The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:53 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 ... 59  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
chuck wrote:
so all evidence points to the anti fouling paint was much darker in tone then the Atlantic fleet gray.

dick wrote:
No, the evidence currently available to me suggests that the tones that the various manufacturers supplied grey anti fouling in varied from being the same or very slightly lighter than HFG to distinctly lighter than HFG.

chuck wrote:
What would those evidence be? Every photo I’ve seen where anti-fouling paint is visible along with the above water portion of the ship’s sides, the anti-fouling paint had a much darker tone. The only exception seems to be dry dock photos where parts of the ship substantially below waterline appeared to be lighter because they seem to be encrusted with barnacles.

I also looked on line for color photos of the models in NMN, I did not find any where the underwater anti-fouling paint was gray and lighter on tone tham the hull sides.


Some contemporary museum models showing greys the same, slightly lighter and lighter than Home Fleet grey:
Attachment:
Bottom greys.jpg
Bottom greys.jpg [ 105.12 KiB | Viewed 1477 times ]

A crop of a photo of Hood at the all-important time showing the tone of Hood's bottom below the boot topping. My hunch is that the anti fouling grey was a neutral grey, ie it did not have the slight blue tinge that Home Fleet grey did:
Attachment:
Hood 1941 5 22 - Copy.jpg
Hood 1941 5 22 - Copy.jpg [ 44.47 KiB | Viewed 1477 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 223
Hi All

Hi Guest and tjstoneman, thank you for your info, as I said in my post above I was sure there were practice flags, aircraft flags etc etc so thanks for that, I was worried it was another memory glitch!

I'll have another look at some Denmark Strait books as I'm sure there is something that mentions what the enemy in sight and the open fire flag were (flag N IIRC?).

Thanks again
Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Guest wrote:
Thank you for your inputs Kevin and tjstoneman. No-one else appears to have anything to say, so I will "top this one off." My educated guess is and it is reinforced by what tjstoneman reports, this is a large plain red flag, which was flown by all British warships when they were carrying out a practice shoot. Thus it is not a battle ensign!

PS This is not an "April Fool" message.


I think that the other clue that this was a gunnery practice flag in that photo of DoY is that it is flown out on a yardarm. If flying a single battle ensign at the fore mast I think the WW2 RN practice was to fly it as high as possible and so often centrally, from a little gaff just below the radar. Various WW2 era photos I have of battle ensigns being flown show such a central positioning
Attachment:
Gambia 1942   Madagascar.jpg
Gambia 1942 Madagascar.jpg [ 68.95 KiB | Viewed 1463 times ]


and DoY (and PoW) had such a gaff.
Attachment:
DoY 1941 12 7 A6683 - Copy.jpg
DoY 1941 12 7 A6683 - Copy.jpg [ 42.17 KiB | Viewed 1463 times ]


I do wonder about the colour of the gunnery practice flag in that photo. It may be the postwar/modern RN practice to fly a red flag during gunnery/missile practice but are we sure it was so during WW2 and earlier? There was a wholesale revision of RN flags and signalling in 1948 when we went over to a NATO standard system largely based on USN practice. I think the relevant WW2 era RN Signal Book was the 1934 edition and this is what is says about the colour of the gunnery practice flag:
Attachment:
Blue and red flags.jpg
Blue and red flags.jpg [ 133.07 KiB | Viewed 1463 times ]


Last edited by dick on Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 223
Hi All,

Just to prove my memory is bad the permission to fire flag is executed when hauled up, and is Flag 5 (numeral pendant) according to the Ted Briggs account of the battle, and the Aircraft flag I think is flag F a red diamond on a white background?

Hi Richard, I do know turns would be indicated by a numeral pendant plus the blue flag, for example Hood was flying a 2 blue when hit and exploded, ie the numeral pendant for 2 followed on the halyard by a blue flag, meaning a 20 degree turn to port (A blue 2 would be the blue flag first and then the numeral pendant meaning a 20 degree turn to starboard.......I think!!).

So if modelling Hood I'd hazard a guess at perhaps a white Ensign on the mainmast plus a Vice Admiral flag, a battle Ensign at the foremast and depending on when you want to portray her either an open fire flag 5, or as she sank a 2 blue flag flying?

Hopefully more knowledgeable forum members will be able to confirm this or not and be able to give more detail.

Hope that helps somewhat

Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:55 am 
Re: Dick's post of 6.20am 1 April.

His apparently vast archival resources have me at a disadvantage, however, post 1948 and up until 1980, there was such a thing as continuing RN practices; which was known as "Intra RN." Notwithstanding that though, I remain adamant that the flag being flown in the photograph in Joseph R's post of 4.16pm 30 March is not a battle ensign.

Cag,

For what this is worth: orders being issued by flag in the RN are, or were, made "executive" ie Do it NOW! when the signal is/was hauled down. Thus HMS HOOD should have "executed" the order to open fire by the time that she was sunk.

The signal ordering the 20 degree turn to port may, or may not: I believe that there is some debate, have been "executed" before she was sunk. If someone wishes to "model" the ship with the signal flying they would need a qualified signalman's (or reliable source material) advice on the correct order of the flags/pendants and their appearance based on a knowledge of visual signalling practices in force in 1941.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:41 am
Posts: 98
KevinD wrote:
Joseph R wrote:
apologies this is slightly o/t - however my mistake regarding my above comment about Battle Ensigns at the fore - it has since occurred to me that such images are particularly common especially for the KG5s.. and it seems very likely that POW might have carried one into the Denmark Strait action.

Just reading somethingn re her enteriing her last action off Malaya, and says there - as have read in other books on same - that she ran up two big ensigns, one on both fore and main masts also.


Hi Kevin, thank you for this anecdote I think it very likely settles the matter regarding POW. HOOD however..

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:41 am
Posts: 98
Cag wrote:
However the Alan Coles book Flagship Hood was co written by Ted Briggs one of Hood's survivors and who was a signalman stationed on the compass platform. He states that after midnight on the 24th Vice Admiral Holland ordered the hoisting of Battle Ensigns from both ships. Briggs states that this flag measured some 24 feet by 12 feet and was hoisted from Hoods flag deck. Again no exact detail but we do know Hoods flag deck was forward around the Bridge structures.

Not sure if this helps, but this does infer a Battle Ensign or Ensigns were raised well before the battle, and would be additional to the White Ensigns already flying.

Best wishes
Cag.



Dear Cag,

This has genuinely got me wondering if HOOD had a SECOND (24' x 12') White Ensign streaming from one of the numerous sets of halyards rove to her spotting top. It would seem difficult to fly such an ensign amidships and not offset abeam - however there are actually two sets of usable signal yards up there - as the below photo shows - note that that signal appears to be streaming off the upper yard (which did have sets of halyards which were observable in other photographs). Perhaps such a position might have been used? It would have been slightly offset the beam - but could have been slightly to weather (starboard) - facing both the enemy formation and POW?

Image

Further to Dick's earlier post which referenced a later publication of the Queen's Regs - it seems that whilst the Ensign always streamed during times of war would have been that carried at HOOD's mainmast gaff, or mainpeak - an additional Battle Ensign must have been fided aloft on the fore?!!!! That would of course explain Ted Briggs' reference to it being broken out at the bridge signals deck.

I am truly humbled by the knowledge being contributed by the members who are answering my posts here. Notwithstanding that I am somewhat embarrassed to be realising such major gaps in my own understanding of this subject - I am very glad to have asked these questions. In the coming weeks I am going to be signing my painting of HMS HOOD and HMS PRINCE OF WALES at Denmark Strait - which is something I am preparing for the 80th anniversary of the event. I will share an image here on May24th - which may now have a couple of extra White Ensigns illustrated..

Lastly, concerning that image of HMS DUKE OF YORK - I will stand corrected again. I do actually have a large (10") original photograph of that image, which is from the negative. I had always thought I could just recognize a faint horizontal line which I had assumed to be the St George's cross - however there is no visible canton for what would have been a Union Jack.. there is also another photo from the same series showing the hoist more clearly - and it does in deed look to be a featureless and single coloured flag!

Best regards to all,

Joseph

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 223
Hi All

Hi Guest, thank you for your help, yes hopefully the information is out there, I'm trying to get hold of the Admiralty signal manual as I'd also like to get the gunnery wave signals sorted too. If someone wanted to portray Hood on the 24th as she was just as she opened fire the flag 5 could be placed on their model?

Hi Joseph, I look forward very much to seeing the painting, a family member of mine was on board Prince of Wales so your work is very much appreciated. I'm doing a bit of research on the battle but as with most things it creates more questions than finds answers!

Look forward to the pics
Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Cag wrote:
Hi Joseph, I look forward very much to seeing the painting, a family member of mine was on board Prince of Wales so your work is very much appreciated. I'm doing a bit of research on the battle but as with most things it creates more questions than finds answers

I too look forward to Joseph's painting! In the meantime, although you have no doubt seen this one Cag, maybe others haven't. Not Denmark Strait, obviously, but......................A commission by an English artist named Johne Makin (with a little 'artistic license' used), the other of Hood, Renown and Repulse by Frederick Crosby.

PS. Joseph, the image does not show in your latest post, or not on my screen anyway.


Attachments:
Death-of-a-Battleship-by-Makin.jpg
Death-of-a-Battleship-by-Makin.jpg [ 192.87 KiB | Viewed 1343 times ]
Hood-Renown-Repulse-by-Crosby.jpg
Hood-Renown-Repulse-by-Crosby.jpg [ 116.89 KiB | Viewed 1343 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:41 am
Posts: 98
Dear Cag,

Well I certainly wasn't expecting to read that. That is quite a thing to have a family connection to.. I do appreciate your kind words of support. It's certainly not an easy motif to execute - letalone do proper justice to it - but I am doing my utmost and will look forward to sharing the image in < 2mths' time. I hope that people will like it but accept of course that events of such notoriety do attract criticism in spades.

Hi KevinD,

Thank you kindly as well for your support. Also thanks for sharing those two wonderful images. Force Z is such a sad subject. A waste of lives and two very fine ships. The irony of how close friendly aircover actually was - and what it would have inflicted on those otherwise vulnerable Japanese bombers - is never lost.

The image I posted was just this one ( trying again ) :

Image

Regards,

JR

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 338
For what its worth, I asked Ted Briggs about the flags in person. This was nearly 20 years ago during one of our Hood Association reunions at the then Royal Sailors Home Club in Pompey. The subject came up whilst he was reviewing some artwork of Hood that he'd been asked to sign.

He quietly pointed out various things that were not correct (but being a gentleman, he didn't raise a fuss and stated that it was fine to go out as is). As part of this, the subject of flags came up, and although I don't recall every single thing he said, I DO remember what he said about the Battle Ensign.

He told me it was 24ft long and that they flew it in place of the White Ensign on the mainmast. He was specific about this. I told him that I was under the impression that they'd have flown multiple ensigns (from both masts), but he said no. He said he saw one Battle Ensign being flown from the mainmast. He'd have seen it in the hours before the battle (it was hoisted well before the action that morning...and although it was "night" it was only "dark" for a very short period before the battle).

I figure he was a signalman aboard that ship for nearly 2 years by that point and knew her practices. He was actually there as well...literally the (then) last living person to have been aboard during that final mission. While its possible that after (then) 60 years he may have remembered something wrong or overlooked a detail, I highly doubt it in this case since its something from his very department.

Of course, in the end, its your model, so put as many (or as few) flags on her as you wish.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:41 am
Posts: 98
Dear Frank,

Thank you kindly for posting this; it helps a lot. So I shall keep two Ensigns on HMS PRINCE OF WALES - and leave HMS HOOD as she is. Tempted as I was to illustrate a second Ensign hoisted off HOOD's foretop - I was hesitant because something told me it would have looked awkward.

I wonder if the 'signals deck' mentioned in the book he co-authored was another position on the after bridgework i.e.: searchlight platform near the aft most HACS.. ? I don't have a belaying plan for the ship's rig - but this position would seem logical for any lifts & halyards fided to the mainmast; i.e: below the starfish.

And lastly, god bless Ted Briggs.

Best regards,

Joseph

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 338
Joseph R wrote:
...I wonder if the 'signals deck' mentioned in the book he co-authored was another position on the after bridgework i.e.: searchlight platform near the aft most HACS.. ? I don't have a belaying plan for the ship's rig - but this position would seem logical for any lifts & halyards fided to the mainmast; i.e: below the starfish...


Hi Joseph,

Yes, that was the main flag working area for the signalmen. The signals deck (aka "Admiral Signals Platform") was the largest and lowest bridge deck. The signals were hauled up from the rear of the deck (where there were four large flag lockers). There were small shelters for the lads just couple meters forward of the lockers (they were inboard of the HACS directors). There were also positions for lamp signalling on the rear corner deck extensions plus positions for semaphores elsewhere. See the image below:

Attachment:
signalsndeck.jpg
signalsndeck.jpg [ 184.67 KiB | Viewed 1065 times ]


There was another signals position atop the after superstructure (the small building behind the mainmast). There were also supposedly positions below deck just aft of the bridge. These were represented on-deck by the two slanted "tubes" with "toilet seat covers" just aft of the two forward pom poms (Sammy and Peter). Oddly enough, Ted never recalled anyone using those during his time onboard.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:41 am
Posts: 98
FW_Allen wrote:
There was another signals position atop the after superstructure (the small building behind the mainmast). There were also supposedly positions below deck just aft of the bridge. These were represented on-deck by the two slanted "tubes" with "toilet seat covers" just aft of the two forward pom poms (Sammy and Peter). Oddly enough, Ted never recalled anyone using those during his time onboard.


Hi Frank,

Thank you for your reply. This was the signals deck I was trying to reference in my post - not the forward signals deck. It seems there was an earlier reference, from Ted Briggs in his co-authored book with Alan Coles, to the Battle Ensign having been hoisted and broken out from "the signals deck" - hence the ambiguity. If the forward signals deck were meant - then such a reference might suggest the Battle Ensign were carried at the foremast or foretop signal yards.. but this would contradict what you had just posted regarding that anecdote from Ted to yourself.. sorry this is getting convoluted..

I think I am happy enough to run with your recommendation based on said anecdote - that the Battle Ensign (the only one) was streamed from the mainmast gaff in place of the Ensign normally carried. This makes much more sense to me.

Btw I just emailed you about something else. I hope you received that?

At any rate thank you so much again for all your help so far.

Best,

Joseph R

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
can anyone point me to a photo of the mantelet of Hood’s turret, or short of that, the mantelet of a MK I 15” turret?

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 567
Mr. Church wrote:
Very interesting screenshots Frank, thanks for sharing.

Not a British example, but this colour footage of the battleship Jean Bart from 1950 may be of interest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eLBGbmEyq0

You can clearly see that the floor of her oerlikon tub on her second main gun turret is painted brown:

Attachment:
The attachment Jean Bart Oerlikon Tub.jpg is no longer available


And also that her main deck forward of the breakwater is dark grey:

Attachment:
The attachment Jean Bart Oerlikon Tub.jpg is no longer available


So it is not unprecedented for a large battleship to have some decks in brown and some in dark grey. Most models I have seen of Jean Bart show the steel decks as being all dark grey.

As per the footage above Jean Bart was a work in progress in 1950 and not fully reactivated or recommissioned. So some sections of deck are brown and others look to be raw steel plate that does not seem to have been painted yet at all. And then the section forward of the breakwater is dark grey.

Granted is it not a British example and 1950 was peacetime and not wartime. But it would seem brown was indeed used for decks on a large battleship, albeit a French one.


Further to the earlier discussions in the thread regarding brown decks on H.M.S. Hood, gettyimages have posted some lovely colour photos of H.M.S. Vanguard in service. I posted this extract in the H.M.S. Vanguard thread also but it may be relevant to the discussion here too. The caption lists the date as May 1946 but I reckon that is an error based Vanguard being missing her Bofors STAAG Mount on 'B' Turret. This was only removed later in 1946 for the 1947 Royal Tour. Another photo in the sequence lists the date as 1948 so I would say this photo is also from 1948. In any case it proves beyond doubt that the peacetime post-war Royal Navy used brown on a battleship deck. See low resolution extract below for discussion purposes only, copyright rests with gettyimages:

Attachment:
HMS Vanguard anchor rubbing strips.jpg
HMS Vanguard anchor rubbing strips.jpg [ 79.62 KiB | Viewed 1888 times ]


Of course it proves nothing in relation to Hood, but it is useful to know beyond doubt that brown was indeed used on an active-service RN Battleship's steel deck albeit a post-war one.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:41 am
Posts: 98
Mr. Church wrote:
Further to the earlier discussions in the thread regarding brown decks on H.M.S. Hood, gettyimages have posted some lovely colour photos of H.M.S. Vanguard in service. I posted this extract in the H.M.S. Vanguard thread also but it may be relevant to the discussion here too. The caption lists the date as May 1946 but I reckon that is an error based Vanguard being missing her Bofors STAAG Mount on 'B' Turret. This was only removed later in 1946 for the 1947 Royal Tour. Another photo in the sequence lists the date as 1948 so I would say this photo is also from 1948. In any case it proves beyond doubt that the peacetime post-war Royal Navy used brown on a battleship deck. See low resolution extract below for discussion purposes only, copyright rests with gettyimages:

Attachment:
HMS Vanguard anchor rubbing strips.jpg


Of course it proves nothing in relation to Hood, but it is useful to know beyond doubt that brown was indeed used on an active-service RN Battleship's steel deck albeit a post-war one.


A nice picture of VANGUARD; however I suspect the steel deck on her forecastle is actually grey and the brown tones are possibly just the result of wear & tear and oxidation etc across the chafing plates & working surfaces? Of course I may be wrong.

The colour footage of JEAN BART was compelling however - as were the colour stills of HOOD herself. The other examples that come to mind are the numerous surface combatants of the Cold War Soviet Navy. Was that rationale established earlier during the Second World War I wonder?

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 567
I'm not eyewitness to any of it, as it was long before my time. However I am pretty certain it was indeed brown paint and not wear and tear. See stills below from a 'Look at Life' film from 1960 of Vanguard being towed away to be scrapped. Stills posted for discussion purposes only, copyright rests with original owner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db6bgu0gs-g

Attachment:
HMS Vanguard anchor rubbing strips 2.jpg
HMS Vanguard anchor rubbing strips 2.jpg [ 143.54 KiB | Viewed 1782 times ]


Attachment:
HMS Vanguard anchor rubbing strips 1.jpg
HMS Vanguard anchor rubbing strips 1.jpg [ 115.7 KiB | Viewed 1782 times ]


Vanguard had been in reserve for four years by 1960, hard to see how wear and tear of the anchor rubbing strips could arise in that situation? She was towed from Devonport to Portsmouth in October 1956 and that was her only movement while in reserve to my knowledge. And she had been overhauled prior to being placed in reserve. Also there is far too clear a delineation between the brown and grey. Wear and tear would not be so perfectly confined to the raised anchor rubbing strip. It looks to be painted steel diamond chequer plate in the closeup view. Brown was probably a sensible colour as it would not excessively show rust.

It has got me wondering what colour the anchor rubbing strips were on Hood? It will be nigh impossible to tell brown and grey apart from black and white photography. And the fact that her forecastle was usually very wet will not help either. The colour could well have changed over time depending on individual refits etc. too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:41 am
Posts: 98
Okay yep that chafing plate is obviously brown. And not through use wear & tear. Well spotted.

You are raising a good question with respect to HMS HOOD's chafing plates.. although those were a somewhat different pattern again with a textured diamond tread (ref. AOTS, J. Roberts) ..

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:35 pm
Posts: 1703
Location: Bretagne, France
https://twitter.com/davidlmearns/status ... 6675213318

RIP.

Image

Image

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 ... 59  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests


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