The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:54 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
If you read Norman Friedman's Design series book on USN Cruisers he makes an excelent case that the Alaska class was indeed just a very large heavy cruiser. The WW1 roll of the Battle-Cruiser had had become obsolete when the generation of Super-Dreadnoughts came in to service. The Super-Dreadnoughts were nearly as fast as battle-cruisers with a full dreadnought armament and armor. The primary targets of battle-cruisers: pre-dreadnought battleships and turn of the century armored cruisers were gone by the 1930s.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:19 pm
Posts: 124
Mark,
You are 100 percent correct.....

Indeed an excellent read!

Regards
Dave :smallsmile:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:34 am 
When Friedman was putting together his Cruiser volume, he was in two minds as to wether the Alaska class should be included, or, described in the later Battleship book.
He and I discussed this, with myself pressing that the class MUST go in the cruiser book as they are referred to officially and designed as, LARGE CRUISERS. NOT Battle Cruisers, or Battleships.
AND ... labels DO matter.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 1185
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Super-Dreadnoughts!?!?!?!? I don't think that classification was ever used officially. I know it's a bit overkill to compare let's say Yamato with a KGV but they both were classified with thebattleships-dreadnought labels...more battleship actually given that you don't see much of "dreadnought" labels after WWI. Pre-Dreadnought or Dreadnoughts...such are classification that I don't think were considered official...even less super-battleships or super-dreadnoughts, super-carriers, etc etc etc.

_________________
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:19 pm
Posts: 124
I think it would be safe :smallsmile: as far the term "Super BattleShip" and it's uses. But do not forgot the follow on to the Iowa class was the Montana Class.......


Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:19 am
Posts: 1480
The Alaska's may have been killed as CAG's and Command ships by their very beauty. Shiplovers tend to favor fine ends, a balanced silhouette with most superstructures concentrated amidships as well as a good sheer. Compared to the Baltimore/Cleveland design they had very sleek lines with most weight concentrated in the middle third of the ship, unlike the Baltimore/Cleveland design which had a massive hanger in the ends without any sheer. Beautiful in the eyes of most people here. But not in the eyes of a 1950's designer. Missile ships of the '50s needed a hull which could support bulky missile hangars and bulky radar installations which meant that moderate weights would have to be spread out over a large part of the vessel's length. A good example on similar displacements is the difference in silhouette between the RN's Dido class AA cruisers and the Devonshire class DDG's. So it is very much possible that those beautiful Alaska's could not have carried more missiles and radars than a converted Baltimore. Given their huge expense in fuel, maintenance and manpower the decision was not difficult. The same problems applied to the command ship. Hawaii would probably not have supported more electronics and staff room compared to Northampton.
Robin wrote:
I always wondered why the USN didn't look at them for conversion to CLGs like the the Baltimore and Cleveland class. With their size much more room to hold more missiles and greater room for FLag Staff (Staff always bitched about having more space to use). Naval bombment during Viet would have been better with the 12" guns vs the 8" guns. Materialize they were in great shape for a longer service life. Just a thought.


Last edited by Pieter on Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Filipe Ramires wrote:
Super-Dreadnoughts!?!?!?!? I don't think that classification was ever used officially. I know it's a bit overkill to compare let's say Yamato with a KGV but they both were classified with thebattleships-dreadnought labels...more battleship actually given that you don't see much of "dreadnought" labels after WWI. Pre-Dreadnought or Dreadnoughts...such are classification that I don't think were considered official...even less super-battleships or super-dreadnoughts, super-carriers, etc etc etc.


Super is not a boring enough word to see much official use, but the term "super-dreadnought" did have a specific, if unofficial, meaning. It refers to that group of dreadnoughts which represented the first caliber escalation to occur after HMS Dreadnought herself. So British 13.5" dreadnoughts, American and Japanese 14" dreadnoughts, and German 12" dreadnoughts of the WWI era were super-dreadnoughts.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:19 pm
Posts: 124
Just an example of the size of the Alaska Cruiser Design,




Attachment:
016383a.jpg








The Iowa class BB top of picture, Alaska Class opposite side of the pier.


Regards
Dave


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Posts: 868
Location: northern Minnesota
daveseas wrote:
Just an example of the size of the Alaska Cruiser Design,

The Iowa class BB top of picture, Alaska Class opposite side of the pier.

Regards
Dave


Great photo for comparison. The narrow hull certainly screams "I am a big Cruiser". :big_grin:

Bob B.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:19 pm
Posts: 124
Bob,

Compare that to the Baltimore class and we'll see the difference in over size.


Regards
Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
There were two more Iowas:

Illinois BB-65
Kentuky BB-66

Neither ship was completed. Illinois was scrapped while about 20% built. Kentuky was launched to clear the slip and was used as a source of parts for the four comissioned ships. Later Kentuky had its bow section removed to be fit on the USS Wisconsin after a can opener incident.

Hawaii CB-3 was not completed and was scrapped @1959.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:02 pm 
Offline
Art by Wayne
Art by Wayne
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6
Location: gardnerville nv
Below is a except from my book (page 107) US Battleships an illustrated technical history 1941-1963, available from Amazon that will hopefully answer the original question posted.....Regards wayne

Alaska Class Large Cruisers: 6 ships of 1940:

USS Alaska CB 1 USS Guam CB 2

(USS Hawaii CB 3 USS Philippines CB 4 USS Puerto Rico CB 5 USS Samoa CB 6 canceled)

The only class of USN battlecruiser design to be completed. While the USN officially designated the Alaska class ships as 'Large Cruisers'. Presumably to avoid connecting them with the inadequately protected foreign (particularly UK CC) designs of WWI. It remains that the CB1 class ships were in fact battlecruisers by both definition and concept. Within the context of the term ‘Battlecruiser’ being defined as a vessel of battleship dimensions that sacrifices firepower, and/or armor protection in order to reduce weight. Permitting the installation of a more powerful engineering plant, thereby achieving higher speeds. Battlecruisers are designed to be primarily deployed to engage and defeat enemy heavy and light cruisers. Battlecruisers were also intended to provide a fast reconnaissance force to the battlefleet. From 1933 onwards the CB type was also intended to provide the ability to pursue, and destroy a new type of warship, the German Panzerschiffen ‘pocket battleship’ type (11,000 ton armored cruisers with 6 11”guns, 26kns speed, protected against 8”gunfire) intended to operate independently as surface commerce raiders. By 1938 France was constructing the 2 Dunkerque class CB's of 26,000 tons with 8 13" guns and a 29.5 kns speed as 'replies' to counter the German ships. At the time of the CB1's inception the USN did not have any types of ships that were capable of successfully pursuing, engaging, and defeating ‘pocket battleship' types. In addition, during 1940/1941 USN Intelligence Sources received indications that the Japanese Navy also had under construction a class of a similar type of commerce raiders. These were the non-existent, but repeatedly reported, ‘Chichibu class’ of pocket battleships/battlecruisers, 4-6 ships of 15-17,000 tons mounting 6-9 12” guns. The CB1 class were also envisaged to be deployed 'in kind' as independent commerce surface raiders themselves. The CB type was not envisaged, designed, nor intended to be deployed in the battleline and/or against battleship types. As the very characteristics which define them as battlecruisers effectively precluded such use. A simple definition of the 'Battlecruiser Concept' was the ability to outrun ships which they could not outfight.
Against this background of fast heavily armed foreign pocket battleship/battlecruiser construction the decision was made by the office of the CNO and the Roosevelt administration to construct a class of ship designed expressedly to deal with these specific threats. A relatively high priority was assigned to the design and construction of these ships by the office of the CNO, by deprioritizing the construction of the 5th and 6th (BB65 BB66) battleships of the BB61 class. Which were the ships that the USN's senior staff wanted to construct in lieu of the CB1 class. The 2 CB1 class ships were the only capital units authorized by the Two Ocean Navy Act of 1940 to be completed.
The CB1 class ships were a hybrid design of USN Battleship and Heavy Cruiser design concepts. The design was largely based upon the scaling up USN modern heavy cruiser designs (the CA68 class). Mounting a 12” main armament and adequately protected against 10” gunfire. The hull form and machinery were derived from the Essex CV9 class aircraft carriers. Main armament was a new mark of 12”/50 firing a 945 lb projectile disposed in 3 triple turrets, 2 forward and 1 aft. Secondary armament was the standard USN cruiser configuration of 12 5”/38’s in 6 twin mounts disposed in a cruiser style pattern of 4 shipped outboard on the 02 level. Two mounts were superimposed fore and aft on raised platforms over main gun turrets 2 and 3. A tall fire control tower was located forward with a Mk38/Mk8 main battery director. In the base of the fire control tower at maindeck level a 6 aircraft capacity hanger was fitted. Aft of the hanger was an aircraft handling 'welldeck' area with two aircraft catapults sited port and starboard on short towers. A single large tall stack topped with a raked cap was fitted, which had two short masts cantilevered fore and aft at the stack cap level. A relatively tall aft fire control tower was fitted with a Mk38/Mk8 director. As in a typical USN cruiser design 2 Mk37/Mk4 DP directors were mounted fore and aft on the superstructure. A large medium/light AA battery of 20mm and 40mm guns was provided. The CB1 class were the only USN capital ship design to incorporate a transom (squared off) stern. Which effectively increased the length to beam ratio, permitting improved speed performance. The CB1 class was designed with a single rudder which somewhat increased their tactical turning diameter.
In January 1942 the CB1 class ships were briefly evaluated for conversions to aircraft carriers in an emergency war carrier war program similar to that performed on 9 Cleveland (CL55) class light cruisers which were rebuilt into the Independence class light carriers (CVL22 class).
Upon completion both ships served together as carrier escorts in the Pacific Theater during the final months of WWII. CB1 and CB2 defended the stricken, dead in the water, carrier USS Franklin CV13 off Honshu 19 Mar 1945. The CB1 and CB2 also deployed twice in Aug 1945 with TF95 in one of their designed roles as surface raiders. At which they were unsuccessful due to a lack of contact with appropriate Japanese targets. The CB1 class ships were both removed from active service in 1946, stricken from the Naval Register in Jun 1960, and subsequently sold for scrap.
The third CB1 class ship the Hawaii CB3 after launching in late 1945, was first suspended indefinitely, and then finally canceled in 1947. The ship was 82% complete and placed in storage at the PhNSY until sold in 1958 for scrap. CB3 was the subject of 2 design projects. The first a 1948 conversion to a Guided Missile Cruiser (CBG3) fitting modified vertically launched V2 ballistic rockets and the cancelled Triton SSM cruise missiles. The second was a 1953 Carrier TF Command Cruiser (CBC3) project armed with 12 5"/54 single mounts. Both projects were authorized, but both were cancelled prior to commencement.
As with the BB61 class ships, in the mid 1950's the USN evaluated the CB1 class ships for conversion to 'MACK' equipped double and/or single ended Talos/Tartar/ASROC armed ships similar to the Albany CG10 class guided missile cruisers. As the CG10 class were expensive to convert and considered adequate, no conversions of the CB1 class were authorized.
The senior staff of the USN with the exception of the CNO, were never supportive of the CB1 design due largely to the politics that had been involved in their construction. This unfortunately resulted in these fine powerful ships being viewed with a certain amount of distain by the USN's operations staff. The design's perceived and much criticized alleged deficiencies, and shortcomings, coupled with the large construction expenses served to taint the ship’s reputations for the length of their active service careers. It is, however, fair to say the bulk of the criticism leveled at the CB1 design was and is largely unfounded, as the design was excellent for their envisaged roles. And when reviewing the design, it should be kept in perspective that they were never intended as a battleship design. Nor were they intended to operate as battleship's. Also, like all USN 3rd generation Capital Ship designs, they were never tested in battle in their intended role of surface action against their own or lesser types of ships. Finally it should be noted, that the tasks that were assigned to them, primarily as carrier escorts, they performed well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:12 pm 
Offline
Art by Wayne
Art by Wayne
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6
Location: gardnerville nv
As for the proposed conversions of the CB1's to CBG's and CBC's, below is an excerpt from my book Iowa class Battleships and Alaska Class large cruisers 1942-1964

The Alaska class ships were new large, modern ,and expensive ships decommissioned shortly after WWII. And as with the Iowa class battleships considerable study went into proposed conversions, although not on the scale of Iowa studies. Below is a description of the proposed conversions:

Fleet Carriers (CV) January 1942 the Alaska class ships were briefly considered for conversions to ‘emergency construction’ aircraft carriers in a proposed conversion similar to that performed on the Independence class CVL’s. Conversion would have strong resembled the Essex CV9 class but with reduced freeboard, and flight deck offset to port. Preliminary design studies only.

The third Alaska class ship the Hawaii CB3, when 82 % complete, was first suspended indefinitely, and final canceled in late 1945, and was subsequently was placed uncompleted into storage. Over the next 10 years the Hawaii was the subject of several design projects seeking to utilize the hull of the unfinished ship.

Guided Missile Large Cruiser (CBG) 1948 project (SCB 26A ) to converted the unfinished Hawaii into a Ballistic Guided Missile Ship mounting 12 vertical launchers for US manufactured V2 type SRBM’s and 6 launchers for XPM Triton cruise missiles enclosed in an aircraft carrier like superstructure. The conversion was authorized and the ship was redesignated CBG3. The conversion was scheduled to begin in 1948 was projected to complete in 1950. However, due to the volatility of the liquid rocket propellants of the era, and the inadequacies of guidance systems then available Ballistic Missile Surface Ships, as a concept, were abandoned by the USN. Resultantly the conversion of CBG3 was canceled in 1949.

Command Cruiser (CBC) 1952 the USN developed a project (SCB83) to converted the USS Hawaii into a Carrier Task Force Command Cruiser (redesignated CBC 3) This design would have featured extensive flag facilities for command of carrier task forces but would have offered no facilities for amphibious operations. The ship would have been armed with 16 5”/54’s in single mounts, and would have mounted an AN/SPS 2 radar atop a forward tower and an AN/SPS 8 on the aft superstructure with a SC-2 dish used for troposphere scatter communications mounted atop short tower aft of the stack and forward of the AN/SPS 8. 2 MK37/Mk25 directors were provided on the superstructure fore and aft. The single stack of the original design was retained The conversion was authorized and funded, but other than the removal of the 12” turrets, no other work was performed on the ship. When the Oregon City class heavy cruiser Northampton CLC1 conversion to a command cruiser was complete, and a light carrier was selected for the second command ship, it became apparent that the was no longer a requirement for the Hawaii conversion. In 1953 the project was canceled.

Guided Missile Cruisers (CG) Conversions of the CB1 class ships to Talos/Tartar armed with 16 Polaris IRBM launch tubes MACK style conversions similar to the BB61 scheme I/II proposed conversions of 1958 were briefly considered for the CB1 class as well. Preliminary studies only. No sketch is available.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
Posts: 559
Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
Well, that certainly came full circle. Aircraft carriers from battlecruiser hulls, followed twenty years later by battlecruisers based on aircraft carrier hulls!

Rather strange that the Japanese would consider a battlecruiser design for commerce raiding, when her naval strategy didn't even employ submarines for that purpose.

Even though the battlecruisers were not armored to stand up to battleship fire in a line of battle, history proves that Admirals could not resist using them as such. In the battlecruiser fight at Jutland, they were subject to battleship caliber fire with predictable results. And, finally, HMS Hood vs. Bismarck. Don't send a battlecruiser to do a battleship's job.

It seems to me that a carrier hull would be adequate for missle magazines containing big missles, even V-2's.

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:09 pm
Posts: 93
Location: North Carolina
We are also looking at this with the benefit of a lot of hindsight. When the Alaska's were designed no one was really sure that the carriers were going to be as effective as they turned out to be. Also there were three ships in the water on the Atlantic side of the equation the German "Pocket Battleships" that caused naval planners some sleepless nights. Yes the Graf Spee was caught by a three cruiser task force and forced into port, however look at the forces that were deployed to find her. Also what if it had only been two cruisers that made contact. In 1940 there were only three British ships capable of both finding and killing a "pocket battleship" and only two French. So the design of the Alaska's were good for the time. It was only the ability of the US yards to turn out the mass of carriers that they did that made the Alaska's floating monuments to the big gun theory.
C T

_________________
With ten such as these I'll march out through the back of Hell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 282
Location: Snohomish WA USA
I still have a problem with Alaska as a BC, if only because of her battery. Jackie Fisher's concept was not give up firepower or armor for speed. His was, give up armor for speed, period. His BCs carried the same main gun as his BBs. The U.S. CBs gave up both armor and firepower compared to U.S. BBs. Answer: large cruisers.

A niggling point: I thought the Dunkerque class was a not a response to Graf Spee et al, but to S&G.

_________________
Gerard>
Snohomish, WA USA
If you don't know the definition of erudite, you're not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Gerarddm wrote:

A niggling point: I thought the Dunkerque class was a not a response to Graf Spee et al, but to S&G.


No, it's the other way round. S&G were designed with matching Dunkerque in mind.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:28 am
Posts: 126
the alaska's were essentially upgunned versions of the baltimore class heavy cruisers. the design evolved from the us navy's need for a "cruiser killer", as they feared that the japanese would emulate their german allies and turn their fine heavy cruisers loose on commerce raiding forays (to some extent, there was also a disinformation campaign on the part of the japanese that hinted that they would engage in commerce raiding). the initial design that was conceived called for a design similar to the baltimores, but armed with 10 inch guns. however, since the 12 inch gun design was already in use in the still extant battleships wyoming and arkansas, it was decided to upgrade the existing gun rather than design a new gun from scratch. because the 12 inch was used, the design began to take on capital ship proportions.

in the end, the japanese commerce warfare threat never played out, leaving the alaskas without a definitive role (though admiral ernest king did champion the vessels as fast carrier escorts). interestingly, the japanese set about designing the b-65's armed with 14 inch guns as a counter to the alaskas.

source: jane's battleships of the 20th century

_________________
Under destruction:
1/350 Yamato
1/350 Titanic


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Alaska's 12" guns were completely new, and not at all an offshoot of the 12" guns older dreadnoughts.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USS Alaska - why?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 8:46 am
Posts: 1
chuck wrote:
Alaska's 12" guns were completely new, and not at all an offshoot of the 12" guns older dreadnoughts.


Yes, but their design was such that they used the huge stockpiles of shells on hand in 1940 and the 12"/50 of the ALASKA class could have used the 12"/50 barrel liners on hand for the ARKANSAS class.

For everybody who says it was a dinosaur, unneeded, etc.... just jump into your wayback machine and look at the status of naval warfare in 1940 and see if you could have predicted the massive carrier raids of 1944.

To say the Japanese surface threat never developed is shortsighted, too. The IJN had a great surface fleet, and the US knew it in 1940. The only reasons the IJN did not wrestle Guadacanal back from the US were the toughness of the US Marine up against suicidal tactics of the IJA; total US control of the sea by day forcing the IJN to only make nightly forays into the area and the growing American use and confidence in our radar systems. Several of the battles the IJN won would have been lost of the TF commanders had better faith in our own tech. Guadalcanal saw the demise of free reign the IJN had held for almost a year over the Pacific Ocean. In Nov 1942, the Alaska was 11 months into building, Guam had been under construction for 9 months. It may be fairer to say that by the time they joined the fleet their mission had evaporated, but that could not have been known ahead of time. In the end, the Navy found a good use for them. The proposed conversion of Hawaii (and consequently the other two later on) in CBGs would have been more effective than the conversion of Boston and Canberra with the same suite of weapons. An even neater conversion would have been the Albany-class analog rebuilding conversion! Frakking USAF got all the money back then, the Navy and Army got squat!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest


You can post new topics in this forum
You can 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

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