Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval fire control systems of WWII

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Naval fire control systems of WWII Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 2:01:34 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-052.htm




http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data.htm





The arrival of a single powder pack from a "secure" area to a turret on a USN battlewagon.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by m10bob -- 3/12/2015 3:21:56 PM >


_____________________________



Post #: 1
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 3:02:16 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3109
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
Do naval and air crews still get trained in "old-fashioned" manual techniques, like using dumb bombs and semaphore and such?

Reason I ask is, I seen to recall that in that in some wargame exercise held back around 2002, some marine corp officer who was in charge of red force managed to maul the blue force by imposing strict radio silence and using motorcycle couriers and semaphore signalling to coordinate his surprise attacks, which were in large part "Iranian" style PT attacks.

Possibly OT and my apologies if so, but your post made me think of that . . .

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 2
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 4:53:52 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4849
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941, while the Axis never achieved a system advanced as this, and always relied on human input from tables and optical rangefinder observations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_gun_fire-control_system


_____________________________


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 3
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 4:57:50 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4871
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941


Was it that early? I thought this did not come into place until mid '43?

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 4
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 5:06:44 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4849
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
The computerized gun director system was in place in 1941 or earlier, the radar integration came as ships had radar sets installed mostly in 1942.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941


Was it that early? I thought this did not come into place until mid '43?



_____________________________


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 5
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 5:14:36 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4871
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

The computerized gun director system was in place in 1941 or earlier, the radar integration came as ships had radar sets installed mostly in 1942.


Gotcha

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 6
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 5:51:10 PM   
Malagant

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Do naval and air crews still get trained in "old-fashioned" manual techniques, like using dumb bombs and semaphore and such?


I was supposed to have learned semaphore as part of ESWS quals, so yes, that's still used.

_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 7
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 6:08:39 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.

Some CVs and BBs got CXAM pre-war. It sucked, but think of the gobs trying to make sense of it. And then there was the ubiquitous early war SC. Maybe one in twenty operators had a clue as to what they were seeing, and even then their Officers were skeptical. None of this can be modelled in-game, so you get what you get, when you get it, and you must deal with the internal abstractions.

Life is really hard to model. Sometimes, one must use the assets one gets, to the best of their ability. That's kinda what it's all about, yeah? Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 8
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 6:22:32 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4871
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
John, FWIW, I think you guys did an awesome job in modeling the abstract. Every time I have a gripe (with one bug exception) it turned out I was an idiot in my thinking. Not joining the cheering section, just stating fact for those who think otherwise.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 9
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 6:48:40 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2251
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.




So there is no gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied radar??? Just detection.....

interesting...

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 10
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 8:21:10 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 5832
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.




So there is no gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied radar??? Just detection.....

interesting...

A good book is 'Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era' by Norman Friedman
http://www.amazon.com/Naval-Firepower-Battleship-Gunnery-Dreadnought/dp/1848321856/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1426191454&sr=8-11&keywords=norman+friedman

and also 'Naval Ordnance and Gunnery'
http://www.amazon.com/Naval-Ordnance-Gunnery-Bureau-Personnel/dp/1937684229/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=14MNTR7YHZS07FAN3H5V

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 11
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/12/2015 9:01:04 PM   
Michael Vail

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
I think that I read somewhere that most Allied commanders didn't trust radar anyway. It was to new and if they couldn't see the target, the target didn't exist.

(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 12
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/13/2015 1:37:32 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5599
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.

Some CVs and BBs got CXAM pre-war. It sucked, but think of the gobs trying to make sense of it. And then there was the ubiquitous early war SC. Maybe one in twenty operators had a clue as to what they were seeing, and even then their Officers were skeptical. None of this can be modelled in-game, so you get what you get, when you get it, and you must deal with the internal abstractions.

Life is really hard to model. Sometimes, one must use the assets one gets, to the best of their ability. That's kinda what it's all about, yeah? Ciao. JWE


Further to what Symon posted above, the following thread, in particular my post #25 and the hyperlink provided therein, contains more detail on what radar does in this game.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3538438&mpage=1&key=radar�

Alfred

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 13
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/13/2015 2:06:54 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

John, FWIW, I think you guys did an awesome job in modeling the abstract. Every time I have a gripe (with one bug exception) it turned out I was an idiot in my thinking. Not joining the cheering section, just stating fact for those who think otherwise.



+1

_____________________________




(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 14
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/13/2015 3:27:19 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
So there is no gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied radar??? Just detection.....

interesting...

Looks like my explanation is causing some confusion. Alfred has done some good linking to some of the original development discussions, but perhaps a more complete and unified answer would be appropriate here. Everything has been said before, in one form or another, so there's no 'opening the overcoat' issues.

There is a gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied ships : AAA more so than Nav. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any "Radar" Devices. It is hard coded in terms of "time" and is used to "simulate" the effects of gun directors, VT fuses, and the like. It is a "high order" abstraction. In other words, a Bofors on a barge will get the AAA bonus whether it has a "Radar" device or not. I know it's not "accurate" or "historical" but it is what it is, and has always been so. Harsh, but what the hey.

Radar "Devices" inform the results of the DL query for air and naval combat. They can allow initiation of such combat earlier than normally expected, and increase the DL values used in the first stages of the combat results algorithm. In other words, on a moonless night, one side can get some shots off before the other side can even see a target. In air combat, a radar "Device" informs the response time for CAP and 'spotted' planes, in response to incoming raids. It does nothing for AAA fire, except modify the DL value for the first, hi altitude, firing phase.

For them programmers among you, think of a set of Venn spaces, with small, specific, overlaps. None of the algorithms will ever be disclosed, so one must dance around the margins. I hope this works for them of you that understand.

Ciao. JWE

[ed] Thanks Lecivious and m10bob. We try .. we really try.

< Message edited by Symon -- 3/13/2015 4:30:56 PM >


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 15
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/13/2015 3:55:45 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4849
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Vail

I think that I read somewhere that most Allied commanders didn't trust radar anyway. It was to new and if they couldn't see the target, the target didn't exist.




Well, this really isn't quite accurate, though many writers have picked up on the idea and expanded it into something of an urban legend.

It is true that in October 1942, early in the Solomons campaign (a two year sustained campaign of multiple night surface actions), an American TASK FORCE Commander (Rear Admiral Norman Scott) did not fully trust radar sets enough to give a clear picture of what was developing before and during a battle.

Therefore he placed his flag of Commander Task Force 64 on the traditional place of largest warship - the USS San Francisco (since ALL of his ships had Radar anyway), before the upcoming Battle of Cape Esperance (surface action #2 in the above series of actions).

The Helena had the advantage of a newer more capable radar set than the San Franciso, but was subsequently placed further back in the battle line - but more importantly - was not the flagship where Scott could have more easily availed himself to the information pouring out from Helena's radar set.

The result, was an American cruiser battle line chomping at the bit to open fire on Japanese ships (identified and tracked from 27,000 yards range by multiple US Cruisers) while Scott would not permit opening fire for fear that they just may be tracking a portion of his own van destroyers.... eventually the ships opened fire anyway and the battle commenced with the usual confusion.

The above is fact... But there is NO evidence of a US Task Force Commander (or ship captain) ever ignoring radar.

More importantly to this topic of fire control - there is Virtually NO evidence of a US Navy ship Captain or Fire Control Officer - EVER forbidding the use of radar for fire control in a surface action.

That explains why in every surface action after Savo Island - the largest Japanse warship nearest the American gun-line had a life expectancy of a minute or two at best....because she became the initial target for every American ship out there, and radar directed opening salvos usually hit on the first round. This was the normal pattern in every surface action after Savo Island.

B



_____________________________


(in reply to Michael Vail)
Post #: 16
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/13/2015 4:21:06 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9586
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.




So there is no gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied radar??? Just detection.....

interesting...



Well the Allies get a number of things that help as the war progresses. Some newer gun devices have higher rates of fire. crew experience jumps significantly in 43 and then gets very good after 1/44. Torpedoes work better as time passes. And newer Allies ships get better armor (Fletchers) and in the case of BBs speed. All of these combined make for more success in combat-including frequency of hits so gunnery does gets better. All I know from experience that Allied surface ships suck in 42, can hold their own in 43 and pretty much dominate in 44. That is the way it should be and it feels about right to me. How they managed to do it does not matter so much to me but it seems that they have managed pretty well.

But as JWE explained there are certain things that are not in the game such as fire control or radar directed gunnery. Some aspects just have to be worked out in other ways.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 17
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/17/2015 9:14:07 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4569
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941.


In 1941 no.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 18
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/17/2015 10:51:58 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10373
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The computers weren't really related to the digital computers we use today, they were analog computers which is pretty much a lost art now. My degree is in Electronic Engineering and they only told us they once existed. I actually studied tubes a bit, but analog computers were too prehistoric to bother telling us more than "this once existed..."

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 19
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 3/17/2015 3:57:45 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4849
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941.


In 1941 no.



Browse this for quick easy access...Link
quote:

Precision Ranging Panel

The Precision Ranging Panel (PRP) was an electromechanical transmission and calculating system. The PRP allowed for accurate range determination, range rate determination using radar, and accurate transmission of radar ranges and range rates to fire control computers. The PRP used an electronic timing signal and pip matching to provide very accurate ranges.[8] It also used a power follow up to continuously transmit the correct range rate as long as the target maintained a steady course and speed.[8] The PRP was adapted from the British Army GL, Gun Laying, radar system, and first went to sea in 1939 aboard several C-class cruisers, using the Type 280 radar. By 1941 the PRP was a common feature on the Type 280, 279 and 281 radars, and by late 1941 began to appear on the type 282P, 284P and 285P radar systems.[6]



As for the US Navy in 1941 Link
quote:


P-Band fire-control

After the BTL developed the FA, the first fire-control radar for the U.S. Navy, it improved this with the FC (for use against surface targets) and FD (for directing anti-aircraft weapons). A few of these 60 cm (750 MHz) sets began service in the fall of 1941. They were later designated Mark 3 and Mark 4, respectively. About 125 Mark 3 and 375 Mark 4 sets were produced.


< Message edited by Big B -- 3/17/2015 6:00:03 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 20
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 9/4/2019 10:35:51 PM   
engineer

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline
Friedman digs into the nuts and bolts of all this in his Naval Firepower. The Mk 3 fire control radars were integrated into the analog computers as a radar range-finder but they had poor enough resolution that bearing information was not precise enough for fire control. The book includes a photo of the Washington with a Mk 3 from early 1942. The late war Mk 8 fire control radars could provide range, bearing and spotting. He notes that Mk 8 equipped battleships at Surigao Strait were straddling the Japanese battleships on 1st and 2nd salvoes at about 25k-26k yards. The Mk 3 equipped Pennsylvania didn't open fire until less than 20,000 yards.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 21
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 9/5/2019 4:11:57 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5122
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: online
quote:

I think that I read somewhere that most Allied commanders didn't trust radar anyway. It was to new and if they couldn't see the target, the target didn't exist.


This describes both Admiral Callahan and Admiral Scott who commanded the US TF on the night of 12-13 November 1942 but two nights later the Japanese ran into Admiral Lee and Capt Davis on the USS Washington and suffered such a defeat that they never seriously tried to reinforce Guadalcanal again. Admiral Lee and Captain Davis were both believers in the potential of radar and Capt Davis had relentlessly drilled both his radar operators and his gunners to take the fullest advantage of that potential.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf




(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 22
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 9/5/2019 1:23:22 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 2464
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

I think that I read somewhere that most Allied commanders didn't trust radar anyway. It was to new and if they couldn't see the target, the target didn't exist.


This describes both Admiral Callahan and Admiral Scott who commanded the US TF on the night of 12-13 November 1942 but two nights later the Japanese ran into Admiral Lee and Capt Davis on the USS Washington and suffered such a defeat that they never seriously tried to reinforce Guadalcanal again. Admiral Lee and Captain Davis were both believers in the potential of radar and Capt Davis had relentlessly drilled both his radar operators and his gunners to take the fullest advantage of that potential.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf


Very interesting, thank you.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 23
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 9/5/2019 5:01:39 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5122
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: online
When I first entered the Coast Guard (1969) some of the older Radarmen still remembered the days when one got to manually crank the radar antenna around and then sorted the 'strongest' return signal out of the grass as the bearing of the target. That was a search radar similar to the SC radar in game The range could then be read off of an oscilliscope by matching a hand cranked "bug" to that 'strongest' return. The earliest fire control radars worked similarly. IF the bearing of the target was correctly sorted out of the grass the range to the target was dead on. If the bearing wasn't read perfectly however the range was off. In any case there was no "god's eye view" (looking down on the battle from above where one could see the location of all friendlies and enemies even after the (mechanical) sweep of the antenna).

Thus the earliest radars didn't really show commanders what they needed to know. The SG radar with its PPI scope changed all that. Throughout most of 1942 only a few ships had SG radars.
If Admirals Scott or Callahan had ever been on board USS Helena and seen the PPI view of a fleet or battlefield any doubts they had about radar's potential would have instantly disappeared.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 24
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 9/5/2019 5:56:32 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 2464
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

When I first entered the Coast Guard (1969) some of the older Radarmen still remembered the days when one got to manually crank the radar antenna around and then sorted the 'strongest' return signal out of the grass as the bearing of the target. That was a search radar similar to the SC radar in game The range could then be read off of an oscilliscope by matching a hand cranked "bug" to that 'strongest' return. The earliest fire control radars worked similarly. IF the bearing of the target was correctly sorted out of the grass the range to the target was dead on. If the bearing wasn't read perfectly however the range was off. In any case there was no "god's eye view" (looking down on the battle from above where one could see the location of all friendlies and enemies even after the (mechanical) sweep of the antenna).

Thus the earliest radars didn't really show commanders what they needed to know. The SG radar with its PPI scope changed all that. Throughout most of 1942 only a few ships had SG radars.
If Admirals Scott or Callahan had ever been on board USS Helena and seen the PPI view of a fleet or battlefield any doubts they had about radar's potential would have instantly disappeared.



In other words, they picked the wrong ship to be on - whichever one had the Helena under his command. Maybe the ship's captain should have suggested a visit and had them look at the radar while not in combat.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 25
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 9/5/2019 6:24:38 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 484
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
Scott should have already had some idea before the November battle. He'd previously used the SG/PPI equipped San Juan as his flagship for two weeks during the Guadalcanal landings, including the Battle of Savo.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 26
RE: Naval fire control systems of WWII - 9/5/2019 7:26:10 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7092
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel/Bulgaria
Status: offline
4+ yr thread necromancy!

But lots of good info for many.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Naval fire control systems of WWII 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

0.160