USN faced.  So my argument is that the 12.7mm was "good enough" for the Targets it faced, there were more efficient and "better" weapons, true, but those had to be developed and the Browning was Pre-Existing and worked...so for WWII, and barely Korea, it's "good enough."
 
For Germany that's not true, Germany faced Lancasters, Halifaxes, Liberators, and B-17's and they all took a High Explosive round to damage, and hence AT LEAST a 2cm round.  Mosquito Night Fighters had to be hit quick and hard, only a few rounds were going to be loosed on such fleeting targets so a 2cm or 3cm weapon made sense...and so the Mk-108 and Mk 213C made sense to the Luftwaffe...
 
Britain didn't have the 12.7mm, it had the puny 7.7mm weapon and so HAD to develop something better....
 
Bottom-Line: the question focuses on the LETHALITY of the A/c, not it's SURVIVABILITY...and the 12.7mm Browning was deadly enough for the US, the 7.92mm and MG-15/151 WEREN'T lethal enough for the Luftwaffe in 1943 on, and the British had the same problem with the 7.7mm, so both Air Forces needed a different and more lethal round.  It is fair to say that the Germans, in the Mk-213C and it's follow-on ADEN/DEFA 3 cm weapons created a very effective weapon, one that the US would have been well-advised to have adopted, POST-WAR.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       12/27/2010 8:22:40 PM

Here's the thing, had the Mustang or the Hellcat had the Ho-5 2cm you are writing about, it would still be threatened by the Japanese/German version...the point you make, is a good one, but irrelevant to the question.  The Browning 12.7mm was GOOD ENOUGH FOR IT'S TARGET ARRAY...it's not relevant that the Hellcat would have been vulnerable to the Ho-5, because the question is, "What weapon ought I be using?"  Not "How armoured out I be?"
 
The point you missed was that the Germans do not have an HO-5.  Plus there were FW 190s that escaped because the Browinings were not good enough to down them, and there were a lot of American fighters that never got home because they had puny weapons during those fleeting moments when they had the German lined up in an ambush shot and could not close the deal like a British cannon armed fighter could.
 
And there is the Navy. Part of the mission of the US Navy fighter in the early war was to strafe enemy decks to suppress enemy Flak. Later when the Kamikazi became headache number one, the question was how fast could you down a Bakka carrying Betty?  
 
A 20 mm HO-5 cannon per kilogram carried aloft is 3x as effective as a 13 mm  Browning. That is not my conclusion that is the USN, the operators who used and faced the weapons.
 
So an Ho-5 Japanese A/c or a Bf-109 or a FW-190 or a GM-4 or A JU-88 or Panther or an Opel Blitz are STILL vulnerable to the Browning 12.7mm...the targets the USAAF and USN faced.  So my argument is that the 12.7mm was "good enough" for the Targets it faced: there were more efficient and "better" weapons, true, but those had to be developed and the Browning was Pre-Existing and worked...so for WWII, and barely Korea, it's "good enough."
 
And by that logic, can you explain the 20,000+ 20 mm aircraft cannons and 3 million+ rounds of ammunition that the US confidently produced that they planned to install in 1942 and 1943 aircraft that they wound up warehousing?    

For Germany that's not true, Germany faced Lancasters, Halifaxes, Liberators, and B-17's and they all took a High Explosive round to damage, and hence AT LEAST a 2cm round.  Mosquito Night Fighters had to be hit quick and hard, only a few rounds were going to be loosed on such fleeting targets so a 2cm or 3cm weapon made sense...and so the Mk-108 and Mk 213C made sense to the Luftwaffe...

Look at what you just wrote.  The JU-88NJ and the Me 252 were what kind of WW II targets again? What kind of target was a MiG in Korea?

Britain didn't have the 12.7mm, it had the puny 7.7mm weapon and so HAD to develop something better....

And when they did, they faced exactly the same targets the US did. What did they choose? 

Bottom-Line: the question focuses on the LETHALITY of the A/c, not it's SURVIVABILITY...and the 12.7mm Browning was [not] deadly enough for the US, the 7.92mm and MG-15/151 WEREN'T lethal enough for the Luftwaffe in 1943 on, and the British had the same problem with the 7.7mm, so both Air Forces needed a different and more lethal round.  It is fair to say that the Germans, in the Mk-213C and it's follow-on ADEN/DEFA 3 cm weapons created a very effective weapon, one that the US would have been well-advised to have adopted, POST-WAR.
 
The point us that the British chose the Hispano and spent most of the war trying to fix it. The US had a chance  to do what the Japanese did successfully in 1943 EARLY in 1935-1938 and missed the opportunity completely.


That was a result of stupid USG policy that was created in 1927 to punish the then world leading armaments industry as "war profiteers". It destroyed that industry by restricting large military ammunition and weapon development to only government arsenals.
 
Its a miracle we had halfway decent WW I weapons that could be modified to WW II use!
 
H.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       12/27/2010 9:18:21 PM

Its a miracle we had halfway decent WW I weapons that could be modified to WW II use!

Who knows.  We might have accelerated VT fuze design and production.  Married VTs to 40mm drawn warheads and HVARs, eliminated guns for bomber escort in lieu of a half-dozen external/nacelled HVARs with VTs per escort, replaced gun mounts with additional internal avgas tanks for greater range, and trained our median pilot candidate in employment of husbanded VT fuze-equipped rockets instead of the painstaking gunnery that didn't necessarily prove up.  But God Bless John Browning and the notion of volume ;>)

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    ....   12/28/2010 8:43:27 AM
...and also take into effect the massive, and mercilessly effective, Long Lance torpedo.
(Not bad for an inferior race, as some Americans viewed them at that time.)
 
What strikes me odd over the whole Ho5 20mm development is,
the ImpJap Navy used a woefully inferior AA gun, in 25mm, developed from the Hotchkiss.
It was utilized in single, twin, and quite often triple mountings.
 
With a mediocre rate of fire compared to similar light cannon (20mm Oerlikon and others pressed into ground service, the 30mm guns as utilized for the German "Kugelblitz" AA system (here), even some 37mm guns matched its rate of fire),
and the fact that the next likely AA caliber on IJN ships was 76 or 100mm,
that left a big gap in defensive gun armament (surprising for a navy so keen on aviation at sea),
especially so when compared to the predominant Allied groupings of 20mm (Oerlikon) 40mm (Bofors or 2-pdr), and 3" automatics late War....
 
Fortunate for us (Allies) but a pity, really, that the IJN didn't develop the Ho5 suitably for ship use.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   12/28/2010 10:17:26 AM

The point you missed was that the Germans do not have an HO-5.  Plus there were FW 190s that escaped because the Browinings were not good enough to down them, and there were a lot of American fighters that never got home because they had puny weapons during those fleeting moments when they had the German lined up in an ambush shot and could not close the deal like a British cannon armed fighter could.

 

And there is the Navy. Part of the mission of the US Navy fighter in the early war was to strafe enemy decks to suppress enemy Flak. Later when the Kamikazi became headache number one, the question was how fast could you down a Bakka carrying Betty?  

 

A 20 mm HO-5 cannon per kilogram carried aloft is 3x as effective as a 13 mm  Browning. That is not my conclusion that is the USN, the operators who used and faced the weapons.

 

I have never read of any US Pilot who did NOT get a ?kill? because the 12.7mm was ?too small? to hurt the Bf-109 or the FW-190.  As to the Japanese the GM-4 was even EASIER kill with a ?Baka? on board because it was then not only flammable, but even slower and LESS maneuverable.  The ?Baka? was Not an effective weapon system because of that.

 

 

And by that logic, can you explain the 20,000+ 20 mm aircraft cannons and 3 million+ rounds of ammunition that the US confidently produced that they planned to install in 1942 and 1943 aircraft that they wound up warehousing?

 

And which you constatntly point out were never used, because they didn?t work reliably.  Leaving the Browning 12.7mm as the alternative, an alternative that worked, well. Quote    Reply


heraldabc       12/28/2010 11:45:15 AM

Reply to various.

VelocityVector 12/27/2010 9:18:21 PM

Its a miracle we had halfway decent WW I weapons that could be modified to WW II use!

Who knows. We might have accelerated VT fuze design and production. Married VTs to 40mm drawn warheads and HVARs, eliminated guns for bomber escort in lieu of a half-dozen external/nacelled HVARs with VTs per escort, replaced gun mounts with additional internal av-gas tanks for greater range, and trained our median pilot candidate in employment of husbanded VT fuze-equipped rockets instead of the painstaking gunnery that didn't necessarily prove up. But God Bless John Browning and the notion of volume ;>)

v^2

That is a bit fantastic for 1935 to 1942, although the original British intent from 1942 on, was to use a radio proximity fuse inside a free ballistic trajectory rocket as a 'cheap' AAA and a2a munition. Certainly US postwar development of 70 mm rockets tended to that way and purpose; though it was determined in the end that impact fusing was better, since tests quickly revealed fratricide in flight was the usual outcome of close packed VT fused warhead volleyed rocket fire and that single or double shots of free flight rockets was actually useless. The rockets had to be guided.

The Germans tried to use wire guidance and found that MACH 1 or greater was not a good idea, neither was flying into those wires trail wires.

doggtag .... 12/28/2010 8:43:27 AM

...and also take into effect the massive, and mercilessly effective, Long Lance torpedo.

(Not bad for an inferior race, as some Americans viewed them at that time.)

The British inspired the Japanese with their own idiotic development of an augmented oxidizer 610 mm torpedo weapon for the HMS Rodney and the HMS Nelson. It only slowly dawned on the RN that the very specialized battleship weapons they developed for those two specific ships were hideously expensive, rare, totally unreliable and a logistic nightmare, since the specialized plumbing and fittings were at that time beyond British tech or manufacturing to make as tight as the pressure flasks and feed pipes needed to be . The British found their gas mix froze at the injector ports in the combustion pot!

Some Japanese naval attache (around 1922?) reported the British work on their '24 inch augmented air torpedo' to the IJN. Between London and the IJN weapon establishments at Osaka though, 'augmented air' somehow became translated as 'oxygen'. This translation blunder was technically fatally critical to the US because the Japanese had already tried to create a augmented air (oxygen-nitrogen ratio improved) torpedo of their own and had run into the same corrosion and gas check problems that bedeviled the British in their own development efforts that caused the British to abandon their augmented-air efforts and settle for large 24 inch conventional wet-heater monster Whiteheads for the Rodneys.

The Japanese are proud and stubborn. They had a vague report from their attache that they believed that the British had a new super-torpedo that used almost pure oxygen as an oxidizer, therefore Japan must have that super-torpedo. So the Japanese tried to figure out what they thought the British did. They leaned how to work steel, bronze and copper so as not to create galvanic corrosion, how to make lead gas checks that would not leak, how to dry the oxygen out, how to store oxygen as a gas safely under ridiculous pressures in a shock environment, how to created a two flask, mixed gas, pure gas oxidizer feed system to prevent freeze feed at the gas injectors and also prevent a detonation at motor first ignition. (there were several bench-test motor disasters where engineers and technicians were killed-did I mention that the Japanese were proud and stubborn?).

Hence the Japanese now had this 'oxygen' torpedo, a product of an accident of bungled espionage that they had expended for the time and for them the equivalent of the cost of a major warship. For the lives and vast amount of money they spent, after they proofed the weapon, was there any doubt that they would not use the still experimental and cranky weapon as their standard torpedo weapon?

 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       12/28/2010 12:41:56 PM

The point you missed was that the Germans do not have an HO-5.  Plus there were FW 190s that escaped because the Browinings were not good enough to down them, and there were a lot of American fighters that never got home because they had puny weapons during those fleeting moments when they had the German lined up in an ambush shot and could not close the deal like a British cannon armed fighter could.

And there is the Navy. Part of the mission of the US Navy fighter in the early war was to strafe enemy decks to suppress enemy Flak. Later when the Kamikazi became headache number one, the question was how fast could you down a Bakka carrying Betty?  

A 20 mm HO-5 cannon per kilogram carried aloft is 3x as effective as a 13 mm  Browning. That is not my conclusion that is the USN, the operators who used and faced the weapons.

I have never read of any US Pilot who did NOT get a ?kill? because the 12.7mm was ?too small? to hurt the Bf-109 or the FW-190.  As to the Japanese the GM-4 was even EASIER kill with a ?Baka? on board because it was then not only flammable, but even slower and LESS maneuverable.  The ?Baka? was Not an effective weapon system because of that.

That is because he usually DIED. Plenty of German pilots reported their escapes.

1. The time you waste hosing a Japanese kamikazi with a bullet stream with a Browning is time you can use to chase his cousin

2. Plus too many American fighters had to chase Japanese Kamikazis into American Flak because the damned Japanese would not explode. They burned easy but they kept flying into our ships. Art that point you want to break them into pieces in the air, not just shoot them up to watch them fall into our ships.

And by that logic, can you explain the 20,000+ 20 mm aircraft cannons and 3 million+ rounds of ammunition that the US confidently produced that they planned to install in 1942 and 1943 aircraft that they wound up warehousing?

And which you constantly point out were never used, because they didn?t work reliably.  Leaving the Browning 12.7mm as the alternative, an alternative that worked, well.      

Did you miss the parts in the WW II history we have here in the record, where the Browning jammed because of cold, mis-set head space, feed jams and humidity as well as crappy ammunition? Did you miss where the Navy went to the Colt 20 mm (Mark 12) as soon as it could weapon proof it and was happy with that cranky cannon and glad to ditch the Browning at last? Why? Because of what recent experience it had? (See my remarks above. It was the Iwo Jima Lesson). Why was the Navy frantic to develop GUIDED MISSILES as an a2a weapon at least a decade before anyone else besides the Germans thought about it? The answer was that the Navy didn't even think cannon were effective anymore after 1945.

Look at what you just wrote.  The JU-88NJ and the Me 252 were what kind of WW II targets again? What kind of target was a MiG in Korea?

And we didn?t engage many German Night-Fighters.  As to the ME-262 or the MiG, please note the final kill ratios?it was NOT technology that triumphed but pilot skill and tactics.  A 2cm cannon would have made the ratios more lop-sided, but was not necessary to achieve aerial victory.

The underlined is all I need for negation.

Britain didn't have the 12.7mm, it had the puny 7.7mm weapon and so HAD to develop something better....

And when they did, they faced exactly the same targets the US did. What did they choose? 

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    H.   12/28/2010 4:29:02 PM

That is a bit fantastic for 1935 to 1942 ... the rockets had to be guided.

It's not so fantastic.  If the bureaucratic apparatus could have been convinced as to the potential efficacy and savings, and had possessed a bit more faith in American manufacturing quality control, it could have enlisted Von Neumann to develop field curves and co-invent an appropriate aircraft sight for the rockets.  40mm drawn to fit battery and form the right ogive would have reduced majority fratricide risks - a larger payload clearly would have been too much for aerial combat in vicinity of heavy bombers and even a launching fighter escort itself.  Given fighter production volume, I honestly believe we could have rolled out extremely effective unguided anti-aircraft rockets by early '43 and streamlined training and logistics as a result, including by reducing the need to equip every B-17 -24 with guns and trained crews to operate them.  99% of aerial rounds we fired were pure waste and detracted from platform performance.  0.02

Baseline:  http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       12/28/2010 7:02:53 PM

That is a bit fantastic for 1935 to 1942 ... the rockets had to be guided.


It's not so fantastic.  If the bureaucratic apparatus could have been convinced as to the potential efficacy and savings, and had possessed a bit more faith in American manufacturing quality control, it could have enlisted Von Neumann to develop field curves and co-invent an appropriate aircraft sight for the rockets.  40mm drawn to fit battery and form the right ogive would have reduced majority fratricide risks - a larger payload clearly would have been too much for aerial combat in vicinity of heavy bombers and even a launching fighter escort itself.  Given fighter production volume, I honestly believe we could have rolled out extremely effective unguided anti-aircraft rockets by early '43 and streamlined training and logistics as a result, including by reducing the need to equip every B-17 -24 with guns and trained crews to operate them.  99% of aerial rounds we fired were pure waste and detracted from platform performance.  0.02


Baseline:  link

v^2


 
We have some problems.
1. The fuses are because of antenna aspect bias and the size restrictions of vacuum tube technology (Love RAYTHEON, but even they couldn't make a 1943 thyratron that small) going to have to occupy the entire nose of your projected 40 mm rocket.        
2. That rocket is going to have to be FAST. Some kind of PBX with a controlled geometry grain burn with a metallic salt as a booster is necessary for the fast-burns and very high acceleration gammas . Those rockets will SMOKE when you fire using WW II propellants and chemistry.
3. The motor casings will be subject to gas pressures and sustained heat one would expect from a machine gun. AFAIK the Germans, Russians, and British copied each other and used the same kind of shrinked gun barrel over liner solution to produce a motor casing tough for the burn candle Those made for thick walled 60 or 70/30 rocket motors and that was before the payload. Short and FAT in those cases was the desired geometry. Bad for air to air missiles. In the case of the Germans when they could they used hypergolic fuels and oxidizer combos and said to hell with solid fuel rocket motors.
4. The Americans had a devil worshiper Hells Angel biker dude (before there were Hell's Angels) and an insane Hungarian who both played with explosives in their garages, and who went on to found JPL. It was the Hungarian madman, I think, who developed the modern thin-wall solid fuel rocket motors that most everyone uses today by figuring out how to use the motor burn itself as a 'casing effect' to contain the pressures inside the burn cavity. It was the biker dude who was crazy enough to test the Hungarian's math.*
 
* For those of  you interested, it was Theodore von Karman who was the mad Hungarian, and it was Jack Parsons who later after the war blew himself up in his garage, who figured that one out.   
 
So before we can fit the fuse into the nose of our skinny three inch rocket, we need the skinny three inch rocket. Then we have to figure out how to inert the fuse (setbacks, idiot proof gates and, what arming safe interval do we want [the time delays], how do we eliminate stray signal return from the environment, so that only that signal return we get from our intended FW 190 victim spikes in the circuit and initiates the detonation chain, and we have to pack enough steel rods into the midbody of our skinny rocket and design the shaped charge to throw those rods in a burst pattern that will rip through wing and fuselage to tear that Butcher Bird up. Then we have to design a rocket launch pod that will fair clean as possible either below a wing or in the NOSE of our fighter.
 
The prop wash has to be factored when we look at this rocket solution. Right now banks of launch rails at the outer wing of that Allied fighter look like the most likely single engine fighter solution to avoids that tuebulence. The biggest problem besides paired salvo fire, all the smoke and the fact that the Allied fighter pilot now has a huge drag penalty as well as 50 to 500 kilograms of sensitive HE sitting on his wings, is that after he is out of rockets, then what does he do? The modern solution is to us
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics