±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 401
Total: 401
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Home
02: Community Forums
03: Home
04: Home
05: Member Screenshots
06: Home
07: Community Forums
08: Statistics
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Photo Gallery
13: Photo Gallery
14: Community Forums
15: Member Screenshots
16: Community Forums
17: Home
18: Home
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Community Forums
23: Home
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Member Screenshots
27: Search
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Home
31: News Archive
32: Photo Gallery
33: News Archive
34: Member Screenshots
35: Community Forums
36: Member Screenshots
37: Member Screenshots
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Member Screenshots
41: Downloads
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Home
45: News
46: Home
47: Photo Gallery
48: Home
49: Member Screenshots
50: Photo Gallery
51: Downloads
52: Member Screenshots
53: Member Screenshots
54: Community Forums
55: Member Screenshots
56: Member Screenshots
57: Your Account
58: Photo Gallery
59: Home
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Member Screenshots
63: News Archive
64: Community Forums
65: Member Screenshots
66: Home
67: Photo Gallery
68: Member Screenshots
69: Community Forums
70: Statistics
71: Community Forums
72: Home
73: Member Screenshots
74: News Archive
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Community Forums
78: Photo Gallery
79: Home
80: Home
81: Home
82: Home
83: Home
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Home
88: Photo Gallery
89: Your Account
90: News Archive
91: Photo Gallery
92: Member Screenshots
93: Home
94: Home
95: Community Forums
96: Home
97: Home
98: Home
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Downloads
106: Community Forums
107: Home
108: Home
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Member Screenshots
112: Home
113: Member Screenshots
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Photo Gallery
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Home
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Community Forums
123: Home
124: Photo Gallery
125: Community Forums
126: Photo Gallery
127: Photo Gallery
128: Home
129: Photo Gallery
130: Downloads
131: Downloads
132: Community Forums
133: Photo Gallery
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Photo Gallery
137: Home
138: Community Forums
139: Home
140: Community Forums
141: Community Forums
142: Community Forums
143: Member Screenshots
144: Home
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Home
148: Member Screenshots
149: Home
150: Community Forums
151: Downloads
152: Home
153: Member Screenshots
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: News
158: Community Forums
159: Home
160: Photo Gallery
161: Home
162: Community Forums
163: Home
164: Downloads
165: Member Screenshots
166: Community Forums
167: Home
168: Home
169: Community Forums
170: Community Forums
171: Home
172: Community Forums
173: Home
174: Home
175: Community Forums
176: Home
177: Home
178: Community Forums
179: Home
180: Member Screenshots
181: Community Forums
182: Downloads
183: Downloads
184: Member Screenshots
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Community Forums
188: Community Forums
189: Community Forums
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: News Archive
193: Community Forums
194: News Archive
195: Home
196: Community Forums
197: Home
198: Home
199: Community Forums
200: Community Forums
201: Community Forums
202: Community Forums
203: Member Screenshots
204: Community Forums
205: News Archive
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: Home
210: Community Forums
211: Downloads
212: Downloads
213: Community Forums
214: Home
215: Community Forums
216: Community Forums
217: Community Forums
218: Your Account
219: Community Forums
220: Member Screenshots
221: Community Forums
222: Community Forums
223: News Archive
224: Member Screenshots
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Community Forums
228: Home
229: Downloads
230: Home
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Home
234: Community Forums
235: News Archive
236: Community Forums
237: Community Forums
238: Home
239: News Archive
240: Home
241: Home
242: Member Screenshots
243: Community Forums
244: Home
245: Home
246: Home
247: Member Screenshots
248: Community Forums
249: Member Screenshots
250: Statistics
251: Photo Gallery
252: Community Forums
253: Home
254: Home
255: Downloads
256: Home
257: Community Forums
258: Community Forums
259: Member Screenshots
260: Home
261: Home
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Member Screenshots
266: Community Forums
267: Member Screenshots
268: Community Forums
269: Photo Gallery
270: News Archive
271: Community Forums
272: Home
273: Community Forums
274: Community Forums
275: Home
276: Community Forums
277: Member Screenshots
278: Member Screenshots
279: Home
280: Home
281: Member Screenshots
282: Home
283: Community Forums
284: Member Screenshots
285: Community Forums
286: Photo Gallery
287: Member Screenshots
288: Member Screenshots
289: Community Forums
290: News Archive
291: Member Screenshots
292: Home
293: Home
294: Home
295: Community Forums
296: Home
297: Home
298: Home
299: Home
300: Home
301: Home
302: Member Screenshots
303: Community Forums
304: Downloads
305: Home
306: Community Forums
307: Photo Gallery
308: Community Forums
309: Member Screenshots
310: Community Forums
311: Community Forums
312: Community Forums
313: Community Forums
314: Home
315: Community Forums
316: Community Forums
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Community Forums
320: Home
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: News Archive
327: Member Screenshots
328: Community Forums
329: Statistics
330: Member Screenshots
331: Community Forums
332: Community Forums
333: Home
334: Community Forums
335: Member Screenshots
336: Downloads
337: Community Forums
338: Community Forums
339: Community Forums
340: Community Forums
341: Home
342: News Archive
343: Community Forums
344: Community Forums
345: Home
346: Photo Gallery
347: Community Forums
348: Community Forums
349: News
350: Home
351: Community Forums
352: Member Screenshots
353: Community Forums
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Community Forums
357: Community Forums
358: Photo Gallery
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Community Forums
362: Community Forums
363: Community Forums
364: Member Screenshots
365: Community Forums
366: Tell a Friend
367: Home
368: Member Screenshots
369: Community Forums
370: Member Screenshots
371: Community Forums
372: Home
373: Community Forums
374: Home
375: Community Forums
376: Member Screenshots
377: Home
378: Community Forums
379: Community Forums
380: Member Screenshots
381: Community Forums
382: Community Forums
383: Downloads
384: Downloads
385: Community Forums
386: Community Forums
387: Community Forums
388: Photo Gallery
389: Community Forums
390: Member Screenshots
391: Home
392: Community Forums
393: Community Forums
394: Member Screenshots
395: Community Forums
396: Member Screenshots
397: Community Forums
398: Photo Gallery
399: Community Forums
400: Home
401: Home

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Sherman Firefly
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:58 pm
Post subject: Sherman Firefly

Hi folks

I'm reading an book (yes I'm already old enough to know what that is) called "Sherman at war"

And in the book they dicuss the history of the Sherman and it's variants, including the British 17pdr (Firefly) version

At the end of the Firefly description it tells that there are records showing that the US army had, at 1 point during WW2, about 100 Sherman's armed with British 17pdr available

Also that it is not clear what has happened to these tanks after the war

Does some of you know more about this story?

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
the_shadock
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2865
Location: Normandy, France
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Rolling Eyes Michel, how old are you?

I've never heard of such a thing called "a book"...

P-O

26 y-o

_________________
soldat_ryan @ hotmail.com

Looking for photos of Sherman manufacturer's plates
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

35 years and 3 month's young Cool

An book is an bunch of printed e-mails however both sides of the paper is used Laughing

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
JeffStringer
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 637

PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

This is the only information I know about them
freespace.virgin.net/s...usnew.html
and it's little.
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:20 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I wonder if any of these were among the stock of "Fireflys" acquired by Argentina and upgraded as "repotendiados" or if all of those vehicles came from exclusively European stocks (which had been my understanding)?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
binder001
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 363

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

These tanks probably went immediately from the depot to surplus. The unit(s) that were undergoing conversion training to the 17-pounder were probably told to immediately turn in their vehicles. The 17 poounder project was stopped just as the ETOUSA was near to having operational Fireflys, but since the gun with its associated parts and ammo were non-standard they were dropped like a hot rock. I imagine that the US Army "Fireflys" were either scrapped or merged into the stocks of tanks that were provided to European armies. The primary features seem to be the US vision cupola for the commander and a variation in the radio box design. There have been questions about any use of HVSS or wet stowage hulls. Otherwise a "US" M4 with 17 pounder would be functionally like the British ones. THe M4A3s would have been unique, but except for a possible one found on a firing range, there haven't been any sightings of an M4A3 "Firefly".
Back to top
View user's profile
warddw
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Mark Hayward's book on the sherman firefly has some documented US usage in Italy - recommended - a good read exclusively devoted to the firefly...

Back to top
View user's profile
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi folks,

thanks all, for the info

Concerning the dropping of the 17pdr because of being non-standard in the US army... Rolling Eyes

Indeed it woud make more sense developing an complete new 76mm gun with new ammo for the 76mm Sherman Twisted Evil
Instead of using an proven gun design

For what I could find about the history of the Firefly there was another main reason the US army did not want to use the 17pdr gun

Concerning teh book about the Firefly, I have that
It's an the pile of books, still to read

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss
Hi folks,

thanks all, for the info

Concerning the dropping of the 17pdr because of being non-standard in the US army... Rolling Eyes

. . .

For what I could find about the history of the Firefly there was another main reason the US army did not want to use the 17pdr gun

. . .

Michel


Michel - I'm curious, what was the other reason the U.S. did not want to use the 17pdr? Or am I reading something into your comment that isn't there

The reasons I have heard over the years (And I'm not saying which I believe, I'm just listing theone I remember being suggested)

1) Supply constraints - All possible production was being used by the British units. A variation of this is that even if there were enough guns 17pdr ammo was a constant shortage item

2) Command did not see the need for a more powerful gun

3) The very poor performance of 17pdr HE ammo

4) NIH [ Not Invented Here ]

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Bob,

the ones you listed are the ones I know also, only in an different line-up

1) NIH [ Not Invented Here ] (especially true with-in some locations of US army command)

2) Command did not see the need for a more powerful gun
The "more" powerful 76mm was developed for the Sherman, so there was need for an more powerful gun according some one's idea.
Also certain part of command thought there there was no need because there was an special branche in the US army called the tank destroyers.


3) Supply constraints - All possible production was being used by the British units. A variation of this is that even if there were enough guns 17pdr ammo was a constant shortage item

The US industry made ammunition and all kinds of other stuff for the British army
The US air force had the (British) Rolce-Royce Merlin engine made in license to put them in the P-51 Mustang
The navy copied the (British) all steel flight deck on the aircraft carriers to replace the wooden fligth decks
The US army could not copy the 17pdr design...........
Confused

4) The very poor performance of 17pdr HE ammo
The 76mm gun was developed to deal with the German Pz 5 and Pz 6 armour
Also the 76mm HE ammo wasn't know in the service for it's good performance either
In the field the 75mm was prefered for HE because of it's better performance


Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2068
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:24 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I think between the tanks not being fielded in time for ETO and the need for commonality after the War these tanks were destined for surplus.

Commonality for the 75mm and 76mm would not be a problem since US wartime production of this ammo would last a long time after hostilities ceased. We have (more like had) an amazing capability to produce large amounts of munitions during the war. Once peacetime kicked in everything ceased and munitions were stockpiled. I was still firing WWII manufactured API and API-T in Iraq for my .50 cal back in 2007. With the 17pdr a new production line would be needed and since the war ended why continue making ammo when you don't really need it. I imagine this would have been a major factor in it's demise

The M26 was coming on line and the Army had pretty much decided the 90mm was the gun of choice for tanks. So much so that when they made the higher velocity 90mm for the M47 they made sure it could still fire the older rounds but tapered the newer rounds near the forcing cone to prevent their accidental use in the older tanks.

Fielding a new gun in peacetime is not that hard, having ample munitions for it is another story. When the M60 came on line there was a serious shortage of 105mm ammo for her. This led to the M48A3 not receiving the 105mm gun. Priority for 105mm was in Europe to counter the T55 and T62's. They figured the 90mm was plenty for other areas, and were proven correct in Vietnam.

_________________
Joe_D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:51 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Michel
I wasn't putting them in any particular order but going with your order

1) There is no way NIH can be discussed or defended it is a 'religious issue'.

2) Tank Destroyers are a doctrine issue separate from the weapon issue itself. It does play into the discussion but I'm going to avoid it just because I don't even want to try to justify the decision based on it. Yes it had an affect. Given the overall offensive role of the U.S. Army in NW Europe it could be considered a flawed doctrine. But if the U.S. had been tasked with a primary defensive role (As the Germans were at the time) it may not have been seen that way. I believe the doctrine that had tank battalions outside the Infantry division structure and only attached them 'as needed' (Which ended up being almost all the time) was at least as much of a doctrinal flaw that can be laid back at the feet of Gen McNair as the TD doctrine can.

3) Yes the U.S,. did supply a lot of ammunition to the British. But except for small arms ammo I believe the great majority was for American spec weapons. The lead time was fairly extensive. The best example of ammo interchangability is the 6pdr/57mm which was used in both armies in large numbers. I believe it took over a year for the 6pdr gun to be put in production in the U.S. as the 57 mm. A lot of that time was spent changing detail drawings to American Standards that could be released to US manufacturers for production use.

The Merlin engine had the same issue in being set up for U.S. production. There were enough differences in the Rolls Royce and Packard engines that Lancaster bombers were given different Mark numbers based on the engines installed and engines from the different manufacturing pools could not be interchanged.

The difference I see with the 17pdr is the time frame that some 17pdr proponents think the adoption could have been made in. Given the time it would have taken to adopt the 17pdr as a standard there were two other solutions coming along. Th e76mm in the short and mid term and the 90mm gun tank in the long term. I think if the effort had been put into rushing an increase in 90mm gun production and adapting the T23 turret to handle it, or pushing the T26 turret forward faster and installing it on the Sherman there would have been no discussion of a 17pdr Sherman for the U.S. Army.

The steel flight deck was adopted for other reasons (Jet exhausts) If you mean the armored flight deck we will have to move that to a different forum. I believe that argument makes the Sherman discussion look simple and straight forward. Rolling Eyes

4) I used to have a comparison of the various HE rounds (It was from a message on the old AFV news) Yes the 75mm was the best the 76mm was less effective and the 17pdr was at least twice that far below the 76mm. Only when the tank gun is stepped up to the 90mm did a tank gun equal or exceed the 75mm
In my amateur opinion I see the difference as being directly related to the muzzle velocity of the gun. As the MV increased it was necessary to increase the thickness of the shell wall to handle the increased stresses. This cuts the size of the HE filler down. Some people will say 'so what the higher MV makes it a better AT round. The problem comes when the uses the tanks were put to is examined. While tanks had to be prepared to fight other tanks they spent most of their time fighting non-tank targets where HE was the preferred round. Even the British didn't use the 17pdr in all tanks in a unit.

I have also heard that there was another problem with the 17pdr in the Sherman. I remember reading that the 17pdr had some elevation restrictions in teh Sherman and could not be fired at 'certain elevations' because the gun could not recoil the full way at those elevations (I seem to remember that it was at elevations where the turret ring interfered with the full recoil)

I was curious if you had some other factors that I hadn't heard of over the years

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi Bob,

I thought you had them in an particular order, so.. Mr. Green

1) concerning the NIH I have to agree on that, there are an lot of people who already tried to discuss or defend that

2) I mentioned the TD branch because that was an reason to block an capable AT gun in the Sherman. If they had put the 17pdr or 90mm in an Sherman it would have made the TD branch an sort of ... obsolete

3) Concenring the ammo, if I remember correcty the US also produced bigger ammo then only small arms ammo
For sure the US produced the fuzes used for British artillery shells, according British spec's
They also produced ammo for non-US spec small arms, for an example the US .303 rifle ammo was made for the Bren MG. However because it was not according British spec, the cartridges got bended and they got stuck in the MG. After this the US .303 cartridge was only allowed to be used for the British Lee-Enfield rifles

I only mentioned the Merlin engine and the metal Wink flight deck to illustrate the fact that they where willing to incorporated already existing better solutions, instead of inventing something new

4) Concerning the performance of the HE rounds. The 76mm was primarily developed for dealing with the armour of the German Pz 5 and Pz 6 tanks. The performance of the HE round was not the main reason to develope an new 76mm gun.
The 76mm was based on an 76mm AA gun with an high MV. They redesigned the cartridge to make it suitable for handling it inside an tank turret, however keeping the same performance as the AA round. After the first protoype's they decided to shorten the barrel, because it was sticking to far out Shocked
However with the shortening of the barrel the AT performance of the gun dropped, because the MV dropped

Concerning the 17pdr breech sticking out to far, that was only true on the first versions. Latter versions had an redesigned shorter breech.
The British had one 17pdr armed Sherman on every four tanks, so they had the HE performance and the AT performance combined

About the MV of an shell to knock-out an enemy tank
There are 2 type's of shell suited to take an tank out;
1) it has an high MV, giving it high impact energy
2) the shell is big enough, no matter what type of shell it is. The Russian 152mm HE shell of the ISU-152 was big enough to take out an German Pz 5 or Pz 6, only because of it's size

Nothing new to ad Wink

Nice such an discussion, should we do more often


Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Some interesting side points

Yes we produced fuses to British specs. In fact my mother in law worked in a factory in Elkton MD that produced fuses. They hated it when they did fuses destined for British stocks. They had quotas and when doing British spec fuses it took much longer to produce the same number of fuses.

I don't think it was a case of the TD branch blocking the good gun in the Sherman. I think it was a case of once the TD doctrine was established it was impossible at the highest levels to justify the better gun

Armor Branch Officer - We need a better gun to kill German tanks
Staff Officer - You aren't supposed to be killing tanks, that is the job of TDs
A O - but sometimes we run across German tanks
S O - Then call for TD support
A O - (shaking head) The Germans won't wait for the TDs to show up, They kill our tanks and move on

I just had an interesting thought
Actually deployment of the Firefly was actually just taking the TD doctrine down to the platoon/troop level. If the U.S. had made a tank platoon two M36 TDs and three 75mm Shermans you would have the same thing as the British had without having to add a new weapon to the system.

and yes big shells have a capability all their own. Beldon Cooper mentions using M12 self propelled 155mm guns as AT weapons. In that case you had large caliber and high MV Shocked

And yes I like discussions like this. We used to have them more often , maybe they will come back

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Massimo_Foti
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Apr 08, 2008
Posts: 5397
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Actually deployment of the Firefly was actually just taking the TD doctrine down to the platoon/troop level. If the U.S. had made a tank platoon two M36 TDs and three 75mm Shermans you would have the same thing as the British had without having to add a new weapon to the system.

In post-war years, once a larger amount of tanks was available, the italian army tried to mix Shermans with 17pdr and 76mm with Shermans with 105mm at the smaller unit level possible. I guess they came to similar conclusions
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 5
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum