|
Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The only way to win is adequate mine shaft space and men prepared for... prodigious service  fixed that up a bit for you there I'm nearly done with the first bit of the revised alt-history, just going to take some time to polish up a bit and keep scanning for more details. The cold war was really loving crazy, and the more I read, the more I am surprised things didn't go entirely to poo poo. DesperateDan fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
The Memphis Belle is coming over to NH next weekend, I haven't seen it sense I was like 6years old, I'm more than a little excited. I Wish I had the cash to go up for a ride... One day... Pictures will be posted~
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:The Memphis Belle is coming over to NH next weekend, I haven't seen it sense I was like 6years old, I'm more than a little excited. I Wish I had the cash to go up for a ride... One day... Oh poo poo. Where's it going to be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
http://www.libertyfoundation.org/schedule.html 17-18 Hartford, CT Hartford-Brainard Airport (KHFD) Atlantic Aviation FBO 24-25th Manchester, NH Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (KMHT) Wiggins Airways FBO 1 Garside Way Manchester, NH 03103 I need to go find that article and see if she's coming with the P40 it used to fly around with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
That would be awesome. I'll be at Manchester on Friday and Winnipesaukee over the weekend so hopefully a catch a glimpse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:The Memphis Belle is coming over to NH next weekend, I haven't seen it sense I was like 6years old, I'm more than a little excited. I Wish I had the cash to go up for a ride... One day... Cash is always a deciding factor, but I'm glad I paid to ride in Aluminum Overcast. Images: http://imgur.com/a/fMenj I keep meaning to upload my videos, as I took a lot more video than I did pictures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
I've been wondering, what role were battleships supposed to play during their 1980s revival? Did they have any blue-water plan for a battleship aside from "die horribly in a hail of Soviet cruise missiles"? Or was it all about being able to do drive-by shootings on Beirut? Were they just a convenient place to store officers and decaying cordite that needed to be kept away from where they might do any damage on a carrier? Why did the U.S. spend the money to keep four of them in running order? Was it buying votes around various shipyards, if so why not with useful ships? Was it bathtub toys for Bonzo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
I always thought the Iowas were kept around for shelling places like Libya and Lebanon, basically just floating gun and cruise missile platforms to attack places that would have no capability to shoot back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Soviets had the Kirov, US could not allow a tonnage gap
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Soviets had the Kirov, US could not allow a tonnage gap Also 600 ship navy, John Lehman, and Caspar Weinberger. I find it pretty funny that the Navy still sticks to their published
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
I think the recommissioning of the Iowas was mostly for propaganda purposes, and was hideously expensive for the benefit, but I also don't think they should be underestimated. A surface action group based on an Iowa would have been a hell of thorn in the side of any Soviet surface operations, particularly if shielded by a CVBG. The armor on the Iowas probably would have allowed them to soak up quite a bit of damage, as well, while simultaneously distracting Soviet Naval Aviation from the carriers. The tin cans protecting the BB, probably not so much... All in all, not defending the idea, but it wasn't completely without merit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Also, don't discount the sheer damage per dollar that can be acheived with accurate cannon fire. I'd guess the plan was something like a floating AC-130: not a Night 1, front line asset but a fire support platform of incredible power. Once the high threat ASM batteries get taken out, the battleships move in to shred shore defenses, troop concentrations & anti aircraft sites, provide C2 and on demand fire support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
They weren't really accurate though. Apparently the deviations in the Lebanon bombardments were measured in miles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:They weren't really accurate though. ...thinking about this made me picture 16" Excalibur shells and it was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:They weren't really accurate though. Apparently the deviations in the Lebanon bombardments were measured in miles. Given that these were designed to drop salvo fire on moving targets in the 800x125-foot or so size range, there's clearly something else at play - there is no intrinsic reason an Iowa couldn't put 16 inch shells on target at least that accurately. Wikipedia suggests the Lebanon inaccuracy was due to powder remixing but regardless one example of terribly inaccurate fire doesn't disqualify the entire concept of naval fire support. plus c'mon have you seen how cool they look firing all nine 16/50s at once? Obviously this is the real reason to reactivate all battleships everywhere. (I joke, but I swear this was a real, concrete part of the '600 ship navy' thinking) darnon posted:...thinking about this made me picture 16" Excalibur shells and it was awesome. They did have rocket-assisted 8" sabot projectiles which could reach out pretty far, according to a book I've got on the Iowas. I think standard 16" maximum range was just over 20nm so farther than that. Psion fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Aug 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
The problem with using them as naval artillery to cover a Marine landing runs into the same trouble as doing a Marine landing under fire in the first place; the political scenario in which you're putting those kinds of assets in harm's way and taking (likely) mass casualty to do so just doesn't exist anymore. The Iowa's guns aren't very long range, either, they only hit to about 15 or 20 nautical miles. so figure you can only get so close to shore with a fairly deep draft, and other than the coastline itself you're not going to have a lot of targets to pound. This was part of the big push behind the Zumwalt's 200 nautical mile railgun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Psion posted:Given that these were designed to drop salvo fire on moving targets in the 800x125-foot or so size range, there's clearly something else at play - there is no intrinsic reason an Iowa couldn't put 16 inch shells on target at least that accurately. How often were they actually practicing and live-firing those ships in the 80s-90s though? I know that the barrel life of really gently caress-off huge naval caliber guns really isn't that great due to the forces at play inside that steel tube when it's fired. How much time does it take to re-sleeve one of those barrels after it gets shot out, and how much does it cost to do that? During WW2 we had some really loving skilled naval gunners that did an amazing job of putting some crazy accurate naval gunfire on target, but by the time you get to 1944 those guys had A) a metric fuckload of live fire experience and B) no one gave two shits about how often you had to swap out the barrels in port because the operating budget was effectively $UNLIMITED. I'm sure janky powder mixes could have had a role in it, but if you're missing that badly something else has to be at play. You're never going to get acceptable groups shooting Wolf out of a target rifle, but if you're putting rounds three lanes over it's probably not just the lovely ammo . . .
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Psion posted:Given that these were designed to drop salvo fire on moving targets in the 800x125-foot or so size range, there's clearly something else at play - there is no intrinsic reason an Iowa couldn't put 16 inch shells on target at least that accurately. It does when you're effectively dropping explosive Volkswagens on civilian conurbations. Basically Tomahawks do it better. (Not necessarily cheaper, granted, but when has cost ever been a serious consideration)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:How often were they actually practicing and live-firing those ships in the 80s-90s though? I know that the barrel life of really gently caress-off huge naval caliber guns really isn't that great due to the forces at play inside that steel tube when it's fired. How much time does it take to re-sleeve one of those barrels after it gets shot out, and how much does it cost to do that? I remember a few places mentioning that a lot of the ammunition left for 16 inch guns was basically made at the same time as the ship was, and is now far far past its recommended service life even if properly stored.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:How often were they actually practicing and live-firing those ships in the 80s-90s though? I know that the barrel life of really gently caress-off huge naval caliber guns really isn't that great due to the forces at play inside that steel tube when it's fired. How much time does it take to re-sleeve one of those barrels after it gets shot out, and how much does it cost to do that? The answer is not very often. The big guns weren't fired very often and the crews were supposedly suffering big gaps in the institutional knowledge concerning their use, contributing to the turret explosion on the Iowa. Chances are the guys directing fire hosed it up, not the ammunition/gun/etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Soviets had the Kirov, US could not allow a tonnage gap The Kirovs were actually pretty sweet - the only battlecrusier built in my lifetime. I do know that the lead ship of the class somehow fragged its reactor - probably a partial meltdown - just before the cold war ended, and was used as spares for its sister ships. I wouldn't mind hearing more about it if anyone knows anything. Also possibly relevant to the discussion: the Kirov class was all about attacking things by spamming a target with many powerful cruise missiles. The soviets also operated those Oscar class submarines which had the same M/O of attacking (presumably American carrier groups) with a swarm of cruise missiles. And for the majority of the cold war, the soviets had their air wings of long range naval bombers which would (naturally) attack naval targets at long range with cruise missiles. Would this be an effective tactic a) in a naval war generally; b) against contemporary NATO surface fleets?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
I don't know how effective they would have been, but it amuses me to no end that despite their lagging behind in electronics and computer technology compared to the US the Soviets effectively built something out of sci-fi with the P-700s.Wikipedia posted:The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4-8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. If the designating missile is destroyed the next missile will rise to assume its purpose. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, any remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target. Particularly impressive for 1970's tech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Particularly impressive for 1970's tech. Assuming it actually worked as advertised, which is a pretty big assumption when it comes to military hardware.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Would this be an effective tactic a) in a naval war generally; b) against contemporary NATO surface fleets? Sure, saturation attacks are A Thing™, and probably your only realistic MO as far as above-water threats go nowadays, but getting all those warheads to arrive at the same time is something I'm not sure we've solved even today. VVV I think I saw this movie last year Koesj fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Aug 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
^It's an actual photo, not a movie still. Goddamn that movie was terrible.Forums Terrorist posted:It does when you're effectively dropping explosive Volkswagens on civilian conurbations. Basically Tomahawks do it better. (Not necessarily cheaper, granted, but when has cost ever been a serious consideration) Tomahawks are a limited commodity and are not particularly difficult to shoot down. Edit: 
Godholio fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Aug 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Tomahawks are a limited commodity and are not particularly difficult to shoot down. Excuse me, but we're talking about a whole garden word salad of Soviet missiles here  Fair point about them being limited but I think during the cold war fancy munitions were only stockpiled for a 2 weeks supply on both sides so
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I think the recommissioning of the Iowas was mostly for propaganda purposes, and was hideously expensive for the benefit, but I also don't think they should be underestimated. A surface action group based on an Iowa would have been a hell of thorn in the side of any Soviet surface operations, particularly if shielded by a CVBG. The armor on the Iowas probably would have allowed them to soak up quite a bit of damage, No, that's really untrue. The Iowas were built before shock damage was really understood and a single modern heavyweight torpedo would send one to the bottom. The nasty Soviet ASMs would come in with twice the velocity, four times the energy, and a much bigger warhead than any shell the Iowa's armor was built to withstand, and there's not even a zone of immunity against that stuff in the first place. An Iowa could take a few hits from them without sinking, probably, but all the stuff topside that makes it worth a drat, like communications gear, is going to be scrubbed off even by hits that don't penetrate the armor. Propaganda purposes. The only thing the re-commissioned Iowas brought to a modern fight were a few Tomahawks and Harpoons. If all you need to do is beat up something that's on land and can't fight back, you can do it with a ship that doesn't take 1200 people. The best thing an Iowa could do in a modern naval battle is pretty much the best thing it could do in a WWII naval battle: suck up ordnance that otherwise might have hit a carrier. (Well, actually WWII Iowas were seriously useful AAA platforms for defending the carrier, so they were actually less useful in the 80s-90s than they were in the 40s.) Cyrano4747 posted:
It really doesn't matter. One thing WWII shows pretty clearly is that even "crazy accurate naval gunfire" is not enough to suppress a beach, there were any number of islands that withstood withering shore bombardment for extended periods of time only for it to...not have a whole lot of effect in terms of seriously impacting the ability of the bad guys to defend the beach. First, "crazy accurate naval gunfire" is *still* simply not that accurate compared to land because even with the most sophisticated analog computers ever built for gunfire support, you're still on a moving platform. Maybe some fancy-dancy system to stabilize the guns would help, but seriously? The 1900-lb "high-capacity" 16" shell had about 150lbs of HE. So it's paradoxically a really bad weapon for NFGS: danger-close is a ridiculously long distance, but you need more precise fire to take out hardened targets. Which is why there are carriers, with planes, that drop 2000lb LGBs or GPS-guided bombs that will put 1000lbs of HE in a highly penetrating package right where you want them. NGFS can indeed deliver more weight of shell over period of time, but if you're just talking about walking fire along a beach to kill troops with fragments, then every skiff and dinghy in the entire Navy has a 5" gun that can do that just fine. And anything that can kill them, can also mission-kill at the least and very probably sink a BB. quote:Particularly impressive for 1970's tech. That's what you get when you dump your resources into "We need something that will kill carriers" rather than "We need carriers." The job the Soviet Navy had was very different from the job our Navy has, so they developed different tools. What ASMs did we develop? The Harpoon, a short-ranged subsonic sea-skimmer which would be easy meat for contemporary air-defense systems, and the TASM, which had a Pk of approximately 0 unless you put a nuclear warhead on it. Because subs were our anti-ship platform. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
We had some Iowa-explosion specific chat earlier in the thread, but yeah, re-deploying the battleships was a loving terrible idea.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Vindolanda posted:I remember a few places mentioning that a lot of the ammunition left for 16 inch guns was basically made at the same time as the ship was, and is now far far past its recommended service life even if properly stored. Yeah - a lot of it was 40s vintage. I think the place which made the 16" barrels is now a preserved national museum, not exactly like they can turn around and make more giant bangstick tubes from in a week. Same probably with the shells and powder, and all of that is critical - plus I don't doubt for a minute actual knowledge of how to operate the guns was basically lost completely between Vietnam and the refit in the 80s, and that's arguably just as important. Don't get me wrong, I agree the idea of Iowas in the 80s-90s doing fire support for a Marine beach landing is an enormous joke, the concept in the abstract of ships firing at land targets is not. I will say some of the proposed retrofits for the Iowas to be the ULTIMATE MARINE SUPPORT SHIP were absolutely hysterical. Something like taking the rear turret out and turning the entire aft end of the ship into a well deck for LCACs and a helipad for whatever. Absolutely comical. And if refitting isn't enough, there was at least one proposal to go back and redo the order for the Illinois and Kentucky. e: oh I forgot about the idea to put a canted flight deck and catapults on the aft end to carry Hornets around. Just imagine that one. Forums Terrorist posted:Basically Tomahawks do it better. (Not necessarily cheaper, granted, but when has cost ever been a serious consideration) I know we like to joke about the bottomless money pit that is the DOD budget, but this isn't actually true. Military contract spending is weird as hell and will break your brain. I know only enough to know I don't want to know anything more. Psion fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Psion posted:e: oh I forgot about the idea to put a canted flight deck and catapults on the aft end to carry Hornets around. Just imagine that one. There's a six year old at the DOD who has the best job ever... Phanatic posted:if you're just talking about walking fire along a beach to kill troops with fragments, then every skiff and dinghy in the entire Navy has a 5" gun that can do that just fine. ...and someone needs to convince him that RHIBs with 5" guns are a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's what you get when you dump your resources into "We need something that will kill carriers" rather than "We need carriers." The job the Soviet Navy had was very different from the job our Navy has, so they developed different tools. What ASMs did we develop? The Harpoon, a short-ranged subsonic sea-skimmer which would be easy meat for contemporary air-defense systems, and the TASM, which had a Pk of approximately 0 unless you put a nuclear warhead on it. Because subs were our anti-ship platform. A sea-skimming Harpoon, Tomahawk, or Exocet flew at altitudes underneath the engagement envelope of the SA-N-6 (25m), SA-N-7 (20m), and drat near any other Soviet naval SAM. Not to mention the limitations for even those top-end systems for engaging multiple targets simultaneously which is a big deal when you consider just how many Harpoons a small air wing or simply a loving frigate could launch. The average Sovremenny destroyer was basically poo poo out of luck against NATO sea-skimmers until it came down to the AK-630 CIWS - which as it happens had a pile of issues and was junked the moment the Kashtan was completed in 1989. The Kirov was the most capable ship in the Soviet fleet when it came to air defenses and had pretty much the same AK-630s plus some limited capability with the SA-N-4 Osa - which didn't exactly shine against low RCS, low altitude targets according to Soviet testing. Meanwhile drat near every SAM system in the US fleet past the 1970s was capable of engaging poo poo at the heights Soviet ASMs flew (20m+) with the primary limitations being detection range and reaction time - which you'll note are exactly the areas the US Navy focused on. Calling the Harpoon short ranged is also a bit silly given that the harpoon actually has a longer range than its analogue the Moskit did - a missile that while 3x faster is also substantially larger and cruises higher than most sea-skimmers at around 20m. Hell, the TASM had drat near triple the range of the SS-N-19 which again sacrificed size (the size of a small jet fighter), range (only 500km), and higher altitude for triple the speed and a 35% larger payload. The Soviet surface fleet was pretty much hosed in any sort of large surface engagement against NATO surface ships/air. The Soviet subs and planes were a much larger threat and were the primary focus for NATO developments and strategy when it came to naval warfare. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:...and someone needs to convince him that RHIBs with 5" guns are a good idea. Back in the golden days of Battlefield 1942 I made a custom map for Desert Combat. The map sucked, but I changed the rigid inflatable's MG on the bow to be a self-propelled howitzer gun, with physics recoil to match. You got one shot, but it was a good one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in Canada.. Stealth snowmobiles! Only $620k each, cheap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
priznat posted:Meanwhile, in Canada.. I would criticize this except that the DnD stopped releasing information on procurement because everybody was so mean about how bad they were on procurement This includes denying the auditor general and opposition parties that same information which is clearly illegal but it's not like anybody's going to do anything about it is it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:according to Soviet testing. Would like to read/see this, have you got a link or biblio entry?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Would like to read/see this, have you got a link or biblio entry? You can find the PKs and minimum altitude stuff all over the place, mostly on Russian sites with something like "Вероятность поражения цели одной ракетой Оса". http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051048057124049049052052.html There's at least one primary source out there specifically dealing with the OSA-AKM improvements which included a summary of testing against target drones at various altitudes/speeds but I'd have to find the links (I don't speak Russian and only happened upon it when it was linked on a site talking about the Libyan revolution). Essentially the SA-N-4 is the 1972 Osa-M with a PK against aircraft-sized targets between .35-.85 and a normal minimum altitude of 25m. However, because it can be guided into targets at around 1.5km (not something even the Buk can mirror) it's supposedly possible to use it in some capacity for low altitude snap-shots as you'd have with a sea-skimmer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:A sea-skimming Harpoon, Tomahawk, or Exocet flew at altitudes underneath the engagement envelope of the SA-N-6 (25m), SA-N-7 (20m), and drat near any other Soviet naval SAM. Not to mention the limitations for even those top-end systems for engaging multiple targets simultaneously which is a big deal when you consider just how many Harpoons a small air wing or simply a loving frigate could launch. The average Sovremenny destroyer was basically poo poo out of luck against NATO sea-skimmers until it came down to the AK-630 CIWS - which as it happens had a pile of issues and was junked the moment the Kashtan was completed in 1989. The Kirov was the most capable ship in the Soviet fleet when it came to air defenses and had pretty much the same AK-630s plus some limited capability with the SA-N-4 Osa - which didn't exactly shine against low RCS, low altitude targets according to Soviet testing. Meanwhile drat near every SAM system in the US fleet past the 1970s was capable of engaging poo poo at the heights Soviet ASMs flew (20m+) with the primary limitations being detection range and reaction time - which you'll note are exactly the areas the US Navy focused on. This is good and interesting stuff but you kind of have to timeline all this for it to make sense. By Wiki dates the Harpoon doesn't enter service until '77, the Tomahawk maybe a little before then (and the non-US Exocet in '79.) Before this the NATO powers didn't really have a good SSM capability; I guess you could hit some surface stuff with a Talos or Standard but they really weren't designed for it. You do have some goofy plans for helo-launched antiship missiles around the mid-70s as well but these were very low payload. In the grand scheme of things these are pretty late Cold War. To my knowledge, pre-Harpoon the US did not have a sub-launched anti-ship missile. (Or a particularly wonderful antiship torpedo before Mk 48; Cold War torpedo evolution is an interesting topic I find very little clear data on online.) As far as I can tell, the primary US ship-ship weapons remained the cannon for quite some time, and the real potential and danger of anti-ship missiles doesn't really become clear until the Eliat and the Stark. Depending on the capabilities of Soviet sub-launched torpedos (and Western intel therein) the push to bring back the battleships makes a little more sense, if you somehow get convinced in the early '80s that there'll ever be a surface ship battle ever again. On the Soviet side you have SS-N-2 deployed in 1960 and able to launch from very cheap missile boats. SS-N-3 came out in '59 (not sure on the antiship version) but was kind of crap; SS-N-7 in '68 was a vast improvement. Tactical SSM range is less of an issue for submarine launches since you have to be close enough for a good fix anyway. The Soviet tactic of spray and pray with cheap missiles on cheap platforms was intended to overwhelm the anti-air capability of CVBG pickets, who could only launch so many missiles from their twin-arms (or assemble them, in the Talos case) and only had so many in the magazine anyway; it didn't matter if some went down, just a few getting through would make a big difference. You also have to look at the differing missions on each side. In a hot Cold War scenario the NATO surface fleet task was primarily to protect trans-Atlantic shipping in blue water, mostly against air and submerged assets (and the Soviet task to disrupt that shipping with same.) I'm really not sure the big assets of the Warsaw Pact surface fleet would be in the Atlantic at all, if they could help it, vice the Black Sea / Mediterranean, where they were usually stationed and where they would have some possibility of shore-based air protection. What you do have in the Atlantic is a lot of destroyers and missile boats, primarily for coastal defense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
priznat posted:Meanwhile, in Canada.. I'll achieve the same results for only $3.99 per unit. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
priznat posted:Meanwhile, in Canada.. quote:The quest, meanwhile, to develop a silent snowmobile remains highly secretive. The war with the Polar Bears is coming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 14:43
|
|
