Jump to content


Photo

Newbie equipment Questions


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 03:56 PM

I expect the answer to a lot of these questions is going to be 'it's beneath the simulation scale', but here goes anyway. A lot of countries fielded armored cars that had dual driving positions and balanced forward/reverse gearboxes, so that they could be driven in reverse at full speed. Shouldn't these vehicles be able to reverse w/o paying the double cost? I was expecting a 'note' to that effect on the charts. Similarly, why aren't more AC listed as 'Recon' units? I had expected that that would be the default, as that was usually their design mission. Note (1) for the German AFV charts states: 'Equipped with side skirts (Schuerzen) to protect against hollow charge rounds. Any side hits from HEAT rounds ha[l]ve its HEAT value halved.' All of these vehicles (I think) also have dual side armor values in format x/y, where the first value is used for normal attacks, and the second value is used against HEAT attacks. Do you use the second armor value, *and* halve the HEAT value, or is one of these rules superfluous? The Soviet OT-35 is currently listed as a DR3 vehicle - I presume this is a typo? If not, what is the difference between it and the T-35 that gives it an extra hit? I'm surprised that vehicles with ST mounting for their machine guns cannot fire the MGs and the main armament at the same time. I figured that the general rule was because the MG operators generally had other jobs (gunner, driver, etc.), but didn't seperate turret type mounts have their own dedicated gunners? I always thought that was the case, especially for things like the Soviet T-28 / T-35 types. On a related matter, shouldn't the Italian M- 11/39 have it's MGs in an ST mount? I thought it had twin 8mm Bredas in the turret, and the 37mm in the hull. I also thought early UK Crusaders had a MG in a small turret mount on the nose. That's all that comes to mind at the moment. Love the game so far, hopefully I'll be able to convince folks to play. -Kle.

#2 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 28 March 2007 - 07:55 AM

Hey Kle.You have some very good questions here. So let me take them in order. Also, do you have the newest revision of the Core Rules/WW2 Data Book?

"A lot of countries fielded armored cars that had dual driving positions and balanced forward/reverse gearboxes, so that they could be driven in reverse at full speed. Shouldn't these vehicles be able to reverse w/o paying the double cost? I was expecting a 'note' to that effect on the charts."

That is a very good point and I should have thought of this before. I honestly don't remember seeing this capability during my research so my only excuse is the volume of data I had gone through made me blank this out, and I am sticking to it. :) Since I am hot and heavy working on the WW1 Data Book, please let me know which armored cars have this capability and I will start up a list for the next 'red-line' pages and the follow-up replacement pages. Off the top of my head the only armored car I can think of with this capability is a French armored car fielded after WW2.

"Similarly, why aren't more AC listed as 'Recon' units? I had expected that that would be the default, as that was usually their design mission."

This argument could be used for a lot of vehicles that had many uses. PzKpfw I and II could be considered Recon and some point in their use too. I grouped Armored Cars specifically into their own group as they did perform in more functions than recon. I tried to use the RECON designation for vehicles that were specifically designed only for or used predominantly for recon use by the mounting of better/more radios and manned by specially trained recon crews. If you are playing using BPVs you can add 3 points to the cost of the vehicle if it is not designated as RECON in the notes column and you want to give it recon capability. If you are not using BPVs, then you can indicate on the play sheet RECON in the notes section.

"Note (1) for the German AFV charts states: 'Equipped with side skirts (Schuerzen) to protect against hollow charge rounds. Any side hits from HEAT rounds ha[l]ve its HEAT value halved.'All of these vehicles (I think) also have dual side armor values in format x/y, where the first value is used for normal attacks, and the second value is used against HEAT attacks. Do you use the second armor value, *and* halve the HEAT value, or is one of these rules superfluous?"

Hmmm. The halving of the HEAT round penetration, I thought anyways, was removed from the rules for the latest revision. The halving of the HEAT round penetration is superfluous. Use the full penetration vs. the y value of the armor, with the x/y format, as you noted.

"The Soviet OT-35 is currently listed as a DR3 vehicle - I presume this is a typo? If not, what is the difference between it and the T-35 that gives it an extra hit?"

That would be a typo. The DR rating should have been 2.

"I'm surprised that vehicles with ST mounting for their machine guns cannot fire the MGs and the main armament at the same time. I figured that the general rule was because the MG operators generally had other jobs (gunner, driver, etc.), but didn't seperate turret type mounts have their own dedicated gunners? I always thought that was the case, especially for things like the Soviet T-28 / T-35 types."

I believe that Jon did this due to playability issues. However you are more than welcome to House rule this if you like.

"On a related matter, shouldn't the Italian M- 11/39 have it's MGs in an ST mount? I thought it had twin 8mm Bredas in the turret, and the 37mm in the hull. I also thought early UK Crusaders had a MG in a small turret mount on the nose."

I actually have messed this up. It must have been a carry over from the original Mein Panzer dated 1996 and I or anyone else must have missed it. This should have been listed just like the US Lee/Grant with two line entries. The first would be the turret mounted MGs and the second would be the hull mounted 37mm. Another candidate for the errata file.Thanks for all of your questions! :)

#3 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 28 March 2007 - 01:58 PM

bbenge wrote:

Hey Kle.You have some very good questions here. So let me take them in order. Also, do you have the newest revision of the Core Rules/WW2 Data Book?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. I just ordered them direct from your web-store last week. The Data Book says 'published in 2007', and the Core Rules is 'copyright 1998-2007'.

"A lot of countries fielded armored cars that had dual driving positions and balanced forward/reverse gearboxes, so that they could be driven in reverse at full speed. Shouldn't these vehicles be able to reverse w/o paying the double cost? I was expecting a 'note' to that effect on the charts."

That is a very good point and I should have thought of this before. I honestly don't remember seeing this capability during my research so my only excuse is the volume of data I had gone through made me blank this out, and I am sticking to it. :) Since I am hot and heavy working on the WW1 Data Book, please let me know which armored cars have this capability and I will start up a list for the next 'red-line' pages and the follow-up replacement pages. Off the top of my head the only armored car I can think of with this capability is a French armored car fielded after WW2.

SdKfz 231 and derivatives, both 6-rad and 8-rad, SdKfz-234 and derivatives. Italian AB-4x series (these had two driving positions, but 6 forward and only four reverse gears, but still). I've heard the AB-611 could do this too, but no great data. Panhard 178/AMD 35.I thought the AEC (British) could do this, but now I can't find any info. I bet there are more, that I don't know about - I'll look around.The '70s-era West german Luchs recce vehicle was like this, too.

"Similarly, why aren't more AC listed as 'Recon' units? I had expected that that would be the default, as that was usually their design mission."

This argument could be used for a lot of vehicles that had many uses. PzKpfw I and II could be considered Recon and some point in their use too. I grouped Armored Cars specifically into their own group as they did perform in more functions than recon. I tried to use the RECON designation for vehicles that were specifically designed only for or used predominantly for recon use by the mounting of better/more radios and manned by specially trained recon crews. If you are playing using BPVs you can add 3 points to the cost of the vehicle if it is not designated as RECON in the notes column and you want to give it recon capability. If you are not using BPVs, then you can indicate on the play sheet RECON in the notes section.

I was just sort of wondering about the reasoning - now I know. I doubt I'll ever play a 'points' game, so that's not a problem.

"Note (1) for the German AFV charts states: 'Equipped with side skirts (Schuerzen) to protect against hollow charge rounds. Any side hits from HEAT rounds ha[l]ve its HEAT value halved.'

Hmmm. The halving of the HEAT round penetration, I thought anyways, was removed from the rules for the latest revision. The halving of the HEAT round penetration is superfluous. Use the full penetration vs. the y value of the armor, with the x/y format, as you noted.

Nope. It's in the file on the website, too. I don't find it anywhere in the rules, just in the 'equipment notes' of the German section in the Data Book. thanks for the clarification.

"The Soviet OT-35 is currently listed as a DR3 vehicle - I presume this is a typo? If not, what is the difference between it and the T-35 that gives it an extra hit?"That would be a typo. The DR rating should have been 2.

Gotcha, thanks.

Thanks for all of your questions! :)

No problem. Since it's appreciated, I'll make a list of anything I find, poring over the rules, and post later.-Kle.

#4 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 28 March 2007 - 01:58 PM

Hmm... Double post for unknown reason.-Kle.

#5 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 29 March 2007 - 07:35 AM

"To the best of my knowledge, yes. I just ordered them direct from your web-store last week. The Data Book says 'published in 2007', and the Core Rules is 'copyright 1998-2007'."

That's great! I just wanted to make sure I was on the same page as you. Transitioning to a new version can cause some minor inconveniances with getting errata updated. :)

"SdKfz 231 and derivatives, both 6-rad and 8-rad, SdKfz-234 and derivatives. Italian AB-4x series (these had two driving positions, but 6 forward and only four reverse gears, but still). I've heard the AB-611 could do this too, but no great data. Panhard 178/AMD 35."

I'll start with these.

"I thought the AEC (British) could do this, but now I can't find any info. I bet there are more, that I don't know about - I'll look around."

The AEC is not. I did a quick check just a bit ago and nothing is mentioned like the other A/Cs you noted.Drop me a line if you find any more. Thanks! ;)Here is a good website with some excellent data if you don't have it already:http://www.wwiivehicles.com/default.asp

"Nope. It's in the file on the website, too. I don't find it anywhere in the rules, just in the 'equipment notes' of the German section in the Data Book. thanks for the clarification."

I guess I better update the Data Book too then. :whistle:

"No problem. Since it's appreciated, I'll make a list of anything I find, poring over the rules, and post later."

Thanks again! It is definately appreciated! :)

#6 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 29 March 2007 - 09:50 AM

I already know WWiivehicles.com - that's who I was using to check my memories, yesterday. Thanks, though.-Kle.

#7 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 29 March 2007 - 02:07 PM

It's the Daimler AC and Daimler Dingo I was thinking of for British armoured cars w/2 driving positions and balanced transmissions. They had 5 fwd./5 rvse. gears, and a rear driving position. The vehicle commander manned the rear position if neccesary and steered, but the driver (still at the forward one!) was responsible for accelleration and shifting gears.Don't know if that's the way they all worked, but it's certainly odd.-Kle.

#8 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 30 March 2007 - 05:33 AM

"I already know WWiivehicles.com - that's who I was using to check my memories, yesterday. Thanks, though."

No problem. I have been using this site as one of my many references since I started doing the data books. It has a ton of very useful data... if you take the time to read it all. :blush:

"Don't know if that's the way they all worked, but it's certainly odd."

It sures reads that way, doesn't it. I am going to add them to the list.Thanks again! :)

#9 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 30 March 2007 - 10:05 AM

Hmm, apparently the Lynx too, as it was based on the Daimler Mk. III with a different drivetrain.-Kle.

#10 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 30 March 2007 - 02:50 PM

Okay, I think that's it for the pushme-pullyou armored cars.Speaking of websites, have you seen this one? http://ww2armor.jexiste.fr/index.htm ? It has a lot of good info on the Allies and Germans, and is a good photo resource.I have a bunch of stuff from Data Book proofreading - I'll either start posting this weekend (if my 'ISP' gets it's act together), or next week.-Kle.

#11 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 12:13 PM

Okay, here's the first installment of Data Book proofing / questions. For some reason I don't seem to have been able to read the aircraft sections as carefully, I might have missed more stuff there.General:Why aren't there any availability dates for the various infantry stand types, was it a space issue? It's fairly easy to figure out in a non-specific way, but I can imagine some new-to-the-period gamers getting confused.Finland: Pg. 2 / pg. 9:PzKpfw IVJ has 'note 1', which reads 'gun mounted in right secondary turret, in place of MG'... Looks like the note number is a cut/paste error from the German charts, where it refers to the incorrect 'scheurzen' note.Which Finnish vehicle *should* have a substituted gun in a secondary turret, one of the T-28 models? What gun?T-28 model 1933 has 'note 2', which reads 'Finnish conversion mounting Russian 47mm gun to Vickers tank'. I'm guessing this note belongs with the Vickers 6-ton Type E 3, or at least some Vickers or other. Shouldn't it also be a 'Russian 45mm gun'?Pg. 7:ATG Pak 35/36, 3.7cm lists 'note 7'. There is no note 7 in the Finland section, I expect this is the German section note 7. Perhaps 'note 7 Ge.' or something?France:Pg. 10: 'Note D. Autogyro'. I can't find any French autogyros in the Data Book.Pg. 12/13, Mechanized Bn. To&E. 'Laffly APC' is referenced, but I can't find anything in the charts, or in general research about this vehicle. Maybe use the Unic Kegresse P107 halftrack, they seem to have had a lot of them?More this afternoon.-Kle.

#12 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 02:10 PM

Next installment.Germany:Pg. 4:PzKpfw V D Panther - has 'note 10', early Panther breakdown. Shouldn't this note be for the Panther A, and the D gets 'note 11', IR equipment ?PzKpfw KV-2®Model 1941 - Has 'note 5', equipped with IR equipment, see IR special rules. The IR rules don't seem to mention any KV-1s, does this thing really have it? Elefant / Ferdinand - should this have 'note 10', early Panther breakdown?Pg. 5:Pak97/98 BtPz T-26® - Main gun listed as 75mm L 17 (F), the French short 75. Is this the correct gun, a retrofit to captured T-26s? If it is the right gun, why is it's AP OV 11? In French service, it only gets 5.Pg. 9:Ladungsleger 1B - has 'note 19', no note 19 listed.Pg.16:'Note 18' seems to be two notes run together... Perhaps the second part is the missing 'note 19'?Pg. 31:Recce Battalion 1945 - Support Troop of the AC Coy. lists SdKfz 234/36. I think this should be SdKfz 234/3, superscript 6 - it matches the 'note 6'.Pg. 32:Armored Panzer Grenadier Battalion - The Bn. HQ lists 4 SMG squad stands, and a Command stand, but only two halftracks - should there be 3 or 4 SdKfz 251/1, instead?Italy:Pg. 3:Carro Veloce L3-38 / CV-38 - should probably have a note 'MX:10' for it's Solothurn ATR main weapon.PzKpfw III N & IV H - have vestigial 'note 1', probably left over from cut/paste from German section. It certainly isn't the Italian 'note 1', vehicle main gun is fixed to chassis.Pg. 15:Support Units 1938-1939, AA Section of AA Coy. - Lists 20mm ATG, should be 20mm AAG.Okay, that's this batch. Japan later today, then maybe more tomorrow.-Kle.

#13 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 03:22 PM

Last one for today.Japan:Pg. 3:TE-KE M, Type 97 - my research seems to indicate that this should have the MG in the turret, as a main gun.Type 93 Lt. Tank - this one seems to have had a MG in the turret, and another one in the hull.Type 94 Lt. Tank - AFAICT, this should have the MG in the turret, as a main gun. Some data imply this is the same thing as the type 94 tankette.I have no really definitive source for these three vehicles, but their current entries with no main gun, and no weapons at all for the Type 93, don't seem right.Pg. 8:Railcar, Infantry - the second MG entry in the main weapon cell is missing the decimal point.Pg. 18: Amphibious Craft Table - there are some notes, but they don't seem to be explained anywhere.Pg. 19: Support Units 1943-1945 - the 'note 2' isn't superscripted after either Type 2 Ka-Mi entry.Mixed Tank Brigade 1944-1945 - should all of the Type 97 Chi-Ha be Shinhotos? It's after '42, when the 'new turret' tanks entered service.-Kle.

#14 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 02 April 2007 - 10:53 PM

I am on vacation Kle so I'll get to these when I get back this weekend.FYI: the mysterious double post is a website web program issue not you or your ISP. What happens is that if you take over 5 minute to put in a post you will get a cancel or another option (I can;t remember what it is at the moment). Anyway if you hit cancel your post will go up and you will not double post. If you choose the other option it will make a double post. So just hit cancel when asked and you should see the end of that problem. ;)

#15 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 03 April 2007 - 01:56 PM

Hey, no problem - whenever you want is good by me.Thanks for the tip on the double post issue, I'll do that from now on. I'm not a typist, really.-Kle.

#16 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 04 April 2007 - 01:39 PM

Poland:Pg. 2:7TPdw-1 Tank - Main weapon reads 'Twin PMG': Typo, or does PMG mean something?7TPjw & 7TPjw Improved - 37mm L21 & L45 have the same AP OV. The 37mm L21 likely ought to have AP OV 3, as the other Polish vehicles with L21s get that.Renault R-39 - Has AP OV 3, probably ought to be 4, like the R-39 in the France section.Pg. 3:Taczanka ( B ) - Main weapon listed as 7.92mm, but HMG shown in Other column. Should one be different, or is it an especially impressive 7.92mm MG?Pg. 6:Hawker Hurricane Mk IID/IV-1 - did this version really have 2 40mm cannon? If so, wow!Pg. 7:Aircraft note B. Seaplane - Doesn't show up on chart; should there be any seaplanes?Pg. 8:MG Section of Cavalry Reg't. TO&E - lists 'tachankas'. Is this the same thing or different from 'taczankas' ? If same, which spelling is correct?Pg. 9:Engineer Platoon of Engineer Sqdn. 1939 - LKS wagon listed, but I can't find it in the equipment charts.Pg. 10:TO&E Notes 1 & 2 - I can't find any superscripts referenceing these notes.Soviet Union:Pg. 4:T-34 Model 1943 - main weapon listed as 76mm L42, like Mod. '42 & '41, but has 9 AP OV as opposed to 8 AP OV for earlier models. Is this the result of improved ammunition, or something else? The T-34/'43 'Dozer on pg. 7 has the same odd stats.SU-76M - Main weapon listed as 76mm L51 with AP OV 8, but SU-76i, with a 76mm L42 has AP OV 9. Does the shorter gun really perform better?Pg. 6:The SU-6 AA & ZIS -6 w/76mm AA (both 76mm L55) have AP OV 10 and APCR:10 - shouldn't the APCR be better? The towed 76mm L55 AA gun on pg. 10 shows AP OV 10 and APCR:11, perhaps this is correct?Pg. 17:Anti-Tank section of Infantry Bn. '43-'45; 45mm ATG - 'note 1' not superscripted.Armored Car Plt. or Armored Car Coy. in Support Units - BA-10 has 'note 4', which reads 'OP-7 may be replaced with OT0133 or OT-130'. This note doesn't apply to the BA-10, and should read: '_OT-7_ may be replaced with _OT-133_ or OT-130'. Pg. 18:TO&E Notes - What does Note 7. refer to? I can't find anything in the TO&E with that superscript.That's all for today.-Kle.

#17 Trotsky

Trotsky

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 11:41 AM

Gosh Klebet! You are really going to keep Bob busy! I am not a member of the ODGW staff but still appreciate all your input.

#18 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 01:38 PM

Trotsky wrote:

Gosh Klebert! You are really going to keep Bob busy! I am not a member of the ODGW staff but still appreciate all your input.

No problem, I almost can't help it - I'm afraid I'm a nitpicker by nature... I'm just happy that people are finding it helpful. Some people find it really annoying, and then I have to restrain my proofread-y impulses.Besides, you're no slouch yourself. All those nice AARs of yours helped convince me to buy the game, and they look to me as though they took _way_ more effort than this stuff I'm posting. -Kle.

#19 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 07:32 PM

Okay, Britain, the U.S. and Australia next up.United Kingdom:Pg. 11:Towed Anti-Aircraft Guns - twin, triple & quad 20mm Oerlikon all have ROF 4. Is this correct?Equipment Table Help, note 10 - reads in part 'All 3 MGs may be used for Cover Fire'. What is Cover Fire?Pg. 25:Anti-Tank troop of AT Coy. in Support Units 1944-1945 TO&E lists 4 Archer and 1 Crusader Tower. What's a Crusader Tower? I can't find it in the lists.United States:Pg. 3:Lee, M3A3-M3A5 - What is the functional difference between this and earlier models of the Lee? It's BPV is three points higher, and it has the M6 37mm gun, but all the stats seem to be the same.M2A4 Light Tank - Has note 4: 'HMGs in side-by-side turrets, which allows 270 degree traverse.'. Tank is not equipped with ST HMGs, however.Pg. 4:Satan, M3A1 - Is this the same vehicle as the British one of the same name/mission? The stats are significantly different. Plus, if it's based upon the Stuart, what made it so slow?Pg. 6:Stuart T8 Recon Vehicle - The Combat Stats block lists ROF 1. Shouldn't it be blank?LVT (3) w/T89 Launcher (10 rounds) - No Offensive Stats listed for 183mm rocket.LVT (A) (1) - This thing had gun stabilisation? If so, wicked cool!LVT (A) (4) w/T45 Launcher - 183mm rocket Combat Stats block, OM2 needs minus sign.Pg. 20Machine Gun Plt. of Support Coy. of Para Bn. 1944-1945 TO&E lists 8 BAR stands. No BAR stand in equipment lists.Command Section of Para Plt. 1944-1945 TO&E shows 3 Carbine/BAR squad. Not found in equipment lists.Pg. 21:Infantry Plt. of Armored Infantry Bn. North Africa 1942-1943 TO&E shows 3 Rifle/BAR squad w/bazooka, but only 1 M2 Halftrack. Should be 3 M2s?Australia:Pg. 1:Troop Type Cross Reference Table, last row; Infantry/Cavalry - should that be Infantry/Armor? Cav seems covered by the 1st row.Pg. 3:Lee / Grant IV & V - Were these things really that fast? Holy Moly, that's as fast as a Stuart. This question also applies to the UK versions, though I didn't notice it then.Pg. 3/4:None of the Australian APCs (Bren Carrier, M3, M3A1, and M5 halftracks) have a personnel rating. Is this correct? Possibly some wierd doctrine thing?Pg. 4:Staghound Mk. 1 AC - 37mm M6 gun has AP OV 8. Is this correct? It's usually 4.Pg. 8:Medium Bombers, last row, 'Vickers' - Vickers what?Pg. 9:Equipment Table Help - No aircraft listed as 'C', glider tug. No aircraft listed as 'B', seaplane. All aircraft 'A', ASW, are also seaplanes, to the best of my knowledge.Pg. 10:Australia and Canberra had 8 8" guns.Recce Troop of Recce Rgt. 1940-1941 TO&E shows 'Scout Carrier'. I can find no listing for it in the equipment tables.That's it for tonight.-Kle.

#20 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 08:27 PM

Greetings,Both the advantage and disadvantage of having a comprehensive Databook is that there is lots of information presented. Practically all of it can be accurate, but with myriad sources, gaps in information for equipment now sixty-plus years old, and that inescapably imperfect human factor, there can be just a few errors and they seem like a lot. Britannica Bob has done an absolutely fantastic job of putting together the Databook, pretty much on his own. Given the amount of info, I think it is amazing and a tribute to his efforts that there are not more questions.Kle., keep your posts coming. We are committed to getting the information as correct as we can. Thank you.Cheers,Gregory




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users