|
wkarma posted:Here's some cold war history I'd never heard before.  That core grid is hilarious (and only 55 cm deep), but you can apparently do a lot when your fuel's enriched to 93 %.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Han and Chewie better go deal with that
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
I heard second hand stories about product tankers delivering Jet fuel and diesel to American bases in Greenland. Apparently they'd dug out tanks by shooting steam into the glacier or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
Psion posted:Normally yes but mortar vs artillery isn't a 1:1 for shell weight. I actually cannot find a weight in a quick google for the HE version of the 105 shell used in the AC-130 (I assume most fired are HE, no idea for sure) but the M934 mortar rounds are ~30lbs each. I can't see 105 artillery rounds being THAT much lighter. From what I understand, mortar rounds are generally a LOT more HE (or whatever else your fun-time filler is) by weight than a similar sized artillery round. Basically the forces involved in launching a mortar are much less than with an artillery shell, so they can get away with having much thinner outer bodies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
I can see using a 120mm mortar from a weight perspective, but I what do I know (not much). The 105mm ammunition used on Specters/Spookys isn't standard HE, IIRC. I think they use some high fragmentation round or VT round against infantry/enclosures, maybe standard HE against vehicles. I could see using a 120mm mortar, if only because a 120mm can gently caress up light vehicles, light armor, and a 105mm isn't doing poo poo to a heavy armor type target like an MBT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I could see using a 120mm mortar, if only because a 120mm can gently caress up light vehicles, light armor, and a 105mm isn't doing poo poo to a heavy armor type target like an MBT. As I understand it they don't even carry sabot or any other antitank round but if they did, a round right through the TC hatch would probably work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I could see using a 120mm mortar, if only because a 120mm can gently caress up light vehicles, light armor, and a 105mm isn't doing poo poo to a heavy armor type target like an MBT. Similar to what Psion said, given that they're firing from above I could see a 105 having some effect. I don't know if it;s the same now, but WW2 tanks had much much thinner armor on the top.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
I can't imagine that the top armor on an MBT is going to take a 105mm round and be happy about it. The Abrams started out with a 105mm gun, and the M60 has killed plenty of MBTs using a 105. I know it's a different round with a considerably lower muzzle velocity, but I'd be very surprised if T-72s and the like can take a 105mm round to the top of the turret and live.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
How do you figure the firing profile of the AC-130 is "down"? That makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:How do you figure the firing profile of the AC-130 is "down"? That makes no sense. It's obviously not vertical, but it's coming from a higher angle than any hull-down tank could fire at. An A-10 couldn't kill an MBT by shooting 30mm at the front armor, either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I can't imagine that the top armor on an MBT is going to take a 105mm round and be happy about it. The Abrams started out with a 105mm gun, and the M60 has killed plenty of MBTs using a 105. I know it's a different round with a considerably lower muzzle velocity, but I'd be very surprised if T-72s and the like can take a 105mm round to the top of the turret and live. Yeah, but the Abrams started with a 105mm Sabot round specifically designed for anti-tank. The 105mm rounds fired from an M102 are totally different, being either HE or VT frag rounds. Also, Spectres/Spookys are accurate, but they're no PGM, so you can go ahead and throw out the idea of a dead center hatch shot outside of just random lucky shots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Psion posted:As I understand it they don't even carry sabot or any other antitank round but if they did, a round right through the TC hatch would probably work. It would probably penetrate -- the top of a tank isn't very thick, because you'd have to lose some armor on the front to put more on top, and aircraft will ruin a tank's day no matter how much armor it has. Edit: only 40mm of steel on the roof of a T-62. I can't find any penetration numbers on the M102 howitzer. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Apr 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:37
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Beardless posted:Similar to what Psion said, given that they're firing from above I could see a 105 having some effect. I don't know if it;s the same now, but WW2 tanks had much much thinner armor on the top. Maybe in a "golden BB" scenario it could pay off, but if you can safely put an AC130 in the sky above tanks, you can put half a dozen purpose built tank-killers in the air to murder armor. That's not what the AC130 or M102 Howitzer are about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's obviously not vertical, but it's coming from a higher angle than any hull-down tank could fire at. An A-10 couldn't kill an MBT by shooting 30mm at the front armor, either. I mean Psion's earlier post about replacing the 105mm with a mortar. He was implying that the superior range of the 105mm vs a mortar wasn't needed because the AC-130 only ever fired "down".
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
An AC-130 getting an air-to-air kill would be the most  thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:An AC-130 getting an air-to-air kill would be the most At least one C-47 got one, I think when a crewman opened up on a Japanese plane with a BAR.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:An AC-130 getting an air-to-air kill would be the most Well, it's got the same Vulcan fighters have, and the Bofors has done a lot of AA work. Finding an enemy pilot stupid enough to pass a Spooky on the left would be the main problem, I think. Though if they thought it was a regular Herc, were coming in to get a visual and just happened to be intercepting from the left ... I am a bit surprised they haven't got a "air-to-air" kill by putting a 105 in something just as its wheels left the ground (like that one Mudhen that shot down a Hind with a 2000-pound bomb).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Well, it's got the same Vulcan fighters have, and the Bofors has done a lot of AA work. Finding an enemy pilot stupid enough to pass a Spooky on the left would be the main problem, I think. Though if they thought it was a regular Herc, were coming in to get a visual and just happened to be intercepting from the left ... Welp  Airspace coordination is a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Welp AC-130 or artillery? e: artillery. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I mean Psion's earlier post about replacing the 105mm with a mortar. He was implying that the superior range of the 105mm vs a mortar wasn't needed because the AC-130 only ever fired "down". That's more or less true, though. If you're firing at something roughly on the same level as you, you need a lot of energy to get and keep the projectile in the air. If you're starting out at a substantially higher altitude, you don't need nearly as much energy. Delivery McGee posted:Well, it's got the same Vulcan fighters have, and the Bofors has done a lot of AA work. Finding an enemy pilot stupid enough to pass a Spooky on the left would be the main problem, I think. Though if they thought it was a regular Herc, were coming in to get a visual and just happened to be intercepting from the left ... It might have the same gun as a fighter, but it doesn't have the same lead-computing hardware, and it certainly doesn't have the same maneuverability. You're talking about a one-in-a-million chance on top of a one-in-a-million chance. As for the lack of air-to-air kills, for all the guns, the AC-130 is an easy target. It's designed for beating up on guerrillas who can't do much to shoot back; total air superiority is kind of a prerequisite. Anything on the ground that looks like it might be able to fly or otherwise present a threat will probably be taken out by other means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Yeah, facing anything other than old generations of MANPADS means the AC130 is not flying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, facing anything other than old generations of MANPADS means the AC130 is not flying. Hell, even with those it's only gonna be flying at night.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:That's more or less true, though. If you're firing at something roughly on the same level as you, you need a lot of energy to get and keep the projectile in the air. If you're starting out at a substantially higher altitude, you don't need nearly as much energy. What is more or less true? That they only ever fired down? Armies haven't replaced all their field guns with mortars, why would it be any different for a plane? I see on wiki that the 105mm has an effective range of 11 km on the ground, it must be substantially higher for the one in the plane, which means the plane could pound targets from beyond the range of most AA and cover a much wider area than if it only had mortars. Doesn't it already have lighter guns to hit closer targets? Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Apr 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Hell, even with those it's only gonna be flying at night. Holy poo poo, an SA-7 kill. Of course, now we have far better auto-flare dump systems and proper flare usage with SA-7s results in pretty hilarious SA-7 misses. But yeah, even if all they have is dumb-fire rocket launchers, loitering above the enemy during the day is not wise in an AC130.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:As for the lack of air-to-air kills, for all the guns, the AC-130 is an easy target. It's designed for beating up on guerrillas who can't do much to shoot back; total air superiority is kind of a prerequisite. Anything on the ground that looks like it might be able to fly or otherwise present a threat will probably be taken out by other means. Yeah, pretty much the only scenario I can imagine a Spooky shooting down a plane is in the Q-ship role -- like there's a two-ship of Hercs, and one is a Spooky and is on the right; they get intercepted/escorted from the left, and the trash hauler dives out of the way to reveal all the guns. But A-6 Intruders have done the intercept/escort on Bears, so anything's possible. Actually that's a possible scenario, too -- the Spooky being the only thing available to nudge a Bear away, and then war were declared. Edit: In practice the AC-130 is more a super-accurate tactical bomber/Old-Testament CAS, and is preceded by a bunch of wild weasels and supported by F-15s if the enemy is doing more than throwing rocks at it. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Apr 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:From what I understand, mortar rounds are generally a LOT more HE (or whatever else your fun-time filler is) by weight than a similar sized artillery round. Basically the forces involved in launching a mortar are much less than with an artillery shell, so they can get away with having much thinner outer bodies. FWIW I was once conscripted to crew a Leopard 2 tank  . In a war we were supposed to shoot tungsten APFSDS as well as a HE round that IIRC was just a regular 120mm mortar stuck in the appropriate cartridge (- we trained with cheaper steel rod APFSDS and non-exploding "HE" practice ammo almost exclusively). I am (perhaps falsely) assuming these rounds were moving at least almost "artillery fast" just judging by the amount of propellant involved. I can't recall muzzle velocity for the HE, but they sure arched very high compared to the flat-shooting sabot rounds, which IIRC left the gun at about 1800 m/s.The gun being smooth bore couldn't have that much to do with less launch stress experienced by a mortar, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 09:45
|
|
|
Per the 2005 solicitation regarding the 120mm mortar being added to the AC-130:Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD), on behalf of Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) posted:The 120mm mortar concept would offer benefits to the AC-130 fleet through: It seems that being able to field guided munitions is the biggest benefit, as one would imagine. Knowing procurement of such things a new demand(especially with SOC funds) may help push the development for such a round along as well. I've wondered why they haven't already put Hellfires or Griffins on the gunship, with a mortar firing guided rounds you wouldn't need that capability. Additionally, there appear to be significant weight savings and recoil advantages: Global Security posted:For the existing 105mm gun, 100 rounds of ammunition weighed 4,200 pounds. The recoil load was about 10,900 pounds, with a gun recoiling weight of 1,465 pounds. The muzzle pressure was 3,560 pounds per square inch. It was a legacy system being phased out of the US Army inventory. There was little guided technology ongoing at the time the sources sought notice was issued. For the 120mm mortar, 100 rounds weighed 3,200 pounds. This weapon had a recoil Load of approximately 5,600 pounds with a gun weight of 1,315 pounds. The muzzle pressure was 1,620 pounds per square inch. This was the leading FCS fire support weapon and the Stryker Brigade Combat Team fire support weapon. There was a lot of guided munition development work ongoing for the system at the time of the sources sought notice was issued. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What is more or less true? That they only ever fired down? Armies haven't replaced all their field guns with mortars, why would it be any different for a plane? This isn't typical practice for the gunships though - tight banked orbits are the norm, and anyway the accuracy of the 105 isn't that outstanding, especially when being fired from an aerial platform. Something like the AMOS has a maximum effective range of 6-10km so I don't see the lower weight and the higher amount of explosives delivered being worth a marginal degradation in range. Also, many armies are looking to replace a lot of their field guns with mortars, since the primary knock on mortars is no direct fire capability (antitank missiles and man-portable rockets take care of this) and accuracy (LASER GUIDANCE and spin stabilized shells take care of this), and in return you get extremely rapid rates of fire and improved mobility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What is more or less true? That they only ever fired down? Armies haven't replaced all their field guns with mortars, why would it be any different for a plane? I think what you're missing here is that the 105's range on the ground involves a significant ballistic arc. Spookys, so far as I know, fire in direct LOS. Basically straight shots from the plane down to the ground. In order for your range comparison to work, they'd have to bank the plane 45 degrees up to loft the shell out. They don't. That's what I mean: The AC-130 is a direct fire support aircraft, so it shoots "down" -- from plane to ground, clear line of sight. Hence the whole potential upgrades for stand-off capability (Viper Strike, et al) because right now the AC-130 doesn't have it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Psion posted:I think what you're missing here is that the 105's range on the ground involves a significant ballistic arc. Spookys, so far as I know, fire in direct LOS. Basically straight shots from the plane down to the ground. In order for your range comparison to work, they'd have to bank the plane 45 degrees up to loft the shell out. They don't. That's no different for a mortar though. The gun is still going to have more range and be able to cover a wider area.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:That's no different for a mortar though. The gun is still going to have more range and be able to cover a wider area. "Range" isn't really relevant when you're starting four miles up. The only range you need is "gravity." For any "range" beyond direct LOS this is why there have been multiple proposed PGM stand-off munitions for the AC-130, including guided mortar shells. The 105 doesn't provide it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
Psion posted:"Range" isn't really relevant when you're starting four miles up. The only range you need is "gravity." AC130's are in no way shape or form executing attacks from 20,000ft and above... More like 3,500-9,000ft AGL
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
You know, I had 10,000 feet written in that post, decided to reword it, and then I changed it to miles and somehow forgot miles are not in fact 2500 feet. Anyway, my failure at mathematics aside, the point is: that 105 in the AC-130 is covering no more "ground." IIRC it's close to a fixed mount, among other reasons. Want to hit something over there? You just move the plane 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
Invalido posted:FWIW I was once conscripted to crew a Leopard 2 tank I want to hear all about this. I love me some NATO MBTs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
BrainGlitch posted:I want to hear all about this. I love me some NATO MBTs. In everything but name!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
BrainGlitch posted:I want to hear all about this. I love me some NATO MBTs. They're big and and heavy and get poor mileage - though from what I've heard the biggest reason Sweden bought the Leopard rather than the Abrams was significantly better fuel economy. A major drawback of pistons over a turbine is that the diesel is ROARING LOUD, having almost 50 liters of displacement and no mufflers - you won't sneak up on anyone who's not entirely deaf. They have the same gun and tracks as the Abrams, and apart from not having DU armor I think the biggest difference is the Leopard having ammunition stored in the very front of the chassis tub, right next to the driver. I have to believe this affects survivability negatively compared to the M1's all-turret storage. The gun laying computer is very much a cold war relic, being entirely analog. It worked well enough, so the actual shooting part is easy, though I and many others would get motion sickness from riding in the gunner's seat. The gun is slaved to either the gunner's or the commander's gyro-stabilized sights, and is laid by massive DC motors trying to hold it where the sight tells it to be. For a hit at any real distance the gunner is tasked with giving the analog computer the range (measured with a laser) as well as any sideways movement of the target by pressing a button and following the target for a second or two. When the tank is moving it may be necessary to hold the trigger down for a little while before the shot goes off, since the gun is rarely in exactly the right place necessary for a hit. Shooting the main gun is very undramatic. You experience a muted "whump" rather than a "boom" from inside the tank, and a slight motion from the recoil. For fun I stuck my head out the hatch once or twice - this was almost breathtaking! Firing the machine guns sucked by comparison. MG3's are really, really loud and can smell quite bad when hot enough. The co-axial MG fed from a box with 2x500 round belts. We were told to swap barrels after 250 rounds max, but due to safety regulations this was such a chore we'd more often let loose all 500 and swapped out a faintly glowing barrel when reloading. On live fire days we'd spend hours waiting our turn at the range belting 7.62 until we got blisters, and additional, often very late hours cleaning all the nooks and crannies of incredibly dirty MG parts. Cleaning the main gun was very easy by comparison - you don't need to run many patches through a chrome-lined smooth-bore before it's clean, even if the patches are ridiculous amounts of paper towel and the cleaning rod itself assembles to several meters in length. Barrel wear happened fast - the chrome would start eroding at the bottom of the muzzle first and the exposed patch of steel grew with every shot. IIRC they'd swap barrels after only 200 rounds or something like that. "My" tank was brand new when i got it and fired no more than ~50 rounds, so I wouldn't know for sure. Driving is easy enough (though doing it well from a tactical standpoint is hard), it feels much like driving a sluggish car with soft suspension and a weird steering wheel. The limited visibility is the biggest challenge, during darkness much more so since the night vision device gives you monochrome two-dimensional tunnel vision and the reverse camera couldn't see in the dark. We'd hit big trees, they'd go flying, sometimes breaking little sensitive bits of tank sticking out in the process. The best way I know to really mess up a leopard is to ride fast over a large rock (usually hidden in deep snow) which will invariably bulge in the bottom plate of the chassis tub, leading to all kinds of problems and being really difficult to repair. I once got the opportunity to drive a tank with turret problems quite a ways back to the garage, head out the hatch, on a twisting, compacted winter road and with no witnesses. Tanks drift around corners quite well, albeit slowly. I fondly recall this particular drive as one of those (few and far between) good experiences that made all the drudgery of army life seem a little more worthwhile  edit: tank drifting (not me!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5aWAW2hea4&feature=related Invalido fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Apr 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
Psion posted:You know, I had 10,000 feet written in that post, decided to reword it, and then I changed it to miles and somehow forgot miles are not in fact 2500 feet. I don't know poo poo about ac130's other than they are really neato and there's a cool free iPhone game where you get to waste the undead from an orbiting gun platform. Still, the ability to shoot some type of PGM sounds appealing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 12:53
|
|
|
Invalido posted:They're big and and heavy and get poor mileage - though from what I've heard the biggest reason Sweden bought the Leopard rather than the Abrams was significantly better fuel economy. A major drawback of pistons over a turbine is that the diesel is ROARING LOUD, having almost 50 liters of displacement and no mufflers - you won't sneak up on anyone who's not entirely deaf. I think I saw a youtube clip of a Leopard 2 up in Boden with a wooden "Abrams" nailed to it, saw any of that? Speaking of Swedish cold war stuff, I just remembered a certain book I got from the apartment of my departed grandmother. It belonged to her dead husband, a rather highly positioned county administrative board boss in his time (never met the man). It got some old rear end pictures of everything to do with Östergötland, the province which happens to house a certain SAAB aircraft factory which also means there's a few pages out of it related to aircraft in it (and a surprising number of pages on runic script and the history of the region since the stone age, but I didn't see any jet fighters there so  ). Seeing as you guys probably don't know much Swedish I'll take a shot at translating the accompanying text. My notes will be [ like this ] First page:  close up on the second page text:  Translation: SAAB, Svenska Aeroplan AB, has under it's 20-year existance grown from relative insignificance to one of the country's larger companies with nearly 7 000 employed, of which a large portion in Linköping. 60 million [SEK, probably not inflation adjusted] was invested in buildings and equipment during the five year period of 1950-55. Amongst other things the SAAB airfield in Linköping have been expanded to one of the country's largest, expanded the largest assembly hall with 10 000 m2, obtained a [readriven, misspelling of remdriven? (Belt driven)] wind tunnel and a new test flight hangar of 3 000 m2. Finally a million have been invested in an electronic calculating machine, capable of solving the most complicated problems. ["räknemaskin", probably something with the power of a pocket calculator of today ]All this have been necessary to keep and expand SAAB:s production. The expansion have strangely enough been stronger after the war, and this is mainly due to the serial production of the J29, Den flygande Tunnan [the Flying Barrel, or simply Barrel], in it's variants. The SAAB-32 Lansen [The Lance] have now replaced the Barrel in serial production, and after the Lansen comes the Dragon [Kite might be the more correct translation of Draken in this case, I'm pretty sure "Viggen" means Thunderbolt, but it could also be the Tufted Duck which is funnier]. Second page:  This spread: Serial production of the attack aircraft Lansen in the large assembly hall. The development of Lansen, the first Swedish aircraft that in a dive passed the sound barrier, have cost more than 2 million engineering hours, 1 000 shelf meters of blueprints and 23 000 different specialized tools. A single Lans [Lans is another way of writing "Lansen", roughly the difference between "A Lance" and "The Lance"] includes among other things, 325 000 nails, 19 000 screws and bolts and 6,5km of electrical wiring. Third page:  Next spread, left side: Four J 29 (Tunnor) carries out an advanced maneuver, in a so called square formation [Square/Box is probably not the right word for it, but I'm no expert on formations]. Fourth page:  Right page: Smoke trails after the Barrels attack rockets paints diagonals over the summer sky. [Fun fact: J29 armament: 4x Hispano Mark V 20 mm cannons 75 mm (3 in) unguided rockets Rb 24 air-to-air missiles (License built early Sidewinders) 145 mm (5.8 in) anti-armor rockets, 150 mm (6 in) HE (high-explosive) rockets, 180 mm (7.2 in) HE antiship rockets Which came with between 8 and 10 hardpoints, but I might be mistaken. No less than 661 were built, and I think something like 25%+ were lost to accidents (many in mock combat furballs above Gotland). The "J" as far as I know stands for Jakt (Hunt) and is used by Interceptors/Air Supremacy fighters while "A" stands for Attack and is used by CAS aircraft, these can be combined as in "JA"-37 Viggen or the "JAS"-39 Gripen "Jakt, Attack, Spaning" (Spaning = Recon)] I'll crop and translate the rest later if there's any interest. There's some Draken in here, together with one of the most hilarious piloting suits I've seen. Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Apr 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:I don't know poo poo about ac130's other than they are really neato and there's a cool free iPhone game where you get to waste the undead from an orbiting gun platform. what's the iphone game called? And yeah, I'm sure iyaayas could come in here and school us all but as I understand it they're 100% direct fire platforms and indirect/standoff PGM capability is high up on the want list. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_apr/borden.pdf - re: AC-130 and Viper Strike, but it's from 2006 so there may have been some changes. There's one constant about .mil Powerpoints: they are awful. This violates close to every possible rule about Powerpoint design. I mean that. seriously, solve the powerpoint, solve the war? More like solve powerpoint design. Pimpmust posted:I'll crop and translate the rest later if there's any interest. There's some Draken in here, together with one of the most hilarious piloting suits I've seen. Yes. Psion fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Psion posted:what's the iphone game called?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 18:05
|
|
