| Author |
Message |
|
Randy C.
|
 Posted: Fri 29 Jun, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: Newbie with questions regarding blade stiffness |
 |
|
Hi,
I am really new to sword collecting and have just acquired my first Albion - a Baron. It is obviously a very well made sword and in a different league than the less expensive brands I have already purchased. However, i am surprised at how flexible and "springy" the blade is. I was expecting a much more rigid blade.
So my questions are:
Is this blade truly representative of the originals or are there differences?
How much difference is there between this swords "boing" score as compared to a dedicated thrusting weapon?
Please remember that I am really new to this and recognize that I am an idiot - use small words and be forgiving - 
Thanks
Randy
|
|
  |
 |
Michael Clark
Location: Welland, Ontario Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Jun, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Generally, cutting blades are to be flexible and broad, for sword impact strength and shock absorbancy. The stiffer a blade gets, the more likely you'll want to thrust with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Lancelot Chan
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's because cutting blades are relatively thin to produce a sharper entry into the targets with the edges. You want less resistance on the way through the target. If it was made stiff, most likely it has a thick spine which will induce more resistance. Thus compare to thrusting sword, cutting swords tend to me more flexible.
Ancient Combat Association —http://www.acahk.org
Realistic Sparring Weapons — http://www.rsw.com.hk
Nightstalkers — http://www.nightstalkers.com.hk
|
|
 |
|
Bob Burns
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Randy and welcome to a fantastic website specializing in what for me is the most spiritually rewarding and fulfilling hobby and interest in my near 50 years of life!
The spring in the blade is part of what gives the blade it's "life" and therefore a lively essence to it's performance.
In Albion, you've chosen a fine sword from one of the best sword manufactures there are, Arms & Armor is another, then there are several very fine swordsmiths like Gus Trim, Ollin Blades and others who you can learn about in this website.
A stiff blade on a cut and thrust sword is what I call a "dead blade", kind of like a sharpened piece of steel with a grip and a crossguard on it, whereas your Albion is a "Sword"!
I am only two years into this hobby myself, but for once having some money come my way at the time of my enlightening to this passion, I've put together a rather large collection. However, my knowledge is that of a novice, although everyday I am reading and studying one of over a 100 related books.
Generally, when you see spring in the blade, your seeing quality, lack of spring is lack of quality. Although, some types of swords or rapiers are supposed to be stiffer than others, but if they are of high quality there will be a stiff type of spingyness to the blade.
There are many myArmoury members who have a whole lot of knowledge in this area, people who I actively learn from in reading their posts.
Basically, I just wanted to welcome you and try to be of some help.
Sincerely,
Bob
|
|
 |
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
A sword's flexibility is based mostly on its cross-section and heat treatment. Flexibility is not the desired characteristic in a cutting sword....a stiff sword will always cut better than a flexible sword because less energy will be lost in flex and vibration as the blade meets the target. Flexibility is a by-product of some of the compromises of blade design.
In the Baron's case (an exceptional sword, btw), the flexibility is the result of a long blade (almost 38") that is wide and thin at the cutting portion as well as light and well balanced. This is correct for the period. As Lance mentioned, early cutting swords had wide and thin cross sections because it was believed that made them better cutters (as far as we know).
To make a thrusting sword, you would make it thicker so that it was stiffer, which would make it heavier. You would then need to make it narrower to lose the extra weight (or hollow ground, or some other design). It's all a trade off. That is not to say many thrusting swords can't cut. Sword designs changed a lot in the 14th and 15th centuries, and many fine compromises were created that both cut and thrust quite well.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | A sword's flexibility is based mostly on its cross-section and heat treatment. Flexibility is not the desired characteristic in a cutting sword....a stiff sword will always cut better than a flexible sword because less energy will be lost in flex and vibration as the blade meets the target. Flexibility is a by-product of some of the compromises of blade design.
|
I don't know that that is true. Many cutting swords of shorter lengths can be just as flexible as a sword like the Baron. The cross-section of these swords makes them less stiff, and it's by design since it optimizes cutting power against the targets they were intended to face. Trust me, our forefathers knew what they were doing. They had to, since lives depended on it. If flexibility was undesirable, they would have found a better way. Stout diamond cross-sections were not an invention of the High Middle Ages, they had been around since the Bronze Age. If a more rigid sword would have been better for cutting, they would have used it.
Randy,
The Baron's blade is wholly appropriate for its type. It's been a few years, but I've seen swords with even more flex in the blade than it has.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justin King
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
There are a number of properties that revolve around stiffness/flexibility and also cross section. One of the ones that hasn't been mentioned yet specifically is feedback to the blade, as well as the user, upon impact. Hitting a tree with a piece of 5/8" rebar will demonstrate this adequately-the flexibility of a sword blade even in the plane opposite from the direction of cutting motion help deflect and absorb shock that would otherwise travel right through the length of the blade and up your arm. This also affects the sword blade itself-if it can't flex it may likely bend or break at the weakest portion of the blade (probably the tang/blade shoulder)-the inability to disburse the energy over a large area causes it to be focused on the first area that gives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Lampe
Location: United States Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Randy,
I had a similar experience when I ordered the Albion Knight which is also a type XII sword. I was quite surprised at how flexible and whippy the blade was. At the time, my sole experience with "real" swords was an Angus Trim Type XVIII short sword. That sword has a diamond cross-section and even though it's VERY thin at it's tip it's not whippy at all. You can manually flex the tip several inches but when swinging the sword it feels completely stiff. Handling the Knight was an eye-opening experience because, like you, I didn't realize just how flexible these early cutting-biased blades were. Unfortunately for me, I love the looks of those early blades but don't really care for the handling. I prefer a much stiffer blade.
As an alternate perspective I'll also mention that I owned an antique jian (Chinese sword) which is a double-edged weapon. It had a diamond cross-section, was quiet narrow (@ 1.25" wide) and was about an 1/8 " thick just behind the tip. That sword could only be flexed a few degrees (single digits) and that took more force than I was comfortable applying to an antique. The jian's characteristics reflect it's intended use which is as a cut-and-thrust sword that is primarily used as a side-arm.
|
|
 |
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | A sword's flexibility is based mostly on its cross-section and heat treatment. Flexibility is not the desired characteristic in a cutting sword....a stiff sword will always cut better than a flexible sword because less energy will be lost in flex and vibration as the blade meets the target. Flexibility is a by-product of some of the compromises of blade design.
|
I don't know that that is true. Many cutting swords of shorter lengths can be just as flexible as a sword like the Baron. The cross-section of these swords makes them less stiff, and it's by design since it optimizes cutting power against the targets they were intended to face. Trust me, our forefathers knew what they were doing. They had to, since lives depended on it. If flexibility was undesirable, they would have found a better way. Stout diamond cross-sections were not an invention of the High Middle Ages, they had been around since the Bronze Age. If a more rigid sword would have been better for cutting, they would have used it.
Randy,
The Baron's blade is wholly appropriate for its type. It's been a few years, but I've seen swords with even more flex in the blade than it has. |
Chad,
Our forefathers may have known what they were doing, but a constant evolution of technology from stone axes to semiconductors indicates that none of them were perfect (least of all us).
A katana is thicker, narrower and much stiffer than a longsword, especially a XIIa, yet it is a much, much better cutter. It's curvature has something to do with it, but a straight bladed messer is just as good a cutter. The greatest factor is the katana's stiffness...when a longsword strikes a target, a lot of it's impact energy is lost in vibrations and flex. A katana retains much more of it's energy. I am not a katanaphile, though I used to be. I much prefer the longsword, I would even go so far as to say it is a far superior weapon (unless you're fighting an army of tatami mats), but a fact is a fact.
The stiffer swords of later centuries were a result of the relative wealth of the late middle ages and the increase in trade and sharing of technology and information. Swords design improved, it didn't just change. If you want to use Albion as a comparison, the Earl/Regent is a better sword than the Baron in every respect. It's is stiffer and more durable, does at least as much damage cutting against flesh and is a far better thruster, yet it's blade is just as long and it is significantly lighter.
So in essence, they did find a better way. What we need to be careful to avoid is judging cutting performance of a sword based on pool noodles and plastic bottles. A XIIa is much better for that type of media because of it's thinner blade, but human beings are not made of plastic bottles and pool noodles. At least I'm not, I dont' know about some of you guys.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Randy,
I don't mean to make you feel bad about your new sword....the Baron is a terrific sword. It is perfect for a sword from its target time period...the only thing not historically correct about that sword is its heat treatement, which as far as we know is superior to what a typical period sword would have had. Also the steel is much more uniform and pure. In every other sense, it is nigh identical to a 12th or 13th century sword of war.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Michael,
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think you're looking at the swords out of their context. Can you compare a katana to a Type XII or XVIII? Hardly. They were designed to face different circumstances, armour, etc. The change in cross-sections throughout the Middle Ages at least as much to do with changes in tactics and armour than it did "wealth of the late middle ages and the increase in trade and sharing of technology and information."
Sword design did change and did ultimately become better in some people's eyes (define "better"). But it was due in no small part to necessary evolution due to changes in the situations it was used in. To say the later designs were solely a result of the "wealth of the late middle ages and the increase in trade and sharing of technology and information" ignores so much else that we know factored into things.
And in my opinion, the Regent is no better than the Baron as a sword (I own both). It's just different. They are such different beasts that calling one better than another is not comparing apples to apples. The Baron will be better than the Regent is some circumstances and vice versa. Which sword feels more pleasant in the hand or is more versatile? The Regent, sure, but that doesn't make it a better sword. Each weapon was designed to fit a certain scenario and those scenarios are very different.
Stiffness in later blades was more necessary given the fighting styles, armour, and tactics in use. If stiffness were so desirable in all ages, we'd see some more Viking Type XVIII's, right? We know it was possible during the Viking age as there are references to two types of swords: cutters and thrusters. But the ratio of surviving cutting swords to thrusting swords from that era suggests cutting swords were more desirable, for whatever reason.
The Baron is a great example of what it's supposed to be. Let's leave it at that.
If you want to debate what makes a better sword or better cutter, please feel free to start a new thread so we can keep this one on track.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, agreeing to disagree is fine, as I don't disgaree with most of what you say (though you do use your points to support a point I do not agree with), but I would like to point something out (which is relevant to the topic) ...
The flexibility of modern swords like the Baron may not accurately represent historic swords of that period. As we can see from the excellent article by Craig Johnsson and other sources, modern heat treatment has little in common with that of the middle ages, at least in most cases. Much of what most of us in the community know about the properties of swords are based on modern recreations like the Baron, which as fine as they are may or may not represent all of the properties of a period sword, particularly the heat treatement and the derived characteristics.
While I have long held the same opinions that you have put forth, there is no denying that when put to the test against flesh simulators like Tatami omote, the flexible wobbling XIIa's just do not cut as well as some of the stiffer and supposedly less flesh oriented swords. I don't think that should just be left alone as an inconvenient fact.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | The flexibility of modern swords like the Baron may not accurately represent historic swords of that period. As we can see from the excellent article by Craig Johnsson and other sources, modern heat treatment has little in common with that of the middle ages, at least in most cases. Much of what most of us in the community know about the properties of swords are based on modern recreations like the Baron, which as fine as they are may or may not represent all of the properties of a period sword, particularly the heat treatement and the derived characteristics. |
The gist of Craig's article is that modern swords are often (and generally) harder than their medieval counterparts and that the steel is much more pure and regular and carbon content is generally higher in modern swords. Would a less hard (and less hardenable) medieval sword be less flexible than a harder modern one? It might vibrate differently and be more prone to bending than flexing and springing back. But I doubt it would be more flexible. But I'm no metallurgist.
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | While I have long held the same opinions that you have put forth, there is no denying that when put to the test against flesh simulators like Tatami omote, the flexible wobbling XIIa's just do not cut as well as stiffer and supposedly less flesh oriented swords. I don't think that should just be left alone as an inconvenient fact. |
I'd love to see those test results. Please post about those results in a new topic. Who knows, I might even change my mind. I'd need to see something concrete, objective, verifiable, and repeatable though. The experience and training of the cutter would be of great importance to me as would specs and info on the swords being used. If you can prove it to me beyond reasonable levels of doubt, I won't be able to deny it, will I?
Since you pointed out Craig's article, here is a very crucial point to keep in mind, and one I fully agree with:
| Craig Johnson, in the article Sword Blade Hardness, wrote: | | There is no perfect blade design. The blade of every well-made sword is unique, comprised of a balance of objectives and components. These attributes, in proper proportion, produce a blade with a certain harmony; whether that harmony is appreciated is a matter of personal taste, within the additional defining context of its historical period. Recognizing this shifting universe of maker, available material, purpose and additional preferences is crucial for the serious student, collector, or maker of swords. |
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
The gist of Craig's article is that modern swords are often (and generally) harder than their medieval counterparts and that the steel is much more pure and regular and carbon content is generally higher in modern swords. Would a less hard (and less hardenable) medieval sword be less flexible than a harder modern one? It might vibrate differently and be more prone to bending than flexing and springing back. But I doubt it would be more flexible. But I'm no metallurgist. |
The swords Craig tested varied significantly in hardness along the blade...areas of soft blade and hard alternating. I don't know what sort of properties that would instill. However, to give us a hint and to possibly answer your question....an iron sword, even a thin one, would not be flexible (it would stay bent) and have less vibrations that a spring tempered steel sword of the exact same cross-section. However, a swordsmith can create a hardened sword that is harmonically "dead" and loses much less energy than a spring tempered "harmoncially balanced" sword would. He would do this by varying the hardness of the sword....hard in some places, soft in others. Sound familiar?
(for more info talk to Randal Graham)
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
I'd love to see those test results. Please post about those results in a new topic. Who knows, I might even change my mind. I'd need to see something concrete, objective, verifiable, and repeatable though. The experience and training of the cutter would be of great importance to me as would specs and info on the swords being used. If you can prove it to me beyond reasonable levels of doubt, I won't be able to deny it, will I? |
You have seen the results in a few of my posts, though it was hardly a test. My goal in performing it was to learn, not to convince others.
Here is some data: members of NYHFA who effortlessly cut tatami with a katana or a messer usually failed to do so when using a spring tempered longsword. I myself had a hard time cutting mats with a variety of longswords when I can slice and dice them like a Hibachi chef using a katana. As I got to cut tatami with a variety of swords, I was able to measure which sword performed better than the next. The results, from best to worst, over the last few years: Gendai katana, production katana (Hanwei W&T), Albion XVIII (Earl), stiff Albion XVa tied with a flexible Atrim XVIII, Flexible Atrim XIIa.
That's against tatami....with softer media (bottles, noodles, etc.) the more flexible and thinner swords (that would the Atrims in the list above) completely dominate.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Michael,
I don't have to tell you that European swords were not designed to cut Tatami, nor were any swords designed for bottles, noodles, etc. I'd love to see an entire group of highly skilled people with diverse backgrounds (John Clements, James Williams, etc. plus others) try multiple styles of sword on multiple styles of targets (tatami, bottles, noodles, meat, mail, etc., cutting and thrusting) and report the results. That would be fascinating and I'm sure there would be different winning types for different test scenarios.
I cut with a Chen katana once and it was really easy. I don't know if that was because the shape of the weapon is conducive slicing cuts or if it was a vibrational issue or the shape of the handle made edge alignment easy or if it was the alignment of the stars.
To attempt to get back on-topic (yet again), let's see if we can agree on this for the purposes of the thread:
-The Baron's cross-section is appropriate for its type, era, and intended purpose as its based on close study of period originals.
-Its steel is more homogenous than its forebears and has been treated to a much more even and high hardness than a period sword might have been (and we say might because the data sample set for hardness and carbon content is still small).
-The only way to get something more accurate is to find one of the few smiths smelting period-like steels and get your blade made by one of them and heat-treated in the hit-and-miss-somewhat-softish way period swords were. (I'd love to know how expensive that would make the sword, by the way).
-Similar swords (cross-section, heat-treat, etc.) by all the high-quality production makers will be similar in blade flex.
How about that?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Lampe
Location: United States Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
The flexibility of modern swords like the Baron may not accurately represent historic swords of that period. |
This statement took me completely by surprise because I assumed that Albion (via Peter Johnson) would not be producing swords that differ significantly from their historical counterparts. Albion's website mentions that during the sword development stage they develop a specific heat-treatment regimen for each model to insure proper handling characteristics, implying that Albion's swords do indeed closely match the antiques.
I hope Peter Johnson or someone else who has handled a large number of antiques and/or works at Albion can address this issue because that statement, if true, has the potential to completely alter my view of reproduction swords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy C.
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject: WOW! My question was bigger than i figured!!! |
|
|
Gentlemen,
It is really cool to hear som much debate over something I kow so little about! It is truly very helpful and educational. The question about whether or not the current swords truly flex like the antiques is really the meat of the issue. I would love to hear from an Albion expert on this - I am also DYING to cut something with my swod - if I do so and then sell / trade it off will it severely impact its value (assuming I don't bend it or knick the blade)?
Thanks
Randy
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
I don't know that that is true. Many cutting swords of shorter lengths can be just as flexible as a sword like the Baron. The cross-section of these swords makes them less stiff, and it's by design since it optimizes cutting power against the targets they were intended to face. Trust me, our forefathers knew what they were doing. They had to, since lives depended on it. If flexibility was undesirable, they would have found a better way. Stout diamond cross-sections were not an invention of the High Middle Ages, they had been around since the Bronze Age. If a more rigid sword would have been better for cutting, they would have used it.
|
With no doubt whatsoever that Medieval smiths knew what they were doing that does not guarantee that a given sword is the most awesome. The smith must make compromises: stiffness versus toughness, weight versus power etc. But all of these compromises are limited by the available technology and the economic realities of the moment. Medieval armourers no doubt knew that a breastplate was better protection than a coat of plates but didn't make them until they had the technology and economic resources to do so.
The original makers of Baron-like swords may very well have known what Michael Edelson knows about making it a better sword but didn't do it because they didn't have the tech or economics to do so.
One of the ways the Japanese made the katana have better cutting properties was to make it shorter, so short a blade that the a European sword with the same blade length would be a single-handed sword. Again they made compromises. They sacrificed the usefulness of length for the usefulness of better cutting properties. By the 11th century most European soldiers were wearing head to toe cut proof armour. Against such a situation length offers a greater advantage than increased cutting efficacy does.
<shrugs because he hasn't actually handled either sword>
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Lampe wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: |
The flexibility of modern swords like the Baron may not accurately represent historic swords of that period. |
This statement took me completely by surprise because I assumed that Albion (via Peter Johnson) would not be producing swords that differ significantly from their historical counterparts. Albion's website mentions that during the sword development stage they develop a specific heat-treatment regimen for each model to insure proper handling characteristics, implying that Albion's swords do indeed closely match the antiques.
I hope Peter Johnson or someone else who has handled a large number of antiques and/or works at Albion can address this issue because that statement, if true, has the potential to completely alter my view of reproduction swords. |
My opinion on it is that the Albions duplicate the geometry of the period blades very accurately but use more uniform quality materials heat treated uniformly ( some differential heat treating happens naturally as thinner cross sections would harden slightly more than the thicker section with simple carbon steel as opposed to some modern steels that can't be easily be differentially heat treated with good results ).
Period smiths may have used deliberate differential hardening at times but irregular hardening due to random carbon content couldn't be a positive thing as opposed to the deliberate choosing of carbon content in different layers of a blade at the edges with patterned welded blades.
So if one is looking for a 100% reproduction of period swords in materials, heat treatment and including period limitations the Albion swords may actually be what a period smith would have made if he had been given a modern and uniform quality steel to work with.
Personally, duplicating the period handling but improving on period materials doesn't bother me a bit.
Getting back to the original question: The Baron has the normal amount of flexibility for it's type and is a very well made sword. Cheaper swords by other makers some years back might have been TOO flexible and this mostly because of the lack of care in making real swords rather than stuff that just looked like real swords.
Even some of the lower end makers have improved the quality of their swords a great deal.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steve,
I typed up a really long reply, but decided it was just going to derail things even further. So I'll make four quick points and move on with my life :
1) The technology and materials were indeed available to make stiffer thrusting swords. They were known in the Viking Age and before. They don't seem to have been as popular as cutting swords int he Viking era and early High Middle Ages. We can debate why elsewhere.
2) Every useable weapon design (including those for modern replica swords) is designed to be the best it can be for the situation it is designed to face and within the limitations of materials, methods, and money (the 3 M's) under which it is created. But a design has to be effective. Ineffective designs would be discarded quickly and would have short or non-existent lifespans. Ergo, a design like the Baron's must have been effective to some degree or it wouldn't have been used.
3) I agree with this that Michael Edelson said above:
| Quote: | | The Baron is a terrific sword. It is perfect for a sword from its target time period. |
4) If you want a stiffer blade than the Baron and similar types, you'll end up with a sword from a different period, either much earlier or slightly later. If you want a great late 13th/early 14th century sword, the Baron is designed after careful study of period swords and incorporates features found on period sword, so I feel it's a great example of what it's supposed to be.
Chad out....
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic