Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Finnkax

40 mm pom-poms - trash-garbage or good?

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

165
[PIZZA]
Members
923 posts
10,366 battles

How good 40 mm pom-poms aa-guns truly are ? Early of the war certainly but after "zero-time" advanced attack aircrafts? Low speed shell velocity is depressing but how great shells payload is and what kind of fuses does these shells have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,017
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,714 posts
7,704 battles

Depends on which time we are at.

At the time of introduction, it was probably among the better weapon systems (because everything else was trash, and planes weren't stellar either).

At the time of the outbreak of the war however these guns fell seriously behind thanks to their low muzzle velocity and lack of tracer rounds until 1942. Those issues were partially fixed, how potent it made these guns is something I can't really judge though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
15 minutes ago, Finnkax said:

How good 40 mm pom-poms aa-guns truly are ? Early of the war certainly but after "zero-time" advanced attack aircrafts? Low speed shell velocity is depressing but how great shells payload is and what kind of fuses does these shells have?

To quote wikipedia "The Royal Navy judged the pom-pom's effectiveness to range from about half that of the Bofors, per gun, against torpedo planes to about equal against Kamikaze attackers. It was a ubiquitous weapon that outnumbered the Bofors gun in Commonwealth naval service up to the end of World War II and it shot down many Axis aircraft. Later innovations such as Remote Power Control (RPC) coupled to a radar-equipped tachymetric (speed predicting) director increased the accuracy enormously and problems with the fuses and reliability were also remedied. The single mountings received a reprieve toward the end of the war as the 20 mm Oerlikon guns had insufficient stopping power to counter Japanese kamikaze aircraft and there were insufficient numbers of Bofors guns to meet demand." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_2-pounder_naval_gun#Wartime_use

If your talking about Force Z, the pom-poms did not have tracer ammunition and the pom-pom ammunition had deteriorated badly in its ready use lockers, while the Type 282 radar units also failed in the equatorial heat.  They found out that AA guns firing tracer were far more effective at intimidating enemy bombers making attack runs and thus Force Z not having tracer ammunition significantly allowed the Japanese Bombers to not even see the incoming AA fire, which let the pilots stay calm and make more precise bombing runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,272
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
21,245 posts
19,617 battles
1 hour ago, Royeaux said:

To quote wikipedia "The Royal Navy judged the pom-pom's effectiveness to range from about half that of the Bofors, per gun, against torpedo planes to about equal against Kamikaze attackers. It was a ubiquitous weapon that outnumbered the Bofors gun in Commonwealth naval service up to the end of World War II and it shot down many Axis aircraft. Later innovations such as Remote Power Control (RPC) coupled to a radar-equipped tachymetric (speed predicting) director increased the accuracy enormously and problems with the fuses and reliability were also remedied. The single mountings received a reprieve toward the end of the war as the 20 mm Oerlikon guns had insufficient stopping power to counter Japanese kamikaze aircraft and there were insufficient numbers of Bofors guns to meet demand." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_2-pounder_naval_gun#Wartime_use

If your talking about Force Z, the pom-poms did not have tracer ammunition and the pom-pom ammunition had deteriorated badly in its ready use lockers, while the Type 282 radar units also failed in the equatorial heat.  They found out that AA guns firing tracer were far more effective at intimidating enemy bombers making attack runs and thus Force Z not having tracer ammunition significantly allowed the Japanese Bombers to not even see the incoming AA fire, which let the pilots stay calm and make more precise bombing runs.

Kind of strange to me that the Royal Navy fielded radar that had trouble functioning in such conditions.  This is a navy that has extremely strong, long history of operating in all kinds of environments in an expeditionary nature, out in bumf--k middle of nowhere.  When testing this thing out, nobody thought to bother how it would operate in a region similar to where many British holdings were in South Asia, SE Asia, etc?  Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
[PIZZA]
Members
923 posts
10,366 battles

I think every radiotubes(radars tubes are radiotubes - kind of) has severe heat(also condesing water) problems in that time era. Radar equipment works in the air because there are always cold and/or cool wind. 

Do anyone has more info than wikis article? Many fuses has pretty universal threads so fitting new fuses would seems pretty easy or is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,269 posts
4,008 battles
2 hours ago, Finnkax said:

I think every radiotubes(radars tubes are radiotubes - kind of) has severe heat(also condesing water) problems in that time era. Radar equipment works in the air because there are always cold and/or cool wind. 

Do anyone has more info than wikis article? Many fuses has pretty universal threads so fitting new fuses would seems pretty easy or is it? 

I can bet the RN had several problems with their sets at that point in the war:

1.  In tropical conditions both heat and humidity would shorten the life of a valve (vacuum tube) considerably.

2.  Manufacturing quality control probably wasn't great at the time either, meaning earlier failures.  The best tube manufacturers of that era were Telefunken, Dutch Philips, and General Electric.

3.  There probably wasn't much consideration given to proper cooling of the set in use.  If any of the tubes were water cooled, refer to #1 as well.

4.  If the set wasn't vibration and shock mounted, then the tubes could easily work loose and fail (even as the tube still worked if properly inserted) or could fail due to that shock and vibration damaging the internal components.

As for the ammunition, if the RN hadn't heat shielded the ready storage lockers, this would result in very high temperatures inside that could quickly breakdown the propellant and explosives in use.  It's possible they hadn't recognized this like the Japanese and US had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,669 posts
2,114 battles

Early war, there wasn't much competing with the pom-pom. Even within the USN, the 40mm Bofors wasn't really seeing extensive service until late 1943 - basically, the end of the mid-war period/start of the late-war. 

 

Before that point medium-range AA cannons in mass service were (practical RoF, shell mass, effective range);

 

Country Weapon Practical RoF Shell Mass Effective Range
Japan 25mm/60 Type 96 110 rpm 0.24 kg 2000 meters
America 1.1"(28mm)/75 Mk.1 100 rpm 0.416 kg ????
Germany 3.7cm/83 SK C/30 30 rpm 0.742 kg 2400 meters
France 37mm/50 Mle 1925 21 rpm 0.725 kg 2400 meters
Italy 37mm/54 M1932 140 rpm 0.823 kg 4000 meters
Britain 2-pdr (40mm) Mk.VIII 115 rpm 0.82 kg 1550 meters

 

I'm not sure of the effective range of the American 28mm gun - it probably falls between the Japanese 25mm and 37mm guns - but you can start to see why the Pom-Pom, poor of a weapon as it was relatively speaking to later weapons, was still a top performer early in the war. In fact, the only thing in the same ballpark of performance is the Breda 37mm, which was probably the best widely used medium-range autocannon of the early war period (but not without its share of issues).

 

First off, you had the French and German 37mm cannons - which just sucked. They were hand-loaded semi-automatic guns with extremely limited effectiveness. Next up were the 25mm and 28mm AA guns used the Pacific navies, which overall were probably better weapons due to the fact they had a useable rate of fire, even if the effective range wasn't great. However, due to their relatively small mass (half that of a 37-40mm for the 1.1" Mk.I, and a quarter for the 25mm) their effectiveness wasn't;t exactly fantastic, especially compared to the later weapons. 

Compared to these, the 40mm pom-pom had very poor effective range - but this was greatly countered but the fact that it was firing much, much heavier shells packing much more of a punch at essentially the same rate of fire. In spite of the lesser effective range, barrel for barrel the pom-pom is putting more weight of fire on target than anything by the Breda 37mm, at least until the Bofors enters the scene.

 

 

They were very much 'poor guns' when you consider what they had to deal with (modern aircraft in 1940+) and what existed later (Bofors 40mm) - but at the same time, pretty much no one else had anything else that competed with it, so it was at least better than what most had. 

 

Overall, the low velocity of the weapon gave it a low effective range against modern aircraft (modern high-velocity ammunition was only 732 m/s MV. Old ammunition had a velocity of 501 m/s and an effective range less than a 20mm cannon), and was compounded by the fact that these guns, with very complex mechanisms, were prone to jamming and maintenance-intensive, which isn't exactly idea. Still, output was high.

Many of the mounts were fitted with RPC (Remote Power Control) which gave them superior control to most of the other guns mentioned above - however, in the even power was lost, the mounts (Quadruple or Octuple) were too heavy to train by hand, which rendered them useless. This very issue essentially nullified most of the AA armament of Prince of Wales before she was sunk, and meant that the mounts needed to have some kind of backup power possible in the event of damage that would cut the usual power supply.

The lack of tracers until 1942 also proved a large issue, as it made it far more difficult to direct the gunfire and correct aim (especially at night), not to mention it mean that the massive volume of fire could not as effectively intimidate the enemy aircraft.

ammunition. The modern high-velocity ammunition used a direct-action fuse (No.243 Percussion Fuse). The Many of the low velocity shells, from the WWI stock, still used the Dual-Action fuses (percussion and time fuse), but lacked a fuse setter - so they functioned as direct-action shells as well.

Fuse varied by type of ammunition. The modern high-velocity ammunition used a direct-action fuse (No.243 Percussion Fuse). The Many of the low velocity shells, from the WWI stock, still used the Dual-Action fuses (percussion and time fuse), but lacking fuse-setters in WWII, they essentially functioned as normal direct-action fuses.

The modern HV ammunition courtesy of Navweaps:

WNBR_2pounder_m8_HV_pic.jpg.35db512f81940842af4adb67e4a2579a.jpg

 

The original LV shells had 0.071 kg bursting charges (I assume TNT?), but I'm not sure if that applies to the HV ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,269 posts
4,008 battles

I seriously doubt the Japanese 25mm could manage 110 rpm.  That would require 8 magazine changes to achieve.  Given the need to remove the empty and then put a new 15 round magazine in place,  I'd put the ROF closer to 45 to 60 rpm, and probably the 45 number is closer to what could be achieved.  That would allow the triple 25mm to put out 100 - 150 rpm total, a small fraction of what most light AA guns could achieve.

The US 1.1" had the advantage of holding two magazines and the gunner could switch between them allowing an empty to be changed while maintaining fire with the second magazine.  The 1.1" was also water cooled meaning it could sustain fire longer without overheating.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
24 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

I seriously doubt the Japanese 25mm could manage 110 rpm.  That would require 8 magazine changes to achieve.  Given the need to remove the empty and then put a new 15 round magazine in place,  I'd put the ROF closer to 45 to 60 rpm, and probably the 45 number is closer to what could be achieved.  That would allow the triple 25mm to put out 100 - 150 rpm total, a small fraction of what most light AA guns could achieve.

The US 1.1" had the advantage of holding two magazines and the gunner could switch between them allowing an empty to be changed while maintaining fire with the second magazine.  The 1.1" was also water cooled meaning it could sustain fire longer without overheating.

 

If going by the Yamato movie, those magazines only took 3-6 seconds to reload individually.  Fumbling would arise with trying to load 3 magazines at once on the triple mount but on a single gun,but I could easily see a single gun mount hitting 110 practical rpm, especially if it's a ground mount being used as an anti-tank gun.  The bigger problem the Yamato movie demonstrated was that getting all those magazines on deck, the guns would run dry because they ran out magazines.  And the empty magazines would just take up an enormous amount of space on deck which the crew had to navigate while carrying those giant magazine crates on their backs.

Edited by Royeaux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,669 posts
2,114 battles

110 rpm practical, I pulled from NavTechJapan.

 

W8o2GUi.png

 

Navweaps credits it with 220-260 rpm cyclical, 110-120 effective.

 

According to Campbell's, rate of fire could be adjusted for anywhere from 200 to 260 rpm (cyclical) via a gas control valve, but due to the magazine change-out issues practical rate of fire was 'about half this', which literally taken would mean anywhere from 100 to 130 rpm. He also states 220 rpm was standard, so /2 would be 110 rpm - the lesser figured credited by navweaps. These figures are likely drawn directly from NavTechJapan, which give 200 as minimum, 260 as maximum, and 220 standard.

Assuming the set rate of fire is 220 rpm, it would take 4.09 seconds to fire off a 15-round magazine. 110 rounds would be 7.33 magazines fired, aka, seven full and five rounds of an eighth (1.36 seconds). That approximately works out to 30 seconds of firing time, which means you're spending the other 30 seconds of the minute loading the gun. Assuming you've already got a magazine in at the start, you're spending that time loaded 7 magazines - a mean time of ~4.3 seconds per magazine.

 

Due to the fact the ejection mechanism for the spent magazines was hampered at high elevations, this would increase time between reloads at high angles of elevation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,269 posts
4,008 battles

I like their "gun director system..."  The guy pointing with a stick...  :Smile_izmena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,272
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
21,245 posts
19,617 battles
1 hour ago, Murotsu said:

I like their "gun director system..."  The guy pointing with a stick...  :Smile_izmena:

Thanks, I haven't run into too many of Pacific War naval videos from an IJN perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
492
[HC]
Beta Testers
2,118 posts
11,124 battles
10 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Depends on which time we are at.

At the time of introduction, it was probably among the better weapon systems (because everything else was trash, and planes weren't stellar either).

At the time of the outbreak of the war however these guns fell seriously behind thanks to their low muzzle velocity and lack of tracer rounds until 1942. Those issues were partially fixed, how potent it made these guns is something I can't really judge though.

They also weren't particularly reliable guns, especially in the quadruple and octuple mountings. They didn't appear to serve HMS Repulse very well at the time of her sinking,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,017
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,714 posts
7,704 battles
5 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Before that point medium-range AA cannons in mass service were (practical RoF, shell mass, effective range);

 

Country Weapon Practical RoF Shell Mass Effective Range
Japan 25mm/60 Type 96 110 rpm 0.24 kg 2000 meters
America 1.1"(28mm)/75 Mk.1 100 rpm 0.416 kg ????
Germany 3.7cm/83 SK C/30 30 rpm 0.742 kg 2400 meters
France 37mm/50 Mle 1925 21 rpm 0.725 kg 2400 meters
Italy 37mm/54 M1932 140 rpm 0.823 kg 4000 meters
Britain 2-pdr (40mm) Mk.VIII 115 rpm 0.82 kg 1550 meters

Imagine being the 25mm gun, and throwing less mass out per minute than a hand loaded 37mm gun with 40rpm (with all the other issues tied to the gun as well) :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
[PIZZA]
Members
923 posts
10,366 battles
6 hours ago, Royeaux said:

those magazines only took 3-6 seconds to reload individually. 

I doubt any magazine from 20 mm and up is that easily reloaded when battle is on. Those magazines are heavy. I personally lose accurate muscle control near 5 kg mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
1 hour ago, Finnkax said:

I doubt any magazine from 20 mm and up is that easily reloaded when battle is on. Those magazines are heavy. I personally lose accurate muscle control near 5 kg mass.

Well these non-military actors don't seem to be having that much trouble.  But then again they might be using blanks.  -shrug-

This navweap site says these Tracer rounds only weigh- 0.55 lbs. (0.25 kg)  x 15 = 8.25 lbs + Empty Magazine.

http://www.zhanliejian.com/navweaps/WNJAP_25mm-60_mg.htm

 

Edited by Royeaux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,999
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,909 posts
12,228 battles
11 hours ago, Royeaux said:

Well these non-military actors don't seem to be having that much trouble.  But then again they might be using blanks.  -shrug-

This navweap site says these Tracer rounds only weigh- 0.55 lbs. (0.25 kg)  x 15 = 8.25 lbs + Empty Magazine.

http://www.zhanliejian.com/navweaps/WNJAP_25mm-60_mg.htm

 

Well, weight of complete round including cartridge was 1.5lb so about triple that: 22.5lb plus the magazine. I don't know how hard it would be to handle with great dexterity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
3 minutes ago, mofton said:

Well, weight of complete round including cartridge was 1.5lb so about triple that: 22.5lb plus the magazine. I don't know how hard it would be to handle with great dexterity.

 

 

So it would be like trying to maneuver a 24 pack of soda on top of a gun.  I can easily carry one of these with two fingers, with both hands it's easy to manipulate.

81eb3+8sP4L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,823 posts
6,734 battles
20 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Early war, there wasn't much competing with the pom-pom. Even within the USN, the 40mm Bofors wasn't really seeing extensive service until late 1943 - basically, the end of the mid-war period/start of the late-war. 

 

Before that point medium-range AA cannons in mass service were (practical RoF, shell mass, effective range);

 

Country Weapon Practical RoF Shell Mass Effective Range
Japan 25mm/60 Type 96 110 rpm 0.24 kg 2000 meters
America 1.1"(28mm)/75 Mk.1 100 rpm 0.416 kg ????
Germany 3.7cm/83 SK C/30 30 rpm 0.742 kg 2400 meters
France 37mm/50 Mle 1925 21 rpm 0.725 kg 2400 meters
Italy 37mm/54 M1932 140 rpm 0.823 kg 4000 meters
Britain 2-pdr (40mm) Mk.VIII 115 rpm 0.82 kg 1550 meters

 

I'm not sure of the effective range of the American 28mm gun - it probably falls between the Japanese 25mm and 37mm guns - but you can start to see why the Pom-Pom, poor of a weapon as it was relatively speaking to later weapons, was still a top performer early in the war. In fact, the only thing in the same ballpark of performance is the Breda 37mm, which was probably the best widely used medium-range autocannon of the early war period (but not without its share of issues).

 

First off, you had the French and German 37mm cannons - which just sucked. They were hand-loaded semi-automatic guns with extremely limited effectiveness. Next up were the 25mm and 28mm AA guns used the Pacific navies, which overall were probably better weapons due to the fact they had a useable rate of fire, even if the effective range wasn't great. However, due to their relatively small mass (half that of a 37-40mm for the 1.1" Mk.I, and a quarter for the 25mm) their effectiveness wasn't;t exactly fantastic, especially compared to the later weapons. 

Compared to these, the 40mm pom-pom had very poor effective range - but this was greatly countered but the fact that it was firing much, much heavier shells packing much more of a punch at essentially the same rate of fire. In spite of the lesser effective range, barrel for barrel the pom-pom is putting more weight of fire on target than anything by the Breda 37mm, at least until the Bofors enters the scene.

 

 

They were very much 'poor guns' when you consider what they had to deal with (modern aircraft in 1940+) and what existed later (Bofors 40mm) - but at the same time, pretty much no one else had anything else that competed with it, so it was at least better than what most had. 

 

Overall, the low velocity of the weapon gave it a low effective range against modern aircraft (modern high-velocity ammunition was only 732 m/s MV. Old ammunition had a velocity of 501 m/s and an effective range less than a 20mm cannon), and was compounded by the fact that these guns, with very complex mechanisms, were prone to jamming and maintenance-intensive, which isn't exactly idea. Still, output was high.

Many of the mounts were fitted with RPC (Remote Power Control) which gave them superior control to most of the other guns mentioned above - however, in the even power was lost, the mounts (Quadruple or Octuple) were too heavy to train by hand, which rendered them useless. This very issue essentially nullified most of the AA armament of Prince of Wales before she was sunk, and meant that the mounts needed to have some kind of backup power possible in the event of damage that would cut the usual power supply.

The lack of tracers until 1942 also proved a large issue, as it made it far more difficult to direct the gunfire and correct aim (especially at night), not to mention it mean that the massive volume of fire could not as effectively intimidate the enemy aircraft.

ammunition. The modern high-velocity ammunition used a direct-action fuse (No.243 Percussion Fuse). The Many of the low velocity shells, from the WWI stock, still used the Dual-Action fuses (percussion and time fuse), but lacked a fuse setter - so they functioned as direct-action shells as well.

Fuse varied by type of ammunition. The modern high-velocity ammunition used a direct-action fuse (No.243 Percussion Fuse). The Many of the low velocity shells, from the WWI stock, still used the Dual-Action fuses (percussion and time fuse), but lacking fuse-setters in WWII, they essentially functioned as normal direct-action fuses.

The modern HV ammunition courtesy of Navweaps:

WNBR_2pounder_m8_HV_pic.jpg.35db512f81940842af4adb67e4a2579a.jpg

 

The original LV shells had 0.071 kg bursting charges (I assume TNT?), but I'm not sure if that applies to the HV ammo.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_1-1-75_mk1.php

navweps says it had a range of 6700+m at 40 degrees with an AA ceiling at 19,000ft

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,871
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,312 posts
1,963 battles
20 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_1-1-75_mk1.php

navweps says it had a range of 6700+m at 40 degrees with an AA ceiling at 19,000ft

Which is maximum, not effective range, which is what he's after. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,104
[LEGIO]
Members
3,308 posts
6,323 battles

With HV shells and RP control so they can actually keep up with targets I'd say it was a good weapon, especially late war against kamikazes where the lower velocity compared to the 40mm Bofors wasn't much of a problem.

Without both? Not that good.

I loved messing around with the KGV class in (modded) IL-2 Sturmovik 1946. You had a wall of green tracers coming up at you from all those octuple pom-poms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,269 posts
4,008 battles

With respect to British radar...  It is entirely possible the problem was they were using Lucas Electrical parts in them...

http://mez.co.uk/lucas.html

A Lucas fuze replacement guide:

fusereplacement.jpg

PrinceOfDarkness.gif

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,269 posts
4,008 battles

A good part of the Pompom jamming had to do with it originally using cloth belts for the ammunition feed.  These came in 14 round lengths and could be connected together.  The 4 barrel version's feed box held 8 belts (112 rounds) while the 8 barrel version held 10 belts (140 rounds).

As you might suspect, the belts could get damp, stretch, and flex in ways other than intended.  The RN later replaced these with a disintegrating metal clip belt feed that fixed many of the previous jamming problems, but not until well into WW 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,272
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
21,245 posts
19,617 battles
On 4/22/2019 at 4:26 PM, Murotsu said:

A good part of the Pompom jamming had to do with it originally using cloth belts for the ammunition feed.  These came in 14 round lengths and could be connected together.  The 4 barrel version's feed box held 8 belts (112 rounds) while the 8 barrel version held 10 belts (140 rounds).

As you might suspect, the belts could get damp, stretch, and flex in ways other than intended.  The RN later replaced these with a disintegrating metal clip belt feed that fixed many of the previous jamming problems, but not until well into WW 2.

LOL man that goes right back to my earlier comment! :Smile_veryhappy:  Nobody in the RN thought it would be a good idea to run these weapons in various environments?  Because the RN has a long history of being in all kinds of locations with various climates.  The UK still had holdings in plenty of hot and humid areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For security reasons, please do not provide your personal data or the personal data of a third party here because we might be unable to protect such data in accordance with the Wargaming Privacy Policy.

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×