Jump to content

Why are fighint german ww2 tanks against Americian tanks from 1970?


1 hour ago, Deranger79 said:

BR balancing is much better than Historical nonsense.

I used to think so too, but BR balancing does not seem to be working that well either. The game used to be more fun when there was only GER, USA and RU. Now the low tier is infested with postwar technology that changes the gameplay althogether. Sabot ammo with 105mm pen at BR 1.0, HEAT with 240mm penetration at BR 3.0 by the Swedish meme machines. If someone for some reason uses R3 T20 as an AA, one person can make pretty much the entire map a no-fly-zone with its precise high rate of fire. The unhistorical matchmaking used to be only a little nuisance before, but it has taken a turn for worse lately. I actually feel dirty playing some of those vehicles at their own BR.

  • Like 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

The 5 to 1 ratio is nothing but made up numbers from the memoirs with no base in reality and is just wehraboos wet dreams.

If my memory is correct, US medium tank platoon was always 5 tanks per platoon, I guess this is the 5:1 ratio meme come from?

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Silent_Witch said:

If my memory is correct, US medium tank platoon was always 5 tanks per platoon, I guess this is the 5:1 ratio meme come from?

Yes, but wehrbs were always spinning it as it took 5 Shermans to take out X.

 

 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

Yes, but wehrbs were always spinning it as it took 5 Shermans to take out X.

 

 

its also true becouse early shermans did not have the pen to penetrate tigers at RANGE, and thats where ger 88mm cannons shined, in afrika 5 flak 37 made an entire brit+usa armored division stop, destroyed countless allies tanks, the only reason they could advannce was the germans run out of ammo

and now imagine a tiger against early shermans, tiger just outranged them, and thats why they needed multiple shermans or t-34 to kill a tiger

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zxombor said:

its also true becouse early shermans did not have the pen to penetrate tigers at RANGE, and thats where ger 88mm cannons shined, in afrika 5 flak 37 made an entire brit+usa armored division stop, destroyed countless allies tanks, the only reason they could advannce was the germans run out of ammo

and now imagine a tiger against early shermans, tiger just outranged them, and thats why they needed multiple shermans or t-34 to kill a tiger

 

But in real life tanks are more vulnerable than in game, HE shells can damage optics and other sensitive equipment really reducing the combat effectiveness of vehicles, a track being damaged was a common reason to abandon a tank (they would reclaim at night if possible).

 

Single penetrations also often caused panic/abandoning as the crew compartment would often fill with smoke.

 

Well dug in AT guns are obviously going to do well against tanks that's there purpose (yes it was AA but dual purpose with AT rounds) 2 pdrs and 6 pdrs did equally impressive feats against attacking armour when undetected. 

 

Yes early shermans would struggle but why did they stick with the 75? Simply because german armour was so rare and the 75 was perfect for everything else. 

 

The br system is not perfect but is far better than historical fighting a kv or t34 with the short 50 would be a nightmare and with heat rounds being rare they would be limited aswell as the APCR, certain vehicles like the R3 make no sense I assume its still at that BR to make people play the italians but should be 6.7 easily. But other than that they aren't too many real game breakers. (Ru and Ikv at 6.7 are a bit op but manageable)

 

The wheraboo logic on german tanks is irritating most tank combat came down to who sees who first as even if the first round has little effect your going to panic, and with the dregs of the whermacht remaining by the time of the later heavies they really had no hope, 

 

The allies suffered far more casualties because they had to attack, look how successful the german panzer counter attack was on d day and the battle of the bulge, if they did not heavily outnumber the enemy like the invasion of Russia they really struggled.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Silent_Witch said:

If my memory is correct, US medium tank platoon was always 5 tanks per platoon, I guess this is the 5:1 ratio meme come from?

The 5 Shermans for destroy a Tiger was a myth long time debunked. Tigers units in Western Front mostly fight against the Brits when the great retreat begins US army started face more Tiger 1 and yes we have some battles where Tiger 1 destroyed several shermans like the mighty F-13 at the end of the war but we battles where some Shermans destroy a lo of German tanks with minimal loses like in Arracourt.

 

5 hours ago, Zxombor said:

its also true becouse early shermans did not have the pen to penetrate tigers at RANGE, and thats where ger 88mm cannons shined, in afrika 5 flak 37 made an entire brit+usa armored division stop, destroyed countless allies tanks, the only reason they could advannce was the germans run out of ammo

Well this was more complex with a lot of units envolved, Rommel trap was more than 5 flak 37 and one of the reason in the high armored units loses is the lack of flexibility of the Brits command.

Just lock how the "mighty" Montgomery basically need 10 -1 or 7-1 adventage for win iirc :facepalm:

About the Tiger against early Shermans, well just look how Tiger 131 was knockout with a single Churchill hit in the turret ring or the first Tigers in Leningrad.

Edited by Flak_Dancer
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know, every time that we have had a historical MM event, it has ended terribly. there is just no good place to go with historical MMs, especially since the game doesn't model armor quality, fuel, reliability, and stuff like that. stuff a few examples to throw out into the discussion(im only mentioning WW2 tanks because that is what the discussion is about):

 

A few examples of things that would club because of their early production:

KV-1 (L-11): 1939

BT-5: 1933

Ferdinand: 1943

Panther A: 1943

 

A few examples of things that would suffer because of their late production

M4A3E2: 1944

M4A3 (105): 1944

Panzer IV H: 1943

Panzer IV J: 1944

T-34-85(5.7 variant): 1944

SU-76M: 1943

 

on top of all of that, Japan has some of the oldest tanks in the game with a lot of rank I and II stuff being from the early 1930s, and Italy and France get screwed over as they have a lot of things that were early 1950s/ late 1940s variants of mid-early 1940s tanks. plus all of what I have just mentioned doesn't even get to ammunition, and that is where things really start to get all messed up for almost every single tank(and even planes) in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flak_Dancer said:

About the Tiger against early Shermans, well just look how Tiger 131 was knockout with a single Churchill hit in the turret ring or the first Tigers in Leningrad.

It was actually knocked out by a French 75mm anti-tank gun :)

But then there's that one Tiger that was hit again and again by 45mm and 76mm guns and survived.

So you could consider it a lucky hit. A Sherman could also knock out a Tiger II with a hit to the barrel but that's always a possibily in tank vs tank.

24 minutes ago, G3cko873 said:

you know, every time that we have had a historical MM event, it has ended terribly. there is just no good place to go with historical MMs, especially since the game doesn't model armor quality, fuel, reliability, and stuff like that. stuff a few examples to throw out into the discussion(im only mentioning WW2 tanks because that is what the discussion is about):

 

A few examples of things that would club because of their early production:

KV-1 (L-11): 1939

BT-5: 1933

Ferdinand: 1943

Panther A: 1943

 

A few examples of things that would suffer because of their late production

M4A3E2: 1944

M4A3 (105): 1944

Panzer IV H: 1943

Panzer IV J: 1944

T-34-85(5.7 variant): 1944

SU-76M: 1943

 

on top of all of that, Japan has some of the oldest tanks in the game with a lot of rank I and II stuff being from the early 1930s, and Italy and France get screwed over as they have a lot of things that were early 1950s/ late 1940s variants of mid-early 1940s tanks. plus all of what I have just mentioned doesn't even get to ammunition, and that is where things really start to get all messed up for almost every single tank(and even planes) in the game.

 

Right, in the end it's far better to have balanced MM than historical in a game like WT. Historical MM probably works best in a turn based strategy game that doesn't just feature tank vs tank combat.

 

At the same time I would like to see vehicles performing more akin to their historical counterparts but that would require a lot of gameplay rework.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KillaKiwi said:

It was actually knocked out by a French 75mm anti-tank gun :)

Is just a theory, right now the official and the most probable are several 6pdr hits.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/tank-museum-new-chapter-story-tiger-131-part-5-6.html

https://blog.tiger-tank.com/tanks/shot-tiger-131/

3q-741x480.jpg

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ulatersk said:

 

That would be disrupting the infrastructure as far as Belgium without having much to show for it..... except for desperate supply situation when Allies were able to move out of Normandy 2 months after they intended.

 

And yes they charged head-on into tank jousts.

 

 

That would be wrong.

 

 

Small miracle they managed to, after a catastrophic record of reliability, to finally master the production of a heavily outdated chassis after 4 years.

 

 

They "wasted" a miniscule part of resources that were invested into tank building compared to anything else.

 

 

They were very advanced considering that until 1944 nobody was nowhere near in quality.

 

 

Vampyr was used, and all those NVGs worked very well.

 

 

Tanks were miles behind AA guns, AA ammunition, submarines, aircraft and a plethora of other things in terms of resource input.  So "wasted" is a very strange expression to use.

 

 

Half of these statements have nothing to do with the design of a tank, and are completely absurd.  The other half is BS.

 

 

Strange way to spell Tigers and Panthers.

 

 

 

I summon all your text with: you are missing the point. Totally. 

 

You should also learn the differens between an army and a city... 

 

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Silent_Witch said:

If my memory is correct, US medium tank platoon was always 5 tanks per platoon, I guess this is the 5:1 ratio meme come from?

 

Seen simulations where it took 5 shermans to take out 1 Tiger.

 

The Tiger took out 4 but the last one got around it and shot it from behind. 

 

But this of course depends on the terrain, distans, weather conditions, etc. 

 

Tigers had 13 kills at avarage, that is an impressive number. That meens that the 1300 that was built took out around 17000 enemy tanks.

 

But the russians build over 50 000 T-34, US build the same numbers of Shermans, so in the end it didn't matter. And of course all other tanks on both sides. 

 

WW2 was a war of production, and Germany just didn't have the industrial capacity to win agains't countrys like russia and US at the same time. 

 

An example from the eastern front: a company of Tigers (around a dussin tanks) run out if fuel on their way back to their own lines, and form a defensive position waiting for support. 

 

  They are attacked by 130 T34:s

 

When the russians are down to 40 T-34:s, they give up and retreat. 

 

All Tigers made it back. 

 

Would probably be the same result if it was Shermans. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Flak_Dancer said:

The 5 Shermans for destroy a Tiger was a myth long time debunked. Tigers units in Western Front mostly fight against the Brits when the great retreat begins US army started face more Tiger 1 and yes we have some battles where Tiger 1 destroyed several shermans like the mighty F-13 at the end of the war but we battles where some Shermans destroy a lo of German tanks with minimal loses like in Arracourt.

 

Well this was more complex with a lot of units envolved, Rommel trap was more than 5 flak 37 and one of the reason in the high armored units loses is the lack of flexibility of the Brits command.

Just lock how the "mighty" Montgomery basically need 10 -1 or 7-1 adventage for win iirc :facepalm:

About the Tiger against early Shermans, well just look how Tiger 131 was knockout with a single Churchill hit in the turret ring or the first Tigers in Leningrad.

 

Well, it wasn't knockad out, the round just jammed the turret, and then the crew abandoned the tank. 

 

They could just withdraw from the battle and got it fixed. 

 

But of course no tank is invincable, lucky shots will happen sometimes. 

 

Totally agree on Montgomery... 

 

The german division at Arracourt was in the beginning of their training, and not an effective unit, and did alot of misstakes, like using east front taktics, wich was devestating when facing an enemy with total air supperiority. 

 

So it wasn't a tank battle like the ones on the eastern front. 

 

And to be clear, if course it was smart of the allies to use alot of planes and artillery, when they could, and it would be stupid not to use that tactic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Psychobiker
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DrPhibes1 said:

 

But in real life tanks are more vulnerable than in game, HE shells can damage optics and other sensitive equipment really reducing the combat effectiveness of vehicles, a track being damaged was a common reason to abandon a tank (they would reclaim at night if possible).

 

Single penetrations also often caused panic/abandoning as the crew compartment would often fill with smoke.

 

Well dug in AT guns are obviously going to do well against tanks that's there purpose (yes it was AA but dual purpose with AT rounds) 2 pdrs and 6 pdrs did equally impressive feats against attacking armour when undetected. 

 

Yes early shermans would struggle but why did they stick with the 75? Simply because german armour was so rare and the 75 was perfect for everything else. 

 

The br system is not perfect but is far better than historical fighting a kv or t34 with the short 50 would be a nightmare and with heat rounds being rare they would be limited aswell as the APCR, certain vehicles like the R3 make no sense I assume its still at that BR to make people play the italians but should be 6.7 easily. But other than that they aren't too many real game breakers. (Ru and Ikv at 6.7 are a bit op but manageable)

 

The wheraboo logic on german tanks is irritating most tank combat came down to who sees who first as even if the first round has little effect your going to panic, and with the dregs of the whermacht remaining by the time of the later heavies they really had no hope, 

 

The allies suffered far more casualties because they had to attack, look how successful the german panzer counter attack was on d day and the battle of the bulge, if they did not heavily outnumber the enemy like the invasion of Russia they really struggled.

 

 

 

The germans didn't outnumber the russians when they invaded, but they did overrun them. 

 

Intresting facts: the russian army that invaded Berlin in 1945, was bigger (more soldiers, more tanks, more artillery, etc) then the German army that invaded Sovjet in 1941...

 

And tank crews didn't regulary panic when they where hit. Maybe at their first battle. 

 

Have read severel books writen by tank commanders who survived the war (from different sides), and being hit was a part of the battle that they regulary dealt with. 

And they also said that they consider destroying an AT-gun more important then tanks, since they where just as leathal, but much harder to see. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychobiker said:

 

The germans didn't outnumber the russians when they invaded, but they did overrun them. 

 

Intresting facts: the russian army that invaded Berlin in 1945, was bigger (more soldiers, more tanks, more artillery, etc) then the German army that invaded Sovjet in 1941...

 

And tank crews didn't regulary panic when they where hit. Maybe at their first battle. 

 

Have read severel books writen by tank commanders who survived the war (from different sides), and being hit was a part of the battle that they regulary dealt with. 

And they also said that they consider destroying an AT-gun more important then tanks, since they where just as leathal, but much harder to see. 

 

 

 

A fairly detailed look at the numbers explains everything nicely.

 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

8 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

I summon all your text with: you are missing the point. Totally. 

 

You should also learn the differens between an army and a city... 

 

 

Just providing constructive feedback to an asinine memester.

 

And I have not mentioned cities in any shape or form.

Edited by Ulatersk
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are valid points on both sides here, but one thing is kind of missing.
Some players got the game because they thought they'd be able to drive a King Tiger like, you know, a King Tiger was actually fielded and instead they got the War Thunder "we only care about late Cold War now" shmozzle. They're not asking for excruciating re-enactor level accuracy, just something close and as it presently stands it's absolutely unlike it.

Sure, field the M26 Pershing and IS-2 against them. However the Cold War concepts of tanking totally changed armoured warfare and design, the big cats were long gone by then. This is because the War Thunder model shamelessly mixes up armoured vehicle generations. Those generations are acknowledged for reasons, and that reason invariably is the afore-mentioned shifts in doctrine and design.

Reserve tanks with dart ammo fighting 1920s tanks literally two generations earlier than that ammunition is a classic example.

  • Like 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BR system is sometimes not immersive, not just in tank rb. Especially in Arcade Air the 5.3 (lol) US jet can dive attack with over 1000 km/h. This is just sick and makes you very hard to catch. At least in RB the wings will rip around 900 km/h, but its still quite a bit strange to zoom around with that speed, once you reach an energy position and dive towards your victims . I'd really like the internal mechanism how they set BRs of  certain vehicles. The nation which actually fielded early jets in a WW2 scenario gets butchered by Korean War competitors, while the others can easily farm WW2 props.

 

1461292930_shot2020_11_0712_03_00.thumb.

 

Same anomalies happen in Naval (the current system) and Ground modes. Don't like it.

Edited by Thodin
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/11/2020 at 04:01, Silent_Witch said:

If my memory is correct, US medium tank platoon was always 5 tanks per platoon, I guess this is the 5:1 ratio meme come from?

Correct

 

This may sound like a crazy concept but war is not fought in a vacuum. Tanks fight in sections as part of a Platoon. When you see one enemy you don't send one tank you send a section if not the entire platoon. 

 

Source: See my signature. 

edit: Also "Tank Platoon"

Edited by AssaultPlazma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DeadlyTreadly said:

This is because the War Thunder model shamelessly mixes up armoured vehicle generations. Those generations are acknowledged for reasons, and that reason invariably is the afore-mentioned shifts in doctrine and design.

 

Thats because sorting things by generations would end up with single nations completely owning several brackets, and ones that did not invest in tanks in WW II and later to be completely out of any semblance of level playing enviroment.

 

If it could be done, it could only be done in simulator - but that would only work given Gaijin would invest a lot of effort in it, and it would probably end up looking like Red Orchestra. People expect to play semi-casual and demanding hardcore sim are a strange idea.

 

11 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Correct

 

This may sound like a crazy concept but war is not fought in a vacuum. Tanks fight in sections as part of a Platoon. When you see one enemy you don't send one tank you send a section if not the entire platoon. 

 

Source: See my signature. 

 

This may sound like a crazy idea but instead of repeating tired memes, one should consider that allies and soviets were not the only ones to discover that tanks indeed work great in units rather than individually.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ulatersk said:

This may sound like a crazy idea but instead of repeating tired memes, one should consider that allies and soviets were not the only ones to discover that tanks indeed work great in units rather than individually.

So standard tank doctrine is now considered "memes"? Interesting..... 

 

If you're aware that tanks fight in units and war is not fought in a vacuum then why are you claiming that it took 5 M4's to take out a Panther/Tiger when the basis for this claim is standard tank doctrine? 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

So standard tank doctrine is now considered "memes"? Interesting..... 

 

If you're aware that tanks fight in units and war is not fought in a vacuum then why are you claiming that it took 5 M4's to take out a Panther/Tiger when the basis for this claim is standard tank doctrine? 

 

I dont know why you keep repeating the same memes with snide remarks added.

 

Yes, tanks usually fight in units, so claiming to explain a "myth" away by claiming that allies always sent a tank unit into fighting, and this arcane knowledge of tank fighting in units is reserved only to allies, while germans then apparently only fought as individual tanks, is, apart from not even adressing the original argument being made, a literal opposite take on the same "5v1 myth", which just tries to explain away situations like these :

 

 

"War Diary for Aug 2-14th, Fife & Forfar Yeomanry

 

7th
Owing to their losses in tanks A and C Sqns.were amalgamated under Major J.D.Hutchinson, Major J.E.F. Miller recieving an injury to his foot the previous day
There was again an attempt by the enemy to come in from the west. This was effectively dealt with by A Sqn., who destroyed 2 Mk IV's which had come near to them.
Meanwhile a number of Tiger tanks had established themselves on the high ground on our eastern flank at Le Haut Periere( M.R. 7233) and were able to engage A Sqn. from the rear at a range of about 2500 yds. These Tigers quickly caused A Sqn. 5 tank casualties.
Major Gilmore then went forward with a troop of B Sqn.to try and engage these tanks and succeeded in knocking out one of them. During the day our position was continually under shell and mortar fire by the enemy.That night the Regt. remained in the same position. The Regt. remained in the same position. The Regt. was now reduced to 25 tanks on the road.
Casualties were as follows:- Wounded 9 OR's, Killed 1 OR and missing believed killed 6 OR's. Comdg. Offr wounded."

 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ulatersk said:

 

I dont know why you keep repeating the same memes with snide remarks added.

 

Yes, tanks usually fight in units, so claiming to explain a "myth" away by claiming that allies always sent a tank unit into fighting, and this arcane knowledge of tank fighting in units is reserved only to allies, while germans then apparently only fought as individual tanks, is, apart from not even adressing the original argument being made, a literal opposite take on the same "5v1 myth", which just tries to explain away situations like these :

 

 

"War Diary for Aug 2-14th, Fife & Forfar Yeomanry

 

7th
Owing to their losses in tanks A and C Sqns.were amalgamated under Major J.D.Hutchinson, Major J.E.F. Miller recieving an injury to his foot the previous day
There was again an attempt by the enemy to come in from the west. This was effectively dealt with by A Sqn., who destroyed 2 Mk IV's which had come near to them.
Meanwhile a number of Tiger tanks had established themselves on the high ground on our eastern flank at Le Haut Periere( M.R. 7233) and were able to engage A Sqn. from the rear at a range of about 2500 yds. These Tigers quickly caused A Sqn. 5 tank casualties.
Major Gilmore then went forward with a troop of B Sqn.to try and engage these tanks and succeeded in knocking out one of them. During the day our position was continually under shell and mortar fire by the enemy.That night the Regt. remained in the same position. The Regt. remained in the same position. The Regt. was now reduced to 25 tanks on the road.
Casualties were as follows:- Wounded 9 OR's, Killed 1 OR and missing believed killed 6 OR's. Comdg. Offr wounded."

 

 

When did I ever claim that war being a team matter was exclusive to the allies? You're the one who asserted the false claim that it took 5 M4s to take on a German. Now that you've been called out on this BS claim you're pivoting to blabbering about "WeLL tHe geRManS FougHT aS a tEaM As weLL!" 

 

The idea that it always took 5 M4s to take out a cat simply has zero basis in reality besides the fact that a tank platoon had 5 tanks in it. I'm not sure why you posted that battle report it's truly meaningless in the discussion at hand..... 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

When did I ever claim that war being a team matter was exclusive to the allies? You're the one who asserted the false claim that it took 5 M4s to take on a German. Now that you've been called out on this BS claim you're pivoting to blabbering about "WeLL tHe geRManS FougHT aS a tEaM As weLL!" 

 

Cool, so Tigers were capable of fighting in platoons..

 

nice to know. Knowing that - 

 

48 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

The idea that it always took 5 M4s to take out a cat simply has zero basis in reality besides the fact that a tank platoon had 5 tanks in it. I'm not sure why you posted that battle report it's truly meaningless in the discussion at hand..... 

 

Im completely confused as to why you are going back to this meme reverse 5v1.

Edited by Ulatersk
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if a Comet hits the Tiger, drills with APDS and breaks the engine, or the cannon for example, the tiger will be immobilized the whole game, because there was no way to fix it, it would take hours, or days, or need to change the engine or the whole cannon, and it doesn't take a few seconds, it takes days. And in the situation that Germany was in when the Comets arrived at the front, the most logical thing would be for Tiger's crew to abandon the tank. NO SENSE, THE GAME NEED TO BE BALANCED, SO, GERMAN WW2 NEED TO FACE POST WAR TANKS, YES.

  • Confused 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ulatersk said:

Im completely confused as to why you are going back to this meme reverse 5v1.

So first you pivot then try to gaslight me and claim I'm the one who started this nonsense? The only reason we're discussing this 5v1 shenanigan's is because YOU initially brought it up. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...