ACWGC
* ACWGC     * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI    * Join CSA    
   * Union HQ    * UMA    * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial
CSA Armies:    ANV    AotW
Union Armies:    AotT     AotC      AotP      AotS     Union Army Forums
     Link Express
American Civil War Books, Magazines and Games for sale (See other items)
Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:43 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
Should there be Rebel abattis and trenches at Kennesaw mountain? I don't notice any in HPS Atlanta and in my current game it's been hard to hold up the Union advance.

According to Sherman's memoirs:

"We continue to press forward on the principle of an advance against fortified positions. The whole country is one vast fort, and Johnston must have at least fifty miles of connected trenches, with abatis and finished batteries. ... As fast as we gain one position the enemy has another all ready, but I think he will soon have to let go Kenesaw, which is the key to the whole country."

There are battlefield sketches and photos here that indicate that the Rebel defences in this campaign seem comparable in strength and complexity to WW1 trenches.

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onli ... 7/sec5.htm

In fact, they may be sufficiently tough to warrant adding an advanced fortification level for 1864-65 games.


Sherman's first reaction to the repulse at Kennesaw Mt with the loss of almost 3,000 men, which he attributed to his troops attacking with insufficient "vigor," was to ask Thomas, "Can you break any part of the enemy line today?" Politely but firmly Thomas answered in the negative. The only way, he added, that the Confederate works could be taken would be by a regular siege-style operation. Sherman, as Thomas doubtlessly expected, rejected this approach for it would prolong the stalemate indefinitely.

Thus Sherman found himself left with only one alternative—another flanking maneuver. But where? The answer came late that afternoon in a message from Schofield: Cox's division, working its way southward, had reached a point where it appeared that the Confederate line terminated. After requesting and receiving confirmation of this intelligence from Schofield, Sherman asked Thomas if he was willing to risk a large-scale attempt to turn Johnston's left. Thomas's reply was both prompt and blunt: "I think it decidedly better than butting against breastworks twelve feet thick and strongly abatized."

Would it be feasible to consider adding abattis and trenches to the scenario for a subsequent patch. Thanks.

It would be easy enough to add in abattis, trenches and possibly also modify the pdt values to make it tougher to launch a direct assault. However, perhaps the real problem is that the Union player knows far more about the tactical situation and extent of the defensive works than Sherman did when he launched the initial attack.

So perhaps it would be useful if the variant campaign deployment options allowed the Rebel player to chose which sector (or sectors) to fortify with abattis and trenches and the Union player decides where he wants to concentrate his forces. Since abattis and trenches aren't always visible initially, this would mean that the Union troops may blunder into a strongly fortified sector if they're not careful.

Brig. Gen. Rich White
III Corps ANV


Last edited by Richard on Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 6:49 am
Posts: 522
Location: Black Mountain, NC
I've been on Kennesaw and little is left, but I do remember seeing some guns that were entrenched, causing me to ask why arty units can't entrench. Never got a satisfactory answer.

_________________
Image
Lt. Gen. D. Groce
3rd Brigade
Second Division
VIII Corps
AotS
"Everything will be alright in the end, if it's not alright, it's not the end"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 11:25 am
Posts: 777
Location: USA
My guess (and it's just a guess) is that artillery units that were entrenched/emplaced during the war had a lot more time to 'dig in' than the few hours most of these scenarios allow.

_________________
ACW - General, AotM, I Corps, 3rd Div., 6th Bgd


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:37 am 
I have been to Kennesaw once and never plan to go again. I had to fight my way up the hill past armies of suburbanites walking dogs, jogging, playing fribee, sunbathing, picnicking, bicycling, and using the cannon to place towels, sunscreen and clothes on. They even close the park roads on weekends due to the amount of traffic there. I had to park so far away I practically did my own "Marching through Georgia."


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:48 am 
There was a shuttle bus up to the Vistors Center. I couldnt find it though, lol.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:45 am
Posts: 68
Location: USA
I agree with Rich on several points:

1-Embankments at Kennesaw make it far too easy for the Union player to make risk assessments regarding where to attack. Or at least the fact that the Union player can easily see the line of embankments. In reality, attacking forces often couldn't determine the strength of a line without probing the line. Thus, I would argue that fortifications should be difficult to 'see' without some units getting close enough to determine their strength.

2-One level of fortification is not enough for 1864-65 games. At Kennesaw, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor (for example), the rebs were creating fortifications that were on par with some of the trench networks seen in 1915-1918. This was not the 20th Maine tossing together some rocks and logs for cover at Little Round Top. These were very advanced earthworks. I therefore agree with Rich that particularly in the 1864-65 games, units should be able to create advanced works (meaning trench networks). A unit should be able to make a level one fortification in a relatively short period of time, but higher levels taking longer... While embankments are effective to some degree in providing advanced cover to units behind them, they are problematic in some other ways. Let's imagine for a moment that we get a monster scenario in the future called Wilderness to Spotsylvania. A labor of love for two dedicated players. Well, at the beginning of the battle, there are no fortifications at Spotsylvania. Placing embankments on the map to reflect future works doesn't work. But how could the rebs, anywhere on the map, create the same advanced works that were thrown up there? And let's say we fight a mobile battle between North Anna and Cold Harbor. Same problem. The only solution is to allow units to create advanced works on their own. Otherwise the Rebs are going to get hammered by Grant's numbers.

3-Abatis were used at Kennesaw but are not on the map. Perhaps it is hard to know where they were, but several generals noted their presence. At least some should be available for the Reb side... Further, why wouldn't it be possible for units to build an abatis? Apparently regiments and engineers did it in real life. Perhaps it could be part of an advanced fortification level?

4-Fortification options - I like the notion that a player could choose, in a campaign option perhaps, where to focus his fortifications (abatis or advanced works). This would give games great replay value and make it harder for the other side to determine where the weak points actually are.

5-Speed of Construction - As a side note, from what I've read, soldiers in 1864/1865 became quite efficient in digging-in. In fact, I've run into accounts from soldiers who noted that as soon as a unit camped or was placed in a forward position, individual soldiers started to dig without orders. This is something of a contrast with 1861/1862. I would therefore also put forward the proposition that units in 1864/65 could make fortifications much faster than units did in 1861/1862. Especially veteran units that had 'learned the hard way.'

Whether any or all of this is possible with the present game engine I cannot say, but based upon my current game at Kennesaw Mt., these are things that I think are at least worth consideration.

_________________
MG R.Virts
Cast Iron Division
VI Corps, AofS


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
I doubt I'd want to refight this battle without the Rebel defensive position being strengthened by abattis and possibly also trenches.


Brig. Gen. Rich White
III Corps ANV


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:24 am
Posts: 58
Location: Virginia
Very well put Ron regading entrenchments.

Entrenching and fortifications underwent an incredible evolution during the war, mainly from the bottom up. Both ANV and AofT (not AoftheT) discovered to offset the numbers in men and superior artillery of the US, they had to be innovative in the digging of entrenchments. In 61, 62 and even as late as 63, entrenchments were centralized and overseen, sometimes planned in advance. Also, they confirmed to engineering principles, not reality. Though they still offered far more protection than being on line in the open, they had issues with artillery and enflade fire.

Another thing the CS would do was to entice the US to attack their lines. This is not talked about much by authors, don't know why, but it explains why several attacks were made such as Sherman's assault at Kennesaw. This was not due to the Union Commanders not knowing the true strength of the positions, they did but they felt many times they had found gaps and wanted to exploit them. It was just hard to reconnoiter, if they could see them at all, the Confederate lines. The Confederates realized that if they were going to get the US to attack their strength, as well as avoid Federal artillery fires, they had to blend the lines into the earth, not camoflage as we know it, but just use the terrain to help protect and keep the US from seeing what was going on. They would cut trees down behind and not forward of the line, and just to abatis as well. When they did not do this, as at the incredible Chattahoochee line, where Sherman could see the lines several miles away and observed that it was the strongest line he had ever seen, the US would not attack (some of this incredible line remains on a park on the southern end of the line just across from the smaller Atlanta airport off the beltway as it crosses south of the river from the northhttp://ngeorgia.com/ang/Chattahoochee_River_Line-).

I have walked almost every position in the east and west in 64 and see the same trend. Very rarely to see the picture perfect Field Manual position with big open fields of fire.

By 64, entrenchments became part of every battle to equal as Ron pointed earlier, to WWI.

First, the Kennesaw line would have had abatis at it everywhere. Johnson had this planned for weeks, each position was fell back too, was marked if not partially prepared by slave labor. When a brigade stopped, and had any time to entrench, it would lay out a formidable line in a few hours. When it was told to lay out a line where engineers would mark with sticks and cloth before hand (as Joe Johnson did during Atlanta so his men had a place to fall in on in the dark), the men and officers would arrive and confirm it to the contour of the terrain, if not under fire. Big difference when not having the stress of no fire and being fired at, still the men could dig, especially under fire, but did not have time to confirm the line to the terrain or create abatis, as well as to develop beyond just having the main line.

If they had time, meaning a day or one night, by 64, the brigade would task a regiment as skirmishers, and the remaining units would dig their own lines with 1/3 cutting abatis, 1/3 cutting and laying trees and the remaining 1/3 digging. Within 4-6 hours, sometimes even faster, there would be a line confirming to hidden terrain (almost similiar to what we know as reverse slope defenses), abatis woud be up (and constantly improved on), there would be traverses, at few meters (to offset enflide fire as well as to seal off penetrations. As the lines would improve, supplementary positions would be dug, ammo dug in, and rifle pits for pickets/skirmishers would also be added, as well as bomb proofs as they stayed longer. (several times when I was reenacting with Thomas Mudsills or Sherman's Bummers, about twice year, we would be at events where we got to dig, and find out that we could have pretty substantial positions working together in a few hours, and more than half the participants were not any shape like the real guys nor under the stress to survive).

Also, artillery dug their own positions. I cannot understand why this cannot be an addition to the games. You would not have just the infantry dig in, with the guns in the open. By 64 artillerymen became as proficient as the infantry in digging their gun pits quickly and efficiently! Anyway, you think the infantry are going to dig in the artillerymen, especially since the artillerymen get to carry more gear then the infantry does? NO way, though non horse artilleryman walked as did the infantry with field packs, they were still able to carry shovels and picks. How many times have we played where we get all the infantry dug in and the guns are out in the open (behind the infantry (another subject of deployment). By 64, the CS would blend their guns among their lines, where as the Federals would see seperate battery positions slighty behind and higher than the infantry line. For good examples of these differences, walk the Federal and CS positions at the Battle of Wilderness and Spotslvania, as well as at Cold Harbor, here a lot of Federal works remain, and there is still a difference.

The best examples of trenches I have seen throughout the US Civil War parks and sites is at North Anna River off I-95 west of King's Dominion off Route 1 in Virginia. It is a county park with several hundred acres, and excellent walking trails with small signs and maps. As you go through, you will see that the entrenchments are still formidable, but also odd. Well, the traverses and supporting works constantly change every few meters. Well it was left to each regiment how they dug them, and usually traverses were placed between companies, sometimes platoons. You will also see positions for command posts, ammo caches and great artillery positions. There remains several miles of entrenchments on and off the park (Civil War Trust is continually negotiating with a rock quarry company to buy more). Unfotunately few Fedeal trenches remain except on the far eastern side of the battlefield near the original Telegraph Road bridge on the south side on private land.

Another thing I would add to the games, but not knowing software development (I am only a military historain), and having a great discussion with Ron while we played the Mother of all Battles from Shiloh, would have entrenchments progressively get better as they were occupied longer. There should be also an option to build abatis, which did not take the men long to chop down and meld trees tops toward the enemy, then chop and sharpen branches.

There are currently a lot of great books on the evolution of trenches in the Civil War, including a series in the east at the Overland campaign and Petersburg: In the Trenches at Petersburg: Field Fortifications and Confederate Defeat, which has entire series with great photos in it.

Take care, Don

_________________
Your Obediant Servant,

Donald Vandergriff
Brigadier General, CSA
Commanding 7th Brigade
Army of Mississippi


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:48 am
Posts: 332
Location: Las Cruces, NM USA
<Salute>

An excellent post.

Now, if I could just figure out how to beat them in the Atlanta campaign. Mark and Cam continue to eat up my soldiers. There are not a lot of gaps.

What are some ways others have found to overcome them?

MG Elkin
3rd Div (2nd Cav) XVIth Corps AotT

_________________
I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies. . . . Let us look before us, and not behind

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1642
Location: USA
Interesting observations. Any thoughts on how this could be implemented?

Things like how to control orders to entrench. One of our problems in games are that we have absolute authority. When we say dig everyone digs. In reality it was a very iffy thing since it depended on what year of the war and whether the local commander thought he needed to be ready to move or defend.

Then there is the problem of what the affects of the various levels of entrenchment are. What will they do to casuality rates and fire factors. How will they affect melee, morale, etc.

Also extraneous factors like fatigue.

Any thoughts on how all these could be incorporated into a game?

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 952
Location:
Hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I like the way SSI handled it 25 years ago.

Each turn you entrenched, you got protection worth 10% up to a max of 50%. I think it was automatic based on op points expended, and possibly you could entrench an extra level using the forced march (which exacted a cost in fatigue for each extra op point.)

Seems it would be pretty easy to set a max entrenchment for each scenario in parameter data. In the first year of the war maybe 20% and in the last year of the war maybe 70%. Keep in mind some of the Peninsula scenarios prohibit entrenching at all because it apparently wasn't a common practice during that campaign.

Also keep in mind that terrain effects on fire are cumulative, so a 60% entrenchment in the woods would be impervious to enemy fire, barring density or enfilade modifiers. There probably ought to be a mechanism for creating abatis, but also a mechanism for destroying abatis.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1642
Location: USA
The problem with the SSI approach is it can't properly handle the realities of entrenchment in the first half of the war. At Gettysburg it was a very sporatic thing. On Little Round Top the 20th Maine did improve their position but only slightly. They mostly used existing material since the ground was to rocky to dig in. On the the right the Union troops created quite extensive fortifications on Culp's Hill area. In between they did almost nothing. But when we play the game if we can do it we do it everywhere. And if we have time we build lines behind the lines until Gettysburg would more resemble Petersburg.

So the problem is how to allow entrenchments like Culp's Hill to be built without the whole line turning into World War I. And, in the process totally unbalancing the game.

The approach I am considering is a smarter entrenchment procedure. One that is aware of the materials that might be on hand like fences and forest. And can take into consideration the command situation and doctrine at that time of the war. I like the SSI idea of time based rather than HPS's random chance. I also want them to be highly directional in their affect and dependent on stance of the troops (units attacking out of a hex shouldn't gain any benefit for entrenchments).

But there are many questions to be answered including just how effective entrenchments are. Sometimes like Cold Harbor they were overpoweringly important. Other times like the Mule Shoe they didn't seem to even slow the enemy down.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 10:10 pm
Posts: 806
Location: USA
mihalik wrote:
Seems it would be pretty easy to set a max entrenchment for each scenario in parameter data. In the first year of the war maybe 20% and in the last year of the war maybe 70%. Keep in mind some of the Peninsula scenarios prohibit entrenching at all because it apparently wasn't a common practice during that campaign.

Also keep in mind that terrain effects on fire are cumulative, so a 60% entrenchment in the woods would be impervious to enemy fire, barring density or enfilade modifiers.


The PDT does control breastworks, it has a line that sets the Probability of Construction, Movement Cost for crossing a breastworks hexside and the Combat Modifier so it can be and is set differently for various periods of the war.

See the ACWGC Engineering Department pages http://home.comcast.net/~acwco_engineering/ for the location of this setting in the PDT file.

_________________
Gen. Ken Miller
Chief of Staff
AotP

Image
The Allegheny Blues


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:45 am
Posts: 68
Location: USA
There are some very good points being raised in this thread. As for myself, the more I look at it, the more it is clear to me that by the middle of 1864 and into the Spring of 1865, the Civil War was being fought with WWI tactics rather than Napoleonic tactics. The major difference with WWI itself (other than poison gas, the Red Barron and machine guns) was the fact that here in the US, the armies could still maneuver around entrenched enemy lines. The English Channel and Switzerland made this impossible on the Western Front. To illustrate, I will attach some websites with some very good pictures of the earthworks used in 1864-65. Some of them are quite impressive for their day.

Kennesaw Mt.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~connectville/military/jeycw/images/atlanta1864.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/civil_war_series/7/sec5.htm Note in the drawing near the bottom of the webpage that the guns are dug in as Don has suggested artillery crews could and would do!
http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/09/9/4/5/0623854019822584.jpg
http://robinsonsbattery.org/mediac/450_0/media/Kennesaw$20mt.jpg

Confederate Line on the Chattahoochee
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/civil_war_series/7/sec6.htm

Confederate Line at Atlanta
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/civil-war-pictures/photography/atlanta-defense.htm
http://www.old-picture.com/civil-war/Fortifications-Confederate-Atlanta-Around.htm
http://www.old-picture.com/civil-war/Fortifications-Georgia-Atlanta.htm

Union picket line at Petersburg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/despresworld/4462035547/in/set-72157623693424510/

I believe, as has been stated, that a game designer can alter to the parameter data for any given game making earthworks more or less effective for any given period. Thus during the early period of the war when soldiers marched out into the middle of a cornfield and fought it out, troops could be allowed only a limited ability to craft earthworks. But in a May 1864 game were Lee and Johnston had no choice but dig-in at every position to offset Union numbers, units should have the ability to build something with greater protection and something that might even give troops a morale bonus as well as greater protection. The only trick might be is there any way to create various levels of works depending upon the time (or probability of it happening) invested in them. To make the point again, the battle of Spotsylvania was a meeting engagement to control road junctions that both sides wanted to use. Yet, within a very short time, the Confederate army had dug an extensive line of reinforced works covering a great deal of territory. Further, the works developed as a result of time invested in them. Thus, a series of fortification levels or a fortification that can increase in strength over time appears to be the only way to accurately reflect what was going on. Embankments are effective in giving the defender an appropriate bonus, but again, they must be place on the map before the game even starts which immediately clues one side into exactly where the rebel lines will be and what the strength of the line will be.

One quick point about the Mule Shoe which I think illustrates how fast tactics were changing. It was Emory Upton that came up with a creative way to break the line. He placed his units in a fast moving compact column and assaulted the rebel line on the double quick without firing (or at least until his columns hit the enemy line). Upton's small attack was so successful that Grant ordered a bigger one that broke through the Mule Shoe. In fact, it was Upton's compact column innovation that was used by Grant's army to break through the Rebel lines at Petersburg in 1865. I think this illustrates the point that attacking these fortifications in line, at least by 1864, was tatamount to suicide and tactically ineffective. Still, not even innovative tactics were useful where one side is deeply dug in and the other side has failed to conduct a proper recon to size up the strength of the other sides works (Cold Harbor).

On a side note, I might be crazy, but based upon my reading of the Petersburg Campaign, I think it would make a very playable game in the ACW series from Grant's initial assaults on the city to his movements west to flank the Confederate Line. It is a testament to the Confederate ANV that they could hold off Grant's larger well supplied army for so long. Some of the battles around Petersburg were quite sharp engagements (with the rebs generally holding their own except for Five Forks) and would fit nicely into a campaign format. Grant's success or lack of success in those flanking battles would perhaps give Lee greater flexibility to 'try something clever.' Further, there are some interesting what if questions to be answered such as, "What if Lee surrenders Petersburg to strike the Union flank", or "Could Lee have avoided Appomattox and escaped?" For such a game to work, though, the Confederate earthworks in the game need to reflect the reality of 1864-65 to offset Union numbers. Again, embankments are helpful, but the -50 modifier may not be enough in some cases, would tip the Union player off about all reb positions, and would limit the game to set-piece battles rather than a longer single engagement such as the one available for the Seven Days... By the way, any of you Reb players that play the German side in some of the WWII Eastern Front games (circa 1944) should be used to fighting off hordes of the enemy swarming over your fortifications (ha,ha).

_________________
MG R.Virts
Cast Iron Division
VI Corps, AofS


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: kennesaw mountain
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1642
Location: USA
What makes the HPS system difficult to use for Petersburg are the ZOC rules and lack of extended lines. One source gives the value 1600 men per mile. That means game wise that you would have to be able to deploy the equivalent of a brigade to cover 18 hex front. Using hard ZOC's it could be done if the individual regiments were small enough but the game just can't handle full strength regiments since they can't spread out enough to produce the low density lines used around Petersburg. It would probably require having an OOB with company to battalion size units so they could occupy the extended trench line system.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: