Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
landedkiller

Interesting find possible counterpart to Stalingrad

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

546
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
4,583 battles

Taken from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser

"One historian described the design process of the Alaska class as "torturous" due to the numerous changes and modifications made to the ship's layouts by numerous departments and individuals.[7] Indeed, there were at least nine different layouts,[18] ranging from 6,000-ton Atlanta-class anti-aircraft cruisers[19] to "overgrown" heavy cruisers[7] and a 38,000-ton mini-battleship that would have been armed with twelve 12-inch and sixteen 5-inch guns.[19] The General Board, in an attempt to keep the displacement under 25,000 tons, allowed the designs to offer only limited underwater protection. As a result, the Alaska class, when built, were vulnerable to torpedoes and shells that fell short of the ship.[20] The final design was a scaled-up Baltimore class that had the same machinery as the Essex-class aircraft carriers. This ship combined a main armament of nine 12-inch guns with protection against 10-inch gunfire into a hull that was capable of 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph).[13]

The Alaskas were officially funded in September 1940 along with a plethora of other ships as a part of the Two-Ocean Navy Act.[11][21][F] Their role had been altered slightly: in addition to their surface-to-surface role, they were planned to protect carrier groups. Because of their bigger guns, greater size and increased speed, they would be more valuable in this role than heavy cruisers, and would provide insurance against reports that Japan was building super cruisers more powerful than U.S. heavy cruisers.[11] "

The main point being here is can someone find the blueprint for the bolded print. Reference 19 led me to this https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22895015800&searchurl=tn%3Dbattleships%26sortby%3D17%26an%3Dgarzke%2Bdulin&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1

Discuss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,146
[LEGIO]
Members
3,391 posts
7,329 battles

CA2-A is the original design for what became the actual CB-1 class. Interestingly it featured a torpedo defense scheme that was deleted on the real cruisers as well as aviation facilities at the stern of the ship instead of in the center.

CA2-D was the larger ship you described, essentially a larger version of CA2-A with an additional three 12"/50 caliber and four 5"/38 caliber guns. It may have been planned to use the same propulsion system as on the BB-61 class.

s511-06.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,770
[SALVO]
Members
24,198 posts
24,546 battles

Jeez, at that size, it seems like you might as well use 14" guns and call it a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,386 posts
5,639 battles
52 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

CA2-A is the original design for what became the actual CB-1 class. Interestingly it featured a torpedo defense scheme that was deleted on the real cruisers as well as aviation facilities at the stern of the ship instead of in the center.

lost a subdivision behind the TDS as well, and the angle isnt as step, 10* rather than the planned 15*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,386 posts
5,639 battles
19 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Jeez, at that size, it seems like you might as well use 14" guns and call it a day.

no you wouldn't, the 12" guns are better. The horizontal penetration is basically the same, comparable vertical penetration as well. shell flight time is about the same. Theres a few other reasons the 12" guns were better

formatted for 12" vs 14"

  • ROF 3.0 vs 1,75
  • Barrel life in rounds 344 vs 250
  • Shells stowed per gun 166 vs 100
  • traverse speed 5 vs 2
  • weight in tons 934 vs 958
  • 2 stage shell hoist vs 1 (2 is safer)

Additionally you would most likely need to expand the turret ring to accommodate the larger mounts, which would mean a larger barbette  which is going to add more to the displacement 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,326
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,625 posts
19,327 battles

Wait for the IJN version that was canceled in WWII. 

It looks as sexy as Alaska does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,386 posts
5,639 battles
49 minutes ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

Wait for the IJN version that was canceled in WWII. 

It looks as sexy as Alaska does.

look like dis? 2 versionsLCMl2E0.jpg

EBJw720.jpg

the dutch had a battlecruiser design that @Lert did a big wright up on that you can read here

rhwwrJn.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,827 posts
4,361 battles
32 minutes ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

Wait for the IJN version that was canceled in WWII. 

It looks as sexy as Alaska does.

Design B-65? Aka the Mini-Yamato? Or cruiser Yamato?

It's going to be interesting to see how WG plays it. With a very slight AA modernization that it'd likely have ended up with, it could either fit at T7 as a battlecruiser-type, rather similar to Scharnhorst, or work just as well at T10, where the AA, even if upgraded, is par for high tier IJN currently (as in, lackluster compared to other nations at T10). At T7, it already has decent long-range AA thanks to using 10cm DPs, basically Akizuki's guns, but a lack of short and mid-range AA. With the modernization, it just makes B65 better than Nagato in AA, but about par compared to other BBs at that tier (same way Kii's AA is superior to Amagi and other IJN BBs around her tier, but is overall still inferior to non-IJN BBs in terms of total AA).

And besides that, it retains torpedo launchers. At T7 as a Battlecruiser, it could make do with 10km torpedoes. At T10 as a Cruiser, it could make do with 12km torpedoes. It also retained an actual TDS, compared to Alaska. So that's another thing it has going for it (not much, but better than nothing).

Really, the only weaknesses it has is that it's not as tanky as Scharnhorst (and some armor angles are pretty flat, so careless broadsides can and will be punished), and low turret traverse, par for the IJN in general. It does gain a 0.1" caliber advantage over Alaska, though I don't believe 12.1" guns benefit from overmatch mechanics that 12" guns wouldn't. The torpedoes and 10cm DPs (if given the same range as Scharn/Gneis' secondaries) could let it be a strong harasser though; passing by and letting IFHE-boosted secondaries tear through all lesser 32mm armor plating while the torpedoes add another layer of paranoia.

An alternate route they could go is that rather than getting the AA modernization, give her more accurate maneuverability, as she was developed off lessons learned with the Yamato class. So she'd turn better than Scharn at T7 or Alaska at T10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,386 posts
5,639 battles
33 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

Design B-65? Aka the Mini-Yamato? Or cruiser Yamato?

It's going to be interesting to see how WG plays it. With a very slight AA modernization that it'd likely have ended up with, it could either fit at T7 as a battlecruiser-type, rather similar to Scharnhorst, or work just as well at T10, where the AA, even if upgraded, is par for high tier IJN currently (as in, lackluster compared to other nations at T10). At T7, it already has decent long-range AA thanks to using 10cm DPs, basically Akizuki's guns, but a lack of short and mid-range AA. With the modernization, it just makes B65 better than Nagato in AA, but about par compared to other BBs at that tier (same way Kii's AA is superior to Amagi and other IJN BBs around her tier, but is overall still inferior to non-IJN BBs in terms of total AA).

And besides that, it retains torpedo launchers. At T7 as a Battlecruiser, it could make do with 10km torpedoes. At T10 as a Cruiser, it could make do with 12km torpedoes. It also retained an actual TDS, compared to Alaska. So that's another thing it has going for it (not much, but better than nothing).

Really, the only weaknesses it has is that it's not as tanky as Scharnhorst (and some armor angles are pretty flat, so careless broadsides can and will be punished), and low turret traverse, par for the IJN in general. It does gain a 0.1" caliber advantage over Alaska, though I don't believe 12.1" guns benefit from overmatch mechanics that 12" guns wouldn't. The torpedoes and 10cm DPs (if given the same range as Scharn/Gneis' secondaries) could let it be a strong harasser though; passing by and letting IFHE-boosted secondaries tear through all lesser 32mm armor plating while the torpedoes add another layer of paranoia.

An alternate route they could go is that rather than getting the AA modernization, give her more accurate maneuverability, as she was developed off lessons learned with the Yamato class. So she'd turn better than Scharn at T7 or Alaska at T10.

 

i would disagree that it would be more maneuverable than the yamato, having a much shorter beam does not bode well for her cause. Its even thinner than Alaska, so just geometrically speaking shes not exactly set up to be drift king. i Actually doubt they would be able to beat the Yamatos 640M turning circle, even if the rudder was as effective as Yamato's. in a straight line i would certainly say 33 knots should be easily achieved.

12" guns at 3 RPM, is a bit slower than kron, on par with Alaska. They were never actually built so who knows what they would actually be like. My guess would be performance along the lines of the 14" guns. Slap IJN BB dispersion on, and call it done.

180dps long range AA aura is pretty good at that tier, i dont think it really needs a refit. The long range DPS more than outweighs any shortcomings in medium and short range auras.

The torps are probably fine at that tier. its not like its going to be able to stealth drop people.

With a citadel that large, for a ship not so well armored...i have a hard time believing that works out. unless WG decide to give it a 30mm bow.

If a 30mm bow is the case, i think it would be fine in t9. otherwise i think it''ll just get nuked by every BB on the planet. B-65 may actually have the largest, most unprotected citadel in the game. Thats a hard hump to climb over.

 

On the other hand its a hard fit as a t7 BB, because outside scharnhorst every t7 BB can overmatch another. scharnhorst has the armor to get over that, B-65 does not. Just like Alaska doesnt belong on a BB tree B-65 doesnt either.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,827 posts
4,361 battles
4 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

i would disagree that it would be more maneuverable than the yamato, having a much shorter beam does not bode well for her cause. Its even thinner than Alaska, so just geometrically speaking shes not exactly set up to be drift king. i Actually doubt they would be able to beat the Yamatos 640M turning circle, even if the rudder was as effective as Yamato's. in a straight line i would certainly say 33 knots should be easily achieved.

-snipped for space-

On the other hand its a hard fit as a t7 BB, because outside scharnhorst every t7 BB can overmatch another. scharnhorst has the armor to get over that, B-65 does not. Just like Alaska doesnt belong on a BB tree B-65 doesnt either.

On retrospect, you might be right. Several suggestions for B65's implementation I was going off of did assume a few things, capitalizing on the paper nature of the ship for a few tweaks or minor buffs, which were as followed.

Regardless of tiering and classification:

  • Given a minor armor buff in which it can only overmatch itself, akin to Yamato (Ex: Resistant to 12" and below, but not 12.1" and above), or is resistant to its own shells (Ex: Resistant to 12.1", but nothing above that). Basically taking the fact it was meant to resist the shells of its possible rivals and actually implementing that, regardless of tier.
  • Citadel artificially lowered, given the relatively flat armor slopes, but still allowing careless broadsides to be punished hard. Basically, like all IJN cruisers and IJN BBs except Yamato.
  • Basically, most suggestions state that since it took the "speed as armor" path for Battlecruisers, better maneuverability comes into effect, depending on tiering. Mainly in the sense that less speed would be lost during maneuvers due to hydrodynamic design implemented.

As a T10 (or T9) CA (Superheavy Cruiser-archtype):

  • AA given a modernization refit; which only makes it slightly better in AA, but not so much when compared to the likes of DM/Worcester/Alaska.
  • Would have better concealment than other similar rivals, but still larger than regular CAs.
  • Cruiser consumables would help some in balancing; faster DCP recharge notably, but having AADF/Hydro.

As a T7 BB (Battlecruiser-archtype):

  • AA modernization optional.
  • Given a secondary range matching or slightly exceeding Scharn/Gneis.
  • Great concealment for a T7 BB, but poor compared to CAs at that tier.
  • Compensates for the lack of armor, consumable, and module support with strong accuracy, some maneuverability (in the sense less speed is lost on turning), and having effectively an Akizuki on each side tearing into other careless ships within range (moreso with IFHE added on top of 10cm 1/4 HE Pen), while using its torpedoes and concealment potential to set up the ambush or harassment.
  • Role would mainly be a cruiser bully, but could, with some skill, take on rival T7 BBs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,873
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,043 posts
7,683 battles
13 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

  • Given a minor armor buff in which it can only overmatch itself, akin to Yamato (Ex: Resistant to 12" and below, but not 12.1" and above), or is resistant to its own shells (Ex: Resistant to 12.1", but nothing above that). Basically taking the fact it was meant to resist the shells of its possible rivals and actually implementing that, regardless of tier.

Umm...what you are suggesting here would actually be an armor nerf.  Regardless of where the B-65 goes, it should have a 25mm bow as standard, be it a Tier 7 BB or a Tier 9/10 cruiser.  25mm bows are capable of auto-bouncing up to 14" guns.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,502 posts
14,121 battles
8 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

no you wouldn't, the 12" guns are better. The horizontal penetration is basically the same, comparable vertical penetration as well. shell flight time is about the same. Theres a few other reasons the 12" guns were better

formatted for 12" vs 14"

  • ROF 3.0 vs 1,75
  • Barrel life in rounds 344 vs 250
  • Shells stowed per gun 166 vs 100
  • traverse speed 5 vs 2
  • weight in tons 934 vs 958
  • 2 stage shell hoist vs 1 (2 is safer)

Additionally you would most likely need to expand the turret ring to accommodate the larger mounts, which would mean a larger barbette  which is going to add more to the displacement 

Is that compared to the older 14in gun on say New Mexico?

If so, then it might be fair to compare the 12in to a hypothetical modernized 14in. Even the 14in/50 Mk. 7 is a re-heat of an older gun and circa 1930 for the upgrade. In particular if you did a from-scratch new 14in design in 1939 (and optimized for deck penetration if you wanted) you should get a superior weapon to the 12in, at least in some regards.

The problem might end up being as you note on the larger mounts that either you need a bigger ship, or twin instead of triple turrets, which would probably throw things hugely in favor of the 12in, but comparing the Alaska 12in to a 14in with a genesis in 1916 is a little unfair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,827 posts
4,361 battles
2 hours ago, yashma said:

Umm...what you are suggesting here would actually be an armor nerf.  Regardless of where the B-65 goes, it should have a 25mm bow as standard, be it a Tier 7 BB or a Tier 9/10 cruiser.  25mm bows are capable of auto-bouncing up to 14" guns.

That wasn't my suggestion though. It was others based on their suggestion of the class. I was just going with it, as I am not familiar with the armor scheme beyond it having some rather flat slopes in places based on an armor cutaway I saw posted once, compared to Alaska's armor cutaway.

Personally, I would have had the ship at T9 as a cruiser, like Alaska and Kronshtadt.

  • Add a slightly buffed 30mm bow/stern.
  • Lowered citadel for game balance reasons.
  • Better concealment than other rivals but still worse than most other CAs.
  • Suffers from the 45s fire duration like other superheavy cruisers.
  • 12km standard torpedoes with alternate but slower loading 16km DW (Pan-Asia style) torpedoes.
  • Given the AA modernization.
  • Retains speed better in turns.
  • Better TDS than Alaska or Kron.

Basically, I envision she would play more as a harasser, similar to Alaska, but also different in the sense that she needs to capitalize on her flexibility to dictate the engagement, switching between shell types and torpedoes to set up strikes and deal damage while kiting in and out of danger using her speed. She doesn't have Alaska's AA or improved normalization AP. She doesn't have Kron's high velocity shells. She doesn't have Radar or fast traversing turrets compared to those two. She would require patience and skill to set up opportunities for herself, or risk being nuked at the wrong time, and at the worst possible time. Short of actually buffing the armor in trade for some speed, or being gimmicked out the aft like an RN BB, strong but slow-reloading torpedoes and high accuracy would be her real strengths. Her speed retention too if that was given. In trade, she has all the weaknesses typical of IJN cruisers and battleships, and would easily be punished for carelessness compared to Kron or Alaska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
546
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
4,583 battles
17 hours ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

CA2-A is the original design for what became the actual CB-1 class. Interestingly it featured a torpedo defense scheme that was deleted on the real cruisers as well as aviation facilities at the stern of the ship instead of in the center.

CA2-D was the larger ship you described, essentially a larger version of CA2-A with an additional three 12"/50 caliber and four 5"/38 caliber guns. It may have been planned to use the same propulsion system as on the BB-61 class.

s511-06.jpg

Thank you for finding this hopefully we can get this ship in game and the japanese battlecruiser as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,326
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,625 posts
19,327 battles
17 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

look like dis? 2 versionsLCMl2E0.jpg

EBJw720.jpg

the dutch had a battlecruiser design that @Lert did a big wright up on that you can read here

rhwwrJn.jpg

 

Yes, me wants....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
546
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
4,583 battles
1 hour ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

Yes, me wants....

I want to ideally see these ships make it in, but we need support behind them first to do so like Alaska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,146
[LEGIO]
Members
3,391 posts
7,329 battles
21 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

lost a subdivision behind the TDS as well, and the angle isnt as step, 10* rather than the planned 15*

Yeah, they really should have kept those design features. That way the Alaska class would have been closer to a mini fast-battleship sort of along the lines of the French Dunkerque but a bit faster.

In reality the CA-2D design raised the obvious question of "Why not just build another Iowa class fast battleship instead?" There was no way to really justify it. However in game it could make an interesting T10. Yet I doubt that WG wants something to threaten the supremacy of Stalingrad, and WG seems to have some "issues" with actually getting T10 premiums to the players.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,873
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,043 posts
7,683 battles

It would probably be a balancing headache, but I'd really like to see WG try to get a B-65 variant in with the six 14" guns option.  

b_65_type_battlecruiser_design_by_tzoli-

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
546
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
4,583 battles
21 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

look like dis? 2 versionsLCMl2E0.jpg

EBJw720.jpg

the dutch had a battlecruiser design that @Lert did a big wright up on that you can read here

rhwwrJn.jpg

 

 

26 minutes ago, yashma said:

It would probably be a balancing headache, but I'd really like to see WG try to get a B-65 variant in with the six 14" guns option.  

b_65_type_battlecruiser_design_by_tzoli-

I actually remembered my old thread here for the B-65 if you guys want to get some support behind it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,386 posts
5,639 battles
15 hours ago, mofton said:

Is that compared to the older 14in gun on say New Mexico?

If so, then it might be fair to compare the 12in to a hypothetical modernized 14in. Even the 14in/50 Mk. 7 is a re-heat of an older gun and circa 1930 for the upgrade. In particular if you did a from-scratch new 14in design in 1939 (and optimized for deck penetration if you wanted) you should get a superior weapon to the 12in, at least in some regards.

The problem might end up being as you note on the larger mounts that either you need a bigger ship, or twin instead of triple turrets, which would probably throw things hugely in favor of the 12in, but comparing the Alaska 12in to a 14in with a genesis in 1916 is a little unfair. 

i pulled the stats for the newest gun put into service. there was another that never went into service that still wouldnt be as good, but better than what i pulled. 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_14-50_mk11.php

source. i used the mk 11. since that was the latest variant that served. The Mk B (which i mentioned earlier) is also their, but even that isnt going to be enough to compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,386 posts
5,639 battles
13 hours ago, YamatoA150 said:

That wasn't my suggestion though. It was others based on their suggestion of the class. I was just going with it, as I am not familiar with the armor scheme beyond it having some rather flat slopes in places based on an armor cutaway I saw posted once, compared to Alaska's armor cutaway.

Personally, I would have had the ship at T9 as a cruiser, like Alaska and Kronshtadt.

  • Add a slightly buffed 30mm bow/stern.
  • Lowered citadel for game balance reasons.
  • Better concealment than other rivals but still worse than most other CAs.
  • Suffers from the 45s fire duration like other superheavy cruisers.
  • 12km standard torpedoes with alternate but slower loading 16km DW (Pan-Asia style) torpedoes.
  • Given the AA modernization.
  • Retains speed better in turns.
  • Better TDS than Alaska or Kron.

Basically, I envision she would play more as a harasser, similar to Alaska, but also different in the sense that she needs to capitalize on her flexibility to dictate the engagement, switching between shell types and torpedoes to set up strikes and deal damage while kiting in and out of danger using her speed. She doesn't have Alaska's AA or improved normalization AP. She doesn't have Kron's high velocity shells. She doesn't have Radar or fast traversing turrets compared to those two. She would require patience and skill to set up opportunities for herself, or risk being nuked at the wrong time, and at the worst possible time. Short of actually buffing the armor in trade for some speed, or being gimmicked out the aft like an RN BB, strong but slow-reloading torpedoes and high accuracy would be her real strengths. Her speed retention too if that was given. In trade, she has all the weaknesses typical of IJN cruisers and battleships, and would easily be punished for carelessness compared to Kron or Alaska.

  1. this would be an abnormality...i wouldnt expect this, especially with a lowered citadel
  2. see #1,  not going to happen if it gets 30mm. even then, i dont know of any ships with artificially lowered citadels
  3. why? its almost as tall as the yamato. WG generally use have a set starting point based on ship dimensions. If it needs further balancing they do so, but they have  abase starting point
  4. that would be in line
  5. I dont see why DW would be an option. the should get the same type 93s the otehr high tier IJN ships have
  6. why? her AA is fine. x16 100mm guns is actually a decent amount better than Alaska's long range aura. 
  7. I think this comes down to geometry and water things, and again why?
  8. I don't know much about Kronstadts TDS, but according to wikipedia, it can stand up to a bit over 1k lbs TNT, Alaska could withstand 700lbs, kronstadts seems to be artificially buffed in game, but i dont see why a TDS closely related to Yamato would have a bad TDS. It should be better, but then again krons should also be worse...

 

Dont fall in love with a ship you hope to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,386 posts
5,639 battles
3 hours ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Yeah, they really should have kept those design features. That way the Alaska class would have been closer to a mini fast-battleship sort of along the lines of the French Dunkerque but a bit faster.

In reality the CA-2D design raised the obvious question of "Why not just build another Iowa class fast battleship instead?" There was no way to really justify it. However in game it could make an interesting T10. Yet I doubt that WG wants something to threaten the supremacy of Stalingrad, and WG seems to have some "issues" with actually getting T10 premiums to the players.

 

regardless of the plan chosen Dunk would still be the better protected. the internal protection is that much better. although dunk had a pretty modern armor scheme even for 1941 it aged very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
673
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,503 posts
11,213 battles
On 9/13/2018 at 10:35 PM, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Yeah, they really should have kept those design features. That way the Alaska class would have been closer to a mini fast-battleship sort of along the lines of the French Dunkerque but a bit faster.

In reality the CA-2D design raised the obvious question of "Why not just build another Iowa class fast battleship instead?" There was no way to really justify it. However in game it could make an interesting T10. Yet I doubt that WG wants something to threaten the supremacy of Stalingrad, and WG seems to have some "issues" with actually getting T10 premiums to the players.

 

Smaller caliber meant cheaper shells and spare parts at a time when funds were dwindling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×