Jump to content


The Anglo-Teutonic Axis. (A what if)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
83 replies to this topic

Dennis420b #41 Posted 08 June 2014 - 10:35 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostDeath pod 69, on 08 June 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

An interesting question.  One that Hitler had himself wanted per his books (yes plural, there is a second book he wrote and never published, check it out).

Anyway, Churchill was an ardent anti Nazi, anti Hitler.  He did not come to power until mid 1940.  Chamberlain was more prone to negotiate.  If Chamberlain stays and Dunkirk evacuation fails, plus your other situations (more successful U-boats and Battle of Britain) I believe there would be an armistice in late 1940.  That being the case, Germany would still have turned east.  It was always the ambition of Hitler to do so.  The battle of Nazism vs Communism.  What was fought in the streets of Germany in the 1920s-30s would have to play out on the global stage.  With no threat to the back door from the Brits and USA, I believe Germany pulls it out and pushes the Soviets to the Urals.  Remember the Italians attack into Greece delayed Barbarossa by several weeks which cost the Germans Moscow.  If no Britain, then no Italian North African adventure.  If Mussolini isn't playing in the war, and no Balkan adventures by him, then no delay to Barbarossa and Moscow falls before winter hits.  The USA would not be prone to care about USSR.  Roosevelt didn't want the UK to fall to the Germans and kept trying to precipitate a war with Germany in the Atlantic.  If there is no UBoat war, there is no antagonism for Roosevelt to play to with Germany.  The US population was still very isolationist.  Even after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt had to figure out how to go to war with Germany.  Hitler made that easy by declaring war on the US on Dec 11.  So I guess another good question is, if Hitler doesn't declare war, is Roosevelt still able to pull the Americans into the European theater?


Ah yes someone with vision. If Fascism is the enemy of Communism, than Capitalism is the cousin of Fascism and also an enemy of Communism. But pre war most industrialised nations have a growing fascist and communist movement. would the cold war still play out but with Germany leading the charge against the communist? If the armistice is accepted in 40 and the British get to basically keep their empire than why wouldn't the UK and the US see Hitler as a better option than Stalin? All three nations fear communism and if Germany is going to take the brunt of the workload and eliminate communism, I am sure that the UK and US would back them.



Dennis420b #42 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:06 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View Postrainsilent, on 08 June 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

 

First I'll quote the part I agree with. Second this post shows how little you know of what was/is going on. Al queida attacked US civilians. They for all intensive purposes ran Afghanistan. That is why we went there. If you don't understand that than you are beyond help or understanding for whatever reason. Iraq was due to unfinished business combined with other smaller factors. Not significant enough in my mind to take the action we did.

 

Now in terms of the rest of it and who can threaten this country. I'll give you the most obvious first. Russia. Then North Korea and finally China. If you think neither are, can or have the ability in some way you must have been living under a rock for over a decade. Russia is in full position to start a war, North Korea has nukes and has what appears to be a leader nearly as crazy as his father and China has been trying to attack the US cyber wise for at least 5 years and can do more than just cyber attacks. Any of those 3 are in position to take out any country in at least one way.

 

Finally no soldier is naive to not join because of who is in office. It isn't their job. As was said before, "War is something fought on the desks of politicians. So long as they win in the end nothing else matters." Soldiers don't join based upon who is in office. They join strictly to protect the civilians and their rights.


well you obviously know less than you think. Afghanistan was ran by the Taliban not Al Qaeda. And Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a government. If you really want to know the truth about the War in Afghanistan, look up the phrase "A carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs". In a nut shell it was a demand that western company's be allowed to build pipelines through Afghanistan, or else. This proposal was delivered to the Taliban the then legal government of Afghanistan (and sort of friend to the west ironically) approximately 6 months before 9-11.

Terrorist organizations attacking civilians does not constitute a war against sovereign nations.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and Sadam Hussain was a secularist dictator who did not allow any other faction to have power even terrorist. Not to mention they had complied with all UN agreements.  They were also suffering a huge humanitarian crisis from the sanctions imposed on them by the west. All in all what happened to Iraq was pure criminal.

Russia has a Navy that is designed to disrupt the US and NATO navy's. It has very little ability to project its power over the sea. Read up on it. Although Russia could be a formidable opponent on land, it like Germany in WW2 is ill equipped to launch an offensive naval invasion that would be needed.

North Korea? lol. That is funny. Their military capability is a joke. Numbers is their only point. The ROK army will walk over North Korea. The only advantage the North Koreans have on that peninsula is artillery, and most of that belongs in a cold war museum. The North Korean Air force is equally incapable of defending its own skys and will have to rely on SAMs to keep from being destroyed from the air. Its navy? a joke.

China is the only nation with a future credible chance at what you are saying is a possibility. Future being the key word. And its not going to be anytime soon (20-30 years?) Until it can field a carrier force capable of defeating the Americans then it will be almost exclusively used for defense and local conflict in the same mold as the Russian fleet.

And lastly about soldiers and politicians. If someone is too stupid to see through the lies than perhaps charging a MG nest is the only thing they would be capable of anyways. If you want to believe that your nation, or any for that matter, has its peoples interest at heart and not the wealthiest few, than you cant be reached out there in propaganda land. You have that flag wrapped so tight around your head that you cant see the absurdity of your claims. Try reading more.

So while we are at it why dont you give a brief outline of the possible invasion force any of those nations you fear would muster for the task. You dont need ship names but classes would be nice. Take your time. You are going to need a lot of imagination to stretch that into a realistic possibility.



WidowMaker1711 #43 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:11 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11848 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:


But again its a volunteer force.

Veterans should always receive the best we can offer. But not a higher standing. At least in the US it is very specific that they receive no plus to citizenship. Although some who know nothing about history would like to see that change.

 

Im not saying the state should give them more. Its more society should treat them with some respect. I can only imagine what its like to offer my life so that someone else doesnt have to.

 

However I do believe anyone who serves

should at least be given access to a State funded psychologist/psychiatrist if they need it. There are some things in life that once seen cannot be unseen. And help should be given to at least alleviate that.

 


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Dennis420b #44 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:14 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 08 June 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

Riiiiiiiight. I talk about britains actions in the Second World War. Would you say we were evil and power hungry? We lost our empire, our wealth and our children so where exactly is the gain for us? Instead you say that we can't possibly have been a heroic, selfless nation during that time because we did baaaaad things a few hundred years before. You say I'm brainwashed by propaganda, I say you're brainwashed by having your head up your backside.


Actually this goes back to the discusion about "strategic bombing/terror bombing" from a few weeks back, and I never said that the PEOPLE of the UK were greedy or power hungry. You lost "your empire" because it was ill gotten gains. The chickens had come home to roost after centuries of oppression and subjugation. It never was yours. Thats the point. You sound as if you are butthurt about not being able to own others and their land. I think you are on the wrong side of history on this one. You are brainwashed by nationalist sentiment purposefully designed to keep you supporting the powers that be. You are no better than anyone else who is born across some imaginary line. But if your government can make you believe that you will be willing to murder and kill and even maybe be killed for an unquantifiable idea of nationalism. I find that stupid. The people of the UK have much to be proud of, but also much to be ashamed of. The same as any other nation, which was my original point.



Dennis420b #45 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:16 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 08 June 2014 - 06:11 PM, said:

 

Im not saying the state should give them more. Its more society should treat them with some respect. I can only imagine what its like to offer my life so that someone else doesnt have to.

 

However I do believe anyone who serves

should at least be given access to a State funded psychologist/psychiatrist if they need it. There are some things in life that once seen cannot be unseen. And help should be given to at least alleviate that.

 


Agreed. If we are going to have them do our bidding than they should get the best care after. A homeless, hungry and suffering veteran is NEVER acceptable.



Dennis420b #46 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:18 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 08 June 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

Disagree. You have to understand a soldiers mentality. You're trained to kill, to shut off emotion and give in to bloodlust. That's not something that can just be switched off like a light. Living in those conditions for months or even years on end, seeing your friends killed and maimed and the possibility of it happening to you has a profound effect on the human mind. He needs help, not punishment.


wow. Your assessment of a soldier is similar to that of an SS camp guard. Blood lust is psychopathy. It should never be allowed in ANY human endeavor. We are training men for combat not slaughter. You need help. 



WidowMaker1711 #47 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:22 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11848 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 09 June 2014 - 12:16 AM, said:


Agreed. If we are going to have them do our bidding than they should get the best care after. A homeless, hungry and suffering veteran is NEVER acceptable.

 

Its getting better in the UK. Assumptions that because they carry no physical scars they are ok are being broken down. They are slowly getting the help they deserve and not spiralling into a black hole of alcoholism, drugs and violence leading to prison.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Dennis420b #48 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:30 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View Postrainsilent, on 08 June 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

 

A part of this has thinking that is so badly flawed that I can't find a word to describe it. Before I get to that a few points. Name me one country that is exempt from doing wrong. How about one person. You have nothing. Back to the flawed thinking. You are a part of that "criminal machine" so how about we try you for those crimes done? Don't be stupid and make such poor statements. The mechanic in your example had no ties outside of they happened to work on the cars. That is so beyond the principle or thinking of Nuremberg that it is approaching complete stupidity. Trying and holding those responsible is one thing. So is fair judgement to all by avoiding preferential treatment to nationalities. Both of which I fully support. Holding accountable everyone that so much as crossed paths is stupid to the nth degree and that is what you are suggesting. This has nothing to do with an extremely unpopular rabbit hole and everything to do with you apparently obsessing over the fact that everyone is guilty of one persons crime and you wanting to condemn everyone for it.


I have already stated numerous times that IMHO there are no nations free of guilt. Please go back and find where I have before you throw around accusations. The Forum is here for all to see and I have nothing to hide.

You really need to read the list of "war criminals" after the war. Its long and often arbitrary.

I find it odd that you say you are for equality in responsibility given that you defended the direct targeting of civilians by the British and Americans during the war by pointing out that the Germans had bombed you guys first. I proved that the Allies did not take proportionality into account when the killed far more Germans than the Germans killed English. You were all about Allied strategic bombing that targeted civilians but condemned the Germans for the same.

Your ability to debate is losing credibility.

 



Dennis420b #49 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:37 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 08 June 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

 

Its getting better in the UK. Assumptions that because they carry no physical scars they are ok are being broken down. They are slowly getting the help they deserve and not spiralling into a black hole of alcoholism, drugs and violence leading to prison.


If we as a species desire an end to this, we need to abandon these nationalistic ideas. People need to stop allowing their governments to send our children out to die. People need to stop volunteering for service.

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"   
-John F. Kennedy.



Dennis420b #50 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:40 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
This is why I choose to see history pragmatically and not through the skewing lenses of nationalistic propaganda.

One standard is enough.

WidowMaker1711 #51 Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:52 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11848 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 09 June 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:

This is why I choose to see history pragmatically and not through the skewing lenses of nationalistic propaganda.

One standard is enough.

 

Problem is. Even if you object theres always going to be a Hitler, Stalin, British Empire etc that rises to the top and needs controlling. Look how well economic sanctions hurt Syria, Iran and Russia at the moment. They OBVIOUSLY dont work. Violence begats Violence.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Dennis420b #52 Posted 09 June 2014 - 12:19 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 08 June 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

 

Problem is. Even if you object theres always going to be a Hitler, Stalin, British Empire etc that rises to the top and needs controlling. Look how well economic sanctions hurt Syria, Iran and Russia at the moment. They OBVIOUSLY dont work. Violence begats Violence.


As long as we act against a nation for the actions of a few, then that nations people will see us as the enemy. Military action is too deadly now to be tossed around with ease. we need to see each others people as the same.

The terrible thing about war is that ultimately those who have to carry the burden of war are the poor, and those who benefit from war are the ones who create the wars. It is those few that gain and have a vested interest in having their people believe in this nationalistic nonsense, to keep the ranks filled.
 


Edited by Dennis420b, 09 June 2014 - 12:19 AM.


rainsilent #53 Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:16 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:


But again its a volunteer force.

Veterans should always receive the best we can offer. But not a higher standing. At least in the US it is very specific that they receive no plus to citizenship. Although some who know nothing about history would like to see that change.

 

Veterans are citizens that gave military service. They shouldn't get a "bonus" to citizenship for their service. Aid covering or helping with what happened as a result of their service is different. There are definitely some goofy characters in office. That is for sure. So long as we are on the same line we agree here.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


rainsilent #54 Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:21 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:


I have already stated numerous times that IMHO there are no nations free of guilt. Please go back and find where I have before you throw around accusations. The Forum is here for all to see and I have nothing to hide.

You really need to read the list of "war criminals" after the war. Its long and often arbitrary.

I find it odd that you say you are for equality in responsibility given that you defended the direct targeting of civilians by the British and Americans during the war by pointing out that the Germans had bombed you guys first. I proved that the Allies did not take proportionality into account when the killed far more Germans than the Germans killed English. You were all about Allied strategic bombing that targeted civilians but condemned the Germans for the same.

Your ability to debate is losing credibility.

 

 

Your credibility is even worse if you think I ever said anything like that. Go back and read my posts on the topic and get a clue. This post made you look like a complete idiot. However...


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


rainsilent #55 Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:38 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:


well you obviously know less than you think. Afghanistan was ran by the Taliban not Al Qaeda. And Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a government. If you really want to know the truth about the War in Afghanistan, look up the phrase "A carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs". In a nut shell it was a demand that western company's be allowed to build pipelines through Afghanistan, or else. This proposal was delivered to the Taliban the then legal government of Afghanistan (and sort of friend to the west ironically) approximately 6 months before 9-11.

Terrorist organizations attacking civilians does not constitute a war against sovereign nations.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and Sadam Hussain was a secularist dictator who did not allow any other faction to have power even terrorist. Not to mention they had complied with all UN agreements.  They were also suffering a huge humanitarian crisis from the sanctions imposed on them by the west. All in all what happened to Iraq was pure criminal.

Russia has a Navy that is designed to disrupt the US and NATO navy's. It has very little ability to project its power over the sea. Read up on it. Although Russia could be a formidable opponent on land, it like Germany in WW2 is ill equipped to launch an offensive naval invasion that would be needed.

North Korea? lol. That is funny. Their military capability is a joke. Numbers is their only point. The ROK army will walk over North Korea. The only advantage the North Koreans have on that peninsula is artillery, and most of that belongs in a cold war museum. The North Korean Air force is equally incapable of defending its own skys and will have to rely on SAMs to keep from being destroyed from the air. Its navy? a joke.

China is the only nation with a future credible chance at what you are saying is a possibility. Future being the key word. And its not going to be anytime soon (20-30 years?) Until it can field a carrier force capable of defeating the Americans then it will be almost exclusively used for defense and local conflict in the same mold as the Russian fleet.

And lastly about soldiers and politicians. If someone is too stupid to see through the lies than perhaps charging a MG nest is the only thing they would be capable of anyways. If you want to believe that your nation, or any for that matter, has its peoples interest at heart and not the wealthiest few, than you cant be reached out there in propaganda land. You have that flag wrapped so tight around your head that you cant see the absurdity of your claims. Try reading more.

So while we are at it why dont you give a brief outline of the possible invasion force any of those nations you fear would muster for the task. You dont need ship names but classes would be nice. Take your time. You are going to need a lot of imagination to stretch that into a realistic possibility.

 

... Here you get worse at points. Can you not read what I typed or do you not comprehend what I was trying to say? Go back and read what I typed to see how each could. Surely you can figure it out from there. If not it would be better for you to stop before you make it worse on yourself because someone with common sense can figure it out from there. I'll give you some help. None involve them landing any physical invasion force here. They don't need to.

 

Also I said Afghanistan was essentially run by not they were the government. There is a big difference. The Taliban was protecting them as well. Should we still have gone in? It isn't my call to make but I would have likely said yes if they weren't willing to give them up. The reason why is because of the ties the two had together. Otherwise I agree that it didn't warrant an attack on a sovereign nation in normal circumstances. We also agree on Iraq for the second time if you can't tell. Seriously do you read everything or just skim for any disagreement and then type a general response just because someone disagreed?


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


Party Poison91 #56 Posted 09 June 2014 - 10:22 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 09 June 2014 - 12:18 AM, said:


wow. Your assessment of a soldier is similar to that of an SS camp guard. Blood lust is psychopathy. It should never be allowed in ANY human endeavor. We are training men for combat not slaughter. You need help. 

Lol you're so full of it. Do you have any goddamn idea what you're talking about? Another pothead liberal who thinks there view of the world is the right and only one.


"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

Dennis420b #57 Posted 09 June 2014 - 01:50 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 09 June 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

Lol you're so full of it. Do you have any goddamn idea what you're talking about? Another pothead liberal who thinks there view of the world is the right and only one.


So we resort to insult to try and mask your lack of a solid point. We do not train soldiers to be barbaric psychopathic killers. In today's professional military's we train soldiers to perform their task as ordered. Nothing more.

Yes I am a pothead, yes I am liberal, and yes I think my view is right... dont you also think you are right? And no I dont think its the only one, as can be seen by my willingness to debate you.
I find nothing wrong with any of those things.



Dennis420b #58 Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:09 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
I apologize for including you in the group that supported Allied terror bombing and condemning axis terror bombing.

But your world view is a little too George Bush (=rubbish propaganda, used to justify the new corporate empires) and not enough substantial fact. You claimed that we were threatened by Russia, China and North Korea. China and the Russians have nuclear weapons that can threaten us (as do we that threaten them), but their conventional forces lack the ability to project their power onto the UK or the US. North Korea is a joke. Their collection of antiquated equipment with a sprinkling of a few almost modern systems is pretty much for parades as they are by far the weakest power in the region.

You are falling for the west fear mongering of its people. Seriously go look up those nations armed forces and do a little research. There is nothing that goes on, under or over the oceans that we cannot immediately kill and the world knows it. That's why the Russians built so many subs, because they knew they had no chance at sea. That makes them just like Hitler and Napoleon. Fierce on land, not so much at sea. In the modern world sea lane control is more important than ever.

rainsilent #59 Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:32 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 09 June 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

I apologize for including you in the group that supported Allied terror bombing and condemning axis terror bombing.

But your world view is a little too George Bush (=rubbish propaganda, used to justify the new corporate empires) and not enough substantial fact. You claimed that we were threatened by Russia, China and North Korea. China and the Russians have nuclear weapons that can threaten us (as do we that threaten them), but their conventional forces lack the ability to project their power onto the UK or the US. North Korea is a joke. Their collection of antiquated equipment with a sprinkling of a few almost modern systems is pretty much for parades as they are by far the weakest power in the region.

You are falling for the west fear mongering of its people. Seriously go look up those nations armed forces and do a little research. There is nothing that goes on, under or over the oceans that we cannot immediately kill and the world knows it. That's why the Russians built so many subs, because they knew they had no chance at sea. That makes them just like Hitler and Napoleon. Fierce on land, not so much at sea. In the modern world sea lane control is more important than ever.

 

You are still missing something that I was saying about those powers. China can destroy the US from the inside in many ways. Primarily focusing on our economy. Russia can attack in many ways and destroy the US as we know it using devices of war and none require an actual boot on the ground. The only thing North Korea has is nukes. A few nukes will destroy the US. All 3 are more than capable. Your stuck on the thought of a physical invasion and cant get around that. Your thinking is as behind the times as the French generals were at the beginning of the Battle of France. You dont need to invade a country anymore to destroy it. If you can't see this than you might as well be oblivious to the facts. The US is as secure as a nation as a vase is on a tall podium. By the way I hated Bush's policies and I hate corporate empires but this isn't the place for politics. I also don't by into the fear mongering.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


rainsilent #60 Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:37 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 09 June 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:


We do not train soldiers to be barbaric psychopathic killers. In today's professional military's we train soldiers to perform their task as ordered. Nothing more.

 

You might want to look into many special forces and their training. I will first point to Russia and Speznaz. Many special forces go well beyond "normal" for military.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users