History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3501
Location: CIVLANT
For those villagers eagerly snapping pictures on the side of a road in the Czech Republic in late September,
(My wife and I were there in May and even attended a VE day ceremony in a beautiful medieval town in which the US Army was represented and greatly cheered by the locals.)
the appearance of the line of U.S. “Stryker” armored fighting vehicles must have seemed more like a parade than a large-scale military operation. The movement of some 500-plus soldiers of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment from Vilsack in Bavaria to a Hungarian military base was intended to strengthen U.S. ties with the Czech, Slovak and Hungarian militaries and put Russia’s Vladimir Putin on notice. Dubbed “Dragoon Crossing,” the tour traced a winding 846- kilometer tour that featured airdrops and simulated bridge seizures to show America’s Eastern European allies that the U.S. military could respond quickly to any threat. “We are demonstrating operational freedom of maneuver across Eastern Europe,” Col. John V. Meyer III told a reporter for the Army’s website, “and that is having the strategic effect of enabling our alliance, assuring our allies, and deterring the Russians.”

But not everyone is convinced. “This Stryker parade won’t fool anyone in Moscow,” says retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor. “The Russians don’t do many things well, but they have been subverting, destabilizing, invading and conquering their neighbors since Peter the Great. And what’s our response: a small unit of light armored trucks.”

Vladimir Putin has done more than make headlines with his aggressive military moves from Ukraine to Syria, along with displays of force on the high seas and in the air. The Russian leader has also escalated an intense debate inside the Pentagon over the appropriate response to the Kremlin’s new, not-so-friendly global profile — and over the future of the U.S. Army. And now the debate has spread to Capitol Hill: later this week the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing addressing the same issue.

Ironically, this Washington war of ideas has pitted against each other two brainy career Army officers who fought together in one of the most famous battles of modern times.

On one side is Macgregor, an outspoken and controversial advocate for reform of the Army — whose weapons he describes as “obsolescent,” its senior leaders as “self-interested,” and its spending as “wasteful.” Viewed by many of his colleagues as one of the most innovative Army officers of his generation, Macgregor, a West Point graduate with a Ph.D. in international relations (“he can be pretty gruff,” a fellow West Point graduate says, “but he’s brilliant”), led the 2nd Cav’s “Cougar Squadron” in the best-known battle of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991. In 23 minutes, Macgregor’s force destroyed an entire Iraqi Armored Brigade (including nearly 70 Iraqi armored vehicles), while suffering a single American casualty. Speaking at a military “lessons learned” conference one year later, Air Force General Jack Welsh described the Battle of 73 Easting (named for a map coordinate) as “a stunning, overwhelming victory.”

The Russians don’t do many things well, but they have been subverting, destabilizing, invading and conquering their neighbors since Peter the Great — Douglas Macgregor

In the wake of the battle, however, Macgregor calculated that if his unit had fought a highly trained and better armed enemy, like the Russians, the outcome would have been different. So, four years later, he published a book called Breaking The Phalanx, recommending that his service “restructure itself into modularly organized, highly mobile, self-contained combined arms teams.” The advice received the endorsement of then-Army Chief of Staff Dennis Reimer, who ordered that copies of Macgregor’s book be provided to every Army general.

But Macgregor is still fighting that battle. In early September he circulated a PowerPoint presentation showing that in a head-to-head confrontation pitting the equivalent of a U.S. armored division against a likely Russian adversary, the U.S. division would be defeated. “Defeated isn’t the right word,” Macgregor told me last week. “The right word is annihilated.” The 21-slide presentation features four battle scenarios, all of them against a Russian adversary in the Baltics — what one currently serving war planner on the Joint Chiefs staff calls “the most likely warfighting scenario we will face outside of the Middle East.”

In two of the scenarios, where the U.S. deploys its current basic formation, called brigade combat teams (BCTs), the U.S. is defeated. In two other scenarios, where Macgregor deploys what he calls Reconnaissance Strike Groups, the U.S. wins. And that’s the crux of Macgregor’s argument: Today the U.S. Army is comprised of BCTs rather than Reconnaissance Strike Groups, or RSGs, which is Macgregor’s innovation. Macgregor’s RSG shears away what he describes as “the top-heavy Army command structure” that would come with any deployment in favor of units that generate more combat power. “Every time we deploy a division we deploy a division headquarters of 1,000 soldiers and officers,” Macgregor explains. “What a waste; those guys will be dead within 72 hours.” Macgregor’s RSG, what he calls “an alternative force design,” does away with this Army command echelon, reporting to a joint force commander — who might or might not be an Army officer. An RSG, Macgregor says, does not need the long supply tail that is required of Brigade Combat Teams — it can be sustained with what it carries from ten days to two weeks without having to be resupplied.

Macgregor’s views line him up against Lt. General H.R. McMaster, an officer widely thought of as one of the Army’s best thinkers. McMaster fought under Macgregor at “73 Easting,” where he commanded Eagle Troop in Macgregor’s Cougar Squadron. McMaster, however, had more success in the Army than Macgregor, is a celebrated author (ofDereliction of Duty, a classic in military history), and is credited with seeding the Anbar Awakening during the Iraq War. Even so, McMaster was twice passed over for higher command until David Petraeus, who headed his promotion board, insisted his success be recognized. McMaster is now a lieutenant general and commands the high-profile Army Capabilities Integration Center (called “ARCINC”), whose mandate is to “design the Army of the future.” David Barno, a retired Lt. General who headed up the US command in Afghanistan, describes McMaster as an officer “who has repeatedly bucked the system and survived to join its senior ranks.”
Briefing Given On U.S. And Coalition Operations In Afghanistan


For many, McMaster is as controversial as Macgregor, with comments about him spanning the spectrum from condemnation to praise. “H.R. is an excellent officer and a good friend,” a senior JCS officer says, “but you don’t get to three stars by being an outsider, and you don’t get to head ARCINC by bucking the system.” Retired Brigadier General Kimmitt waves away claims that McMaster has traded his ideals for promotion (“clichéd nonsense,” he says) and describes McMaster as “a giant in a land of midgets. He’s the one true intellectual in the Army’s corporate culture. He’s smarter than almost any of them.”

In effect, the debate between Macgregor and McMaster is a battle over whether the Army’s BCT structure is capable of matching up against what Army thinkers call a “near peer” competitor, like Russia. Though it may sound to outsiders like a disagreement over crossed t’s and dotted i’s, the dispute is fundamental–focusing on whether, in a future conflict, the U.S. military can actually win. Even inside the Pentagon, that is very much in doubt. A recent article by defense writer Julia Ioffe reported the “dispiriting” results of a Pentagon “thought exercise” between a red team (Russia) and a blue team, NATO. The “table top” exercise stipulated a Russian invasion of the Baltics, the same scenario proposed by Macgregor. “After eight hours of gaming out various scenarios,” Ioffe wrote, a blue team member concluded that NATO “would lose.”

The military is taking Macgregor’s challenge seriously, in part because the retired colonel has spurred interest in his reform ideas from one of the most important players in the defense community, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain. McCain was said to be impressed after Macgregor and Admiral Mark Fitzgerald briefed him on the new force design last January 17, telling his staff to set up briefings for Macgregor with other senators. Then, in September, after Macgregor’s simulations were completed, he briefed senior Senate Armed Services staffers, arguing that replacing BCTs with RSGs would make Army formations more lethal and eliminate the budget redundancies in the current system, with potential savings of tens of billions of dollars.

“Macgregor scares the hell out of the Army,” says a senior Joint Chiefs war planner. “What he has proposed is nothing less than the dismantling of the Big Green Machine, getting the Army to embrace a future of lighter, more agile forces than the big lumbering behemoth which takes forever to spool up and deploy. I’ll bet the armor and airborne guys are furious. Reform my ass: Macgregor has walked into the zoo and slapped the gorilla.”

What really makes me uneasy is the last para, bolded by me.
As always I'd appreciate the opinion of folks who know a lot more about this soldier sh!t than I do.
;)

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: The RSG ?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3501
Location: CIVLANT
The source of this article is

http://www.douglasmacgregor.com/LRSGBriefing.pdf
http://www.ncfa.ncr.gov/sites/default/files/COL (R) Douglas Macgregor--September 3, 2015.pdf

I have no idea how authoritative it is. You tell me.


What is a Reconnaissance Strike Group?
A completely new kind of formation with fewer headquarters and logistical personnel, utilizing vehicles the Army currently does not have - specifically the German Puma IFV (along with theoretical variants of it) and a UCAV - will allow a brigade-sized force to beat several Russian brigades (five of them to be exact: two armored, two mechanized and one artillery). This is contrasted with the projected performance of a much larger American force (2 or 3 armored brigades and 1 Stryker brigade), which was decisively defeated. This new formation will effectively be able to cut the logistical tether connected to current formations and fight on its own for 7 - 15 days.

Currently an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) is comprised of 3 combined arms battalions (2 mechanized infantry companies and 2 tank companies), a cavalry squadron, a fires battalion and some other boring **** that no one cares about (engineering, intelligence and other combat support). A Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) has 3 Stryker battalions, a cavalry squadron, a fires battalion, and the male bovine excrement no one cares about. The suggested RSG is made up of 4 Armed Reconnaissance battalions (each containing ~40 Puma AGS, ~60 Puma IFVs, ~15 Puma AMOS, 9 Puma C2 vehicles and some SHORAD vehicles), a strike battalion (12 stand-in AH-64Es, 24 TARES, 12 MLRS, 30 fire direction vehicles and 18 ADA vehicles) and some other **** no one cares about.

What happened and why is this important?
The comparison of forces in the scenario he used breaks down to this:
5 Russian Bgdes (2 Tank/2 Mech/1 Artillery) - 23,500 men, 410 tanks, 488 AFVs, 252 guns and mortars, 118 rocket artillery, 80 ADA, 40 attack helicopters.
Versus
4 American BCTs (3 ABCT/1 SBCT) - 28,500 men, 261 tanks, 453 IFVs, 180 Strykers, 180 guns and mortars, 36 MLRS, 96 attack helicopters.
OR
1 American RSG - 5500 men, 161 AGS Puma, 242 IFV Puma, 60 AMOS, 12 MLRS, 24 TARES*, 23 SHORAD vehicles, 18 NASAMS and 12 attack helicopters.
Then end result of his simulation is that the RSG comes out ahead of the Russians (slightly), while an entire American armored division gets rolled (it's not even close). Two RSGs are able to decisively defeat the Russian force.

What's with all the Pumas?
He just picked that because the GAO said it was the best option concerning infantry carriers in terms of representing the most improved capabilities, lowest unit price and low-risk owing to its off-the-shelf nature. He suggests using it as an IFV and makes it as the basis for an AGS (armored gun system, basically a light tank), self-propelled mortar and command and control vehicle.

What the hell are AMOS, TARES and NASAMS?
Advanced MOrtar Sytem, Tactical Advanced Recce Strike, and National (or Norwegian) Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System.
AMOS is a self-contained auto-loading 120mm mortar turret that can be put on a variety of hulls. TARES is a drone* that can fly 200km and kill a single target, which it accomplishes by crashing into it. The NASAMS is a basically ground-based AMRAAM.

How does an RSG fight for 1 or 2 weeks using only organic logistics?
The RSG is carrying 50% more fuel than a BCT (500kgal/762kgal) and using vehicles that consume less fuel (the M1 is replaced by Puma AGS).

What else does he suggest changing besides the units themselves?
The commanding officers of the RSG answer directly to the combatant commander, there is no division or force-level headquarters between them. A lot of the logistical tail is pushed down to the RSG and it's subordinate units.

Just how powerful was the RSG in the simulation? How did he come up with that figure? What was the scenario precisely?
The RSG had 6 times the combat power of a Russian brigade, and 12 times the combat power of the an ABCT.
He arrived at those figures by assigning values in specific areas to each vehicle and adding it all up. His baseline is the M1A2; it's values in firepower, mobility and protection are all 1.
The scenario took place in the Baltics with the US Army tasked with defending Lithuania from the Russian Army. It went for 5 (simulated) days, at the end of which whoever had more combat power "won"!

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6761
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Quote:
Just how powerful was the RSG in the simulation? How did he come up with that figure? What was the scenario precisely?
The RSG had 6 times the combat power of a Russian brigade, and 12 times the combat power of the an ABCT.
He arrived at those figures by assigning values in specific areas to each vehicle and adding it all up. His baseline is the M1A2; it's values in firepower, mobility and protection are all 1.
The scenario took place in the Baltics with the US Army tasked with defending Lithuania from the Russian Army. It went for 5 (simulated) days, at the end of which whoever had more combat power "won"!


Jeebus Gawd, that wqas a paroxysm of dumb.

1. Figures don't lie, but liars can figure. The method for scoring each vehicle is arbitrary in the extreme. He pulls a number out of his fundament and says that's the combat rating.

2. Five days? That RSG is going to be dead inside of two with that scenario.

3. The notion that whoever has more combat power "wins." That's not how wars are actually fought or won. By that measure, we won Korea, 'Nam, Trashcanistan, and Iraq decisively.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7292
Location: BM-9, BB-30
To quote a favorite fic of mine that was paraphrasing the Doctor, "I have a BS detector. It goes ding when there's crap."


DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:48 pm
Posts: 4049
Location: UK
Does this belong with very similar discussion in other thread ??

( Memory wonky after 'flu, can't seem to find it, or the one with the 'blonde' jokes... )

_________________
'P for Pleistocene' A camp-out goes impossibly wrong...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10393
Poohbah wrote:
Jeebus Gawd, that was a paroxysm of dumb.


You think it managed to climb to that level? :shock:

Your criticisms are exactly on point. When people start inventing weapons systems and using equipment that isn't in our inventory, we know they've gone down with brochuritis. (Brochuritis is a disease that afflicts military personnel visiting defense exhibitions. They forget that the brochures being pressed into their hands are intended to sell equipment. The only cure for Brochuritis is not teaching officers to read).

This is pretty much Sparky domain.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6761
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
Jeebus Gawd, that was a paroxysm of dumb.


You think it managed to climb to that level? :shock:

Your criticisms are exactly on point. When people start inventing weapons systems and using equipment that isn't in our inventory, we know they've gone down with brochuritis. (Brochuritis is a disease that afflicts military personnel visiting defense exhibitions. They forget that the brochures being pressed into their hands are intended to sell equipment. The only cure for Brochuritis is not teaching officers to read).

This is pretty much Sparky domain.

At least he doesn't propose the M113A3E2X4R2D2P6M SuperAeroGavin Seaplane Infantry Fighting Vehicle...

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4654
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
Francis Urquhart wrote:
They forget that the brochures being pressed into their hands are intended to sell equipment. The only cure for Brochuritis is not teaching officers to read

The bane of equipment discussions online, too. I'm sure we've all seen demands that a certain piece of vapourware be fitted to the new battleship/tank/jet.

Quite often, it's demands that the Royal Navy should be equipped with the latest piece of CGI from DCNS. I've no idea what DCNS are like at designing ships, but they can produce a damn good brochure.

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5524
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
Jeebus Gawd, that was a paroxysm of dumb.


You think it managed to climb to that level? :shock:

Your criticisms are exactly on point. When people start inventing weapons systems and using equipment that isn't in our inventory, we know they've gone down with brochuritis. (Brochuritis is a disease that afflicts military personnel visiting defense exhibitions. They forget that the brochures being pressed into their hands are intended to sell equipment. The only cure for Brochuritis is not teaching officers to read).

This is pretty much Sparky domain.

It also totally ignores the Recon in Reconnaissance. The mission for recon is to do like Sir Robin, bravely run away and report. If a recon group gets thoroughly engaged with one Russian regular brigade, much less five, I would expect the CO to be promptly relieved of command barring extraordinary conditions. Beatty forgot that mission.

Does not even rise to the quality of good wargaming.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4654
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
KDahm wrote:
It also totally ignores the Recon in Reconnaissance. The mission for recon is to do like Sir Robin, bravely run away and report. If a recon group gets thoroughly engaged with one Russian regular brigade, much less five, I would expect the CO to be promptly relieved of command barring extraordinary conditions. Beatty forgot that mission.

In fairness, they are supposed to be Reconnaissance-Strike Groups. Presumably the idea is to find things, run away from strong forces, and attack where the enemy is weak. The cavalry, or guerilla warfare, concept writ large.

The validity of such a tactic is dependent on the RSG actually being able to run away, and the enemy having a weak spot. In this case, I wouldn't bet on either. Nor would I bet on those commanding such a force to ignore the concept and wade into a straight battle with the leading echelons of a Tank Corps.

Shades of Beatty once again...

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10393
It's actually a very Japanese mode of thought. It is based on the assumption that the enemy is going to fight exactly the way we want them to fight and do exactly what we want them to do. It doesn't make any allowance for the enemy actually having a brain.

The "run away from strong forces and attack weak ones" sounds good until it gets studied closely. The problem is that there are key areas that one can't run away from and the whole art is to prevent an enemy doing just that by pinning his units in place. The real problem with the RSG is that its a one-trick pony; if the enemy do something unexpected, there's no response. The big advantage of the BCT is that its flexible; if the enemy comes up with a smart move, the assets are there to counter it.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 11:59 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6006
Location: Cambs, UK
But it's hide bound and reactionary and thus Old And Useless.

Can the SuperAeroGavin be fitted with hydrofoils? ;)

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5161
Location: Sweden
Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote:
Does this belong with very similar discussion in other thread ??

( Memory wonky after 'flu, can't seem to find it, or the one with the 'blonde' jokes... )

I believe this is the thread that you were looking for: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18398

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6761
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Craiglxviii wrote:
But it's hide bound and reactionary and thus Old And Useless.

Can the SuperAeroGavin be fitted with hydrofoils? ;)

Only the M113A3E8OMGWTF version.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:05 pm 
Offline
Phil
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:56 am
Posts: 2220
Wow. That was some fantasy fleet, fan boi crap right there.

I must now re-format my memory expunge it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10393
Lord_Lieutenant wrote:
Wow. That was some fantasy fleet, fan boi crap right there. I must now re-format my memory expunge it.


May I recommend Brainbleach (r)

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:35 am
Posts: 490
Location: West Bend, WI
Not sure where you would fit the hydrofoils.
Image

(Not my pic. Shamelessly stolen via Google image search. :D )

_________________
"Carpe Dementia!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4654
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
You don't need them. The tracks of the M113A3E8OMGWTF are the hydrofoils, enabling the SuperGavin to be fully amphibious without preparation.

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group