Dandelion

Thanks Andreas Yes I meant the Zahlmops and your translation is better - paymaster. The vehicles listed in Sollstärke were mittlerer gl.Pkw. mit Gerätkasten (Kfz.15) and Gefechtskraftwagen (Kfz 18). Jon, I am too ignorant of your tiffy to confirm the comparison, but Gerät was (is) a classification of equipment (thanks again A) as distinct from weapons (but not all equipment except weapons). The weapons NCO (Waffenunteroffizier, aka Waffenmeister) as listed took care of maintenance and repair of weapons, with his assistance. A person with expertise in both types of equipment would use the "WuG" appendix to his rank or title. Grim, at least as late as the Balkan campaign of 41, German units could use buglers in combat (not leading charges though). Maybe later too, just haven't read of it myself. More effective than blowing whistles you know. So the Hornist wasn't all ceremonial The 15./25 actually performed an insane charge much like the one you imagine. But they used only their available motorbikes (the initial charge - follow ups used VWs). Though they were accompanied by Wünsches Panthers, it didn't go well at all. Cheerio Dandelion

Elementary dear Jon, elementary This is nowhere near Kingfish and his butcher platoon quests. First source is correct, the companies were recce and organised exactly as Kradschützen (motorcycle) companies of Panzergrenadierdivision Panzergrenadier regiments, but equipped with Kübelwagen. They were raised as such companies, before the order came to transform into a Panzerdivision instead. Rather than dropping these companies, the 12th simply kept them and lied about the fact. Such companies used the K.St.N.1111 and was organised as follows, to be ridiculously precise: Kompanietrupp with - Company CO - Commander of the company vehicle park (who rode a motorcycle) - 3 Messengers (one also Hornist, another also Scherenfernrohrträger) all these using one motorcycle with sidecar - 3 motorcycle messengers, one motorcycle each. - 2 drivers each with a large Pkw, resembling perhaps the SAS Chevys a little. - A medic. --- 3 Motorcycle platoons, but in our case Volkswagen platoons Each with Zugtrupp with - Platoon CO - Messenger (also Hornist) - 2 motorcycle messengers, each with a bike. - 2 drivers, each with a heavy Pkw as above. - a medic Granatwerfertrupp with - Mortar crew with one mortar and a Pkw. Three Gruppen all with - 9 man recon squads, in our case mounted in 2 volkswagen per squad. --- Company also had a sMG Gruppe - Group CO - Rangefinder NCO - 2 messengers on motorbikes with sidecars (the two above sitting in the sidecars) - 2 sMG with crews mounted in a volkswagen each. --- And Gefechtstroß - Hauptfeldwebel - Gerät NCO (er, can't translate - "Device" NCO) - Weapons NCO with one assistant. - Medical NCO - Company clerk - Mechanic - 2 Cooks - 6 drivers and a corpral commanding them. - 5 trucks, 1 heavy Pkw, two motorcycles. --- And Instandstzungstrupp with - Mechanics NCO - 3 mechanics, one riding a motorbike, two riding a Kleiner Instandsetzungskraftwagen Kfz 2/40. --- And Gepäcktroß - Er, accountant NCO sort of - Shoemaker - Tailor - Driver - 1 truck. In all 4/24/150 (Off/NCO/Enl.). But no Pak's. When the 12th SS was ordered to transform, the Panzergrenadier companies were all to be equipped with a platoon Pak/Flak each. But they never were. This might perhaps have created the misunderstanding. The 15./26 was commanded by Oblt Bayer (yup, an army guy), the 15./25 by Hauptsturmführer Büttner who however was killed June 8th. Cheerio Dandelion

Michael Mobile Alabama. But of course. Your ways, you are so unfailingly polite and kind, a gentlemans behaviour. I've been wondering about that. Suspected Ivy league there in lack of better ideas, but you're a Southerner. Now I get it. Should I read your post imagining a Alabama dialect? Wait a minute, WA means Washington state right? So you're very much at the other end of the entire continent now then? Why would anyone leave the sun like that? I was in Texas once, never in Alabama, but Texas offered a sun that never leaves you cold or abandoned. Well, better get out of this Pengthread before any of it sticks on my shoes, and I don't really want your real life exposed in this particular thread anyway. But I for one am pleased to have obtained this information. We should have some kind of real life thread someplace. If Moon kept a daily eye on it and chased off the bad guys. Regards Dandelion

Noone who knows. Your "please only etc" line there is blocking out everyone who has a plausible theory but is not dead certain - i.e. every possible answer you can hope for here, since only Steve, the programmer, actually knows - thus the silence. I'll have a go anyway. No command line, no bonus. Cheerio Dandelion

Hey Big Red I wanted to tell you. I finally lost the writers cramps and wrote Gen. Dallaire (compare post above). That was a deeply satisfying experience. I felt and feel really great about sending that. He wrote me back. The struggle for multilateral solutions to world problems continue. So, reversing this thread on you - thank you for a setting a positive example. Sincerely Dandelion

In a tournament you cannot choose opponent, nor scenario. Being in there to compete, you must submit to the rules at hand, which by necessity are the same for all. So I also do not play tournaments Choosing your opponent is even more important than choosing scenario. The community has no cosi fan tutti or comme il faut, so what is considered what will depend on who you are facing. Choosing a scenario I will enjoy is a privilege upon which I insist and I recommend you do the same - why would you waste time playing scenarios that you do not find entertaining? I grant my opponent the same and will not debate his declination, should it come. We'll simply find another. I don't want a bored opponent at the other end either. But you know there is such a wealth of solid scenarios out there that these four years haven't provided a single challenge - mine or directed at me - where we could not rather easily find a mutually enjoyable battle. Judging from experiences I'd say no, most of them are not. Playtested yes, but perhaps not in a manner that could be called thorough. That said in general - I have no idea what the KOTH scenarios go through before issued. If a scenario is designed for a tournament, or for online play, it will be kept brief and scaled down, by necessity. One turn in Pbem means 3 mails. If a player can mail three times a week - for a working man a very honourable rate - that's six mails per week, or 2 turns. Meaning a scenario of 35 turns takes more than 4 months to complete. Doesn't bother me one bit, but in the light of it many designers hesitate to be generous with turns. Cheerio Dandelion

Yskonin I actually have the same problem after - what is it, four years now? So I don't play QB. I play scenarios, where you as commander will normally be realistically informed about the enemy (reducing the recon need to realistic proportions), and not forced to launch a full charge into utter ignorance. If the briefing reveals nothing, I check number of turns. If too few given the scale of map and battle (say a 3km map in 20 turns), I pick another scenario and explain my problem to my opponent. This has happened. While not cracking your problem as such, it works real nice for me. Cheers Dandelion

Indeed. Except of course they don't have the option of setting up sMG positions, so not much is actually gained right? Cheers Dandelion

This fellow sounds awfully German I must say. To attempt to summize then, would it be truthful of me to claim that: a) Official published British army doctrine can be assumed to have been taught in all armies concerned at roughly the same time. Even though not all forces in the Commonwealth or Empire were obliged to follow British manuals. They by and large chose to do so anyway. Not only the official manuals, but a disturbing amount of "pamphlets" seem to have circulated, affecting actual practice. By and large doctrine appears to have been applied by the forces taught. Although apparently it didn't work out as imagined, and forces can be relied upon to adjust methods when found non-functional. A note here is that Wigram writes this before the release of the 1944 manual, which I imagine must have been much more to his taste, given what he explains here. c) We cannot apply these statements on the forces operating in the Pacific. - On the Hatecourses - My reason for asking was initially a rather amusing anecdote from Dr Bull on these courses. Apparently the British army felt it a problem that the men weren't taking the war seriously enough, and there seems to have been a similar attitude among the officers that needed outrooting. Hence the courses that took place in late 41 and early 42. However, according to Dr Bull they turned out farcical, and the men giggled their way through them. They were thus quickly dropped. I also know of the much later, rather ferocious hatecampaigns to foster the British army of occupation (which included the KZs). That all ended with the Welsh in my sector building football courses for the locals, arranging schoolbuses and violating the ban on fraternisation every day. A total flop as it was. I also came to think of a specific HJ hatecampaign directed at the British in late 1944, triggered by the discovery of pro-British "cultural leanings" (this is Axmann speaking) among the population in general and youths in particular. The campaign was a total flop and also became the subject of much humour. Finally, I vaguely recall reading material on the US Army Rangers, as the word "Hate training" echoed familiar - but I am not sure. I basically wanted to find out if any government attempt at creating hate where there was previously none ever succeeded. So did the US troops, specifically those who had no previous problem with Germans, actually become hateful after such "Know your Enemy" courses? Because if they didn't, my belief in a Governments ability to foster new* hate is severely battered. Cheerio and much thanks (we're not finished yet tho) Dandelion * Not the same as exploiting existing hate/prejudice.

Short version: yes Long version: German sMG teams were capable of transforming into leMG teams in a few seconds. The machinegun design you know. Unless deployed in a static defensive position, the machinegun team needed to move and fight in a combat environment. This they did in exactly the same manner as infantry squads, as they had the same training. Wether attached to an infantry company, or performing independent tasks it was the same. The Dreibein was dismounted, folded and carried on No. 2s back. The No. 1 then had a ready machinegun with bipod in his hands, and two loaders (3 and 4) ready to feed him. Voilá, a highly mobile leMG team. [if they did not dismount the Dreibein, the thingy weighed 33kg and precluded intelligent movement due to carrying problems. The team was completely helpless while moving - as they are in CM you know ] Though they were supposed to be six, IRL such a team consisted of five men, two of which (plus boss) was the MG Gruppe of 11 men. So yes, two machineguns per Gruppe, closely resembling the infantry Gruppe. The machineguns of the heavy companies were normally dispersed among the infantry companies in squads and platoons. However, you'll easily find plenty of examples of them given quite independent tasks, even singular teams. I haven't seen any example of them given assault tasks independently, but you know they went along in infantry assaults when detached and were familiar with this role as well. Think of them as infantry in this role, rather than Vickers type heavy machineguns crews. ASL recognised the phenonema and you could use German sMG units historically there, but not in CM I'm afraid. Cheerio Dandelion

Hey, a thread full of nice people, what a very rewarding place to come back to A practical man hunting usable solutions, Kingfish has triggered a great wealth of interesting threads. I always imagine him picking out the actually useful parts and returning to his designers workshop pretty quickly, leaving the esoteric debate behind as a speeding boat leaves a trail in the water. You're working on a project Jon? 1. Saint-Pierre lies South of the Caen-Bayeux road. You've found Le-Mesnil-Patry. Look just (3-4 km) Southwest and you'll find Fontenay-le-Pesnel. Immediately East of the latter was a crossroad(s?), a fork with one road leading NW and the other SW, both passing through Fontenay. Following the road NW and it passes right through Saint-Pierre, about 3 km from the crossroad(s?). As another point of orientation, Audrieu lies 4 km straight North of Saint Pierre and between the two lies les Hauts Vents, where Pz Lehr fought an action later in June. Also nearby is Cristot, where 12th SS fought later in June. 2. Precisely, St. Croix grand-Tonnes, not sur-mer. The company deployed not in the town but along the summit there. To the SW, the river valley ends by the town as you can see, and the summit of the ridge stretches from St Croix to Vieux Pont further NW along the Route Nationale. 3. Patry Jon, not Paltry Yes, that's the place, some 2,5 km South of Putot, or so. Again, there is a dominant ridge stretching from about Le Mesnil (the summit starting more precisely by Chateuax de Mesnil-Patry in the very northern edge of town) up to Putot. From that ridge, you own the RN13, which to top it off is an elevated road for miles on both sides of the ridge. 4. Yes, again the place. Strange reference point, Creully. Are you using a contemporary map? Creully is a mere dot on mine. Again a ridge. Technically Camilly itself is not on it though, it stretches from Secqueville (en Bessin) North to Le Fresne-Camilly. The company deploying with frontage along the road Camilly-Pierrepont, right across the ridge. Overall, if you compare a topographical map of the same area you'll note that there is, generally speaking, quite a ridge stretching from Camilly to St Croix. Going from the latter via Cristot/Le Mesnil to Putot/Bretteville to Secqueville to Le Fresne Camilly and ending in the river valley just North of the latter. In several places that ridge is pretty dominant, with surprisingly sharp slopes here and there and the flatlands is rather open country. You will recognise all the towns I just listed, as they were all fought for, for obvious reasons. The battallion was deployed all along this ridge in a wide arc, with the intent (Richters) to be able to support the poor bloody infantry of the 716th. The idea being that these guns - so heavy that they had no real tactical mobility - would find opportunity to use their extreme long range accuracy from up there. Cheerio Dandelion

[reading with great interest and patiently waiting for everyone to have time to contribute...]

No please do, there is no way of ever reaching a conclusive truth in these issues, one never does. One can at best reach a plausible theory. I think both Feuchtinger and Richter were perfectly clear on the matter of three companies, and that their superior in H.Gr.B. - in the case of Richter, Rommel at the time though reports would go to his Ia rather than him - was equally enlightened, but that nobody reported this choice of organisation to OKH. Tessin marks the unit as such with an asterisk in his book, meaning that he has obtained information about it from Field Army command sources, not OKH sources. So the whole raising of the unit - not just the number of companies - was in all likelihood somewhat ad hoc. Which exactly mirrors the case of companies 15 in the 12th SS. Well, that's my theory at least. By the way it is always prudent to imply that I am wrong Companies 2 and 3 are listed to have had 8 barrels on the 5th. 1st company had 5. Hq company had 3. My guess being that the latter three actually belonged to 1st company. Yes indeed extremely unlikely. 24 complete Pak 43 serial production model 8.8cm weaponsystems were delivered by rail to Rennes in one batch in March 1944, for this unit. No other Pak deliveries until 1945. An unspecified batch of unspecified Paks is inherited from the 16th Lw (F) after Falaise in August. Even though they stole a lot from eachother, any German unit would have a really hard time retrieving a Pak 43 at the time. First production batches only left the factories in february that year, the 200th was among the very first to receive this type. Difficult to steal as they were difficult to at all find. I see no possibility for the 200th to acquire any more Pak 43s. My rival theory, that the 3rd company might have been a Flak company pressed into service from the Heeres Flak, is also rather unlikely. Flak and Pak have different symbols on a German tactical map, and 3rd company clearly display the Pak symbol. Why will you stay quiet now? This is my idea of having a good time you know Kiwi, of course. It all makes sense to me now. Cheers Dandelion

Jon I've got it. You're a New Zeelander, aren't you? Yes sources conflict a lot on june 6th-7th, and it is not as if one can ever afford to be certain about anything. Here's what I've got: In the Invasion Study* of Richter (716th) he describes the deployment of the battallion and the intentions both with initial deployments and orders issued during 6th and 7th. He mentions three companies numbered 1-3. The deployment map** of the 716th as reported in to army group B displays the deployment of the 200th (PzJg, to not confuse it with 200th Stug), mirroring his words and showing the same thing. In brief, Bn HQ is in St Pierre, 1st coy in near St Croix, 2nd coy north of le Mesnil and 3rd by Camilly. In the Feuchtinger report*** (21st) on June 6th he also mentions the three companies and provides roughly (but not exactly) the same deployment of the companies. In the war diary of army group B**** you find the same statements, but that is of course because Richter and Feuchtinger reported matters as such to H.Gr.B. Here the first element of confusion presents itself. Dr Tessin¤ states that the 200th had only two companies (and Dr Niehorster does not make a note in his Errata on Dr Tessin, that this would be a faulty entry). Since Tessin per definition is never wrong unless he made a typo (Niehorsters Errata takes care of them), as he is merely stating what was documented and known by the OKH, the OKH must have also believed that the 200th had only two companies. I have seen this before however, how field conditions will not correspond. Another Normandy example of this is the famed but ill fated 15th companies of the PzGren regiments of 12th Pz SS, both of which were also quite unofficial and do not appear in records beyond divisional ones and the ever so precious Lagekarten and Stellungskarten. So one can accept this divergence - IMHO that is - without too much trouble. We have the option of doubt here, and one can successfully carry an argument that there was only two companies, if a third appeared at all it must have been from another unit. Richter and Feuchtinger agree that there was a third and I am being comfortable and accepting their word for it. A more serious element of confusion IMHO is that Feuchtinger and Richter - and Kortenhaus¤¤ - all contradict eachother as to what happened during the 6th and 7th. 1. Richter mentions ordering the entire 200th to redeploy slightly to the North of present positions, in order to link up with and support his infantry. The order issued at dawn, redeployment attempt was carried out at noon. He reports the redeployment as abortive. 2. Feuchtinger in his report states that one company (of course he does not mention which) redeploys North early in the morning, to the beaches and goes into action there, followed by the entire battallion arriving before noon. If we accept this, there was no company at Camilly when the Canadians arrived. 3. Kortenhaus, 21st division historian, states that the entire battallion redeployed to the West, except for three barrels left in Periers. Kortenhaus operates using the same material as Feuchtingr, we can regard them as one here, in spite of the North/West disagreement. I choose to believe Richter here because a) he was in command of the unit - 200th had no contact with the 21st at this point even though it organically belonged to 21st - and he is also the only one to state the reason and outcome of issued orders. R's report on the delay of some 4 hours from order to execution is also more credible than F/K's report on zero delay. This newly raised battallion was spread out over most of Normandy. c) R's statement that the attempt was abortive is credible given the allied positions by noon, more credible than the entire 200th from it's many positions throughout Normandy reaching the beaches. d) R's version of the battallion unable to redeploy also explains why sections of 8.8's of the 200th keep appearing days to come in shattered elements of the 716th inland, with some parts incorporated in the Caen fighting. Again, one can successfully argue that Feuchtinger is right instead. But thus I reached my conclusion. There are a lot of more loose ends here. For instance Richter reports that the 5th company of 200th Stug was under his command also. My question must be - what 5th company? The unit had only 3 batteries, no companies and certainly no 5th company. And another point - 716th had access to a Heeresflak unit, wich had 8.8's. Sources of course again diverge on their whereabouts. It does seem they focused on protecting supply lines, but I can't be absolutely certain of that can I. So it's a mess all of it really. * Studie Generalleutnant Richter, MS-B-621 ** [stellungskarte 716. I.D., Anlage 3 zu Obkdo. d.H.Gr.B Ia Nr 3050/44 geh]. *** Studie MS-B-441, Generalmajor Feuchtinger. **** Kriegstagebuch Heeresgruppe B. Sections covering June available in print nowadays. ¤ Verbände und Truppen der Deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939 - 1945, Siebenter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 131-200. ¤¤ Kortenhaus, Werner, Die 21. Panzerdivision im Westen 1943-45. Cheerio Dandelion

Rats, Jon beat me to it...

Hi there King The 8.8's were Paks, not Flaks, and they belonged to Panzerjägerabteilung 200, Kompanie 3. Which in turn was a unit of the 21st, but deployed in the area of 716th and subject to the latter in the CoC. It had no contact with the rest of 21st at the time. The 3rd company was deployed near and around Camilly tasked mainly with covering the road and open country leading South from Fontaine. I.e. the very road that B squadron used. Closest infantry formation was II./726 which was deployed with left flank immediately North of company 3, not quite connecting to company 3 right flank. The company had had an abortive attempt to regroup North to support II./726 during midday, but had returned to initial positions by the afternoon. The company reported several Canadian tanks destroyed in the action. No numbers, no types, no specified enemy unit. That help out? Cheers Dandelion

Can't carry my argument for the FG42, as it is entirely emotional. Of course you're right - though I rather had the picture that the Germans had an eye on the Garand, which they encountered in mass use, unlike the SVT which appeared in enemy NCO hands only and therefore did not get the devastating effect of the Garand, as evident in Tunisia. Hm. Out on thin ice here I feel - anyway The Successful Infantry Weapon of World War II was the semiautomatic rifle, SVT and Garand being fine pieces of weaponry both. Germany aspired to equip herself with a such. Eventually she opted for a semiautomatic rifle with a full auto option useful for close quartes, the MP44. In terms of the waryears arms race, the G43 should be in the game as a natural stepping stone to the MP44. Cheers Dandelion

Nothing? You mean Machester is a wild goose? Or sit you in the House of Lords and need not care sir? Hm... There is of course a city in Texas called Venus. I remember old Lee mentioning it. That would explain the "buddy" expression. One would have expected to see a "mate" there... hmm... I'll ponder it further. Cheerio Dandelion

Oren! Edge? What edge? It is at the very core of anti-Oreninism, Oren. I am adressing the particularly objective individual Oren, am I by some mistake reaching the entire Semitic speaking community in the world while doing so? Do you usually call yourself "Semite"? Look yourself in the mirror and think "hey, there's one handsome Semite looking back at me"? You introduce yourself as "Hi I'm Oren, the Semite"? Have you pondered the fact that Palestinians also speak a Semitic language? Or did you figure out just now that you somehow probably belong to a victim group, that there is some cozy collective you can define yourself as belonging to and not have to be the individual Oren for a while, and maybe drew the desoriented conclusion that the suffering of your ancestors at the hands of torturers has any relation to you whatsoever? More precisely, the bizarre relation that any amount of obnoxious, annoying behaviour coming from you on this forum will not only be excused but taken in serious regard by your peers? Stop parasiting on the misfortunes of your elders, it is revolting and an echo of my own ancestors perverted view of themselves as victims of your ancestors, a belief they held all the way to the gaschambers. That was their lives, you and I have our own time and lives, and what do we do with it? I am not patrolling foreign soil with weapons in hand like my fathers did, are you? Be a man and realise that whatever happened when you were not yet born - you are a perpetrator now, and other humans are your victims, who will have days of remembrance for those lost to you in days to come. Do you wish to honour those perished under unlawful, brutal occupations in World War 2? Those who died in jails and torture chambers of a terror régime? "Semites", oppositional socialists, trade unionists, gypsys, homosexuals - anybody who lost their lives under the same terror? I will celebrate and grieve with you, the memory of those lost, your conceived "Semites" and all others murdered, when you have regained your honour and your face. Your armed forces need to leave foreign soil immediately and return to your national territory. Enclaves of your nationals living unlawfully on foreign soil must disperse. All arrests of people not presented with any charges must cease. Suspects in custody must be granted a fair trial. Torture and murder executed by your armed forces and other government agencies must cease, those responsible must be brought before your national judicial system and be tried for their actions, not their faith. All citizens of your state must be guaranteed equal rights regardless of faith. All permanent residents of your national territory must be granted citizenship, and with it, have their humans rights protected and defended by you. All this you need to do to regain your face, your name and your honour. Becasue you have none right now. D

Good to see you too Jon. Hey - guess who I found the other day? Venus, no less! And you know its the strangest thing, but it appears she's in Manchester these days. Upon unearthing her hiding there, for some reason, I immediately came to think of you. And is it not amazing still, that after more than two years of hard labour here under the Dandelion ID, and another year before that under the Moritz ID, this kid Wart here manages to post more posts than me in a couple of months? It's all embarrassing really. Ah well, I suppose you're glued to the tellie tonight, watching the election? I am totally frolicing in the BBC graphics galore, both on TV and the webpage. We're ten years behind over here, in that respect. We get no graphics toys or people running about in virtual parliments in our elections. I'm even beginning to understand your impossible electorial system, from playing with these toys. Cheers Dandelion

True, very true. Yet the FG42 is a bit of a character weapon. Like SAS jeeps. I would have accepted it's inclusion even at the cost of more common weapons, such as the G43. Cheerio Dandelion

I'm stuck and I have two questions. First. I have not quite figured out the relationship between British, Empire and Commonwealth forces yet. This keeps confusing me. Having finally gotten my hands on "Infantry Tactics" (1939) and "Infantry Training" (1944), and am awaiting "Operations" (1942), I now note that these are all "British" army publications. I have previously learned on this forum that this is not synonymous with "concerns all men with flat helmets". My question is simple - can one presume, as in take for granted until otherwise proven, that imperial and commonwealth troops abided by the same doctrine (ahem, well, say tactical principles) as outlined in these British manuals? That they used the same manuals to organise and execute infantry training? That they had parallell development and introduced tactical novelties at about the same time, all of them? Of course I realise that Canada and India introduced nothing at all in 1939, but I am particularly interested in the significant changes of primarily 1942 and 1944. Secondly, and I turn now to US grogs - the British (and CW? and Imperial?) "Hate Training" courses that were held in late 41 and early 42 - were there any such deliberate campaigns in the US Army with the same intent? If so, were results any different from the UK experience? Yours Sincerely Dandelion

Nope, not a very valid argument considering 402.713 weapons were produced. As compared to the 479.810 MP44 all types produced - a weapon that does appear in the game. Not to mention the less than 7000 FG42's ever produced. The modelling of tank types presented a rather special problem, but I can't really see that the hardcoding of another smallarm would have posed such a strain on the engine. Then again I'm not a programmer. Cheers Dandelion

John takes pride in being a commoner Wart, he is not particularly fond of bluebloods. Now, the gun, who gave it to you? D

Ah, now I get it. What's this? A rival system? Has passed my by completely. I'll definately have a look into this. Thanks! Cheerio Dandelion