Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

M4 Flame Tanks

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> M4 Flame Tanks Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
M4 Flame Tanks - 5/24/2006 2:46:25 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
How were they organised? Attached to tank bn HQ's, separate platoons or something else entirely...

Army and/or USMC data both needed; any help appreciated...

< Message edited by Terminus -- 5/24/2006 3:15:16 PM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Post #: 1
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/24/2006 2:51:37 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16628
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

How were they organised? Attached to tank bn HQ's, seperate platoons or something else entirely...



They were held exclusively in Corps reserve to be released one by one exactly at the most dramatic moment to save the main hero but not his faithful buddy. Betcha didnt know American war movies were that historical, did you?

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 2
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 2:03:26 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
So that'd be a no, then? Okay...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 2:49:37 PM   
JeffK


Posts: 5126
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
My books have 9 Flamethrower tanks in a Marine "G" style Div of Sept 1945. They are not mentioned in the "F" Series of May 44

IT doesnt say where they fit in the OOB, but as they aren't mentioned elsewhere I assume they are in the Tank Bn

713rd Tank (Armoured Flamethower) Bn (US Army) landed on Okinawa on 7 April 1945 and were attached to the Divisions. Although they were committed to the fighting on 8-12 April they only used their machine guns..... In the attack of 19 April they first used the flamthrowers on the Japanese

From OKINAWA. THE LAST BATTLE by Roy Appleman

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 3:31:33 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Thanks much, Jeff... I read somewhere that the US wanted to use twice as many flamethrowing tanks during Olympic as they did on Okinawa, where they found out exactly how effective they were...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 5
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 3:46:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Found, to my surprise, that the M4 flame tanks had their flame units mounted inside their 75mm gun barrels, rather than co-axially (similar to the British Crocodiles). Can anybody confirm this? It would make a rather substantial difference in how an M4 flame tank was implemented in WitP...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 6
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 5:17:15 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14952
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Found, to my surprise, that the M4 flame tanks had their flame units mounted inside their 75mm gun barrels, rather than co-axially (similar to the British Crocodiles). Can anybody confirm this? It would make a rather substantial difference in how an M4 flame tank was implemented in WitP...


I would like to understand how you can implement them at all? Flamethrowers have no "range" in the usual WITP sense. And what is their "effect"? They have no "weight" in the usual sense either. Nor can one take the root of weight for explosive value - which I have done for all HE shells in RHS. What theory are you using? And why should flame tanks be put in for the US but not for Japan (which had them earlier)?
And why any flame tanks at all - but not flamethrowers of a tactial sort?
IJN had them organic to the SNLF, and IJA used them in the Engineers (peasant soldiers didn't like them - only educated ones). The "corkscrew and blowtorch" was the main US late war tactic. But we put that in as a part of ordinary squad effects. I am interested in your theory.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 5:59:57 PM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 817
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Found, to my surprise, that the M4 flame tanks had their flame units mounted inside their 75mm gun barrels, rather than co-axially (similar to the British Crocodiles). Can anybody confirm this? It would make a rather substantial difference in how an M4 flame tank was implemented in WitP...


I would like to understand how you can implement them at all? Flamethrowers have no "range" in the usual WITP sense. And what is their "effect"? They have no "weight" in the usual sense either. Nor can one take the root of weight for explosive value - which I have done for all HE shells in RHS. What theory are you using? And why should flame tanks be put in for the US but not for Japan (which had them earlier)?
And why any flame tanks at all - but not flamethrowers of a tactial sort?
IJN had them organic to the SNLF, and IJA used them in the Engineers (peasant soldiers didn't like them - only educated ones). The "corkscrew and blowtorch" was the main US late war tactic. But we put that in as a part of ordinary squad effects. I am interested in your theory.

Devices have anti-armor and anti-soft ratings. A flamethrower tank which traded it's gun for the flamethrower would have a very high anti soft, very low anti-armor rating. A flamethrower in addition to a gun would have both values high.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 8
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 6:13:46 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I won't be implementing man-portable flamethrowers at all. They'd be a component weapon in an engineer squad. HOWEVER, an M4 flame tank can be easily implemented by modifying a basic Sherman.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 9
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 6:22:49 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25295
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Found, to my surprise, that the M4 flame tanks had their flame units mounted inside their 75mm gun barrels, rather than co-axially (similar to the British Crocodiles). Can anybody confirm this? It would make a rather substantial difference in how an M4 flame tank was implemented in WitP...


Dont have the reference with me but i do know that not all M4 flames were built as such. One of my tank books has a color pic of a Sherman flame tank in action, with the flame shooting out from the co-axial position normally reserved for the MG.

In fact, i don't recall any M4 model at the moment that mounted it in place of the gun. What reference stated such? (curious)





< Message edited by Nikademus -- 5/25/2006 6:23:38 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 10
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 6:26:37 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
It wasn't so much a reference on the flame tanks themselves. I googled the 713th Tank Battalion, and came up with this:

http://www.11tharmoreddivision.com/history/713th_flame_throwing_tank.html

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 11
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 7:56:40 PM   
pbear

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline
Here:

POA Flame thrower:
US Navy Mk I flame thrower fitted inside a 105 mm barrel with breech removed.

POA-CWS 75-H1:
Used 75 mm barrel.

POA-CWS 75-H2:
Projector attached to right side of 75 mm gun.

E6-R1 Flame gun:
Kit that fit in the periscope aperture in the assistant driver's hatch.

E7-7 Flame gun:
Short projector which replaced main gun. Fuel carried in hull.

Ronson Flame gun:
Canadian Ronson flame thrower.

Component Manual
Flame Thrower, Mechanized, E12-7R1 (Installed in Medium Tanks M4A1 and M4A3) TM 3-360 (20 July 1945)
Flame Thrower, Mechanized, M3-4-3 (Installed in Medium Tanks M4A1 and M4A3) TM 3-362 (23 June 1945)
Flame Thrower, Mechanized, M3-4-E6R3 TM 3-364 (6 June 1945)


I would think that these vehicles would be attached at Divisional level along with Engineering assets. The fact that the 713th was the only flame tank Battalion leads me to believe that the flame tanks were probably deployed from Division in platoons for assault support, normally.


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 12
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 8:29:13 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Nice one, pbear. Thanks!

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to pbear)
Post #: 13
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/25/2006 11:02:07 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 520
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
hi,

From US Marine Corps World War II Order of Battle by Rottman

A-H1B 'Satan' flamethrower tank :M3A1 in lieu of main gun :standardized 1943
range=40-60yds ; fuel=170 gals ; flame duration=120secs
remarks: modified ronson mk1 ,fitted on 20 tanks , first used on Saipan

Mk1 Ronson flamethrower tank :LVT(4) on rear deck;standardized 1944
range=75yds[unthickened] , 150yds[thickened]
fuel=200gals ; flame duration 55secs/80secs
remarks: fitted to 6 LVT(4)'s used on Peleliu by the US Navy Flamethrower Detachment.

M3-4-3 famethrower tank : M4A2 in lieu of bow mg ; standardized 1944
range= 60-70yds ; fuel=25gal ; duration=45secs
remarks: first used on Guam.

E7 flamethrower tank : LVT(A)(1) in lieu of main gun ; standardized 1944

E12-7R1 flamethrower tank : M4 in lieu of bow mg ; standardized 1944
range=125yds ; fuel=290gals ; duration 85-120secs
remarks: first used on Iwo Jima.



_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 14
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/26/2006 1:06:57 AM   
visionstealer

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Found, to my surprise, that the M4 flame tanks had their flame units mounted inside their 75mm gun barrels, rather than co-axially (similar to the British Crocodiles). Can anybody confirm this? It would make a rather substantial difference in how an M4 flame tank was implemented in WitP...


From what Ive read in the past, They wanted the flamethrower installed in place of the 75mm breech in order to desguise the true nature of the tank. Flame tanks were pretty devestating against soft targets and bunkers and such and it was found that the enemy would target them first if they could. From the outside an M4 flame tank looked like any old Sherman until it opened up on you.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 15
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/26/2006 1:41:55 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5126
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
pbear beat me to it.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 5/26/2006 1:42:54 AM >


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 16
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/26/2006 1:45:45 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5126
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Found, to my surprise, that the M4 flame tanks had their flame units mounted inside their 75mm gun barrels, rather than co-axially (similar to the British Crocodiles). Can anybody confirm this? It would make a rather substantial difference in how an M4 flame tank was implemented in WitP...


Dont have the reference with me but i do know that not all M4 flames were built as such. One of my tank books has a color pic of a Sherman flame tank in action, with the flame shooting out from the co-axial position normally reserved for the MG.

In fact, i don't recall any M4 model at the moment that mounted it in place of the gun. What reference stated such? (curious)



Nik,

I got my info which is the same as pbears from Tanks of the Untied States & Commonwealth, published by Chamberlain
I'll confirm this tonight



_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 17
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/26/2006 8:25:43 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25295
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
thx.

confirmed it in one of my own references: World War II tanks (George Forty)

"A wide variety of flameguns were fitted, either in place of hull MG or in the turret with or in place of main armament. This included using the Canadian Ronson flamegun and the British Churchill Crocodile flame equipment. US non-clematures included E4R2-5R1, E4R3-5R1 (M3-4-3), E4R4-4R 5-6RC, POA, POA-CWS 75-H1, POA-CWS 75-H2, E6-R1 and E7-7. (Geesh we Americanz sure like our numbers)

British designtations were Adder, Salamander, Crocodile and Badger.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 18
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/26/2006 5:37:41 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
MAJOR WEAPONS AND TRANSPORTATION--MARINE DIVISION
Weapons:

Carbine, .30 cal., M-1 10,953
Flamethrower, portable, M2-2 243
Flamethrower, mechanized, E4-5 24

Gun:
37mm, M3, antitank 36
75mm, motor carriage, Mñ3, w/armament, radio-equipped (TCS) 12

Gun, Machine:
.30 cal, M1919A4 302
.30 cal., M1917A1 162
.50 cal., M2 161

Gun, submachine, .45 cal 49

Howitzer:
75mm pack 24
105mm 24

Launcher, rocket, antitank, M1A1 172

Mortar:
60mm 117
81mm 36

Pistol, .45 cal 399
Rifle, .30 cal., M-1 5,436
Rifle, Browning, automatic 853
Shotgun, 12 gauge 306

Tank, Army medium, with armament 46
Vehicle, recovery, M32B2 3


What the heck is a "flamethrower, mechanised"? Don't think it's a flame tank, given the number, but what then? A half-track?

Found this here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/III/USMC-III-F.html

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 19
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/26/2006 6:10:44 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25295
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
your best bet may be to go with the combo version. Leave it's anti tank value more or less intact and enhance it's anti soft capability.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 20
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/26/2006 6:10:50 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 520
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
What the heck is a "flamethrower, mechanised"?

is a flamethrower mounted on a afv either a tank or LVT

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 21
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/26/2006 6:28:01 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Yeah, that's what I plan to do...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 22
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/27/2006 10:10:25 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5126
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
Tactics:
CAMPAIGN IN THE MARIANAS, US ARMY IN WW2

In the Tinian attack, "To each Regiment was assigned one reinforced medium tank company(18 Tanks), a platoon of 4 Flamethrower Tanks and 2 Light Tanks.

Each of the Tank companies stayed with its parent Regiment throughout the operation"

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 23
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/27/2006 3:27:36 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
That smells like a split-up of a tank battalion to me... Oh, well...

I've decided to go with a generic M4 flame tank, of the type that retains its 75mm gun. Anti-Armour rating stays the same (120), and Anti-Soft rating goes up (from 32 to 48).

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 24
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/27/2006 3:40:55 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22525
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
Just as a point of interest (?): was watching Sands of Iwo Jima (with John Wayne) last night. At one point, they are pinned down by a bunker, and a guy goes to get a bazooka, and comes back with a flamethrower tank instead.

The movie mixes in archival footage with movie footage. In the movie, the tank has a flamethrower in place of the coaxial machine gun, but if you watch carefully you see that when the bunker is actually fried, the tank fires the flame out of the main barrel (and no longer has the coaxial mounted flamethrower) and is actual archival footage.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 25
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/27/2006 3:47:54 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22525
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

MAJOR WEAPONS AND TRANSPORTATION--MARINE DIVISION
Weapons:

Carbine, .30 cal., M-1 10,953
Flamethrower, portable, M2-2 243
Flamethrower, mechanized, E4-5 24

What the heck is a "flamethrower, mechanised"? Don't think it's a flame tank, given the number, but what then? A half-track?

Found this here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/III/USMC-III-F.html


Found this on your mechanized flame thrower:

"The first modification to Sherman tanks involved the installation of the small E4-5 mechanized flame thrower in place of the bow machine gun. This was only a marginal improvement; the system's short range, modest fuel supply, and awkward aiming process hardly offset the loss of the machine gun. Even so, each of the three tank battalions employed E4-5 equipped Shermans during Iwo Jima."
from:
http://www.nps.gov/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003131-00/sec6.htm

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 26
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 5/27/2006 3:50:58 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41339
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Just as a point of interest (?): was watching Sands of Iwo Jima (with John Wayne) last night. At one point, they are pinned down by a bunker, and a guy goes to get a bazooka, and comes back with a flamethrower tank instead.

The movie mixes in archival footage with movie footage. In the movie, the tank has a flamethrower in place of the coaxial machine gun, but if you watch carefully you see that when the bunker is actually fried, the tank fires the flame out of the main barrel (and no longer has the coaxial mounted flamethrower) and is actual archival footage.


Heh! Ooopsie...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 27
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 9/5/2010 8:48:58 PM   
Old Marine

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 9/5/2010
Status: offline
Responding to several Q&A re M4 Flame Tanks. I served with 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, in Korea. I was a tank mechanic, later a turret armorer. I can speak to questions on organization, and the flame and gun tanks themselves.

Marine Tank Battalions have four "letter companies" (eg: A, B, C, D) of gun tanks. (Ours were post-WWII M46 & M46A1's, mounting 90 MM's). Our Hq Company (H&S Co.) had one platoon of M-4 flame tanks. They were the slab-sided version, with welded hull armor. If you watch "live" newsreels from WWII, you'll see that the flame tanks do indeed have both a flame tube and a gun tube. The gun was a 105mm, and the flame tube operated coaxially with the gun tube. The napalm for the flame tube was held in a large tank in the bottom of the hull. If I remember right, the 105 ammo was stored both in covered "bins" below the gunners' & Tank Commander's deck, with a few rounds for quick access in bins between the driver and "assistant driver" (front gunner).

The napalm was mixed in a special WWII vintage "Six-By" truck, slightly similar to a cement mixer truck. The napalm mix was a granular stuff, similar in appearance to ordinary fertilizer, and it came (as I recall) in small barrels. I also remember that mixing it was somewhat of an art; as it had to be thick enough to "stick together" when it was fired from the flame tube to spray as a steady stream and still have body when it landed on target; if it was too thin, it tended to just burn up in the air while after it was fired. There was an electrical igniter in the tip of the flame tube to cause the napalm to flame up. As I recall, we had only a couple of salty old Gunnery Sgt's from WWII who were allowed to mix the napalm. The quality and thickness of the napalm were critical in getting good range. This is a hazy memory, but it seems to me that about 40 - 60 yards was about all that a good mixture could reach, so it was a close-in business.

The turret was more cramped than the M-4 Gun tanks, due to the space required below the ammo bins for the napalm tanks.

It's true that we called them "Zippo's"; but that was because of their flame capability.

Our utility tanks (comm, dozers, flails, were all WWII M-4's. I cannot remember the series number, but we had flat-head Ford V-8 engines in all of ours. They looked almost identical to he old auto flat-head Fords from the mid-30's, with the coolant return exiting the head vertically, between the second and third cylinders. Incidentally, the flail tank mounted a 40's vintage flat-head Cadillac engine on the starboard side of the tank, just to spin the flail chains and balls.

As best as I can remember, all of our M-4's mounted the 105 mm; but we had a Korean Marine Tank Battalion on our right flank, and they all mounted the 76mm, which I think had much higher muzzle velocity and were more effective against armor and pillboxes, etc. Those Korean Marines were good, by the way!

I'm an old man now (approaching 80), and trying to remember things from a very long time ago, so there may be a few errors in the above, but there aren't a whole lot of us around who have been exposed to the old WWII flame tanks, and I thought this might be helpful to you.

God bless, and Semper Fidelis,
Jay (Formerly CPL, USMC)


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 28
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 9/6/2010 2:27:29 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22525
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
Thanks, Old Marine, and welcome to the forum!!

(in reply to Old Marine)
Post #: 29
RE: M4 Flame Tanks - 9/6/2010 2:45:44 AM   
tocaff


Posts: 4627
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
Nothing like 1st hand knowledge.

Welcome aboard!

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> M4 Flame Tanks Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117