• Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
LUCASWILLEN05

Stryker - Pros and Cons

213 posts in this topic

I have always viewed the Stryker since it was first announced as one of the Pentagon's and Congress' lame ideas. I know the intent was to be able to put something on the ground in a sudden emergency that has some level of protection and fighting capacity, but I think it was trying to reconcile two incommensurable requirements with the predictable result that it doesn't do either one terribly well. In order to make it more survivable, its weight has increased, thus crimping its strategic mobility, its whole raison d'être. And it still isn't as survivable as a Bradley, which is itself not especially survivable on a full-out battlefield.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's recall WHY the US bought Stryker. In 1999 SFOR NATO peacekeepers rolled into the former Yugoslavia to put an end to that war. the US contingent had nothing but heavy equipment, cumbersome, difficult to maintain, too heavy for local bridges. They watched in envy as Canadian forces zipped forward on wheels and watched Russians in their 8x8 combat vehicles get airlifted-in from the opposite direction. Cue Homer Simpson-style envy drooling. In 2000 Rumsfeld's first proposal was to *greatly lighten* the US military, 'Technology' was imagined to be the big force-multiplier so combat forces could be significantly trimmed. Bids for an off-the-shelf 'interim fighting vehicle' immediately went out. A wide assortment of vehicles were tested. Mowag Piranha won. It was exactly the vehicle they wanted back in 1999 for rapid intervention deployments like SFOR. When Stryker Brigade got ordered to Iraq they hadn't even finished operational testing yet. The first batch to be shipped over was even sporting Mexas ceramic armor manufactured to the wrong specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

k. I knew I'd see this thread after the one that just popped up. Stop using battle taxis like they're Bradleys. Abuse its vastly superior C2 capabilities. The end.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stryker might be ok against insurgents. However on a high intensity, high tech battelfield it leaves much to be desired. n fact one might as well be equipped with the old M113 or even trucks :-)

The best thing for the infantry to do is get out of their Strykers in a safe location as soon as possibe  and proceed on foot with all the AT equipment they can carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing the US Army ever does is high intensity, high tech battlefields.  It virtually never deploys to situations short of high intensity conflicts.  Those never happen.  They're really a rarity and the Army shouldn't prepare for them.  We need to build armored battle mech SPAAG Corps for fighting head to head with China and nothing less!

Sigh.  Okay here's some more:

1. I use anyone saying positive things about the M113 post 1990 as a sign I'm talking to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.  Some exceptions, but the M113 represents the worst of a lot of things.  

2. The SBCT is a modern rendition of Dragoons.  Full stop.  

The IBCT deploys fast, but once it hops off the helicopter or plane, it's going at footmarch speed.  This is not that great in many scenarios. 

The ABCT is a muderwagon express....but it'll take a few weeks to get into theater, and is way too much firepower for a lot of fights, and it's light on boots on the group relative to invesement.  

The SBCT is great at getting into theater faster than an ABCT, and unlike an IBCT, it is capable of rapid strategic-operational level movements, and mounted operations against inferior enemies.

The SBCT is a infantry formation.  The vehicles exist chiefly to provide mobility, and fire support.  If you're an idiot and lead with the Stryker, then it's going to end badly.  Congrats. You've proved something most military professionals have known for decades. If you lead with the infantry, and then bring the Stryker forward to support them as required, then congrats!  Gold star!

3. The Stryker's conventional conflict doctrine is still maturing.

The SBCT was envisioned as this high tech interim step.  It was supposed to test bed a lot of stuff that'd been brewing since the Persian Gulf War.  

Then it got pushed into combat, and used chiefly as a counter-insurgent platform.  A role it did really good at (you'll note SBCTs alone deployed, and fought with their MTOE kit, while IBCTs needed to draw MRAPs, and ABCTs often had to scale down and leave M1s and M2s stateside).  There never really was the whole operational testing and design refinement that was supposed to happen to shape the SBCT into a credible force on the conventional battlefield.  

Basically the first real "conventional" tests for the Stryker picked back up again in 2012, and the doctrine and design has simply exploded from there.  The battlefield agility of the Stryker Brigade is proving to be something that is very hard to pin down and direct fires against.  It's something that brings the strengths of "leg" infantry, and then whips them around the battlefield at 45 MPH, while keeping extensive firepower close and at hand.   There's just so much the SBCT offers, and if you're hemming and hawing about the armor on the platform, you're really missing the point.  

4. BUT WAT ABIUT ARAMAMATAS?!?!?!!?

Brigade Combat Teams are designed to be self contained, self supporting.  However they are not designed to be exclusionary.  Some of the more effective TTPs for when Strykers are called to perform high mobility-high intensity operations involve cross attaching ABCT assets to serve as spearheads to make initial contact, or serve as a hammer to the SBCT's anvil.  SBCT assets also offer a lot of strength to the ABCT, in that the larger dismounted infantry force is much better at handling complex terrain, while still having the mobility of mounted forces.

The SBCT may be deployed alone and unafraid sometimes in the face of possible "heavy" enemy forces, but it's intended to be the initial investment, and it is light years ahead of what the Airborne was able to do in say 1991 as far as providing that deterrent/economy of force measure.  

The Stryker system isn't perfect.  The MGS has been a disappointment.   The AT version could really use a non-SACLOS missile (a super-Javelin would be interesting).  A lot of the weirdo 2001 era ISR and wizbang stuff didn't pan out like it was hoped for.  But the Army invests, and will likely continue to invest in the system because it has value to meet Army missions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

44 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The only thing the US Army ever does is high intensity, high tech battlefields.  It virtually never deploys to situations short of high intensity conflicts.  Those never happen.  They're really a rarity and the Army shouldn't prepare for them.  We need to build armored battle mech SPAAG Corps for fighting head to head with China and nothing less!

Sigh.  Okay here's some more:

1. I use anyone saying positive things about the M113 post 1990 as a sign I'm talking to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.  Some exceptions, but the M113 represents the worst of a lot of things.  

2. The SBCT is a modern rendition of Dragoons.  Full stop.  

The IBCT deploys fast, but once it hops off the helicopter or plane, it's going at footmarch speed.  This is not that great in many scenarios. 

The ABCT is a muderwagon express....but it'll take a few weeks to get into theater, and is way too much firepower for a lot of fights, and it's light on boots on the group relative to invesement.  

The SBCT is great at getting into theater faster than an ABCT, and unlike an IBCT, it is capable of rapid strategic-operational level movements, and mounted operations against inferior enemies.

The SBCT is a infantry formation.  The vehicles exist chiefly to provide mobility, and fire support.  If you're an idiot and lead with the Stryker, then it's going to end badly.  Congrats. You've proved something most military professionals have known for decades. If you lead with the infantry, and then bring the Stryker forward to support them as required, then congrats!  Gold star!

3. The Stryker's conventional conflict doctrine is still maturing.

The SBCT was envisioned as this high tech interim step.  It was supposed to test bed a lot of stuff that'd been brewing since the Persian Gulf War.  

Then it got pushed into combat, and used chiefly as a counter-insurgent platform.  A role it did really good at (you'll note SBCTs alone deployed, and fought with their MTOE kit, while IBCTs needed to draw MRAPs, and ABCTs often had to scale down and leave M1s and M2s stateside).  There never really was the whole operational testing and design refinement that was supposed to happen to shape the SBCT into a credible force on the conventional battlefield.  

Basically the first real "conventional" tests for the Stryker picked back up again in 2012, and the doctrine and design has simply exploded from there.  The battlefield agility of the Stryker Brigade is proving to be something that is very hard to pin down and direct fires against.  It's something that brings the strengths of "leg" infantry, and then whips them around the battlefield at 45 MPH, while keeping extensive firepower close and at hand.   There's just so much the SBCT offers, and if you're hemming and hawing about the armor on the platform, you're really missing the point.  

4. BUT WAT ABIUT ARAMAMATAS?!?!?!!?

Brigade Combat Teams are designed to be self contained, self supporting.  However they are not designed to be exclusionary.  Some of the more effective TTPs for when Strykers are called to perform high mobility-high intensity operations involve cross attaching ABCT assets to serve as spearheads to make initial contact, or serve as a hammer to the SBCT's anvil.  SBCT assets also offer a lot of strength to the ABCT, in that the larger dismounted infantry force is much better at handling complex terrain, while still having the mobility of mounted forces.

The SBCT may be deployed alone and unafraid sometimes in the face of possible "heavy" enemy forces, but it's intended to be the initial investment, and it is light years ahead of what the Airborne was able to do in say 1991 as far as providing that deterrent/economy of force measure.  

The Stryker system isn't perfect.  The MGS has been a disappointment.   The AT version could really use a non-SACLOS missile (a super-Javelin would be interesting).  A lot of the weirdo 2001 era ISR and wizbang stuff didn't pan out like it was hoped for.  But the Army invests, and will likely continue to invest in the system because it has value to meet Army missions.  

yes, I know the Stryker has advantages as well as drawbacks. As an armoured vehicle you must agree tat the armoured protection is weaker than may be desirable. Which is the price that you pay for deployability. I am sure Stryker is a great vehicle for getting troops to and around the battlefield. However I don't think you would want to be up against a MBT in one. So, once on the battlefield dismounting could be the healthiest thing to do, ideally with all the Javelin ATGMs and LAWs you can can  carry.

PS I wasn't saying anything positive about the M113 in the modern environment. Wha I actually said was hat I might as well be using one1 hat is in consideration of he issues with Stryker, in particular the lack of an ATGM capability. While that s not a probem against insurgents you would agree it is an issue on high intensity armoured battlefelds. Even when you go into a lower tech environment you will agree you are likely to come up against tanks even if it is just a T55 or T62. Islamic state has (or had)  a fair number of those :-) Sure, in that environment airpowe and Apache gunships  can go after enemy tanks almost with impunity,

No, my issue with Stryker in its' current form is on the high tech high intensity armoured battlefield such as the one we see in CMBS

Like I said, personally I don't like the Stryker. I would much rather have Bradleys. However these come in the HBCT which are more difficult to deploy into theater. Perhaps if all Strykers were equipped with ATGM capability like the Bradleys this would at least enable them to fight tanks more effectively from covered positions on high intensity battlefields 

However, against a lightly equipped opponent such as insurgent types your Stryker is, I grant you, at least as good as Bradleys and, n that environment, perhaps on balance better. We still have airborne and airmobile capability. Arguably, with helicopters, you are in principle, going to be far more mobile on a tactical - operational level than the Stryker although the Stryker will enhance tactical mobility.

Do you think it would be possible to develop a vehicle mounted Javelin (that top attack capability is a game changer) or is it more likely that TOW would be used? I think we both agree that Stryker does need an ATGM capability as standard  even if we came to the same conclusion from different angles :-)

 

Edited by LUCASWILLEN05

Share this post


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

Let's recall WHY the US bought Stryker. In 1999 SFOR NATO peacekeepers rolled into the former Yugoslavia to put an end to that war. the US contingent had nothing but heavy equipment, cumbersome, difficult to maintain, too heavy for local bridges. They watched in envy as Canadian forces zipped forward on wheels and watched Russians in their 8x8 combat vehicles get airlifted-in from the opposite direction. Cue Homer Simpson-style envy drooling. In 2000 Rumsfeld's first proposal was to *greatly lighten* the US military, 'Technology' was imagined to be the big force-multiplier so combat forces could be significantly trimmed. Bids for an off-the-shelf 'interim fighting vehicle' immediately went out. A wide assortment of vehicles were tested. Mowag Piranha won. It was exactly the vehicle they wanted back in 1999 for rapid intervention deployments like SFOR. When Stryker Brigade got ordered to Iraq they hadn't even finished operational testing yet. The first batch to be shipped over was even sporting Mexas ceramic armor manufactured to the wrong specs.

Certainly there are good reasons for Stryker. However I think CMBS shows us the limitations of the combat system. Maybe mounting a standard ATGM capability (in the real world :-)  could be the way to go. Probably TOW although a vehicle munted version of Javelin would be wonderful if it is possible to do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stryker improvements:

A vertical launch Javelin module with 6 or 12 missiles with the sight tied into the RWS. (Think WWII German halftrack-mounted nebelwerfers...but cooler.) Stick 'em on all of them.

Use the 2 ACR style 30mm gun. Put 'em all over the place. Maybe all of them.

For organic indirect fire support, a breech loading 120mm mortar in a turret. Give every company about 6 of these in a support platoon. The added benefit is the ability of breech-loaded 120mm mortars to fire directly at targets. Bring the boom, baby! (Chop a pair to each maneuver platoon. If 1st platoon, at that moment, is in contact, it's 120's can fire directly (how's that sandbagged house working for you now?), and it can call in support (networked C2I, etc.) from the four 120's in the other two platoons. These weapons can go from moving to firing on a target in just a minute or so.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Please explain how CMBS doesn't show the limitations of the Stryker? Yet another assinine thread in a week full of them even by CMBS's standards. "If only the Stryker had this, or that, and the moon and hi-speed internet..." Then it wouldn't be a Stryker. Also "I don't like them" is great; thank you for sharing the opinion. There was already a thread on the subject we didn't need another :rolleyes:

 

@panzersaurkrautwerfer your first mistake was trying to reason with them. Everyone suddenly becomes a Defense Analyst when someone plays a bad round at CM and gets their rear-quarters handed to them.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you think about the Stryker as replacing the M113, it does a pretty good job. I spent a lot of time in Bisons and LAVs, and there is a role for light APCs, it's just that you have to be aware of that to get mileage out of them. What people have to remember is that in conventional war 90% of casualties are caused by crew served weapons, usually indirect fires. The BTR and Stryker keep your guys out of the shell fragments, the big killers on the battlefield.

You know the saying about amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics? This is a pretty good example. There is no wonder-weapon that will be impervious to enemy fire no matter how it is used. A lot of wargames fixate on Tigers and Panthers exactly because they fail to see that in the bigger picture the Sherman was a more effective weapons system.

I think this should be required viewing for threads like this:

 

Edited by DougPhresh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

31 minutes ago, DougPhresh said:

If you think about the Stryker as replacing the M113, it does a pretty good job. I spent a lot of time in Bisons and LAVs, and there is a role for light APCs, it's just that you have to be aware of that to get mileage out of them. What people have to remember is that in conventional war 90% of casualties are caused by crew served weapons, usually indirect fires. The BTR and Stryker keep your guys out of the shell fragments, the big killers on the battlefield.

You know the saying about amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics? This is a pretty good example. There is no wonder-weapon that will be impervious to enemy fire no matter how it is used. A lot of wargames fixate on Tigers and Panthers exactly because they fail to see that in the bigger picture the Sherman was a more effective weapons system.

I think this should be required viewing for threads like this:

 

I am not saying Stryker does not do a reasonable job in low intensity COIN environments. I am fine when using Srylker in hat kind of simulated environment. However I am less happy with it in a higher intensity armoured combat role and his is true in both CMSF and CMBS.. I find that the best way to use Stryker against a heavy armour opponent is to dismount the infantry somewhere safe and leave the vehicle somewhere safe while he infantry move up on foot. The Stryker serves to get the infantry to a suitable point to do the above. 

Interesting video though. However it does not mean that mounting a TOW all Strykers would not be a bad idea. A Javelin might be even better but this may not be feasible. This is why we have engineers :-)

 

Edited by LUCASWILLEN05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, c3k said:

Stryker improvements:

A vertical launch Javelin module with 6 or 12 missiles with the sight tied into the RWS. (Think WWII German halftrack-mounted nebelwerfers...but cooler.) Stick 'em on all of them.

Use the 2 ACR style 30mm gun. Put 'em all over the place. Maybe all of them.

For organic indirect fire support, a breech loading 120mm mortar in a turret. Give every company about 6 of these in a support platoon. The added benefit is the ability of breech-loaded 120mm mortars to fire directly at targets. Bring the boom, baby! (Chop a pair to each maneuver platoon. If 1st platoon, at that moment, is in contact, it's 120's can fire directly (how's that sandbagged house working for you now?), and it can call in support (networked C2I, etc.) from the four 120's in the other two platoons. These weapons can go from moving to firing on a target in just a minute or so.)

Do you think this could be done? I am not an engineer :-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30mm gun already being installed on 2nd ACR's Strykers. Cool name, cool look. Hammer/eggshell. :)  (Army was always reluctant to up-arm Strykers for a variety of reasons. Mission creep; cost per hull; more gun means it may be used for a role other than a taxi (the old conflict between "we designed it to be used" vs. "we're in the field with it".)) The 30mm gun is in a self-contained, roof mounted turret.

 

120mm: see PICT0217.jpgo

 

Or http://defense-update.com/products/a/amsII.htm

Strapping Javelins to the hull and tying them into a sight on the RWS? Easy peasy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Interesting video though. However it does not mean that mounting a TOW all Strykers would not be a bad idea. A Javelin might be even better but this may not be feasible. This is why we have engineers :-)

I think you may have missed the satire there! It's a cautionary tale about feature creep, and by Jove it's too real!

:(Too real...

Really though, doesn't the Stryker offer essentially the same role as the BTRs do in Russian formations? The low of the high-low mix, offering good mobility and moderate fragment protection at a low, affordable price! Plus some fire support when you need it.

At least the US doesn't have some seven-odd types of APCs and IFVs in service. Now THAT is a logistical nightmare. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the people complaining about strykers here try a quick battle with a Ukrainian tactical group of BTR-70s :P.

You can't always rely on your toys to get you through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

27 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

 

Really though, doesn't the Stryker offer essentially the same role as the BTRs do in Russian formations? The low of the high-low mix, offering good mobility and moderate fragment protection at a low, affordable price! Plus some fire support when you need it.

 

This. It's interesting we haven't had any threads about BTR-82s making the same complaints.

The lack of contextual thinking is shocking. Yes, in a tactical simulator I would love to have all Abrams, all the time, but that's not how a high-intensity battle zone behaves. Someone's gotta do the economy of force, pull security, recon or conduct operations in complex terrain so that the armor can be husbanded for the decisive effort. You don't fritter away MBTs and IFVs on such tasks if you can avoid it.

The same situation that finds a BTR regiment of a MRD following up an attack or providing flank security is as applicable to an SBCT. Except, of course, the SBCT gives you more infantry, more UAS, more survivability and more Anti-Tank capability. It's like a BTR unit...but better in almost every way :^)

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread reminds me of another woefully bad vehicle, the ww2 era Studebaker truck. 

 

Like the stryker, the army claimed the studebaker would enhance mobility of infantry and this would enhance the combat ability of the infantry. But in actual combat the studebaker was no match for the Panther and Panzer 4 tanks!

What was really needed was a studebaker on tracks with 64mm of armor at 47 degrees and a 75mm AT gun. Then it would have been a vehicle that they army could have been proud of. 

History repeats itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

This. It's interesting we haven't had any threads about BTR-82s making the same complaints.

The lack of contextual thinking is shocking. Yes, in a tactical simulator I would love to have all Abrams, all the time, but that's not how a high-intensity battle zone behaves. Someone's gotta do the economy of force, pull security, recon or conduct operations in complex terrain so that the armor can be husbanded for the decisive effort. You don't fritter away MBTs and IFVs on such tasks if you can avoid it.

The same situation that finds a BTR regiment of a MRD following up an attack or providing flank security is as applicable to an SBCT. Except, of course, the SBCT gives you more infantry, more UAS, more survivability and more Anti-Tank capability. It's like a BTR unit...but better in almost every way :^)

The problem with the BTR though is that they sacrificed armor and firepower to increase troop capacity and make it cheap. The BTR is no match for the Abrams or the Iowa class Battleship. The BTR needs K5 ERA and a 125mm main gun. Then it will be good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good video of the 120mm direct fire/indirect fire breech loaded mortar in action:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sdkfz 7 Half Tracks pour off the assembly lines with the new upgrades ordered by Hitler after the disaster in Normandy. 

Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H26258%2C_Panzer_V

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Reasoning

I know, but at the same time, sometimes you just read something that so boggles your mind you need to reply.

Re: "Stuff"

I wouldn't want to take an airborne Platoon against a tank either.  I would not be especially happy trying to handle tanks with a Bradley platoon too.  About the only took I really feel reasonably capable of dealing with tanks on the offensive would be another tank.

Which is why debating if the Stryker is a good vehicle based on it's tank-worthiness is again, missing the point.  It's a vehicle with a set mission.  It's a mission that makes profound amounts of sense if you're the US Army circa 1995-201X. 

I think the military/warfighting is one of the few fields total amateurs regularly wander into with the idea that they somehow know more than the professionals.   

Re: 120 MM mortars

The mortar platform already exists though, it's a 120 MM, and while it's not a breach loader, it is fully digital and does some spooky stuff as far as servicing fire missions.  While I'm past the point of being combat arms/ground force commander/whatever, I'd have swapped my BN's M113 based mortars for the Stryker platform in a heartbeat (although best option would be the Stryker's mortar system mounted in a Bradley chassis for mobility-parts commonality with the rest of a CAB).  

As far as the direct fire role, given the capabilities of precision fire mortars, and their existence at the Company level, I don't think an additional mortar platform makes a lot of sense.  The autocannon mount, and the various other firepower enhancements seem to offer a distinct capability vs capability duplication.  There might be some value to replacing the existing mortar vehicle with a different kind of mortar, but I think the issue you run into over there is the capabilities of the existing platform are perceived as adequate weighed against the cost of replacement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.