Jump to content

Developer Diary 277 - Discussion


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, BornToBattle said:

I miss those days of throttle blipping and yeah I know I’ve still got ROF but now I’m spoiled with the updated graphics and VR.

You are not the only one 😉.

 

Have a nice day.

 

:salute:

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

I'm happy to see it too.  I would just like to know which version of the 410 we're getting

 

2 hours ago, 6FG_Big_Al said:

same here ^^

 

My guess is at the least we'll see the A-1, since that's what KG 51 was flying over England in the spring of 1944.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

 

My guess is at the least we'll see the A-1, since that's what KG 51 was flying over England in the spring of 1944.

Honestly, that's what I'm looking forward to the most. Just having the channel/normandy map. There is something special about the layout of the map, a clear division of friendly and enemy territory (pre-invasion), and a natural obstacle between you and your mission that adds to the challenge of the journey.

 

Very intrigued on how the map will turn out. If VL Summer is any indication, i think I'll be happy.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder if the 50mm will be available for the 410 as a mod. Some friends of mine very much hope it will be, I had previously been doubtful, but seeing as we are getting the 6 pdr armed mosquito mod, it seems more plausible now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, migmadmarine said:

I do wonder if the 50mm will be available for the 410 as a mod. Some friends of mine very much hope it will be, I had previously been doubtful, but seeing as we are getting the 6 pdr armed mosquito mod, it seems more plausible now. 

could you link the thread were this was confirmed? I kinda missed that^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

the Me 410 speaks to me as being functionally aesthetic - i'm going to be pinching myself all year to be patient for its arrival. I'm especially interested to see how the cockpit including that rear gunner position with its hand-grips, gunsight and turret system work out - typically over-engineered yes - but I love it. Assume we're getting the A-1 and A-1/U-2.

 

It's funny (to me, at least) just how good the 410 looks from a design perspective. It looks like it should have been quite capable. Yet, I just read of an account where, sometime in '44, 12 out of 15 410s were shot down by P-51s in a single sortie. It's difficult to reconcile how it could be defenseless to that extent. I'm thinking a mechanically-assisted conventional turret rear gunner position would've been better than the remote barbettes. I can't find a single source of information that ever praised the accuracy/efficacy of those remote guns.

 

Most likely, Americans opened up on the 410s from a pretty safe distance--probably in excess of 300 yards--and the 410 being a fairly large target was much easier to hit than vice versa. The rear gunner on a 410 would always be at a disadvantage in such cases, but I have to think the remote aiming lowered the probability of scoring a hit to near zero.

 

Conversely, if attacks were made at closer ranges, I would guess the limited horizontal traversal would mean an attacker could easily make slashing attacks (raking fire across the wings/engine while turning or skidding) that would be impossible for the gunner to track and counter.

 

In other words, it looks like the 410's guns were only good (if at all) for firing at targets pretty much planted on the 410's tail, and flying perfectly level. And at that point, the attacker holds more cards than the defender, if said attacker has 6-8 .50 cals. What the 410 really needed was the ability to chase off attackers before they attack. It carried enough ammo for long range spray and pray, but the poor aiming and traverse negated that small advantage.

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

I do wonder if the 50mm will be available for the 410 as a mod. Some friends of mine very much hope it will be, I had previously been doubtful, but seeing as we are getting the 6 pdr armed mosquito mod, it seems more plausible now. 

 

Hopefully they'll consider it (and maybe one of the other experimental cannon variants e.g. 37mm or Mk-103) as Collector's Aircraft.

 

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

My guess is at the least we'll see the A-1, since that's what KG 51 was flying over England in the spring of 1944.

 

Ah... when you start listing specific units and which ones were in theatre... I can't help but to want what you want.

 

The rest of the time - I wan't my Mk-103 cannons and under-wing 210mm rockets and field mods with eight Mg-151... :)

Edited by Avimimus
Link to post
Share on other sites


We really need a Walrus now or maybe some kind of Arado float plane for air-sea rescue.
 

And Malta. And Papua New Guinea for our antipodean cousins. Tag on the Battle of Britain/France and a desert map and we’ll be about there. 

 

Hope I’m not asking too much. 
 

😇

 

von Tom

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, von_Tom said:


We really need a Walrus now or maybe some kind of Arado float plane for air-sea rescue.
 

And Malta. And Papua New Guinea for our antipodean cousins. Tag on the Battle of Britain/France and a desert map and we’ll be about there. 

 

Hope I’m not asking too much. 
 

😇

 

von Tom

 

I was just thinking yesterday that sea rescue missions would be cool... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

It's funny (to me, at least) just how good the 410 looks from a design perspective. It looks like it should have been quite capable. Yet, I just read of an account where, sometime in '44, 12 out of 15 410s were shot down by P-51s in a single sortie. It's difficult to reconcile how it could be defenseless to that extent. I'm thinking a mechanically-assisted conventional turret rear gunner position would've been better than the remote barbettes. I can't find a single source of information that ever praised the accuracy/efficacy of those remote guns.

 

Most likely, Americans opened up on the 410s from a pretty safe distance--probably in excess of 300 yards--and the 410 being a fairly large target was much easier to hit than vice versa. The rear gunner on a 410 would always be at a disadvantage in such cases, but I have to think the remote aiming lowered the probability of scoring a hit to near zero.

 

Conversely, if attacks were made at closer ranges, I would guess the limited horizontal traversal would mean an attacker could easily make slashing attacks (raking fire across the wings/engine while turning or skidding) that would be impossible for the gunner to track and counter.

 

In other words, it looks like the 410's guns were only good (if at all) for firing at targets pretty much planted on the 410's tail, and flying perfectly level. And at that point, the attacker holds more cards than the defender, if said attacker has 6-8 .50 cals. What the 410 really needed was the ability to chase off attackers before they attack. It carried enough ammo for long range spray and pray, but the poor aiming and traverse negated that small advantage.

 

I think it was still quite capable as a hit and run aircraft, pilots did appreciate them compared to most other twin engined aircraft that were available in the Luftwaffe. But like you suggest it didn't have the agility to escape most late war single engined fighters and neither did it have the outright speed/acceleration to run away if bounced or if heavily outnumbered. There's a limit to what you can do in that situation and I think, even if the Mosquito had been employed in 1944 in that very same environment it would have had a hard time (perhaps being even more vulnerable due to its wooden construction).

 

Which is why the RAF used the Mosquito primarily for hit and run - playing to their strengths. By contrast, the Me 410 was directly thrown in as a bomber interceptor so there was always a high probability of having to confront fighters whether the situation was favourable or not.

 

I think the barbettes might have had some good advantages though as the gunner is better protected behind the armour, and it looks like you can get about 45 degrees horizontal deflection each way (90 degrees total) which is not bad really, plus something like 70 degrees angle vertically ... so you can potentially swivel them upwards and shoot back at whoever is chasing you when you're in a defensive turn / lufberry circle which is quite neat. Also (astonishingly) I've heard claims the system compensated for wind speed so I'm wondering is it just that the aircraft is maneuvering hard / changing direction which is making the angle off for the gunner very difficult to track through those telescopic sights. I guess... as stated in previous posts, a fixed armament was easier to get on target.

 

179730251_Gunmovement.jpg.0ac56aadd522b426da23f4e0832131c7.jpg

 

Another thing I read was that experience with the Bf 110 showed that gunners couldn't accurately aim their hand held guns during hard maneuvering due to the G forces and this also hindered them when replacing the magazines - so that would be another advantage here potentially as you didn't have to do this manually AFAIK with these guns.

 

And of course if the pilot chooses to do nice predictable maneuvers to give the rear gunner a nice clear burst with the defensive armament, you are also then an easier target to shoot at - its a Catch 22 isn't it!

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlitzPig_EL said:

The Ju88 rear gunners should work nicely as well.  They are pure evil.

 

Imagine a Ju-188... 1x20mm Mg-151 and up to 2x13mm Mg-131!

Or the Tu-2 with 3x12.7mm UB...

 

Note: The Tu-2 also carries two fixed forward firing 20mm cannons, and the Ju-188 has the option of one flexible forward-firing gun (either a high velocity 13mm or 20mm Mg-151!)... although those are less relevant to an attacking fighter and the Ju-188 often removed the forward gun to save weight. That said, I could definitely see the Ju-188 having a nasty sting for any fighter that flew in front of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The Ju88 rear gunners should work nicely as well.  They are pure evil.

 

But Peshka gunner can be several places at the same time. That's schizophrenicly evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

 

My guess is at the least we'll see the A-1, since that's what KG 51 was flying over England in the spring of 1944.

 But.... the British get the 57mm.... I want the 50mm 410 😢

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But...but...but...

 

The Germans have the 262, and will have the Arado jet bomber, and the Allies have... ????

 

This isn't about one for one balance.

Balancing is for arcade games, not a simulation.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can figure out, 'balance' generally means giving the Germans an equal chance of Winning WW2. Even while the T-34s are rolling down the autobahn into Berlin. For that, they need all the Arados they can get. And Me 262s. And Me 163s. And Haunebu flying saucers. And a complete denial of reality...

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

From what I can figure out, 'balance' generally means giving the Germans an equal chance of Winning WW2. Even while the T-34s are rolling down the autobahn into Berlin. For that, they need all the Arados they can get. And Me 262s. And Me 163s. And Haunebu flying saucers. And a complete denial of reality...

 

 

 

 

Plus they don't get to feel the rough end of attacks from 4 engine bombers like the Lancaster and B17; its like Allied 4 engine bombers were the proverbial unicorn, LOL.  Not having 4 engine bombers allows for a big, big balance in favour of the Axis.  But never mind, Axis can still have Jet bombers and jet fighters. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited by ACG_Talisman
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

But...but...but...

 

The Germans have the 262, and will have the Arado jet bomber, and the Allies have... ????

 

This isn't about one for one balance.

Balancing is for arcade games, not a simulation.

And then we get 5v5 DLC, balance restored 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, if people want 'balance' they can have it. For multiplayer, you can set the mission up any way you like. Plucky Allies beat the nasty Germans every time. Or German efficiency and superior design always wins. Or anything in between. Doing so may of course involve a concession or to to historical reality - like the Luftwaffe not actually having enough Me 262s (or fuel for them, or trained pilots) to zoom-and-boom P-51s indefinitely - or perhaps involve a revisionist history where half the airforce hasn't been destroyed on the ground because your 'great leader' is incapable of recognising that the opposing 'great leader' is a lunatic. That's a mission design issue, not a balance one. And the same is true of single player, though 'balance' rarely seems to be of as much concern anyway.

 

What the developers have been offering instead is 'balance' of a different sort entirely. When considering a new planeset, they look at what is historically appropriate(ish), and then make a selection based on what can reasonably done in the timeframe available with the resources they have, while offering variety and while offering the same number of aircraft for the opposing sides. You can't 'balance' the Ar 234, because the allies had nothing like it. The developers aren't trying to. Instead, they are offering up a selection of interesting and relevant aircraft, for players (and mission designers) to do what they like with. As far as I'm concerned, that is the best way to go about it, and they should continue to do so, as long as they can. And as long as they don't end up doing a Haunebu flying saucer because they've finally run out of Bf 109 variants to model.  😉

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

I think the barbettes might have had some good advantages though as the gunner is better protected behind the armour, and it looks like you can get about 45 degrees horizontal deflection each way (90 degrees total) which is not bad really, plus something like 70 degrees angle vertically ... so you can potentially swivel them upwards and shoot back at whoever is chasing you when you're in a defensive turn / lufberry circle which is quite neat.

 

Another thing I read was that experience with the Bf 110 showed that gunners couldn't accurately aim their hand held guns during hard maneuvering due to the G forces and this also hindered them when replacing the magazines - so that would be another advantage here potentially as you didn't have to do this manually AFAIK with these guns.

 

Unfortunately, all of the advantages of the barbettes are more theoretical than real. The AI here might be able to use them better than any human could in the real world, however.

 

Also, the horizontal traverse in that picture is decent, but it's also only utilizing half the defensive armament. That, I think, is the major flaw of the split design. Beyond that, I would wager the movement of the gun itself is pretty slow.

 

And yes, hand-held defensive guns are almost useless, statistically. Which is, again, why I think a much simpler and more straightforward rear turret system would've been the best approach. Have 2 guns firing on the target at all times and direct aiming. I imagine the remote aiming--especially at the time when remote control of anything was unusual--took quite a bit of practice compared to using a conventional turret system.

 

A turret still wouldn't have saved the 410, operationally, of course. But it might've given it a slightly more dangerous reputation than I think it had. The only mention I've heard of the 410's defensive fire from an enemy perspective, was that it was called 'inaccurate.'

 

In fact, I'd appreciate it if anyone here could cite any account(s) of a 410's (rear) guns shooting any attacker down. In an entire 210/410 book, I didn't find one.

Edited by oc2209
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

Unfortunately, all of the advantages of the barbettes are more theoretical than real. The AI here might be able to use them better than any human could in the real world, however.

 

Also, the horizontal traverse in that picture is decent, but it's also only utilizing half the defensive armament. That, I think, is the major flaw of the split design. Beyond that, I would wager the movement of the gun itself is pretty slow.

 

And yes, hand-held defensive guns are almost useless, statistically. Which is, again, why I think a much simpler and more straightforward rear turret system would've been the best approach. Have 2 guns firing on the target at all times and direct aiming. I imagine the remote aiming--especially at the time when remote control of anything was unusual--took quite a bit of practice compared to using a conventional turret system.

 

A turret still wouldn't have saved the 410, operationally, of course. But it might've given it a slightly more dangerous reputation than I think it had. The only mention I've heard of the 410's defensive fire from an enemy perspective, was that it was called 'inaccurate.'

 

In fact, I'd appreciate it if anyone here could cite any account(s) of a 410's (rear) guns shooting any attacker down. In an entire 210/410 book, I didn't find one.

 

6 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Can you imagine the parallax issues with that setup?  It's no wonder hitting anything was difficult. 

 

It would also be worth the time to examine the effectiveness of remote turrets on other airplanes as well. The turret system mounted on the b29 and p61 come to mind. I found this video demonstration: 

 

 

To me, that seems pretty responsive and intuitive, granted that one doesn't get a clear idea of what it would be like to aim the turret from inside the plane. Even so, it's a very impressive bit of kit, and I don't really have any reason to suspect that the 410 barbettes were any *less* impressive.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I have yet to see evidence that the 410's barbette guns were even close to the sophistication of the B29's fire control system.  The Boeing is far larger than the 410, do you think the 410 has room for the mechanical computer?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the P-61 Black Widow is the more comparable airplane here, though it too is a bit larger than the Me 410. But the P 61s central quad turret mount seems comparable to the twin barbette turrets on the 410. Anyway, my point was that one should analyze the combat effectiveness of as wide a range of remote turret types as possible and then compare the 410 barbettes to said analysis. Other than that, I just wouldn't discount the effectiveness of the barbette system so readily. The Germans are a very clever people, and succeeded in extending the lethality of their aircraft beyond what might be considered reasonable. All I'm saying is that I am reserving my judgment until I have a little hands on experience. To that end, I will remain, patiently, excited for the 410s introduction into BoX

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =SqSq=Civilprotection said:

The Germans are a very clever people, and succeeded in extending the lethality of their aircraft beyond what might be considered reasonable. All I'm saying is that I am reserving my judgment until I have a little hands on experience. To that end, I will remain, patiently, excited for the 410s introduction into BoX

 

Well, I'd like to clarify I'm not criticizing German engineering capabilities. But even brilliant engineers have duds and bad ideas; or good ideas that simply can't be realized because of limitations in certain manufacturing fields.

 

Similarly, I'm not trying to lessen interest in the 410. I want to fly it. It's one of the major draws for me to buy the whole Normandy package. But I can still take that enthusiasm, put it aside, and objectively look at the service history of the 410 outside of the game. And that history looks, frankly, like shit. So much so, that I find myself wondering just how and why the 410 failed to impress the Germans or their enemies.

 

I judge planes by results. So, for instance, when a Japanese plane like the Ki-100 or the George develops a reputation for fighting hordes of American planes and surviving or even managing to shoot a few down, that plane earns a reputation among armchair historians. It might well be exaggerated, but there's a kernel of a few very positive combat reports to build on.

 

With the 410, I can't find a single anecdote that's impressive. I know it could shoot down bombers--when absolutely no escorting fighters were nearby. But the real challenge was how to survive the fighters. And under no circumstances could it do so. Unfortunately, that must be classified as a failure. It doesn't matter how unfair the tactical and strategic situation was in '44. The plane could not cope. In terms of sitting duck (versus enemy fighters) reputations, it may as well have been a Stuka or a Bf-110.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

In fact, I'd appreciate it if anyone here could cite any account(s) of a 410's (rear) guns shooting any attacker down. In an entire 210/410 book, I didn't find one.

USAAF ace James Madison Morris was shot down by a 410 gunner near Leipzig on 7 July 1944.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.0cc1dba46d366bd4e4ef5b91591d3147.png

 

It really has made me very excited, Doubts:
1-Would it only work for the official default paint scheme of each aircraft model?

2-Would it work for historic skins?

3-Would it work for Custom Skins?

4-Will there be more variety of fonts to suit each side?

 

GOOD WORKS DEVS

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Well, I'd like to clarify I'm not criticizing German engineering capabilities. But even brilliant engineers have duds and bad ideas; or good ideas that simply can't be realized because of limitations in certain manufacturing fields.

 

Similarly, I'm not trying to lessen interest in the 410. I want to fly it. It's one of the major draws for me to buy the whole Normandy package. But I can still take that enthusiasm, put it aside, and objectively look at the service history of the 410 outside of the game. And that history looks, frankly, like shit. So much so, that I find myself wondering just how and why the 410 failed to impress the Germans or their enemies.

 

I judge planes by results. So, for instance, when a Japanese plane like the Ki-100 or the George develops a reputation for fighting hordes of American planes and surviving or even managing to shoot a few down, that plane earns a reputation among armchair historians. It might well be exaggerated, but there's a kernel of a few very positive combat reports to build on.

 

With the 410, I can't find a single anecdote that's impressive. I know it could shoot down bombers--when absolutely no escorting fighters were nearby. But the real challenge was how to survive the fighters. And under no circumstances could it do so. Unfortunately, that must be classified as a failure. It doesn't matter how unfair the tactical and strategic situation was in '44. The plane could not cope. In terms of sitting duck (versus enemy fighters) reputations, it may as well have been a Stuka or a Bf-110.

 

I appreciate completely where you're coming from - you're trying to understand it from a metric / results based standpoint - fair enough. The problem is the Me 410 wasn't really designed for dealing with fighters. You can describe that as a mistake or failure - but the only real alternative then is to just use single engine fighters which they ended up having to do anyway. In mid-1943 they were trying to find new ways of up-scaling against the bombers. Its construction was made to be robust and reflect an up-scaled armament to serve as a high speed bomber and only later as heavy bomber destroyer. The idea of it being described as some kind of 'fighter' is somewhat misleading in anything other than an abstract sense... and was really a bit of marketing to sell the concept to Hitler and others.

 

The real metric in its truest sense (air-to-air) then should then be that of bomber losses, and it was initially successful and later a bit of a see-saw; there were times when the Me 410's shot down over a dozen bombers in an attack without loss, only for their next sortie during the same battle to be tainted with heavy losses as the US fighters knew to extend out to catch them as they came for their return.

 

And the problem is... we actually have very little information on the Me 410 compared to other aircraft - which is not helped by the fact there are none flying today. The later into the war you get - the harder it is to pin down information for them (at least on the German side - for obvious reasons). We know the basic headlines and some technical details, but it's still a fairly obscure aircraft in terms of publicly available information. In order to actually see through that barrier you would need access to the Bundesarchiv which would give you a much better picture of its operational history and what its pilots and squadrons really thought, their successes and failures and the deteriorating situation on the lead up to Big Week.

 

It's also not just about the losses themselves but what your objective is - if you can break up a large formation using heavy weapons and rockets, cause bombers to make evasive maneuvers or collide into eachother and cause a panic then this might well improve the combat effectiveness significantly for the other lighter fighters as well (Fw 190 and Bf 109) which are going to break-through and follow in.

 

Imagine if you are in a bomber formation and you see a wave of these things coming at you with 50mm cannons. It distracts all the gunners, it causes communications breakdowns and it also lowers the potential effectivity of the actual bombing run. Also, we don't know if the barbettes were actually effective in deterring attacks from directly astern on the Me 410; and we don't know if the gunners ran out of ammunition and we don't know how many aircraft they were hitting, damaging or suppressing with them - only a rough idea of the bombers and 410's shot down with certain individual accounts of fighters being occasionally shot down.

 

Don't forget that the US fighters could afford to chase them down all the way back to their bases with their drop tanks by early '44 and were on direct instructions to do so by Doolittle. People forget that the P-47 and P-51 were the only aircraft in the world at the time to be able to pull this stunt off with their range and general agility and there had also been a fundamental change in tactics in '44 on the US side as a direct result of bad experiences and lessons learnt in late '43. So the situation over Germany by then is somewhat unique, trying to survive in a twin engined fighter for two minutes when engaging with a bomber formation is one thing. Doing that while being bounced on the way to the formation and then all the way home for 20 minutes, potentially being heavily outnumbered was always going to lead to a very high high loss rate.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah :(  Okay, thanks for the heads-up, I heard there was a car door type being created....must be another sim 🤫

Edited by Mysticpuma
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

Ah :(  Okay, thanks for the heads-up, I heard there was a car door type being created....must be another sim 🤫

be still my beating heart :0

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

Ah :(  Okay, thanks for the heads-up, I heard there was a car door type being created....must be another sim 🤫

 

Early version with car door have the WarThunder. But WT is not simulator - it's arcade with very few elements of the simulation. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, I./JG1_Baron said:

 

Early version with car door have the WarThunder. But WT is not simulator - it's arcade with very few elements of the simulation. 

Can't be that one then? :)

Edited by Mysticpuma
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, =SqSq=Civilprotection said:

I think that the P-61 Black Widow is the more comparable airplane here, though it too is a bit larger than the Me 410. But the P 61s central quad turret mount seems comparable to the twin barbette turrets on the 410. Anyway, my point was that one should analyze the combat effectiveness of as wide a range of remote turret types as possible and then compare the 410 barbettes to said analysis. Other than that, I just wouldn't discount the effectiveness of the barbette system so readily. The Germans are a very clever people, and succeeded in extending the lethality of their aircraft beyond what might be considered reasonable. All I'm saying is that I am reserving my judgment until I have a little hands on experience. To that end, I will remain, patiently, excited for the 410s introduction into BoX

Let`s be frank, nobody expects dev team to release the 410 with rear firing guns that are worthless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...