|
Quote:
One have to put at least 1,50 metres out of the rail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-8gV4DJZUw#! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
that's of course is the reason they do win all wars they declare against others. and even those they didn't declare. you are so... |
Quote:
"America **** YEAH, USA USA USA..." Mean while the rest of the world.. "Sigh...." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:) |
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ0nFQgRApY http://www.google.se/#hl=sv&sclient=...w=1302&bih=540 . |
Quote:
|
Quote:
. |
Quote:
You failed on all levels with this rhetorical attempt of irony. Have another go. :razz: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.google.se/#hl=sv&sclient=...pw.r_qf.&cad=b So no need to try again :-) . |
Quote:
The improvment for the allies was pilot training. The Soviets has a problem with tech in 1941 to mid 1942. The RAF maybe had a tech problem in mid 1942, but, it was a very small fight. RAF, US and USSR trained a large number of pilots with new tactics. LW had kept their veteran pilots in combat. |
Quote:
Or your conjecture? |
Buzzsaw has solid sources.
I was just pointing what was the main advantage of the Allies where excellent training. |
Training and numbers, having that many pilots allowed for rotations/rests, something that the luftwaffe could not afford to give its pilots.
@Buzzsaw- The aircraft were not "superior" they just had the upper hand it was the numbers and when it comes to things like fuel manufacturing it was also numbers that destroyed them too a HUGE amount of bombers constantly pounding crucial facilities to dust. |
I always thought the allies one because they had more people and more stuff?
Nuclear bombs just sped the end up that's all. I'm not even getting into the rights and wrongs of dropping them. The delivery method wasn't special though. It was a bomb dropped from a plane. Hood |
Quote:
|
the truth is that war was won thank to certain unknown churchill brillliant move:
they were losing badly so they influenced the natzis into bombing civilians instead of strategy targets known to be not only harmless in the big scheme of war but besides boosting own war moral how he did it? he commanded a 007 small bomber on a full moon to bomb london and make it appear as a natzi raid and as this justify what appeared a retalation(something on the maine style and as some propose 911) hitler with his philosophy of two eyes for an eye fell for it dumbly this changed the course of war had this not happened then we would be all praising hitler |
Quote:
|
isnt to much wishfull thinking atribute to coincidence the single most afecting event to war?
are you negating that if the nazis had kept bombing strategic targets and not swithching to bombing civilians they would have had much more chances to win the war? so do you think the reason why the civilian bombing started was a coincidence? |
raaaid, take your meds and steer clear of this thread, thank you very much.
|
Sweet Jesus tap-dancing Christ....
|
Quote:
They're not all locked away are they? |
Quote:
You can not ignore the following fact. After the Allied landing largest and the best part of the fascist forces remained in the East. |
Quote:
|
It seems to me that the land war was mainly in the east and the air war was in the west.
|
Quote:
Pls don't take offence but, wasn't this thread about the future of BOM? :grin: Cheers! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Honestly, it is. :-) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thus my point that if Hilter had made an alliance with stalin, i can see it now .. to meglos at dinner together comparing mass-murders, laughing and drinking into the night while the world burns ... . |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree that generally speaking the most significant land engagements fought after 1940 occurred in the East. However, it would be a serious misreading of history to go on and argue that the Soviets are mainly responsible for the defeat of the Axis powers. In essence, without western aid the Soviet armies could not have pushed German forces out of Eastern Europe. Specifically the western allies (and mainly the US) supplied the soviets with over 240,000 trucks and lesser but highly significant quantities of aircraft and tanks as well as vast quantities of other war materials. The supply of western food stocks (SPAM) was crucial to the maintenance of viable soviet land forces up to and following the Battle of Stalingrad. And one shouldn't underestimate the contribution made by British and US land forces prior to the D Day landings in 1944. The campaigns in Italy, Tunisia and the Middle East took an enormous amount of pressure off the Soviets - as did the strategic air campaign over Germany, which the US joined in 1944. The German decision to break off the Kursk offensive, (which the Soviets claimed as a great victory) was largely due to the pressing need to transfer vital armoured units to Tunisia, where an allied success would threaten vital German oil supplies. Frankly, for anyone to even suggest that the Soviets might have defeated the Germans on their own is simply nonsense. For me the greatest irony of the whole War concerns Poland. Ostensibly the war was fought to secure Polish independence and yet, in the end, after all the blood letting and sacrifice by countless millions, the Poles were sold down the bloody river and handed over to the Soviets. If the whole ugly business wasn't so tragic and shocking one might almost laugh. |
Quote:
with those high numbers of russian military deaths (and in the early part of the war 100.000's of russians surrendering, many of whom would later die in captivity), it indicates stalins total disregard to his own population and how he used massive numbers of poorly trained men from other parts of russia to try to halt the german advance, fight them to a standstill, and then push them back (2 years later) . iirc the death ratio on the eastern front was at least around 5 russian soldiers for every german killed. at the time the russians halted the german advances (with germans affected by over stretched supply lines), there was very little allied millitary aid to russia. it was basically the indiscriminate sacrifice of a very high number of russians (both military and civilian) by stalin that stopped the german advances, giving the russians just enough time to start rearming themselves with basic war supplies from factories located further east (combined with the russian winter, during which german equipment and soldiers were under-performing, while the russians performed better). comparing ww1 and ww2 casualty lists, there is an obvious difference in civilian vs military numbers WWI 95% of casualties were Military Dead, and 5% Civilian Dead WWII 33% of casualties were Military Dead and 67% Civilian Dead (with over 80% of all those civilian deaths being in poland and russia) most of those civilian deaths were caused by the germans as a deliberate act of targeting the "sub human races of the east" (not the jews), which was exacerbated by stalin's total disregard of his own civilians. hitlers main purpose of moving east was to create "lebens raum" (living space) for his german race, and he/they saw the eastern lands as populated by subhumans that could just be exterminated with their land free for the taking. with the russians being fairly poor opponents during the 800 years of the austro-hungarian empire, hitler seriously miscalculated how different an industrialized mechanized war would be against an adversary that significantly outnumbered him, compared to the old days of horse and cart when russia was feudal empire populated by uneducated peasants. it is no surprise the current russian government is trying to put in place some elements that help remember the terrible death toll and destruction that took place in the east during ww2 (including the possible funding of our il2 flightsim series), so that this theater of war does not get forgotten (or overshadowed by western selective memory of how the war affected them). with western countries dominating the world media and press, their selective remembrance of events that affected these western countries risks creating globally a distorted perspective of the horrors of ww2 |
Quote:
http://www.catholicculture.org/cultu...TOKEN=46917956 But there is still a reason that there is a special association of the Holocaust and its Jewish victims. This quote from the article linked above, sums it up well:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thread history: BoM>Spitfires rule>Why the war was lost/won. Is there any way to get back on track? Or is this thread a lost cause? By the way...wouldn't it be a good idea if we paid for multiplayer sessions? This way the revenue would be secured for the future development of the series, and those who are most dedicated to the series would be the ones who contribute most to those future developments. :-);-):-) . |
Lonewulf is actually right. Soviet truck production was whoefully inadequate even before the war and once the war had started the increased need for tanks lowered it even more (in relative numbers). Without the allied truck deliveries the Red Army's composition and/or performance (after 1943) would have been very different: either they wouldn't have had the enormous amount of tanks due to a modified production schedule or they would not have had the strategic mobility of 1944/45. The real contribution of Lend&Lease was the provision of the logistic part of an army (trucks, food, radios and other technical systems etc) so that the Soviet industry could concentrate fully on producing the sharp tip (aircraft, tanks, artillery). Without either the sweeping offensives of late 1943 and 1944 would not have been possible with the results we know.
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What has this to do with the future of BoM? |
Quote:
Same as the rest of this thread. |
what future? :rolleyes:
|
Quote:
i think right now all we can do is keep an eye on the russian forums to see if there are any other snippets of information from DEDA being posted, or any further progress reports or updates on BoM development from other russian posters who are closer to the project. since B6 stopped managing the CoD/BoM forums, our english 1C forums have been left in a bit of an information vacuum. so all we can do is wait for now :) |
Quote:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y10...nagh/drwho.jpg |
Yup, we came within an inch of the truth and then what do you know 'booomfffffa'; derailed by IC fifth columnists. Bugger!
|
Quote:
As of 05/01/45, Soviet truck park domestic trucks 58,1% imported trucks 32,8% captured trucks 9,1% |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Although there was a major Tactical air war in the east which will hopefully be modeled soon in the BOM sim! Cheers! |
Quote:
Financial assistance from the West USSR has a great appreciation. We store this memory. But it would be better if the allies fulfilled their promise at the set time ... During the visit of the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov to London and Washington allies have promised a few months later disembark at continental Europe. But they have not made this neither in 1942 nor in 1943, when we were carrying particularly heavy losses. From May 1942 to June 1944, while the Allies been putting off the opening of the second front in the fierce battles left more than 5.5 million Soviet troops. And other important nuance. If for us a problem of a second front was a matter of life and deaths of millions of Soviet people, for the Allies it was an issue strategy: where appropriate to disembark? They had landed in Europe, hoping determine the advantageous post-war map of the world. The more so was already obvious that the Red Army independently able end this war and get out on the coast of the English Channel, providing the USSR for the winner leading role in the postwar reconstruction of of Europe. What the Allies could not allow. As for supplies lend-lease, we must understand if Hitler took possession resources of the USSR, the next on turn would be Britain. Churchill as a wise politician could not allow of this. And after all if to look at the history of impartially, all countries of the world then, except Germany and its allies, looked at the Soviet peoples with hope. June 22, 1941, Winston Churchill stated that although he and anti-communist, but the security of Great Britain and the U.S. is now entirely in the hands of Russia. June 24 a similar speech said, and the American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Newspaper Times, mouthpiece of financier-oligarchical elites of the West, has also stated that the fate of humanity is decided on the Eastern Front. Today reminisce then in effect, the whole world behind the scenes reached for our country as a magic wand, few want. Therefore through myths and falsifications of role of the USSR in war every way lowered. |
Quote:
|
Kaiser, have you heard of a place called Dieppe?
I did not know that Italy was not part of continental Europe. |
Quote:
There is no question the Soviets did the majority of the fighting on the ground on the European Front in WWII, no one can deny their contributions and suffering. At no time was less than 50% of the Wehrmacht deployed on the East Front, much of the time the figure was closer to 65%. Still the facts are WWII was won by an alliance of countries fighting against Germany, Italy and Japan. The Japanese were beaten by the Americans and British fighting on their own, the Soviet declaration of war in 1945 had almost no effect on the outcome in the Pacific and was more a political decision by Stalin to allow him to occupy parts of Manchuria and Korea for resource rather than for noble reasons. The Soviets would have had much more difficulty in succeeding had they not had the assistance of American and British Lendlease in the form of supplies and war materials. Fuel supplied, or things such as locomotive engines are sometimes overlooked when the overall contributions are accounted for. |
Salute
A real examination of the facts would show that Germany should have been defeated in the first year of a war with the Soviet Union. Why were they not? One answer: Stalin The Soviets had one of the most advanced armies in the world in 1936, with tanks which were superior to others, aircraft which were on a par, and leaders who were innovative and far thinking. Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky was a brilliant tank theorist who was a leading Marshal in the thirties, he invented armour use doctrines know as "Deep Operations" which mirrored the German Blitzkrieg tactics of deep penetration by armoured forces and the surrounding and pocketing of enemy forces. He created the beginnings of a Soviet tank force which would have been a dangerous opponent for the Germans. But Stalin perceived him as a political opponent, and set a series of false accusations during the purges of 1936 which led to a show trial and the execution of Tukhachevsky. With him went the needed reforms to the Soviet Army. Worse, almost all the innovative officers who were supporters of him were also purged, many executed or sent to the Gulags. In their place Stalin appointed old incompetent cronies of himself, yes men and toadies who were selected on the basis of their unquestioning loyalty, not for their skills as officers. As WWII started, the Soviet army was in a state of paralysis, commanded by incompetents who were afraid to speak out regarding needed reforms or new ideas lest they too would be either shot or sent to Siberia. And Stalin added to this failure by refusing to acknowledge the warnings the Germans were about to invade. He insisted troops not prepare defenses, not plan for a German attack and not make any movements which might give offense to Hitler. This happened despite reports from his own troops of German reconnaissance overflights, infiltration by German scouts, etc. etc. The result was that on May 22nd 1941 the Soviets were caught completely unprepared, and the commanders on the spot were frozen in place because of Stalin's insistence no one had authority to respond until he gave his personal say so. The Soviets had their armies on the Frontier nearly completely destroyed in a matter of a few weeks. It wasn't till Stalin retreated into a depression in the fall of 1941, leaving most of the running of the war to his generals that the situation began to recover. That and the fact that many of the disgraced and purged officers were brought back to positions of authority. Generals like Rokossovsky, one of the premier tank commanders of the war on the Soviet side, and the man who led Operation Bagration, also known as the 'Destruction of Army Group Center', was an example. All of the tactical doctrine formulated by Tukhachevsky was re-adopted by the Soviet Army and formed the basis of the tactics used at Stalingrad, Kursk and other major battles. Had the Soviet Army been led by Tukhachevsky at the beginning of the war, with his armoured doctrine and formations in place, there is very little doubt in my mind the Germans would have run into a brick wall, and been soundly defeated. |
Quote:
As regard's German so-called Blitzkrieg tactics, these are more myth than reality. There was nothing revolutionary about German combined arms tactics in 1939-41 and in reality these were just an extension of the tactics developed by the Germans in 1914-18. Although the Germans were no doubt flattered by the attention their endeavours received in 1939-40, they tended to attribute their battlefield successes to the fighting spirit of their soldiers, which they believed, and with very good reason, to be second to none (National Socialist furvour no doubt playing a role here). Blitzkrieg, as a concept, was essentially invented by the defeated western powers to explain and cover-up their dismal performance and subsequent defeat during the Battle of France. Those who disagree with this view should have a hard look, in first instance, at the tanks the Germans were supposedly intending to use to spearhead their "revolutionary" new tactics in Poland and France. In the main these were composed of Panzer I and IIs, both essentially training vehicles and both essentially obsolete in 1939. The French Char B and the British Matildas, for example, easily out gunned and out-armoured their German counterparts and should have and could have easily eliminated their thin-skinned German opposition – if correctly used. The French air force, which was easily a match for the Germans on paper, simply failed to put in an appearance. The success of the German's Sickle-cut plan, which was an improvisation put together in haste in 1940, was very much due to the sheer guts and determination of the men charged with it's execution. A properly organized French defence could have and should have stopped it in its tracks, but in the face of German resolve, that defence simply crumbled away. |
you need to play more open general /panzer general 2. you forget, the 88 mm anti-tank guns. :-P
|
Pardon my french, lonewolf, but 'Nuts!' The term "Blitzkrieg" is indeed no german invention but of course Goebbels was quick to utilize it. In a few significant sectors, especially in doctrine and force structure, the Wehrmacht was clearly ahead of its western opponents - be it the french with their defensively minded idea of warfare and tanks which couldn't decide whether to be infantry support or "exploitation" (and in the end they were neither) nor the british with the problems the nasty feuds of the 20s and 30s had left behind and which was mirrored in the ineffective structure of their forces (especially the armored divisions which were no combined arms formations in 1940). The doctrinal environment the term "Blitzkrieg" describes is nothing more than the traditional prusso-german way of war just with the added element of tanks and aircraft - it reenabled the Wehrmacht to prosecute the war as a war of movement on the operational level, just like its great ancestors under the Great Elector Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg-Preussen, Friedrich II or Moltke the Elder.
If I may offer a book recommendation: Robert M Citino "The German way of War". ;) |
Guderian attributed much of the early German success to the "operational" level of planning between tactical and strategic which only existed informally in other armed forces.
Also bear in mind that Adolf Hitler's tendency to favor and encourage bold unusual and slightly risky ideas and plans (capturing the massive Belgian fortress Eben-Emael by landing gliders on top of it for example) worked against the Germans later in the war when caution was advised but it was usually to their benefit in these early years. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And the French airforce was not a match for the Germans, they had nowhere near the same number of Squadrons in the air, their infrastructure could not support the number of aircraft they had in reserve. Also the Morane 406, the most numerous French fighter was simply not a match for the 109E. Only the Curtis H75 and Dewoitine 520 were a match and the 520 was manufactured in small numbers while the Curtiss was an American import. (Curtiss H-75's shot down more German aircraft than any other French manned fighter) |
Quote:
Actually, I'm not sure my position is all that different from your own. I said: "There was nothing revolutionary about German combined arms tactics in 1939-41 and in reality these were just an extension of the tactics developed by the Germans in 1914-18." |
The "Nuts" was really more aimed at your comments re "fervour" and "NS indoctrinization". In fact I'd hesitate to make such broad statements on any armed forces. I'd not attribute the Red Army of 1945 a particularly "communist fervour", rather the ancient concept of "the victor takes it all". ;)
|
@ Buzzsaw
The better equipment of the Waffen-SS is pretty much as mystical as many urban myths about WW2. For example even in 1944 none of the german Panzer Divisions, regardless whether they were Heer or Waffen-SS, had enough half-tracks to equip its two Panzergrenadier Regiments with them. So even the "elite" SS never got everything it wanted. It often needed more replacements because these divisions tended to get the "suicide assignments" and suffered accordingly. And as for the Ardennes Offensive ... Sepp Dietrich himself said it best. Quote:
|
No news on future of BOM.
|
lonewulf, sorry to add to the pile, but a flaw in your statement about Hitlers objective in Russia retains the flaw in Hitler's own perception of victory in Russia.
Hitler believed that by capturing Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad etc he would defeat Russia, because the Russians would capitulate. He wouldn't have because they wouldn't have. Stalin would have (and was already) withdrawing Eastward where he was relocating his production facilities and rebuilding his forces as well as drawing on forces from Mongolia etc. If Hitler did not pursue him Stalin would have re-built and come back against him as he did in any case and with far superior numbers and equipment (for the region). If Hitler did pursue him through the sccorched earth of Russia he would have been unable to sustain his forces and eventually he would have been crushed, as in fact happened to his 6th Army when he was no-where near as stretched. He may have captured the Caucuses and the Ukraine wheat fields but sustained forces means both supplies and men and I don't think he had the manpower to stretch that far. These are the reasons why I don't think Hitler could ever have defeated Russia. His perception of victory was flawed. The Russians might have welcomed Hitler with open arms after Stalin but as Hitler had pronounced them sub-human and the German forces took full advantage of their conquest with killings, rapings, destruction, etc, the Russians weren't likely to take kindly to the Germans. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
One week has passed since, lets hope some word this Friday:-P |
Quote:
Albert Einstein |
Quote:
I think we're essentially arguing around the margins here but maybe I’m just not explaining myself very well. All of the principles employed by the Germans in their assault on France and the Low countries were known to the western allies prior to 1940. Most of the combined arms principles used in the course of the German assault had in fact been pioneered in WW 1 or well before. Tank tactics, the concept of armoured thrusts and breakthroughs etc were international concepts by the 1920s and 30s and certainly not the exclusive preserve of the German Army. The Germans essentially continued where they had left off at the end of in WW 1 and with further refinements employed these same tactics again in 1939-40. But crucially, it was not beyond the powers of the French to stop them. German supply lines, which were strung out along a very narrow front were highly vulnerable and at absolute breaking point and sometimes beyond breaking point during the German drive for the coast. However, the French failed to seize the initiative and exploit this glaring weakness. French leadership utterly failed at the critical moment. It was this failure rather than the introduction of new unheralded tactical innovations that secured a German victory. And yes, I agree about the greater abundance of initiative among German officers and NCOs during critical moments during the assault, but what has this to do with Blitzkrieg? If anything it simply reinforces my point that even if the Germans were making use of unheard of tactical innovations during the assault (they weren't), they could only take the invaders so far, and on numerous occasions, the assault would have stalled or failed had it not been for the willingness of small units and in some cases individuals to undertake extraordinary feats of arms to ensure its success. |
It was the Battle of Amiens (8th aug 1918 )that was the first to incorporate an all-armed co-ordinated attack, bringing together artillery, tanks, infantry and aircraft, for the first time, by the British, not the Germans......
And to those who still believe there is a BoM coming, big lol's..... |
Quote:
And while I think much can be said about the disgraceful behaviour of German forces in the East during the War, I am not aware that they had a reputation for rape. The Red Army on the other hand had a well documented propensity for this type of behaviour. |
Quote:
|
Right okay I know I was part of the thread derailment but please use a different thread.
Stick to the topic please! |
yeah having helped also to derailed the thread i created a new one on who won the war i dont like to discuss rumours so ill stay out of this thread
|
Quote:
Makalvi in 1965, claims that plans landings across the English Channel in August 1943 were unrealistic because "in 1942, the Allies suffered heavy losses in the courts, when the losses were greater than the possibility of their completion." However, the American historian McInnis immediately after the war, published data, which indicate that in 1943, the American shipyard launches tonnage "is ten times more than the tonnage of their losses." American historian McNeill in 1953, only slightly McInnis said. He concluded that by August 1943 the "new tonnage is nine times higher than the loss of tonnage from all causes". During the years of World War II, the U.S. built merchant ships with a total displacement of 33 million tons, and the military - to 8 million tons. In August 1943, the British merchant fleet tonnage, despite Poterna is maintained at a high level and amounted to 13.5 million tons. Status of the sea was so prosperous that in early August 1943 Chiefs had to officially inform the chairman of the military production that they are no longer considered a bottleneck merchant navy for the war overseas. On the eve of the Tehran conference in Cairo, the special Anglo-American Conference, which found that "the review of applications for the court rather than the estimated total deficiency in tonnage on the adopted plan to get even some slack". After this, the JCP strategic operations was forced to admit that there was an opportunity to "provide for scheduled maritime and ground operations." American journalist Ralph Ingersoll in the acclaimed book "The Secret" refers to a conference in Quebec (August 1943), which found that, "for the plan" Overlord "(the plan landing of British and American troops in Northern France. - VS ) existing landing craft is not enough ... ". But when experts have carefully studied all the possibilities, says British military historian Herman, and especially to investigate the possibility of rational use of the merchant navy, it was found that "the strategic plans are not threatened by the lack of real courts, and a flaw that actually existed only on paper" Joint Planning Committee, presented at a conference in Quebec report, which noted that "the operation planned for throughout 1943 and into the summer of 1944, provided a sufficient number of amphibious ships, vessels and resources" |
Quote:
This is reminding me the old Cold War years "Kremlinology" From Wikipedia: "Lack of reliable information about the country (USSR) forced Western analysts to "read between the lines" and to use the tiniest tidbits, such as the removal of portraits, the rearranging of chairs, positions at the reviewing stand for parades in Red Square, the choice of capital or small initial letters in phrases such as "First Secretary", the arrangement of articles on the pages of the party newspaper "Pravda" and other indirect signs to try to understand what was happening in internal Soviet politics...." Change "country" by "BOM", "Pravda" by "Sukhoi.ru" and "First Secretary" by "Project Manager" and There you are...... Back to the Cold War! :) |
Someone should change the name for this thread to something like "Who TF won WW2 whine-fest".
|
True
Are there really any particular news about BoM???? |
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
C'mon Klem m8, what's going on? |
If anyone thinks they could win a whine fest like this they are deluded. It's just like the Vietnam war.
There are no winners - only whiners! The good news about BOM is that while we're waiting we've got COD to keep us busy! |
Quote:
'No News is Good News'- so the saying goes! |
Quote:
I know this because I heard that Luthier had told SaXoN (who's wife goes to the same hairdresser as Oleg's sister) that he thought the game would continue at least until it got as far as Moscow. Failing that they would settle for Southend. |
Quote:
|
Here in the States, barber shops are a good source for hot investment tips;)
|
Yeah well, you can belive all you want, but heres some other news for you, the earth isn't flat, father christmas isn't real, and the government isn't going to drop your taxes.
|
"father christmas isnt real"
YOU GIT!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;) Cheese |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...10&postcount=1 Cheers! |
Quote:
|
Of course Father Christmas is real - it's just that the FM for his sleigh is a bit off.
|
Quote:
|
i thought bom was battle of mediterranean, so no pyramids any soon :(
|
Good job keeping on topic guys I am impressed.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.