The Germans, historical Bad Boys or just really cool guys?

PzKpfw 1 · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Africa, Italy, France and then Germans.

More aircraft carriers and more tanks, more troops and more guns, more ships and more bombs, more plains and more bullets, more, more, more, more until Germany was torn to pieces, just like the South in the Civil War. The US had practically limitless power at that time and the national will to use it.

Interesting conclusions, so let me see if I am getting this correct, it's the contention now of a few ppl that the USA could have won WW2 ourselves? I just want to clarify this point before going on.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the feild".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-10-2000).]

Jeff Heidman · October 10, 2000

These "what-ifs" are meaningles without more information.

When you say "could the US have won by themselves", what do you mean?

That Germany did attack the USSR and took it over? That Germany never attacked the USSR to begin with? That Germany invaded and conqueered the UK? That Germany did/did not invade and conquer France?

What "WW2" are we talking about?

Jeff Heidman

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

So, answer the question. Why do you believe that the US would be unwilling to kill 100K or so Germans with an A-Bomb when they amde it abundantly clear they were willing to kill 100K Germans with fire bombs?

Jeff Heidman

I wrote a few posts back, that I have read sources which state that Roosevelt would not have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany unless the threat existed that Germany would use atomic weapons of its own on the Allies. As I wrote, I will attempt to provide information on these sources if I can find them. As I wrote, I make no promise of being able to do so.

One of three things, therefore, is possible.

1) My sources are wrong. Fair enough, sources can be wrong. As my field of study is not American foreign policy during the Second World War, I cannot even claim that I have made an attempt to verify these sources. I don't have the time or the inclination.

2) If my sources were correct, then Roosevelt was irrational. Fair enough, as I say, people are irrational.

3) I'm lying and fabricating sources. If this is what you think, come out and say it. At which point I will stop replying both to this thread and to you.

Jeff - Like CavScout, you have spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to discredit my position and no time whatsoever trying to prove yours. I'm willing to admit that my sources might be incorrect. But you'll still have to demonstrate them to be so before I give.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

virtualfreak · October 10, 2000

About the question some of you had on would we use an atomic bomb on germany if we had the chance? Well if D-day had in fact somehow failed the germans would then be able to send their best panzer divisions to the russian front to halt the soviet advance.

The allies would be left with no choice but to continue their offensive in Italy.

Once the atomic bomb was developed the allies would wast no time in dropping it on Berlin and other german cities.

I also think the allies were eager to test the nuclear bomb because they wanted to show the Soviet Union that they were capable of destroying them if stalin desided to take over the rest of Europe.

This is just my opinion of course.

Major Tom · October 10, 2000

Hi, my stidues in Military history span the early war in Europe (1939-41) and the war in the pacific (1931-1945). I can clarify a few things...

Regarding Poland, the Polish airforce did not have many modern aircraft, and what obsolete things they did posess, were in small numbers. Their morale was very high, their experience very low (same with the Germans). The Luftwaffe lost 500 planes against Polish AA and aircraft, a pretty good feat for a nation that fell so fast. The Polish Ponzan Army nearly cut off the entire 10th German army trying to secure Warsaw. It wasn't a cakewalk.

France and the Low Countries in 1940. Neither Belgium nor Holland were willing to coordinate their defences with England and France (because of neutrality pacts). The Allies technically outnumbered the Germans in every aspect (this includes RAF not sent to France). The Allied equipment was also a lot better, in fact, the allied 1st Army Group was more mobile/mechanized than Army Group A! The Allied attack of 3 Battalions of Tanks and Infantry against TWO german divisions (The SS Totenkopf and Rommel's 7th Panzer) flew the two into disarray (Rommel though he was being attacked by 5 British Armoured Divisions.

The Germans won because of superior Strategic tactics, and better coordination (all of their tanks had radio recievers). The main German attack hit the French 9th Army, possibly the poorest formation in the French Army. Once they broke through the Allies had little time to react.

Many Allied tactics in the Battle of France were taken in hand by NATO forces post war. The Hedgehog tactic developed by the commander of the French forces after Dunkirk (Weygand) was a brilliant feat of modern thinking, but, lacked sufficient reserves to succeed.

Regarding the Japanese and the Pacific. I have to agree that there was a certain level of racism in the West agaisnt the Japanese that wasn't felt against the Germans or Italians. Dead Japanese were shown in propaganda photographs WELL before and more often then German dead were allowed to be shown. This has nothing to do with their tenacity and unwillingness to surrender, but, due to the racial hatred felt by both sides.

The Battles cited (regarding the duel between the Washington and Kirishima) do not fit the whole truth.

The Kirishima was a Kongo class Battlecruiser built originally during the early part of WWI. It was heavily modernized in the 1930's, but, its protection was still 3rd Rate. It was armed with 8 14" guns.

The Washington was a North carolina Class Battleship, completed in 1939-40. It had state of the art armour and guns. It was armed with 9 16" guns.

Lest we also forget, the USS South Dakota (an even more modern version of the North Carolina Class) with 9 16" guns was in the same action.

The Kirishima, outgunned and outnumbered managed to inflict damage on the South Dakota until it was overwealmed by the Washington. A pretty good feat for a ship built in 1915, a Battle Cruiser going toe to toe with two Battleships built 20 years later!

So, my personal conclusions while reading a multitude of different soucres with different agendas is that the Germans during the early part of the war were either extrememly brilliant or magnificantly lucky. The Japanese posessed an extremely efficient fighting force hampered by the inability to wage a prolonged and global war. Both the Allies and the Japanese treated this war differently than the one in Europe. It was a war for the japanese to try to prove that asian peoples (well, just the japnaese) are not inferior, and it was a war for the europeans to try and prove that they were.

Both the Allies and the Japanese used powerful racist propaganda that would make Goebbels proud.

PzKpfw 1 · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

These "what-ifs" are meaningles without more information.

When you say "could the US have won by themselves", what do you mean?

That Germany did attack the USSR and took it over? That Germany never attacked the USSR to begin with? That Germany invaded and conqueered the UK? That Germany did/did not invade and conquer France?

What "WW2" are we talking about?

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Jeff exactly what I said, a war between Germany & the US alone, no England, no Russia no Japan etc. Basicly Germany controls Europe Ie, Russia was conquered etc. Seeing how one can get the feeling that some here feel the Allies roles in WW2 were miniscule & subserviant compared to the US's Uber role, Ie, the Eastren Front had little effect on the course of WW2 in the ETO etc, so its absence should have little efeect on any war between the 2, England etc wont matter cause we got aircraft carriers so who needs that lil Island etc.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the feild".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-10-2000).]

Mannheim Tanker · October 10, 2000

Cav wrote: "Hell must be frozen now!"

It was this morning...near freezing here in Southern Mississippi

------------------

"Gun damaged are rare on Shermans because they die like red shirts on Star Trek" - Slapdragon

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Well Jeff exactly what I said, a war between Germany & the US alone, no England, no Russia no Japan etc. Basicly Germany controls Europe Ie, Russia was conquered etc. Seeing how one can get the feeling that some here feel the Allies roles in WW2 were miniscule compared to the US's Uber role, Ie, the Eastren Front had little effect on the course of WW2 in the ETO etc it should have littlke efeect on any war between the

The simple question is who would win, America or Germany in a straight up fight? One on one, no other meaningless "what ifs".

PzKpfw 1 · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

The simple question is who would win, America or Germany in a straight up fight? One on one, no other meaningless "what ifs".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So answer it Cav no more dodgeing, lay your cards on the table explain to us why the US was so superior that we didn't need anyone else to beat Germany etc, support your position.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the feild".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

The simple question is who would win, America or Germany in a straight up fight? One on one, no other meaningless "what ifs".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er, this question in and of itself is an enormous what if. If you don't qualify it somehow, it becomes useless.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

So answer it Cav no more dodgeing, lay your cards on the table explain to us why the US was so superior that we didn't need anyone else to beat Germany etc, support your position.

”In 1941 America produced more steel, aluminum, oil and motor vehicles than all other major states together.”

”American industry provided almost two-thirds of all Allied military equipment produced during the war: 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks, 2 million army trucks.”

”Where every other major state took four or five years to develop a sizeable military economy, it took America a year. In 1942, long before her enemies had believed it possible, America already out produced the Axis states together, 47,000 aircraft to 27,000, 24,000 tanks to 11,000, six times as many heavy guns. In the naval the figures were more remarkable still: 8,800 naval vessels and 87,00 landing craft in four years. Four every one major naval vessel constructed in Japanese shipyards, American produced sixteen.”

”The United states motorized not only its own army but the Red army too. Under ‘Lend-Lease’ war aid agreements America supplied over half a million vehicles- 77,900 jeeps, 151,000 light trucks, and over 200,000 Studebaker army trucks, the backbone of the Soviet motorized supply system. America aid also made possible the revolution in radio communications by supplying 956,ooo miles of telephone cable, 35,000 radio stations and 380,000 field phones.”

Why the Allies Won. Richard Overy. ISBN 0-393-03925

There are some of my cards...

Hamstersss · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Interesting conclusions, so let me see if I am getting this correct, it's the contention now of a few ppl that the USA could have won WW2 ourselves? I just want to clarify this point before going on.

Regards, John Waters

Yes, John, it is my contention that, barring the help of Britain and Russia, militarily, the US could have engaged and defeated Germany given the technological, social, economic and political situation in the late 30s and early 40s. This would have entailed greater US casualties and a longer war but I do not think the near bankrupt German nation, supported as it was by a (well)patched together infrastructure, could stand against the might of the United States. We tend to underestimate the power of America but the leaders of other nations did not. Japan called it a sleeping giant for good reason and the amount that the US gave to the other nations, without significantly impacting the US's own industry, is astounding.

Put on top of this the invention of the atom bomb and the conclusion is obvious, no nation at that time could stand against the US at that time.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

To both CavScout and Elijah -

Assuming that England and Russia were either conquered or neutral, from where could the US either launch an invasion of Germany or base bombers with which they could have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany?

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]

Philistine · October 10, 2000

On the issue of the possiblility of dropping an atomic bomb on Berlin--It's not directly on point, but I recently read the autobiography of John Wheeler, "Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam, a Life in Physics" which tangentially touched upon it.

Wheeler was heavily involved in the atom bomb project (parenthetically, he stated pretty unequivocally that the Germans were never close to a bomb because they had fairly early on gone down a wrong path--he also suggested that there were rumors within the international physics community that there was intentional foot-dragging on behalf of the german scientists). He indicated that one of his greatest regrets was that the bomb wasn't finished earlier to end the war as his brother died fighting in (IIRC) Italy in 1944.

He also indicated when the bomb was completed there was a feeling among some that the bomb would be detonated over an uninhabited area after inviting officials of Japan to watch, rather than using it on inhabited cities. Obviously, this was not used in Japan, but would, of course, still have remained an option if the bomb were available earlier. (I forget what the tactical reasons against this were, as I recall, they didn't seem all that compelling).

I'd be interested in seeing the source for Roosevelt's reluctance to drop the bomb on Germany (as well as when the statement was made)if you're able to dig it up.

Just my $.02.

--Philistine

For what it's worth, this thread is starting to sound like "my father could beat up your father" with all the "could the U.S. have won the war alone" postings. My view is that there are too many variables and it is too speculative to be particularly useful to speak about (but that if you had to, I'd think that the was would likely have ended without a true "victor"--depending upon when and how this hypothetical war diverged from history).

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Er, this question in and of itself is an enormous what if. If you don't qualify it somehow, it becomes useless.

Like I said, "One on one, no other meaningless 'what ifs'". It is a "what if" but a much simpler one than "what if" Germany took out the UK, Russia and everyone else but the US. I am trying to avoid those who seem to keep wanting to add more and more pieces to Germany.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-10-2000).]

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

Double post.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Like I said, "One on one, no other meaningless "what ifs". It is a "what if" but a much simpler one than "what if" Germany took out the UK, Russia and everyone else but the US. I am trying to avoid those who seem to keep wanting to add more and more pieces to Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You absolutely cannot answer this question without introducing parameters. You might as well fight your CM battles by having all the units line up facing each other in the middle of an open field and have them shoot until one side's gone. This is no way to fight a battle, or pose a question.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Hamstersss · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

To both CavScout and Elijah -

Assuming that England and Russia were either conquered or neutral, from where could the US either launch an invasion of Germany or base bombers with which they could have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany?

All ready answered (Oops, dropping the bomb, that is), Chup, but, for the sake of brevity:

Aircraft Carrier.

Sicily.

Ireland.

Any Small Island Around Europe.

Any Occupied Part of Europe After American Invasion.

As for invasion, Africa to Southern Europe. Norway. France. Remember that there is an enormous amount of coastline in Europe, gaining a toehold is all the US would need and from there it would be a war of attrition. US infrastructure would only grow stronger, German infrastructure would only get weaker and the war of attrition would go to that great big nation across the sea.

I am not trying to be jingoistic here, the simple fact of the matter is that the United States of America is and was a powerhouse, unlike any nation-state on Earth since the Roman Empire. Look at CavScout's figures, look at the economic, political and social dominance in effect now.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

jshandorf · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gregory Deych:

To whoever it was that said that Russians outnumbered Germans 5 to 1 - that is so wrong, it's not even funny. At no time did Russians have more then twice the manpower of Germans at arms, and that may have happened only in 45. By the end of 41, Russians were actually outnumbered, especially if you factor in the equipment. For most of the war,Russians and Germans had a rough parity within 30% of each other. What Russians did have was a superior ability to replace their losses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the 5:1 ration was in terms of manpower. Therefore it includes the ability to replace losses at a fast rate.

Jeff

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

All ready answered (Oops, dropping the bomb, that is), Chup, but, for the sake of brevity:

Aircraft Carrier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B-29 bombers which were used to drop the bombs on Japan were not, IIRC, able to be launched from a carrier. Also, can one carrier provide enough fighter support to allow a bomber to reach Berlin through the air defenses of an undefeated Luftwaffe? No. Could all the carriers in the US fleet do so? Again, no. Could the US build more carriers? Yes, but Germany could have also built more fighters and AA defenses, and fighters are cheaper than carriers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sicily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sicily's Italian, the last time I checked. Assuming for the moment that Italy wasn't allied with Germany, the US would have either been required to A) obtain Italian cooperation to station bombers or soldiers on Sicily or attack Italy as well. A) proves your argument wrong, as in that case the US victory would have still been dependent on another nation. invalidates the question, as, in that case, it would no longer be the US vs. Germany one-on-one. Or should we assume that Sicily was uninhabited?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ireland.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same objection as with Sicily. Either the US

obtains permission to station units there, or it attacks Ireland. Again, either way invalidates the argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Any Small Island Around Europe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any Small Island Around Europe would not be large enough to contain an invasion force large enough to take a foothold in Europe away from an undefeated Germany. As for launching bombers, again, how do you provide fighter support? The P-51 was, AFAIK, the longest range fighter which the US fielded during the war. To fly from England to Berlin, P-51s required supplemental fuel tanks. In the event that they were attacked, the P-51s would drop those supplemental tanks to be better able to maneuver. An undefeated Luftwaffe certainly would have attacked any American planes it saw. The P-51s could not have reached Berlin without the supplemental tanks. Therefore, the bomber would have to go unescorted. The US found out early in the air war what happens to unescorted bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for invasion, Africa to Southern Europe. Norway. France. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I object to all of these for the same reasons that I object to Sicily and Ireland. Either the US requires cooperation, or they invade. Either invalidates the argument.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]

jshandorf · October 10, 2000

Bah! Anyone the believes that the US wasn't ready to bomb Japan or Germany back into the stone age is very naive.

The US and our allies wanted the war OVER and basically they were prepared to doing ANYTHING to achieve that end.

Also.. on the point that Germany "could have won the war if they did this or that etc etc...". Remember, Russia was basically, (without calling a duck a duck), an ally of Germany up to the Barbarossa invasion. Hell, I remember reading accounts of Russian supply trains pulling into Germany 3 days AFTER Germany invaided Russia. Russia had no idea Germany was going to invade. As far as Russia was concerned they were quite happy with thier slice of Poland and the war in Finland they were fighting. Let us not forget that Russia was an aggressor during WWII and was only an ally with the US,UK,& France because they were at war with Germany also.

Personally, I believe that if Germany didn't invade Russia in '43 the war would have turn out ALOT different. How different? Well, that should be discussed over many beers and peanuts IMO.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 10-10-2000).]

October 10, 2000

I'd guess that if Germany had managed to beat both Britain and Russia and had total control of the continent, the US would have said to hell with it.

Hitler wasn't all that interested in the US and the US wasn't really all that interested in Germany, or the whole of Europe for that matter. Sure they may have been able to invade, but the landing at Normandy could have gone either way the way it was. Without a friendly England to base from, pretty tough.

As far as a toe to toe slugfest, a la Germany and the Soviet Union, say if Germany and the US were connected landwise in the same fashion I'd predict victories for Germany if the war started early (think of how far the panzers would have gotten in Russia with paved roads and gas stations) and victory for the US if the war would have started late (overwhelming industrial and manpower base armed and organized finally for war). Of course if Germany had been that close the US would not have let its military slide as far as it did.

US and Germany same size states with the same amount of people, resources, etc? German win. For about 100 years, mid 1800's to mid 1900's, the German military machine was the best there was. Get over it. Before that the French and British were the ass kickers of the world, now the US is. Everyone takes a turn.

But this all's getting pretty far into alternate history.

BTW here's a few alternative history stories, one if Stalin had decided to "keep on truckin'" after VE day and one if the Dunkirk weather had been a little bit better. http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/PODMay99Web.htm

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-10-2000).]

Hamstersss · October 10, 2000

B-29s delivered the bomb to Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were the best planes to do it there. The bomb wasn't heavy so it could have been launched from a B-24 launched from an aircraft carrier, as I said, a la Doolitte.

My reasoning for Sicily was because I thought it was the US vs. the Axis, without Sicily and Italy the US would have to wait until it established a foothold in Europe. I assume we have to believe Germany invaded France, otherwise the victory will be even more lopsided (Occupied France, if I remember correctly, was producing more goods for the war than the Fatherland). If your contention is that the German navy could have withstood the American navy (It didn't plus the Americans had a better understanding of modern navel operations than the Germans did so that this would have been even more lopsided if Japan had no play in our hypothetical war) you are wrong.

Without England, the US would have had to inch its way up from Africa, which would take longer but the result would be just as inevitable. As I keep saying, more US casualties and a longer war but the same result.

Finally, there is no question that the US was more powerful than Germany, that is why Germany was performing aggressive war, the US had and has more Lebensraum than it knows what to do with. Whether the US would have entered the war is a seperate question but had they, regardless of whether it was Germany, Germany + Occupied France, Germany + OF + Italy or Germany + OF + Italy + Japan, the US would have been victorious. It's not pretty but it's true.

One of your main issues, Machineman, is that the US and Germany were not connected, to ignore this is like ignoring the bomb, and would be like me saying, "Well what if Germany used worse tactics," eg ignoring one of the main strengths of our combatants. Germany could never invade the US, regardless of books by Newt Gingrich, and the US could have pushed their way onto the continent of Europe, with the welcome support from the occupied peoples, and pummeled Germany to death in a war of attrition.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

jshandorf · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Finally, there is no question that the US was more powerful than Germany, that is why Germany was performing aggressive war, the US had and has more Lebensraum than it knows what to do with. Whether the US would have entered the war is a seperate question but had they, regardless of whether it was Germany, Germany + Occupied France, Germany + OF + Italy or Germany + OF + Italy + Japan, the US would have been victorious. It's not pretty but it's true.

In any long protracted war production is always the key to victory. As much as I shudder to do it I have to agree with Elijah.

Damn....

Hey, Elijah, send me my turn for our battle or are you still mourning the loss of your STuGIII? Come on, take it like a man!

Anyway... a 100 meter bazooka kill isn't out of the question. But what I wouldn't give to actually do that when I play the Germans. Grrrrr...

Jeff

Randy Mauldin · October 10, 2000

Assuming that England and Russia were either conquered or neutral, from where could the US either launch an invasion of Germany or base bombers with which they could have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany?

I thougt the question was whether the USA or Germany would win in a straight up fight, not specifically how it could be accomplished. You could argue that till the cows come home. This discussion seems to be going nowhere.

------------------

It wasn't MY company..It was the Armys' or so they told me.

The Germans, historical Bad Boys or just really cool guys?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest machineman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements