|
Patrick Spens posted:Isn't having sizable amounts of air in your blood really really bad for you?  Its actually Saline water being pumped
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Huh. Yeah but in the situation you'd use it you have way bigger problems. That guy is suffering for a youtube demo, though. In general loving with marrow is agonising. I was on a recovery ward* at one point with a guy who'd just donated some marrow for his son who was on a ridiculous amount of morphine and was still sobbing into his pillow and waiting for death. *medical volunteering is fun
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Nine of Eight posted:
You're right, it's a saline flush. I found another video where the victim described it as "That feeling you get when you're sucking a straw at the bottom of a milkshake, but through my bones."
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:You're right, it's a saline flush. I found another video where the victim described it as "That feeling you get when you're sucking a straw at the bottom of a milkshake, but through my bones." vivid
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Black powder was still being used in the ACW with Minie balls and rifles. One of the reasons credited for the incredibly high casualties (which was brought up recently here) was the continued efforts to use 18th century tactics designed for soldiers armed with inaccurate muskets against lines of men with extremely accurate rifles. When your bullet isn't going to fly off in some random direction and miss at 100 yards, lining everyone up in an orderly fashion is a really great way to get torn to shreds. But this was all in spite of black powder smoke, rather than without it. It would be over a decade after the war ended for smokeless powder to become common. IIRC, Napoleonic accounts really, really strongly believed that only the first volley did much of anything, and this was a significant point for strategy. I don't think intrinsic accuracy of the firearms is that significant here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Fangz posted:IIRC, Napoleonic accounts really, really strongly believed that only the first volley did much of anything, and this was a significant point for strategy. I don't think intrinsic accuracy of the firearms is that significant here. Read reports of ACW battles and the accuracy and volume of musketry is frequently talked about. Just look at how the tactics changed over the course of the war. Early ACW looks not unlike a napoleonic battle, while by the end you see a lot more advancing in loose order and something that looks a lot more like what you would expect in WW1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Read reports of ACW battles and the accuracy and volume of musketry is frequently talked about. Just look at how the tactics changed over the course of the war. Early ACW looks not unlike a napoleonic battle, while by the end you see a lot more advancing in loose order and something that looks a lot more like what you would expect in WW1. I can see the use of breechloaders that dramatically raise the rate of fire as having an effect, but I do question whether rifling alone really makes a difference. Wikipedia (yes, I know) cites Gettysburg, the Last Invasion, (Guelzo, Allen C. (2013). : quote:However, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges. ... Guelzo argues that rifling only truly benefited the sharpshooters on the skirmish line, who fought before their visibility was obscured, but the main line of infantry could not take advantage of the benefits of rifling. Dunno how credible that guy is. I think I'm fairly convinced it's more about volume and duration of fire than accuracy. I don't mean that technologically there wasn't change in this period, rather I would say that for most troops commanders were right to consider accuracy to be a lot less important than volume, until technology meant this trade-off didn't have to be made. Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I can see the use of breechloaders that dramatically raise the rate of fire as having an effect, but I do question whether rifling alone really makes a difference. By a casualty / shots metric WW1 guns are less deadly than Napoleonic muzzle loaders. An expanded range expands the lethal zone that people have to walk through. Picket's charge is a pretty good example. That probably wouldn't have been a terrible idea in a Napoleonic battle, but it ended in disaster in the ACW. Of course it's not just the rifles that advance. You also have better artillery (especially on the Union side) so it's enver going to quite be apples to apples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I can see the use of breechloaders that dramatically raise the rate of fire as having an effect, but I do question whether rifling alone really makes a difference. Does that control for confounders like distance or cover? It seems possible that people reacted to the more accurate fire by standing a bigger distance apart, or taking cover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:29
|
|
PittTheElder posted:A rifled barrel is a bitch to reload through the muzzle, and the grooves get fouled up by combustion products. So you really want quality powder and a reliable breech loading mechanism before you start mass fielding rifles. There is a reason why a little hammer is part of the mid 19th century Rifleman's kit.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Of course it's not just the rifles that advance. You also have better artillery (especially on the Union side) so it's enver going to quite be apples to apples. Improved artillery is a key change that James McPherson calls out in Battle Cry for explaining why tactics that had worked as recently as the Mexican-American war failed to work in the ACW. I believe the key element was the proliferation of rifled cannon, meaning that artillery had a much longer effective range than in the last war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:37
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Improved artillery is a key change that James McPherson calls out in Battle Cry for explaining why tactics that had worked as recently as the Mexican-American war failed to work in the ACW. I believe the key element was the proliferation of rifled cannon, meaning that artillery had a much longer effective range than in the last war. This only partially explains it, though. The Confederacy had a major shortage of rifled cannon, to the point where Union counter battery fire could often take place basically unmolested in the second half of the war. Yet the Union has a HUUUUUUGE list of just awful, bloody, repulsed assaults all over Maryland and Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Does that control for confounders like distance or cover? It seems possible that people reacted to the more accurate fire by standing a bigger distance apart, or taking cover. Well, that's covered by "no contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges" I suppose? It just seems to me that it's a pretty big claim Napoleonic warfare saw consistently lower casualties than Civil War battles and this is due to rifle tactics. Like you say, "Early ACW looks not unlike a napoleonic battle, while by the end you see a lot more advancing in loose order and something that looks a lot more like what you would expect in WW1...." but they basically had rifled muskets *from the start*. So if high casualties really resulted from Napoleonic tactics + Rifles then you'd expect to see initially very bloody battles and then less bloody battles as we switch to loose order. But didn't the ACW get *more* bloody? Pickett style advances at say, Waterloo, did result in massive losses also. Person on the internet posted:Civil War battle ranges- Initial contact [ Keep in mind This is were the first shots were fired, often the combat would end up 30-70 yards as one side advanced or charged]. Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Aren't we making a ragingly large assumption that perceptions of distances in battle are accurate? I think the decisiveness of aimed fire with a rifle is probably overstated, but rifle fire allows you to aim at area targets at a longer range, which is standard Napoleonic tactics. Instead of hitting a battalion-sized mass at 100 yards, you could more reliably strike a battalion sized mass at 200 yards. Tactics evolved with the distribution of weapons. The assertion that most troops had rifled muskets from the start is not correct. Most troops in 61 had M1842s and 1816/22s, which were basically Charlevilles with a percussion cap mechanism. Some were poorly re-barreled to use Minie balls, but most of the stock of weapons in US armories was smoothbore. If anything, the fact that battles got bloodier indicates that an as-designed rifled musket like the M1861 or the Enfield 1853 were in fact significantly better at causing casualties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Fangz posted:But didn't the ACW get *more* bloody? This might have to do with unit cohesion improving over time. That is, during the early stages of the American Civil War troops on both sides were inexperienced and therefore brittle, inclined to break up and retreat from combat after relatively fewer losses. Later on, more experienced and confident troops under officers who were also improving, could withstand more punishment before quitting the field. Thus, bloodier battles in spite of greater experience. There are also a lot of Napoleonic battles that resolve in a rout, often as a result of one side being broken by bayonet charges, and then the bulk of total casualties are KIA/WIA/captured during the pursuit phase. Subjectively, hand-to-hand combat seems much less frequent in the ACW than in the Napoleonic period, and in both wars it was the surest method of breaking infantry formations outright. As a result, we may see higher casualties rates because opposing units are exchanging fire for longer without one of them gaining superiority, closing in, and breaking their foe in hand-to-hand combat. In ACW battles we also often see broken units able to halt their retreat and reform in the rear, sometimes even returning to the fight to sustain more casualties. I don't know what the reasons for this might be, but I would suspect some combination of the greater firepower making it more difficult for cavalry or other mobile forces to initiate a decisive pursuit, and American cavalry just generally not being as good at that particular job as in Napoleonic armies. At any rate, in the American Civil War the losing side of a battle most often survives and retreats in good order, rather than being broken and suffering mass casualties in pursuit.\ edit: Borodino, which was perceived as a slaughter for both sides, kind of plays out like an American Civil War engagement in the sense of an extended engagement with high casualties that ends with both armies bloodied but still cohesive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Schenck v. U.S. posted:This might have to do with unit cohesion improving over time. That is, during the early stages of the American Civil War troops on both sides were inexperienced and therefore brittle, inclined to break up and retreat from combat after relatively fewer losses. Later on, more experienced and confident troops under officers who were also improving, could withstand more punishment before quitting the field. Thus, bloodier battles in spite of greater experience. re: less common hand-to-hand combat in the ACW: Remember that the distance the assaulting unit had to charge across was significantly larger too, but your guys aren't going to run any faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Speaking about napoleonic vs ACW weaponry, when did cannons/artillery pieces go from firing solid round shot and basic canister shot to firing exploding shells and other complex ammunition?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Carcer posted:Speaking about napoleonic vs ACW weaponry, when did cannons/artillery pieces go from firing solid round shot and basic canister shot to firing exploding shells and other complex ammunition? Exploding shells in one form or another are really loving old.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Carcer posted:Speaking about napoleonic vs ACW weaponry, when did cannons/artillery pieces go from firing solid round shot and basic canister shot to firing exploding shells and other complex ammunition? Picric acid, the first "modern" explosive suitable for use in artillery shells, became industrially viable in the 1880s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Exploding shells in one form or another are really loving old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)#Early_shells
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
One probably should keep in mind the historical difference between technically explosive rounds and modern high explosives which moved artillery into a whole new qualitative area, because effectively those two things are very different, and the historical break between them represents a major change in warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:One probably should keep in mind the historical difference between technically explosive rounds and modern high explosives which moved artillery into a whole new qualitative area, because effectively those two things are very different, and the historical break between them represents a major change in warfare. in my opinion we are looking at a gradual development in guns from the middle ages to about the 1870s (???), and then a decisive and qualitative break
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
My theory on why ACW casualties: it was the guns. more specifically, it was the nature of the rifled musket. They created two issues: 1) it was a weapon that kind of straddled eras; it had range and accuracy comparable to a modern rifle, but it was reloaded in much the same way a matchlock had been 400 years earlier. In other words, it was a whole lot easier and faster to reload if you were standing. If you had standing cover that was great; otherwise you basically had to choose between having cover and having a reasonable rate of fire. 2) the rifled musket shot a long way, but was very slow to reload. This meant that it was fairly easy to put out accurate sustained fire, but creating a high volume of fire was a lot more difficult. Most of the time, in order to attack something successfully you have to have a high volume of fire, and the only way to get a high volume of fire is have a lot of guns fairly close to one another shooting at the same time. This calls for close order formations. However, unlike past eras, the formation you were attacking could put accurate fire on you, and your tightly ordered ranks, at a much greater distance. Feel free to poke holes in this theory, I pretty much just made it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:One probably should keep in mind the historical difference between technically explosive rounds and modern high explosives which moved artillery into a whole new qualitative area, because effectively those two things are very different, and the historical break between them represents a major change in warfare. Yeah, one key element is the ability to produce explosives in industrial quantities, the other is producing high quality fuses. The ACW being right on the cusp of development of a lot of transformative industrial age technology means that you see a lot of these things appear in one form or another, just not to a degree that gets you WW1 flanders fields in Virginia. Quality of fuses was basically what made Union artillery very good and Confederate artillery quite poor. Lets take the rifles for example: yes they're rifles and are accurate to rifle ranges. Smokeless powder is not a thing yet however, so your ACW battalion volley firing is producing a thick cloud of smoke almost as fast as a Napoleonic battalion, with the same subsequent rapid loss in effectiveness. So there's instances in which these weapons are far more effective than they were 50 years before, but not to the extent that they were 50 years afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I pretty much just made it up. Where's your youtube channel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Schenck v. U.S. posted:and American cavalry just generally not being as good at that particular job as in Napoleonic armies. why was this, do you think? I know for much of it's history the US was heavily forested, and cavalry was more often used as scouting/raiding roles, or for fighting indians, so did we never really develop the same kind of heavy cavalry tradition as European armies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:in my opinion we are looking at a gradual development in guns from the middle ages to about the 1870s (???), and then a decisive and qualitative break I would go a little later to 1897, which is when the French adopted the first soixante-quinze quick-firing field gun (the technology was around earlier, but the French were the first to do it on a mass-produced field gun). Going from two rounds a minute and having to re-aim after each shot to 15-30 rounds a minute at more-or-less the same target and with doubled range, that's enough weight of fire at enough distance to obliterate with shrapnel just about anything that comes running at it; "anything" then digs itself a hole to hide in and isn't minded to come out, welcome to the perma-siege. e: where did that namechange come from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Feel free to poke holes in this theory, I pretty much just made it up. Also, fighting in close order is very important for command and control if signals are limited to bugles, drums, flags, and shouting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I'll talk! Whatever you want, just get that thing away from me According to Arms Control Wonk (it's a podcast,) the superpowers are spending more and building more cruise missles capable of being nuclear that can be launched by sea or air. In that case there's not enough time for the target to counter-strike. Less than 2min for the word to get the the pres/putin/whoever. If course that isn't going to wipe out all the silos and if there's someone left still with the ability to order a counter-strike after the capitol is destroyed then the damage still won't be going all one way Arms Control Wonk has had a few episodes about cruise missles and air/sea launches. Due to treaties, every ICBM is counted, but apparently due to US preferences every nuke capable craft can be loaded max capacity and only count for one nuke. IE shove 24 cruise missles on a sub or aircraft, that's just 1 nuke. So all the money and development is going on them, giving more strike capability and less time for the target to respond in kind. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Jan 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Drunk post don't care suck it non artillery suckers st babs shout out even if it's technically in December and we celebrate in January for whatever reason We Artillerymen are indeed a very privileged group. In addition to the protection of our Patron Saint during life, we can look forward to our own special heaven after the sounding of TAPS. I refer, of course, to FIDDLER's GREEN. Down through the ages, all purveyors of the fire, members of the ancient profession of stone hurlers, catapulters, rocketeers, and GUNNERs, better known as Field Artillerymen, have discussed this special place in the hereafter, where someday each of us will be privileged to roam. There are as many tales of the Green as there are old Artillerymen; stories rich with the smell of gunpowder and campfires; and flavored with a taste of Artillery Punch. Imagine, if you will, a starry night, many years ago... In Gun Position 15 (which for you youngsters is now Artillery Firing Area 31) just after a coordinated illum mission, nestled in the shadows of the Regimental CP is a battery of smoothbore cannon camped for the night. As the campfires dim and the flasks of rum and lemon empty, the conversation turns to life in the hereafter. A rugged old section chief is surprised to learn that not all present have heard of supplies of GRID SQUARES, ST-1's, B-1-RD's; few have ever been sent to fetch a hundred meters of gun target line or for the combination to the firing lock; fewer still have been availed of the highest of knowledge; the greatest piece of Artillery lore; the Special Destiny awaiting all Artillerymen. As the young cannoneers listen intently, he shares with them the Legend of FIDDLER's GREEN. It is generally conceded, he explains, that the souls of the departed eventually end up in Heaven or Hell. Heaven lies about six klicks down the dusty road to eternity and can be reached by turning left at the first crossroad. From that same junction, Hell is about eight or nine klicks straight ahead. The road is easy to identify; it's the one paved with good intentions. A little way down the road to Hell, there's a sign pointing to a trail that runs off to the right of the main road which reads: When Artillerymen die, their souls form up in the battery area, where they are regrouped into gun sections. Then, they load their belongings onto a caisson or 5-Ton, whichever isn't deadlined, point their Advanced Party down that long road to Eternity and move out at the authorized speed limit (as set by the Regimental Motor Transport Officer). Like all crusty old Marines, Artillerymen face the call to eternal damnation calmly, and pass by the turnoff to heaven without a second glance... BUT, unlike the others, Artillerymen are met by a Gun Guide at the next turnoff--the road to FIDDLER's GREEN. The road to Hell, which continues beyond, is crowded with Engineers, Infantrymen, Aviators, and other miscreants, not to mention the droves of Sailors and Soldiers (of the non-redleg variety). It is at this point that Field Artillerymen bid farewell to their old comrades and wheel their teams down the trail to the Green. The Green nestles in a large valley spotted with trees and crossed with many cool streams. One can see countless tents and several large buildings in the center. Laughter can be heard from afar off. At the entrance are several long picket lines for the prime movers as well as picket lines of another kind with members of the local chapter of the Environmental Protection Agency. Oh well, at least Arty Mechs are on hand to service the pieces after the long march. There is a representative of the Almighty Great Gunner present to scan the rolls of the Orders of Saint Barbara and to attest to the fact that all who are seeking entrance are true Artillerymen. Once certified, true Artillerymen are met with open arms and immediately given a generous flask of that Immortal Nectar---Artillery Punch. FIDDLER's GREEN is a unique place. It is believed to be the only Heaven claimed by a professional group as exclusively it's own. (However, our Marine Corps brethren, those who didn't serve the Field Artillery, guard the streets of someone else's Heaven and call us if they need reinforcing fires.) The Green is a gathering place of rugged professionals. Their claim to fame is that they served their pieces well and selflessly while on earth. The souls of all departed Artillerymen are camped here, forever gathered in comradeship. In the center of their countless tents and campfires is an old exchange where liquor is free. There are Taverns and Dance Halls. Credit is good; no questions asked. There is always a glass, a friend, and a song. Daily routine consists of full time R&R. There isn't even a Command Duty roster. Everything is strictly non-regulation. The chow is plentiful and good, and.....there is no waiting in line. The main pastimes are dancing, drinking, and singing all day... and, well... dancing, drinking, and singing all night. The Green flows with rum, whiskey and pleasures known only to a few on earth. The Chiefs of Artillery, old Battery Commanders, Section Chiefs, and Gunners down through the Powder Man---they are all here. Periodically, an Artilleryman feels a compulsion to continue down the road to Hell. He repacks his gear, fills his canteens with Artillery Punch, makes provisions for his horse (or tops off the HMMWV) and bids farewell to his comrades. He departs for the main road, turning South towards Hell. He was not forced to leave the Green, but felt he must go of his own accord. HAH, do not despair my friends! Not a single Artilleryman has ever made it all the way to Hell, because their canteens of Artillery Punch are empty long before they make it and they have to return to the Green for a refill---NEVER again to leave. This then is the story of FIDDLER's GREEN. There are many versions. Of course, occasionally, stories circulate to the effect that the Green is shared with Sailors, Airmen, Soldiers, and Coast Guardsmen. Don't you believe it. Only the Officers and Men of the Noblest Arm, the King of Battle, the Field Artillery, could continue to enjoy the comradeship and spirit of their most honored occupation after death. Just as in life, where not all are privileged to be Field Artillerymen, so too after death, only these privileged few may enjoy the rewards of a special Heaven that is uniquely their own. So, fellow Artillerymen, as we Close Station, March Order to decamp the gun postion of life, having occupied this position in service to our great nation, we contemplate our movement brief and proceed with confidence that, protected by Saint Barbara, we need fear nothing. And even if we should collide with the rocks of temptation or bog down in the quagmire of sin, remember....our comrades will be waiting for us by the campfire at FIDDLER's GREEN.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:why was this, do you think? I know for much of it's history the US was heavily forested, and cavalry was more often used as scouting/raiding roles, or for fighting indians, so did we never really develop the same kind of heavy cavalry tradition as European armies? UK also had pretty lousy cavalry tradition. Also, keep in mind that horsies are very expensive and the US didn't have a standing army of note until 1946. Heavy cavalry isn't really something you can take off the shelf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
I read that imagining the most fitting of southern drawls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Picric acid, the first "modern" explosive suitable for use in artillery shells, became industrially viable in the 1880s. Also figure nearly as soon in medical reports in account of Russian soldiers drinking it  FastestGunAlive posted:Drunk post don't care suck it non artillery suckers st babs shout out even if it's technically in December and we celebrate in January for whatever reason You should drink more often please don't  E: Non-redleg variety 
Tias fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Jan 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
He's been mentioned in the thread before, but this Skallagrim video is worth a watch. Compare that to Lindybeige's stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r08pB3rerw0
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Tias posted:Also figure nearly as soon in medical reports in account of Russian soldiers drinking it Redleg is artilleryman. US Army term cause they had a red stripe on the pant legs in the civil war era
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:it's not the safest, but you can definitely doubleshot canister A Union five-gun battery at Gettysburg annihilated an attacking regiment point-blank during Pickett's Charge this way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:A Union five-gun battery at Gettysburg annihilated an attacking regiment point-blank during Pickett's Charge this way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:the largest shotgun in the world What happened was that the infantry in front of the battery bolted for the rear for God knows why leaving these five gun crews facing down a couple hundred hollerin' Rebs with their blood up. Luckily for the battery this fellow was with them and they simply loading double canister and fired in unison. That did the trick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Like the whole active on the field regiment? like around at least 400-500 men?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Like the whole active on the field regiment? like around at least 400-500 men? It was probably a couple hundred guys but I don't have exact numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 17:23
|
|