:: :: FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Join! (free) :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in ::
On the Subject of UK Battleships
Page 1, 2  Next  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> WAS General Discussion -> Naval Research
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Flakstruk

 Nobody Expects The FLAK-ATAK

MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Likes received: 405

Posts: 35335
FLAGS




Post subject: On the Subject of UK Battleships  Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Though it may fall into the abyss of conjecture, do you think that the RN would have been better served with additional QE class battleships over the R-Class, repulse, renown and hood hull that were built instead?
PostMon Dec 31, 2012 3:02 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Toronado3800

 

Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Likes received: 74

Posts: 2199
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
The QEs were no doubt the most accomplished.  Especially Warspite.  Don't know if the added speed of Hood, Repulse or Renown ever came into play, that would be the advantage they had and maybe a bigger one in real life vs WAS.

Hmmmm. Doubt Warspite would have been any better than Repulse if it had been.with task force z.

I would definately rather.have QEs over Rs any day though.
_________________
http://www.markviiimarc.com/war-at-sea/war-at-sea-vassal-module

War at Sea Vassal Module Download and my Card List
PostMon Dec 31, 2012 7:28 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
torpman

 The Forumini Pirate

MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
MySpecialCauseClub

Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Likes received: 132

Posts: 10670
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Force Z is a very misunderstood incident that while is pointed by everyone to signal the end of the battleship, really did not signal the end of the battleship IMHO. I can explain further if you want.

Also the battlecruisers can stay with their speed they were great carrier escorts and were needed ships. QEs were way better than Rs though.
_________________
“Oh, that? That’s a torpedo …” Admiral Doorman Battle of the Java Sea February 1942
PostMon Dec 31, 2012 7:44 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
SJG Gamer

 Former US Navy Gunners-Mate here


Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Likes received: 40

Posts: 2239
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
torpman wrote:
Force Z is a very misunderstood incident that while is pointed by everyone to signal the end of the battleship, really did not signal the end of the battleship IMHO. I can explain further if you want.

Also the battlecruisers can stay with their speed they were great carrier escorts and were needed ships. QEs were way better than Rs though.
I agree.
In 1942, as part of the Battle of Coral Sea, the US CA Chicago and an Australian cruiser escorted by some DDs were attacked by Japanese land based aircraft, the same way as the Prince of Wales & Repulse.
All bombs missed & all torpedoes were dodged.  The ships' AA downed some Japanese aircraft.  In W@S terms, the Prince of Wales & Repulse blew to many of their AA rolls & the Landbased Japanese qircraft did well.
The loss of Force Z showed that aircraft were formitable.  Italian torpedo boats sank an Austrian BB in 1918; that didn't make BBs obsolete.  
These losses showed that no ships were invincible... Shocked
_________________
Darn the Torpedoes; full speed ahead!
Victory is blasting hostile ships out of the water before they blast you out of the water...


Last edited by SJG Gamer on Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:55 am; edited 1 time in total
PostTue Jan 01, 2013 3:54 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
'Warspite'

 

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Likes received: 12

Posts: 2896
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
The Queen Elizabeths (inc my beloved HMS Warspite) were probably the most balanced designs of WW1 and the early 1920s.

By 1939 they were certainly dated but were better than the 'R' Class for two reasons...

1) they were slightly faster
2) they had received more modernisations and new equipment between the wars.

The only thing that could have improved them was a modern secondary armament of twin dual-purpose 4.5-inch turrets as fitted to HMS Renown. The 4.5-inch was a bit lighter than the 5.25-inch but was probably the superior gun in terms of rate-of-fire and all-round effectiveness.
_________________
'Master and Commander' afloat on the seas of life...
PostThu Jan 03, 2013 8:54 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Baldeagle

 

Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Likes received: 14

Posts: 727
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
'Warspite' wrote:
The Queen Elizabeths (inc my beloved HMS Warspite) were probably the most balanced designs of WW1 and the early 1920s.

By 1939 they were certainly dated but were better than the 'R' Class for two reasons...

1) they were slightly faster
2) they had received more modernisations and new equipment between the wars.

The only thing that could have improved them was a modern secondary armament of twin dual-purpose 4.5-inch turrets as fitted to HMS Renown. The 4.5-inch was a bit lighter than the 5.25-inch but was probably the superior gun in terms of rate-of-fire and all-round effectiveness.


In fact the Queen Elizabeth & Valiant did receive the dual 4.5" guns as part of their modernization, which is why their AA is 8 on their Forumini Navies cards.
PostThu Jan 03, 2013 10:56 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
drittal

 Nerd on the Prairie


Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Likes received: 26

Posts: 5644
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
How would the more modern BB's differ without the creation of Hood? Many classify her as a BC, but in reality she was the first modern fast BB and benchmark of all fast BB thereafter to be compared to.  Until 1939 nothing could afloat could match her might and speed.  This was to partially be her Achilles heel.  While her flaws were known, she wasn't upgraded prewar because she was too busy showing her might around the world for the Empire.
_________________
PostThu Jan 03, 2013 10:56 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
'Warspite'

 

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Likes received: 12

Posts: 2896
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Baldeagle wrote:
'Warspite' wrote:
The Queen Elizabeths (inc my beloved HMS Warspite) were probably the most balanced designs of WW1 and the early 1920s.

By 1939 they were certainly dated but were better than the 'R' Class for two reasons...

1) they were slightly faster
2) they had received more modernisations and new equipment between the wars.

The only thing that could have improved them was a modern secondary armament of twin dual-purpose 4.5-inch turrets as fitted to HMS Renown. The 4.5-inch was a bit lighter than the 5.25-inch but was probably the superior gun in terms of rate-of-fire and all-round effectiveness.


In fact the Queen Elizabeth & Valiant did receive the dual 4.5" guns as part of their modernization, which is why their AA is 8 on their Forumini Navies cards.


You are quite right but I was referring to converting to whole class, not just QE and Valiant. Sorry, it is one of the perils of late night posting.
_________________
'Master and Commander' afloat on the seas of life...


Last edited by 'Warspite' on Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:44 am; edited 1 time in total
PostFri Jan 04, 2013 8:35 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
'Warspite'

 

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Likes received: 12

Posts: 2896
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
drittal wrote:
How would the more modern BB's differ without the creation of Hood? Many classify her as a BC, but in reality she was the first modern fast BB and benchmark of all fast BB thereafter to be compared to.  Until 1939 nothing could afloat could match her might and speed.  This was to partially be her Achilles heel.  While her flaws were known, she wasn't upgraded prewar because she was too busy showing her might around the world for the Empire.


HMS Hood is something of a hybrid. Her hull shape was true battlecruiser (compare the long hull shape of the WaS Hood model with, say, the chunkier PoW or Rodney) while her armour thicknesses were good, the overall distribution of that armour was not quite up to battleship standard.

Hood's greater length allowed for greater engine spaces while her narrowness allowed her to drive through the water faster. She had less water resistance. However the same narrowness affected her ability to absorb torpedo hits or resist capsize. Remember that capsize was the principal cause of loss of most big warships (see Royal Sovereign, Barham, Repulse, Prince of Wales, Bismarck, Blucher, etc). It is perhaps good that Hood was never tested by a torpedo hit.

It is probably fair to say that HMS Hood was conceived as a battlecruiser but she pointed the way to the fast battleship concept. In my book she is a hybrid.
_________________
'Master and Commander' afloat on the seas of life...
PostFri Jan 04, 2013 8:43 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Flakstruk

 Nobody Expects The FLAK-ATAK

MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Likes received: 405

Posts: 35335
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Going by bits and pieces I've read, the repulse and renown were battle cruisers based on the QEs, at the expense of one main turret and armour. And the hood was a further development

So were the R's a retrograde step and a mistake in hindsight?
PostFri Jan 04, 2013 9:42 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Flakstruk

 Nobody Expects The FLAK-ATAK

MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Likes received: 405

Posts: 35335
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Going by bits and pieces I've read, the repulse and renown were battle cruisers based on the QEs, at the expense of one main turret and armour. And the hood was a further development

So were the R's a retrograde step and a mistake in hindsight?
PostFri Jan 04, 2013 9:46 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Baldeagle

 

Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Likes received: 14

Posts: 727
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Flakstruk wrote:
Going by bits and pieces I've read, the repulse and renown were battle cruisers based on the QEs, at the expense of one main turret and armour. And the hood was a further development

So were the R's a retrograde step and a mistake in hindsight?


The R's received less modernization than the OE's and so despite being marginally newer were less up to date when they entered WWII.  They gave good service escorting convoys against raiders, & gunfire support of  landing operations but were less prepared to engage modern BB's, & considered too slow to accompany more modern BB's and Carriers in major fleet operations.
PostFri Jan 04, 2013 5:27 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
SJG Gamer

 Former US Navy Gunners-Mate here


Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Likes received: 40

Posts: 2239
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
The QE class was designed to be faster than other UK BBs in 1913 and burned oil (the first British BBs to do so), all which had to be imported.  The original Revenge class were slightly smaller and were designed as coal burners in order to take advantage of the UK having lots of good coal.  There was concern that if oil supplies were disrupted & the QE BBs not able to get enough, that there would be no 15"/42 gunned BBs able to steam.  The slower, slightly smaller with smaller engines R Class BBs were designed & built to fill a need in 1913.  They were as well armored as the slightly larger QE class.  Their design reflects the realities of pre-WW1 Europe.  Based on that time period, and the of the ease of getting local British coal vs imported oil from distant Persia, their construction was quite logical, when designed & built.
_________________
Darn the Torpedoes; full speed ahead!
Victory is blasting hostile ships out of the water before they blast you out of the water...


Last edited by SJG Gamer on Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
PostSat Jan 05, 2013 2:05 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
torpman

 The Forumini Pirate

MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
MySpecialCauseClub

Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Likes received: 132

Posts: 10670
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
SJG Gamer wrote:
torpman wrote:
Force Z is a very misunderstood incident that while is pointed by everyone to signal the end of the battleship, really did not signal the end of the battleship IMHO. I can explain further if you want.

Also the battlecruisers can stay with their speed they were great carrier escorts and were needed ships. QEs were way better than Rs though.
I agree.
In 1942, as part of the Battle of Coral Sea, the US CA Chicago and an Australian cruiser escorted by some DDs were attacked by Japanese land based aircraft, the same way as the Prince of Wales & Repulse.
All bombs missed & all torpedoes were dodged.  The ships' AA downed some Japanese aircraft.  In W@S terms, the Prince of Wales & Repulse blew to many of their AA rolls & the Landbased Japanese qircraft did well.
The loss of Force Z showed that aircraft were formitable.  Italian torpedo boats sank an Austrian BB in 1918; that didn't make BBs obsolete.  
These losses showed that no ships were invincible... Shocked

Not only that but Force Z should have survived. The loss of both battleships can be blamed on fluke and one bad decision by an officer on the HMS Prince of Wales. When the second wave attack the Prince of Wales only one torpedo hit her. That torpedo was fatal. If slammed the ship on the port side along the "Y" turret. This hit jarred the outer port shaft loose and stopped it. One of the officers on the ship (He remains unknown) ordered it restarted. The loose shaft then tore apart bulkheads all the way back to engine room B. This effectively placed about half the ship under flooding danger and began to uncontrollably flood that area. Also it shut down the main electrical engines knocking out all power to the pom poms and the 5.25 inch guns. This effectively halved the British fleets AA at a critical part in the battle. The Prince of Wales then slowly sank from this would that would have been a death blow to any ship including the Yamato. By the forth wave it was obvious that she was sinking. So a squadron of Bettys pulled off their attack run on the Prince to attack the Repulse catching her accidently in a perfect anvil attack. No ship could dodge this onslought and as a result Repulse was hit atleast 3 to 4 times and doom. The Prince of Wales then sank from her heel wound that slowly but surely killed her. Had her shaft not been restarted or the hit happened somewhere else on the Prince of Wales then both ships would have survived. Prince of Wales because her AA would have been up which alone would have protected the force but also because she was not slowly sinking. She could have then taken the 4-5 torpedo hit she did and survived. As is she did not and she sank due to uncontrolable flooding from a VERY lucky shot. Repulse also would have survived because the anvil attack on her would not have happen and she would have no problem surviving the rest of the attacks as the Prince was the main target. This could have changed alot of the war as Japan no longer walks over the Indes and Malaya with atleast one British Capital ship still there and in fighting shape, but alas it did not as one of the flukeist things ever happened dooming the British ships. Bad Luck not air power killed Force Z.
_________________
“Oh, that? That’s a torpedo …” Admiral Doorman Battle of the Java Sea February 1942
PostSun Jan 06, 2013 2:52 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
'Warspite'

 

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Likes received: 12

Posts: 2896
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
It should be pointed out that nearly every Japanese aircraft involved in the attacks received damage of some sort, which surprised the Japanese. However very little of the damage was critical.
_________________
'Master and Commander' afloat on the seas of life...
PostMon Jan 07, 2013 11:44 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Piper

 
MySingleNationClub

Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Likes received: 19

Posts: 8565
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
torpman wrote:
SJG Gamer wrote:
In 1942, as part of the Battle of Coral Sea, the US CA Chicago and an Australian cruiser escorted by some DDs were attacked by Japanese land based aircraft, the same way as the Prince of Wales & Repulse.
All bombs missed & all torpedoes were dodged.  The ships' AA downed some Japanese aircraft.  In W@S terms, the Prince of Wales & Repulse blew to many of their AA rolls & the Landbased Japanese qircraft did well.
The loss of Force Z showed that aircraft were formitable.  Italian torpedo boats sank an Austrian BB in 1918; that didn't make BBs obsolete.  
These losses showed that no ships were invincible... Shocked

Not only that but Force Z should have survived. The loss of both battleships can be blamed on fluke and one bad decision by an officer on the HMS Prince of Wales. When the second wave attack the Prince of Wales only one torpedo hit her. That torpedo was fatal. If slammed the ship on the port side along the "Y" turret. This hit jarred the outer port shaft loose and stopped it. One of the officers on the ship (He remains unknown) ordered it restarted. The loose shaft then tore apart bulkheads all the way back to engine room B. This effectively placed about half the ship under flooding danger and began to uncontrollably flood that area. Also it shut down the main electrical engines knocking out all power to the pom poms and the 5.25 inch guns. This effectively halved the British fleets AA at a critical part in the battle. The Prince of Wales then slowly sank from this would that would have been a death blow to any ship including the Yamato. By the forth wave it was obvious that she was sinking. So a squadron of Bettys pulled off their attack run on the Prince to attack the Repulse catching her accidently in a perfect anvil attack. No ship could dodge this onslought and as a result Repulse was hit atleast 3 to 4 times and doom. The Prince of Wales then sank from her heel wound that slowly but surely killed her. Had her shaft not been restarted or the hit happened somewhere else on the Prince of Wales then both ships would have survived. Prince of Wales because her AA would have been up which alone would have protected the force but also because she was not slowly sinking. She could have then taken the 4-5 torpedo hit she did and survived. As is she did not and she sank due to uncontrolable flooding from a VERY lucky shot. Repulse also would have survived because the anvil attack on her would not have happen and she would have no problem surviving the rest of the attacks as the Prince was the main target. This could have changed alot of the war as Japan no longer walks over the Indes and Malaya with atleast one British Capital ship still there and in fighting shape, but alas it did not as one of the flukeist things ever happened dooming the British ships. Bad Luck not air power killed Force Z.

goodpost

I never would have realised that.
_________________

Excellence is to do a common thing in an uncommon way. - Booker T. Washington
PostMon Jan 07, 2013 5:17 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
fredmiracle

 

Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Likes received: 55

Posts: 4740
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
torpman wrote:
Force Z is a very misunderstood incident that while is pointed by everyone to signal the end of the battleship, really did not signal the end of the battleship IMHO. I can explain further if you want.


The thing about Force Z is that it was the strongest piece in a growing body of evidence that if you put warships into a situation where the enemy had a significant degree of air superiority, you stood a high chance of attrition (serious damage or destruction) to those ships, without ever having a chance to do damage to the enemy. (This probably would have been true, though with less shock value, even if PoW had limped back into harbor with 18 months worth of repairs ahead of her.)

These were conditions no naval officer would risk--certainly with respect to any squadron, or any individual ship larger than a destroyer--except under dire necessity. So in practical terms it moved airpower and carriers from the supporting role to the lead role, and conversely turned gun warships into supporting units.
PostMon Jan 07, 2013 5:19 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
torpman

 The Forumini Pirate

MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
MySpecialCauseClub

Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Likes received: 132

Posts: 10670
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
@Piper: Thank you

@fredmiracle: I agree with you sorta. While it does show that Capital ships can be hurt by airplanes it did not show that Capital ships had been eclipsed by air. It was not until 1944 that Battlewagons could really be stopped by air. It did not move power to air and carriers. The Java campaign proves this. The only time warships were sunk by air was when destroyers got caught alone or with no other warships. Out of the warships there, only 3 destroyers were sunk air power. All of those were destroyers sailing alone. Also look at Pipers example. A squadron could easilyforce its way through even the stongest air attack at this time if it did not get unlucky like force Z. Just look at Operation Pedastal. They forced their way through the largest air onslaughts ever. They did take heavy losses but most of the warship losses were from sub or MTP attack. In fact I think that destroyers were even more endangered by air than cruisers or battleships. Also Prince of Wales had she not have take that hit or taken it somewhere else would have taken 3 torps on a bad day. Her AA guns would still have been firing well and easily disperesed the rest of the attacks as her heavy AA guns would have caused heavy damaged to the attacking planes. They would have had a great shot at the Japanese invasion force and problably caused considerable damaged as POWs speed would not have been impaired much. Air in the end was not as good as the gun until '43 at best.
_________________
“Oh, that? That’s a torpedo …” Admiral Doorman Battle of the Java Sea February 1942
PostTue Jan 08, 2013 1:14 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
GreyFox78659

 

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Likes received:

Posts: 256
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Airplane didn't kill capitol ships Subs and A-Bombs did that. More to the point new homing torpedoes that exploded under the keel of a ship breaking it without ever contacting the ship. That rendered any torpedo defense useless  and it was devastating to any ship a float or even those not a float as post war subs became sub hunters. Then add in the Bikini atoll experiment that demonstrated the one plane plus one a-bomb equaled one devastated fleet. After that test no nation since aside for the US and some others seeking a level of posterity have bothered with them. Then add in a modern destroyer has pretty much the capability of a ww2 carrier battle group and you see why they died and are not coming back any huge numbers ever again.
PostSat Oct 19, 2013 11:24 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Azrael

 Powered by Vril

MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 07 Feb 2011
Likes received: 136

Posts: 7031
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
'Warspite' wrote:
drittal wrote:
How would the more modern BB's differ without the creation of Hood? Many classify her as a BC, but in reality she was the first modern fast BB and benchmark of all fast BB thereafter to be compared to.  Until 1939 nothing could afloat could match her might and speed.  This was to partially be her Achilles heel.  While her flaws were known, she wasn't upgraded prewar because she was too busy showing her might around the world for the Empire.


HMS Hood is something of a hybrid. Her hull shape was true battlecruiser (compare the long hull shape of the WaS Hood model with, say, the chunkier PoW or Rodney) while her armour thicknesses were good, the overall distribution of that armour was not quite up to battleship standard.

Hood's greater length allowed for greater engine spaces while her narrowness allowed her to drive through the water faster. She had less water resistance. However the same narrowness affected her ability to absorb torpedo hits or resist capsize. Remember that capsize was the principal cause of loss of most big warships (see Royal Sovereign, Barham, Repulse, Prince of Wales, Bismarck, Blucher, etc). It is perhaps good that Hood was never tested by a torpedo hit.

It is probably fair to say that HMS Hood was conceived as a battlecruiser but she pointed the way to the fast battleship concept. In my book she is a hybrid.


Would a remade hood warrant the torpedo protection sa's that more recently made renown and repulse received?


_________________

The Angel of Death
PostSun Oct 20, 2013 1:59 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 1, 2  Next



   Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index » WAS General Discussion -> Naval Research

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Editor's Choice
Forumini Generals
All AAM cards
All AAAF Cards
All War At Sea Cards
Forumini Admirals
A20 World Rankings
1. Jcmonson 1066
1. Bean965 1038
3. Vergilius 1024
WAS World Rankings
1. Admiral Wannabee 1240
2. mnnorthstars 1170
3. Azrael 1120
AAM World Rankings
1. Lil Snips 1096
2. Tripwire 1021
3. Kawolski 1010
Friends
Official WoTC site
Richard Baker's new Blog
Le Forum de A&ANM
Riverside Gaming
A&A Underground
Top posters
Brigman 42738
weedsrock2 36854
Flakstruk 35335
RAEVSKI 26750
firesdstny 26685
Asbestos 24554
SWO_Daddy 23223
Solomiranthius 19325
NeuralDream 18234
nrnstraswa 17161
herky80 16512
Lt_V 16301
jfkziegler 15353
Swished3 14762
carrion 14490
LcdrSwizzle 13698
packertim 13611
DaJudge 13360
mnnorthstars 12784
The_lucky_Y 12511
danaussie 12161
Shinnentai 11688
hokiepastor 10867


Forumini Newsletter
Issue #10 (Sep. 2013)
Issue #9 (Sep. 2012)
Issue #8 (Dec. 2011)
Issue #7 (Sep. 2011)
Issue #6 (Apr. 2011)
Issue #5 (Christmas 2010)
Issue #4 (Dec. 2010)
Issue #3 (Jul. 2010)
Issue #2 (Apr. 2010)
Issue #1 (Feb. 2010)


Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Theme by: :: Cosmic Distortion ::
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum