Jump to content

Leo 2 v M1


plastictree
 Share

Recommended Posts

After playing for quite some time, and doing some testing where I played the same missions repeatedly but changing the vehicle type, I can't shake the impression that the Leo 2A4 modelled in SBProPE is a more capable vehicle than the M1A1HA.

The Leo 2A4 seems faster, more maneuverable, and has a much better fire control system that lets you get in your shots quicker. Also, it seems like the Leo 2A4 can stand more hits in the front arc, which is strange because if I remember correctly the M1A1HA has much thicker and better laid out frontal armour.

Does anyone else get the same impression from these two vehicles?

Can anyone out there who has served both in M1A1HA's and M1A2/M1A2SEP's give us some insight into whether the A2 is significantly better than the A1HA?

(I'm not comparing the M1A1HA to the Leo 2A5DK or the Strv 122, as they are much newer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
The Leo 2A4 seems faster, more maneuverable, ...

This may be due to limitations of our automotive model. In reality the M1 accelerates better but the Leo has a slightly higher top speed. SB doesn't model the torque characteristics of the different engines and drive trains.

...and has a much better fire control system that lets you get in your shots quicker. ...

That may be a matter of training. The M1's approach is different and although I, as a trained Leopard man, certainly think that the Leo's solution with dynamic lead on request is superior, let's not forget that shooting fast and accurately with a mouse is much easier than with control handles.

... Also, it seems like the Leo 2A4 can stand more hits in the front arc, which is strange because if I remember correctly the M1A1HA has much thicker and better laid out frontal armour.

This is unlikely, as Paul Lakowski explains in his armor analysis. Basically the line of argumentation is that the Leo 2A4 turret has slightly less mass and a lot less internal volume than the M1, therefore (assuming a similar quality of armor materials) the level of armor must inevitably a bit higher.

Can anyone out there who has served both in M1A1HA's and M1A2/M1A2SEP's give us some insight into whether the A2 is significantly better than the A1HA?

Undoubtedly the A2SEP is much better than the A1HA. The armor protection has improved significantly, and the fire control system offers a two-plane stabilization for the gunner's sight as well as essentially the same functionality for the commander as you can experience with the Leo 2A5 (independent thermal viewer for the commander, full hunter-killer capability). In addition the M1A2 commander enjoys the benefit of the fire control system's habit to ALWAYS calculate lead unless it gets turned off while in the Leo 2A5 the commander cannot access dynamic lead.

Whether that really makes a big difference in practice is another question.

Finally, let's not forget that in the Leo 2 you get catastrophic kills for hits in the hull ammo stowage. You won't experience them in the M1. It may have slightly less armor in some places, but the post-penetration behavior is more benign to the crew. Also, the M1's frontal hull offers better protection in general than the Leo 2A4's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be due to limitations of our automotive model. In reality the M1 accelerates better but the Leo has a slightly higher top speed. SB doesn't model the torque characteristics of the different engines and drive trains.

Didn't realise that wasn't modelled - are there plans to implement this in the future, or is the difference between the correct value and how the model performs too small to justify the effort?

The modelling does seem to indicate that the Leo 2A4 is somewhat more maneuverable laterally, but that the M1A1HA stops and changes between forward and reverse quicker (especially handy for hull-down positions). Is this correct?

That may be a matter of training. The M1's approach is different and although I, as a trained Leopard man, certainly think that the Leo's solution with dynamic lead on request is superior, let's not forget that shooting fast and accurately with a mouse is much easier than with control handles.

It might be more a matter of taste then training, because I am not qualified on either platform, but vastly prefer the Leo 2A4 to the M1A1HA.

Also, up until a few months ago I was using (not quite realistic, but pretty functional) control handles that I had built from cannibalised bits of joysticks and what not. Since then I've been using a generic Logitech joystick. I actually found the M1A1HA FC system more difficult to use via the control handles than with the joystick, but I would assume that the real-life controls are much better suited to the task. (In a side-note, I had also built a couple of control panels with switches, toggles and buttons - worked great until stuff got broken or caught fire :()

This is unlikely, as Paul Lakowski explains in his armor analysis. Basically the line of argumentation is that the Leo 2A4 turret has slightly less mass and a lot less internal volume than the M1, therefore (assuming a similar quality of armor materials) the level of armor must inevitably a bit higher.

I thought that those calculations are based on a facing, not discrete points (for example. a generalised value for the front left facing of the turrent, rather than the specific value for the spot exactly 240mm diagonally left/down from the coax mount). I'll have a look through some of his articles though , as Paul seems to know his stuff.

Undoubtedly the A2SEP is much better than the A1HA. The armor protection has improved significantly, and the fire control system offers a two-plane stabilization for the gunner's sight as well as essentially the same functionality for the commander as you can experience with the Leo 2A5 (independent thermal viewer for the commander, full hunter-killer capability). In addition the M1A2 commander enjoys the benefit of the fire control system's habit to ALWAYS calculate lead unless it gets turned off while in the Leo 2A5 the commander cannot access dynamic lead.

Whether that really makes a big difference in practice is another question.

Indeed - was just really wondering how much better. I knew about the new FC system for the A2 and A2SEP, but I thought that the armour configuration was only slightly improved over the A1HA (which I had originally thought was much stronger than seem to be the case). Granted, I'm working on somewhat old reporting and anecdotal evidence, so feel free to call me an idiot and move on :) The A2's hunter-killer sight does seem very flash, and I very much want to have a try.

Finally, let's not forget that in the Leo 2 you get catastrophic kills for hits in the hull ammo stowage. You won't experience them in the M1. It may have slightly less armor in some places, but the post-penetration behavior is more benign to the crew. Also, the M1's frontal hull offers better protection in general than the Leo 2A4's.

Good point - in most of those test battles I conducted, the one thing that seemed to be in the M1A1HA's favour was that even though it was penetrated more often than the Leo 2A4, there was a greater likelihood than the Leo 2A4 of the penetration resulting in (serious) damage, rather than a catastrophic kill.

In a side note, I'm not sure why the M1A1HA takes far longer to ready ammo than the other MBT's modelled - had thought it would be quicker, or that there wouldn't be a need to ready ammo, due to the M1 series storage solution in the rear compartment (ie. I thought all the ammo in that area was "ready", rather than a small portion). Can anyone give me a better rundown of how the actual layout works, beyond the safety features of there being a blast door, blow out panels, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Didn't realise that wasn't modelled - are there plans to implement this in the future, or is the difference between the correct value and how the model performs too small to justify the effort?
Well, there are loose plans to implement some automotive model at all, like vehicle suspension and eventually a torque curve or pull-force model. Shoul that finally get done (and there's a gazillion other possible improvements competing for programming time) I would expect that, to the extent that we can parameterize the differences, those would come naturally.

The speed of gear shift - now, that's a level of detail in which, I think nobody is seriously interested. The limiting factor would rather be the command chain - Commander's maneuver intent, formulating a command to the driver, the driver acknowledging the command, finally its execution. Our vehicles are generally about as responsive as if you were directly driving them, as a convenience feature. Should a costomer point out to us that this results in negative training, I guess we would have to implement a significant dime delay between key press and vehicle reaction, which is kinda counterintuitive and would probably result in countless support inquiries.

I thought that those calculations are based on a facing, not discrete points (for example. a generalised value for the front left facing of the turrent, rather than the specific value for the spot exactly 240mm diagonally left/down from the coax mount).

They are. Still, Paul's internal, more detailed papers (which he doesn't want to see published before finishing a certain project of his own) describe the arrangement of components behind the outer armor plate to the extent that they contribute to the overall protection value. The single biggest element here are fuel cells which, if filled with fuel (not always the case...) offer a substantial amount of protection especially against HEAT jets.

I knew about the new FC system for the A2 and A2SEP, but I thought that the armour configuration was only slightly improved over the A1HA

Well, the A2 configuration indeed only offers a slight improvement over the A1HA standard, but the SEP has a massive increase in frontal armor protection.

In a side note, I'm not sure why the M1A1HA takes far longer to ready ammo than the other MBT's modelled

I think we have that covered in the one or other thread. Please try the search function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are. Still, Paul's internal, more detailed papers (which he doesn't want to see published before finishing a certain project of his own) describe the arrangement of components behind the outer armor plate to the extent that they contribute to the overall protection value. The single biggest element here are fuel cells which, if filled with fuel (not always the case...) offer a substantial amount of protection especially against HEAT jets.

Just because it fits into this place... what are the documents available from Paul Lakowski, where to get them and which are the most valuable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you cant say how fast the M1 can go, then how do you know its faster then in the game?

/KT

Well, I will tell you that I have personally driven a standard M-1 over 75 mph (not KMs), as part of a company formation, cross country at NTC. It was on level terrain, not downhilll or any other excuse that anyone may come up with. The damned tank is fast. You just need to be on terrain where its safe to drive these speeds,and it does take time to wind up the speed after about 50 mph. I know for a fact the SB model doesnt approach these speeds.

Just because the operators manual states a lower max speed doesnt mean it will not exceed that speed. Easily.

Mog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

75 mph=120km/h. I wonder what kind of wonder track pads you have that they are not being catapulted to the rear at the sprocket and idler wheel where they are being accelerated and decelerated from 0 to 240. At 120 km/h the tank is moving with 67m/sec, which means about 3.7 track lengths (=3,7 cycles of acceleration and deceleration per track pad from zero (ground contact) to 240km/h (for transport from rear to front).

Consider me a skeptic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be skeptical, you have that right. The lead tank kept getting ahead of everyone and tanks kept racing to maintain formation and pretty soon i just had it full throttle, and we stayed like that for a long time. Being one of 14 tanks in a company formation, travelling at pretty much equivelant speeds, I could be wrong. The entire company could have suffered a mass collective hallucination. We were bitched at for exceeding the tactical speed limit at NTC, 25 MPH (25 mph ! gimme a break !) by an OC who took a long long time to finally catch up to us in his OC track.

All I'm saying is he asked for a speed and that's the fastest speed i could personally speak to. It may have been a transient speed and the overall speed was lower, but at that instant when i dared look down and try to read the panel, that's what i saw. Again, I'm bouncing, the needle is bouncing, everything is bouncing. Its hard to get an exact speed in those circumstances. Im not saying that most terrain in the world supports such lunacy, as a well placed wadi could have made an ugly example for the safety guys to show the rest of the Army. I have went pretty fast in an M-1IP on a couple of Korean highways. I don't know the speed because I was in the turret, but we past a couple orange dump trucks. (If you've ever been there you know the ones I'm talking about) Again such speeds are possible but not prudent.

As for the track bit. i don't know. The thing about a track stopping when it hits the ground strikes me as dung. The track may not move in relation to the ground underneath it, but it sure as hell moves in relation to the tank that's rotating it. That logic implies that the track contacting the ground has stopped while the rest of the track is moving at a certain rate and somehow not bunching up. Does the area of a tire that touches the ground stop rotating also ? Call Adam and Jamie and tell them to have Mythbusters check it out. Oh, and have them send Kari Byron over to my house. I have something i want her to check out .

Mog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes to a good approximation the contact patch of a rolling tire is stationary, the axle is translating at the vehicle speed, and the top of the tyre is moving at twice the vehicle speed...

With a vehicle speed of 75kph, you would still have comfortably exceeded the governor limits on the engine, which is possible as they can be bypassed or disabled, you would still have grossly exceeded the range speed limit and got chewed out by the range safety officer. Cross country I've no doubt that this would seem exceedingly fast...

But 75mph from a tank normally governed at 72kph? Cross country or on a road, I find rather a difficult idea to swallow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can safely assume that the mechanical governors had been bypassed. Like i said it was difficult to get an exact speed however it was in that area.

Still having trouble getting the whole "rotation stops as track/tire contacts ground" bit. I would accept that track pad ground speed (speed in relation to the ground beneath it) is zero (unless its slipping/sliding) and track across the return rollers would be faster (twice?) then vehicle speed. however the track itself does not stop rotating. In relation to the tank, the track on the ground is moving one way and the track on the return rollers is moving another. If i drive a train in a circle, the engine and the caboose are always going the same speed.

Mog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The question is where you as the observer are. For the tank crew the tank is the frame of reference, and the tracks are spinning, and so is the world beneath them. For the external observer that is being passed by the tank he can clearly see (in a low dust environment) that those parts of the tracks that are in contact with the ground - discounting the slip moment - are stationary.

Just look at the track pads next time a tank drives by. That's the whole point of tracks - to provide even and firm ground over which the roadwheels can roll. Since each track link gets "overtaken" by the rest of the tank it then has to move at twice the speed to catch up. And yes, it's the same with wheels. Only when you break violently and the wheel stops rotating you will see a massive slip between wheel and road, resulting in skid marks.

The diameter of a wheel actually increases at high speed. That's why there are special racing tyres so they can withstand the "centrifugal" forces. The same occurs with tracks, as the pull forces of the drive sprocket results in each track link to bend while it is being accelerated, just as you can see the track part from idler wheel to the ground flex sometimes if a tank brakes rapidly. It's a reaction to the enormous forces that are pulling on the track.

Even at "regular" top speeds, the performance of tracks indeed is an example of very impressive engineering (at least to me). The tracks are quite massive - about two metric tons each - and they withstand a lot of hurt, that's for sure. And yes, I have overtaken a truck on an Autobahn myself once (well, I was riding along, in the loader's hatch), and seen the trucker's eyes go wide and his face pretty pale. So, we were probably closer to 90 km/h than the 72km/h that the Leo 2 can do officially.

But at that point we're starting the realm of bragging. What can we actually set as the norm in our simulation? Some tanks do better, some are real dogs that are always in maintenance, no matter what - as a practitioner you know that. We can't rely on "there I was" stories since they are about as reliable as an old sea dog spinning his yarn. For every story reporting a certain top speed there's going to be someone else to claim that his tank once was a bit faster, and it used less of fuel, and always was reliable. Our tanks become what Boukephalos was to Alexander the Great, a target of affection, and a source of a great myth.

The tanks are always reliable in Steel Beasts - you'll have to live with an iron speed governor that cannot be removed. That's the price to pay for a zero maintenance horse of (virtual) steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you cant say how fast the M1 can go, then how do you know its faster then in the game?

/KT

no I'm not aloud to tell you...(Roger the fail fleet is entering the harbore now you have cleerence to dock everyone else run away!!!) and we did speed gun it at "53 mph on road with new tracks"*chough*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I will tell you that I have personally driven a standard M-1 over 75 mph (not KMs), as part of a company formation, cross country at NTC. It was on level terrain, not downhilll or any other excuse that anyone may come up with. The damned tank is fast. You just need to be on terrain where its safe to drive these speeds,and it does take time to wind up the speed after about 50 mph. I know for a fact the SB model doesnt approach these speeds.

Just because the operators manual states a lower max speed doesnt mean it will not exceed that speed. Easily.

Mog

I can't believe I just read this. You did not drive an M1 series tank in a company formation at 75 MPH at the National Training Center. Your post contradicts its self.

You just need to be on terrain where its safe to drive these speeds

No where in the box at Fort Irwin is is safe to get tanks at such a high speed. There are speed limits there for a reason, people die hitting the wadis all the time. New wadis are forming all the time so it is not possible for them to be mapped. Any tank commander that would travel at a high rate of speed in that terrain has little regard for the safety of his crew or himself, let alone for the well being of his tank. Any company commander that would order his company to travel at such a high rate of speed should be relived because of all the lives and millions of dollars of government equipment he is putting at risk.

No unit is allowed to travel or does travel in NTC without at least one Observer Controller. If a company sized unit began traveling this fast he would call a total stop of training faster than if a desert tortoise was spotted on top of the Peanut.

Tactically it does not make sense to move your company at "75mph." Especially cross country. In an assault or movement to contact why would you want to close the distance between you and the enemy so fast when stand-off is one of your best assets? As a gunner I found it harder to scan the faster we went, I couldn't imagine scanning at "75mph."

Although not always the case, more than likely while in the field, especially on a training center rotation, your company is in a task organized company team with an infantry platoon. Brads can't keep up at that speed. What about the engineer platoon you more than likely have attached to you as well in 113's one of witch is towing a MICLC? Traveling at that speed you are getting pretty far from your medics and mechanics (that you will need when your tanks start going airborne over wadis.) Do you not need to call for fire support so that is why you are leaving your FIST-V in the dust? Is your X-Ray (or what ever your call sign for the 67 vehicle) just back with the other guys in your company you are leaving in the dust?

Removing the governor for the AGT-1500 is not that easy of a process, it is not something your line mechanics or BN Maintenance guys can really do. I highly doubt at least 10 or possibly 14 packs had this removed at the NTC. I'm sure you used the draw tanks. Unlikely that one would have the governor removed, let alone an entire company's worth, or if 10-14 tanks had this removed the odds of all of them being drawn for the same company is even greater.

I was in Kuwait in 1998 doing some operations in the Udari Desert. A tank in my company was traveling around 30 MPH and hit a small wadi at that speed. A torsion bar was broken among other things, but more importantly, the loader lost teeth hitting his mouth on the 240 mount, the gunner flew into the breech, bruising his elbow i think, and the TC fell down into the turret (he was standing at waist level) and hit his knee on the TC arm rest or TC panel or something and tore his ACL. We were down an experienced wingman because of an accident and that was only at 30 mph.

Is it possible for an ungoverned M1 series tank to go 75mph? Sure, maybe, I don't know. Did you do it in a company formation in a tactical situation at the National Training Center?

I think Penn and Teller can answer that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I just read this. You did not drive an M1 series tank in a company formation at 75 MPH at the National Training Center. Your post contradicts its self.

You just need to be on terrain where its safe to drive these speeds

No where in the box at Fort Irwin is is safe to get tanks at such a high speed. There are speed limits there for a reason, people die hitting the wadis all the time. New wadis are forming all the time so it is not possible for them to be mapped. Any tank commander that would travel at a high rate of speed in that terrain has little regard for the safety of his crew or himself, let alone for the well being of his tank. Any company commander that would order his company to travel at such a high rate of speed should be relived because of all the lives and millions of dollars of government equipment he is putting at risk.

Well, so what you are stating is the fact that just because certain things are not safe or not allowed people dont do them.

People as i know them have a tendency to break many rules, sometimes out of curiosity sometimes out of pure stupidity, even when the consequences of such behaviour are grim those rules are often still broken.

Whether mogwa has actually driven 75 mph or not in an M1 is not for me to decide, i just dont know, i know him pretty well from TS, he is a decent dude and i don't see why he would make such a thing up. But i can tell you what i do know, if it is possible to drive a M1 at 75 mph or more i can bet my ass that someone has tried to do it, that's just the nature of people.

A prime example of people risking their careers and lifes are the videos found on youtube with air force pilots doing very stupid stuff to show off for their friend with a camera, and I'm not talkning about airshow footage or other "official" events.

Stating that people are liars based on the sole fact that there are rules that prohibit them from doing certain things can only be described as an EPIC FAIL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, so what you are stating is the fact that just because certain things are not safe or not allowed people dont do them.

People as i know them have a tendency to break many rules, sometimes out of curiosity sometimes out of pure stupidity, even when the consequences of such behaviour are grim those rules are often still broken.

Whether mogwa has actually driven 75 mph or not in an M1 is not for me to decide, i just dont know, i know him pretty well from TS, he is a decent dude and i don't see why he would make such a thing up. But i can tell you what i do know, if it is possible to drive a M1 at 75 mph or more i can bet my ass that someone has tried to do it, that's just the nature of people.

A prime example of people risking their careers and lifes are the videos found on youtube with air force pilots doing very stupid stuff to show off for their friend with a camera, and I'm not talkning about airshow footage or other "official" events.

Stating that people are liars based on the sole fact that there are rules that prohibit them from doing certain things can only be described as an EPIC FAIL!

I think you failed to see my point about an entire company having governors removed is like, not going to happen...

10-14 governors removed on packs in tanks that have their packs changed left and right due to the tons of use they get?

I mentioned more than safety issues and rules. One tank? Two tanks? Maybe. An entire company in formation? Sorry I've been doing this job WAY too long to not be able to sniff out some BS. If he said 35-40 MPH I could buy that. 75? Please. The armor community is way too small somewhere along the line I would have heard from someone about the company that wend 75 mph in formation at NTC. Something like that is story worthy. Joe would be telling and retelling that story for decades.

The safety issues were just logic talking, but the company worth of tanks with governors removed? That is just not going to happen.

Also I read the rest of the story. An OC at NTC if having witnessed that would do much more than chew a commander's ass. That is bad news. Safety is taken so serious at NTC, it is somewhat ridiculous. serious UCMJ actions would be taken for that. Hell, the Battalion commander would feel the wrath for having a company commander doing something so stupid.

Those youtube vids you are bringing up aren't company sized formations in a mock battle. Like you said it is people showing off for a camera, that is a VERY different situation. One tank out doing some dumb stuff, I've seen that, it happens. An 0-3 leading a company to do that in a situation that is heavily monitored by OCs and tons of brass watching and BLUFOR Trackers etc.? Hell no. Sorry you can't convince me that would happen. Might be a little more believable if it was in the back yard, (home station training area) where you don't have God and everyone else monitoring you.

Have you been to NTC/JRTC/CMTC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you clearly seem to know what you are talking about so won't say otherwise, but... :-)

... I don't know man, you talk a lot about safety and how seriously it is taken at NTC and as much i hate to drag the Air force into this again i have to, because it was not long ago they managed to fly a B52 loaded with 6 live nuke over the US accidentaly!

And if you manage to load a B52 with nukes by mistake (and this is about the fact that they actually got the shit aboard the plane without anybody "tripping" over atleasts ONE of the safety measures used for handling nuclear weapons, which i would think are about a gazzilion times harsher than NTC's safety regulations) which just makes me think that taking of the governor on 14 m1's shouldnt be that hard :-P

Annyway i don't want to start beating a dead horse here, neither do i wan't to start comparing the nuggets in the AF to Army personel (now that would be an insult :-) ) because i do belive you, and im just saying that allthough i do belive you i also do think it is possible fo a company of tanks to go way way faster than the allowed speed.

No i have not been to NTC (from Europe, Sweden).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you clearly seem to know what you are talking about so won't say otherwise, but... :-)

... I don't know man, you talk a lot about safety and how seriously it is taken at NTC and as much i hate to drag the Air force into this again i have to, because it was not long ago they managed to fly a B52 loaded with 6 live nuke over the US accidentaly!

And if you manage to load a B52 with nukes by mistake (and this is about the fact that they actually got the shit aboard the plane without anybody "tripping" over atleasts ONE of the safety measures used for handling nuclear weapons, which i would think are about a gazzilion times harsher than NTC's safety regulations) which just makes me think that taking of the governor on 14 m1's shouldnt be that hard :-P

Annyway i don't want to start beating a dead horse here, neither do i wan't to start comparing the nuggets in the AF to Army personel (now that would be an insult :-) ) because i do belive you, and im just saying that allthough i do belive you i also do think it is possible fo a company of tanks to go way way faster than the allowed speed.

No i have not been to NTC (from Europe, Sweden).

Comparing what happened with the 5th Bomb Wing and the AGM-129s and to a company at NTC is comparing apples to oranges. Funny you should bring that up because my father spend 30 years in the USAF working mainly on B-52s and I spend a lot of my childhood in Minot AFB. He knows exactly how that happened, why it happened, and how it should have been prevented. It is much more simple than removing 10-14 packs, splitting the transmission from the engine, putting the packs back together and reinstalling them.

And guess what, pretty much everyone in that chain of command got fired, not from their job, but from the Air Force. Even the Secretary of the Air Force lost his job over that. I'm not going to say the exact reason that incident happened, but it was pretty much an E-3 not paying attention and NCO leadership not doing their job.

Much different situation than this event that is discussed.

But I am not going to argue over the internet about this anymore. I provided a rational, logical reason for disagreement with an outlandish claim. People can decide for themselves what to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's okay man, im not trying to argue with you. You clearly have a LOT more experience in this case than i do, pure and simple fact, sorry if i came of as an asshole in my first post, not my intention.

And with this statement of FAIL i will now withdraw from the forums for today and return to my dungeon.

PS.

Hope to see you on Team Speak for some multiplayer, i hear from reliable sources you'r good at gunning these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...