Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > George Silver on the Relative Advantages of Various Weapons Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Fri 05 Oct, 2007 10:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
If you haven't already, I strongly suggest reading both the Dubious Quick Kill (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php) and "Medical Reality of Historical Wounds" in SPADA 2.


The very same article in SPADA also has a case of a man who was struck through the left ventrical of the brain with a halberd, and the man kept returning to the doctor for three days afterwards. The man was coherent and did quite a bit of travelling on foot back and forth before eventually dying.

Naturally, this doesn't prove that the cut is ineffective, it just shows that, as you say, humans are tougher than we sometimes think. I've talked with the author, Scott, about this very subject, and the only real conclusion we can draw is that sometimes a wound stops a person flat, sometimes it doesn't, whether cut or thrust.

Quote:
Look, there's a difference between believing the thrust is easier and safer to pull off and believing it has more stopping power.


I'm not trying to call you out or say that your opinion is worthless. I'm just presenting the argument from a different angle. Please don't get defensive over it.

Quote:
Still, the cut has superior incapacitation potential.


I basically agree with this, but the ability to incapacitate still requires context. A lightweight spadroon against a heavy wool coat is not going to cut as well as an Oakeshott Type XIIIa against bare flesh. In the first scenario, a thrust may be more likely to stop the fight than a cut.

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Fri 05 Oct, 2007 11:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
The very same article in SPADA also has a case of a man who was struck through the left ventrical of the brain with a halberd, and the man kept returning to the doctor for three days afterwards. The man was coherent and did quite a bit of travelling on foot back and forth before eventually dying.


Yes, and Pare was absolutely shocked that the blow didn't knock him down.

Quote:
I've talked with the author, Scott, about this very subject, and the only real conclusion we can draw is that sometimes a wound stops a person flat, sometimes it doesn't, whether cut or thrust.


Unless, of course, the cut takes off the head or a limb. A man can't fight well with a leg or his main arm missing.

Quote:
I'm not trying to call you out or say that your opinion is worthless. I'm just presenting the argument from a different angle. Please don't get defensive over it.


What are you talking about? This is how I argue online. I don't believe I've written anything that could be reasonably considered offensive or insulting.

Quote:
I basically agree with this, but the ability to incapacitate still requires context. A lightweight spadroon against a heavy wool coat is not going to cut as well as an Oakeshott Type XIIIa against bare flesh. In the first scenario, a thrust may be more likely to stop the fight than a cut.


Sure. In armored longsword combat, of course, the thrust would be considerably more likely to incapacitate.
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Fri 05 Oct, 2007 5:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Silver's rhetoric on the whole seems rather polemical. He is argueing in reaction or in correction to the view that the rapier is vastly superior to the short sword. While he does give martial treatment to the cut and to the rapier, sometimes it is hard to see whether he is so opposed to the rapier because it is Italian or that he is oposed to the Italians because of their use of the rapier.

In relationship to wounds, it would not be difficult to see how the experiences to wounds of the individual teachers may have strongly influenced their understanding of which is more deadly or incapacitating to the body. Just as we can recall freakish cases where people have shockenly survived horrific wounds, these cases whether personaly witnessed by the fight masters or just known to them through tales may constitute the basis of their reasoning for the cut or the thrust.

Putting aside the debate between cut and thrust, rapier and sword, what interests me most is the ranking of the other weapons Silver lists.

I think I can understand his order for one-on-one combat right up until the "two handed sword." First, is he referring to something like a longsword or to something like in the Goliath manuscript? But then, why does SIlver prefer it to the sword and buckler or sword and target? Perhaps it is closer to the perfect length...?

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Hand




Location: Hobart, Australia
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Fri 05 Oct, 2007 6:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Silver's two handed sword had a blade of perfect length and a longer hilt. The surviving pre-Silver English longsword texts don't state a weapon size, but some of the techniques are single handed and really only work with a smaller weapon such as Silver suggested.

Silver's hierarchy is very much dominated by the advantage gained by greater measure - longer weapons beat shorter ones , unless of course they are above perfect length, that is too long to be used in a wieldy fashion. As Silver says, the tall man doth have the vantage over the man of mean stature. To get good in Silver's system you have to know your measure to the centimeter.

Cheers
Stephen

Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield

Stoccata School of Defence
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David Lohnes




Location: Greenville, South Carolina
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Reading list: 20 books

Posts: 42

PostPosted: Mon 08 Oct, 2007 11:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Putting aside the debate between cut and thrust, rapier and sword, what interests me most is the ranking of the other weapons Silver lists.

I think I can understand his order for one-on-one combat right up until the "two handed sword." First, is he referring to something like a longsword or to something like in the Goliath manuscript? But then, why does SIlver prefer it to the sword and buckler or sword and target? Perhaps it is closer to the perfect length...?


Yes, I have the same question.

Silver describes in detail why he thinks the staff (if properly handled) has the advantage against even two single-sword men, but he doesn't really explain why a longsword would have the advantage against a sword and buckler or sword and dagger, although he does make clear that the two-handed longsword and the single-handed sword would ideally have blades of the same length.

So why would two-handed sword technique offer an advantage over sword-and-buckler technique with blades of the same length?
View user's profile Send private message
Dan P




Location: Massachusetts, USA
Joined: 28 Jun 2007

Posts: 208

PostPosted: Mon 08 Oct, 2007 1:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Lohnes wrote:

So why would two-handed sword technique offer an advantage over sword-and-buckler technique with blades of the same length?

Maybe he thinks that having two hands on the sword instead of one gives more speed and power. Maybe in his experience, a buckler would not be sufficient for stopping a good two-handed strike, and thus give no advantage in the fight. Or maybe the two-hand fighter would be able to execute multiple cuts faster than his opposition could parry single-handed or hit with his buckler. Defensively, the two-handed grip might give the fighter the ability to knock his foe's blade out of line in a parry, and follow up with an attack before the person using one hand could recover.
Of course, it depends what kind of swords these are... holding a cutlass or rapier with two hands probably isn't better than holding it with one hand, but a longsword or hand-and-a half could well be better in two hands than in one.
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Mon 08 Oct, 2007 2:38 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

In my experience it is the opposite; the sword and buckler have the advantage over the longsword. I haven't fought against or with sword and dagger nearly as long and couldn't comment per say, though my guess is that it would also hold advantage against the longsword. The only advantage of the longsword I could guess would be reach, but since Silver advocates longsword blade lengths same as short sword blade lengths, I am perplexed.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Mon 08 Oct, 2007 5:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Silver's two-handed sword can get a reach advantage by thrusting single. I once got hit by a beautiful single thrust to the throat while using sword & dagger against the longsword.

I've found that contest to be fairly even, but my sparring parter and I aren't nearly as experienced with longsword as with sword & dagger. And our longsword simulator isn't as good as the others. My biggest problem was assuming the longsword gave more power than it actually does. When I rushed in and tried to overwhelm the guy other, I tended to get hit. Even against a one-handed sword alone.

However, fighting more as Silver instructed, I did somewhat better.
View user's profile Send private message
Lancelot Chan
Industry Professional



Location: Hong Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 1,307

PostPosted: Mon 08 Oct, 2007 11:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's my experience that when it is longsword vs single sword + buckler or shield, the longsword guy is in disadvantage. Although the longsword has reach advantage, the other guy has plenty of reach as well by extending one arm along with his shoulder, plus he can simultaneously defend himself anywhere regardless of the placement of his sword. As a german style longsword practitioner myself, I found that my aggressiveness that would have worked against longsword or great sword, would be quite suicidal against overwhelming weapons like spear or sword + buckler/shield. My first shot would be unlikely to produce much threat no matter how I throw it, because the shield / buckler would have neutralize a large target area. Also, the bind and wind movement, or let's say the fineness with longsword circling around the opponent defense, would be rendered quite useless when he has a secondary defense as the buckler / shield. I cannot thrust from the outside when my strikes were parried, as I could when I was fighting another longsword/greatsword, due to the larger surface coverage of the buckler/ shield.

I've to rely on striking to the leg (letting go one hand on the grip), or multiple strikes, or wait outside of my opponent's reach for the chance to get him after he made a mistake, such as a well-timed parry counter where I can choose when to perform.... seizing the initiative by being active in terms of parry. Overall, the initiative is harder to seize against these opponents.

Ancient Combat Association —http://www.acahk.org
Realistic Sparring Weapons — http://www.rsw.com.hk
Nightstalkers — http://www.nightstalkers.com.hk
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gavin Kisebach




Location: Lacey, Wa US
Joined: 01 Aug 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 650

PostPosted: Mon 08 Oct, 2007 11:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It sounds like George was the progenitor of the ever popular "I'm making a list of weapons for my RPG" thread Big Grin

I'll need to go back and reread Paradoxes, but I do recall that Silver came across as almost irrationally against the rapier. Not that he was irrational, but rather that he seemed to take it for granted taht his readers would agree and so explained very poorly. It's been ten plus years, though, so I should revisit the book knowing what I know now.

As far as wounding, it seems to be just about impossible to predict how any human will react to any wound. Doctors are quite regularly befuddled at one case where a person dies of shock after breaking a leg, whereas another person has thier arms ripped off in a farming accident, but manages to walk to a phone and dial 911 with thier nose and survives. I can only assume that Silver based his theories on anecdotal evidence, but that seems to be just as reliable a predictor as statistics.
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2007 4:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lancelot Chan wrote:
Also, the bind and wind movement, or let's say the fineness with longsword circling around the opponent defense, would be rendered quite useless when he has a secondary defense as the buckler / shield. I cannot thrust from the outside when my strikes were parried, as I could when I was fighting another longsword/greatsword, due to the larger surface coverage of the buckler/ shield.



Lancelot, I'm not disagreeing as much as asking the question based on my " very " limited experience learning longsword:
The question/ comment being that on one occasion when I was practising techniques and my training partner available at the time had a shield and buckler, I could use the rim of his buckler as the point of contact when winding and at times simultaneously block his sword.

Now being both of us very much beginners may explain how this seemed to work !

My instructor encouraged us to " improvise/adapt " the specific technique we were practising at the time: By this I mean he would have demonstrated the technique the class was going to be practising paired longsword to longsword while the two of us " mismatched " guys would try to apply the same principle in spite of the mismatch or weapon asymmetry.

It turned out to be a lot of fun at least. Wink Big Grin

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2007 5:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kiling people with a sharp object isn't very hard.
Avoiding dying yourself while doing so, on the other hand, is the interesting bit.

While thrust have a great damage potential, they generally kill by organ failure or blood loss, which takes a relatively long time to have effect.
Thus, inflicting a mortal wound on your foe might not be enough to keep him from killing you before he collapses.
The same applies to daggers. (This is also the reason many knife victims have a very high number of wounds; If you keep stabbing until he lies still, you might be at it for a while...)
In dagger fighting, this is solved by grappling the foe so he can't counterattack.

One of Silver's arguments against the rapier is that is causes many "doublekills".
It also results in many "accidents" in duels that where "only" supposed to be to first blood, since a slight miscalulation might result in a mortal wound.
It is much easier to "pull the blows" with a sword.
(For instance, german sabre duels where generally "safer" than rapier duels, meaning you could fight MORE duels.)

However, it is quite apparent that rapiers WHERE more efficient that the "short sword" in a civilian context, or they would not have become as predominant.
In a military context, long rapiers lack the flexibility of a cut/thrust sword. Thus, military "rapiers" often have broader blades, and lack the fingerrings of their dueling cousins.
While the wind-and-stab mode of attack is rather easy to teach, and effective against unarmoured troops, the having the possibility to cut, and pulling your hand back to stab someone very close to you is also quite usefull.

A pure stabbing weapon is however not very efficient against shieldmen, but by the 16th century, these where nearly gone from the battlefield anyhow.
(The age of large shields, up to the introduction of plate armour, prominently featured long cutting swords.)

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2007 7:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Longsword vs. sword and buckler...

Whenever you divide a person's focus between two objects, each object suffers. Add to this the fact that the two handed sword (longsword) is much faster than a single hand sword (leverage) and that it is very difficult to parry a sword with a small buckler. If you overcome the division of focus by pairing the buckler and sword (as in I.33), then all the buckler does is protect the sword hand.

A big shield is, of course, a completely different animal.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2007 7:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
I'll need to go back and reread Paradoxes, but I do recall that Silver came across as almost irrationally against the rapier.


Not at all. He wrote that rapiers were too long, focused only the thrust, and had insufficient protection for the hand.

Quote:
However, it is quite apparent that rapiers WHERE more efficient that the "short sword" in a civilian context, or they would not have become as predominant.


Don't jump to conclusions. Fashion dictates personal weapon choices more than effectiveness. Or do you assume that smallswords were superior to rapiers?
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2007 8:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Longsword vs. sword and buckler...

Whenever you divide a person's focus between two objects, each object suffers. Add to this the fact that the two handed sword (longsword) is much faster than a single hand sword (leverage) and that it is very difficult to parry a sword with a small buckler. If you overcome the division of focus by pairing the buckler and sword (as in I.33), then all the buckler does is protect the sword hand.

A big shield is, of course, a completely different animal.


A couple of notes here. A long sword does not neccearily outreach a arming sword to a significant degree; The extra 10 cm of blade is offset by the rear hand reaching across the body.
A long sword is more controllable, but the one handed sword "accelerates" faster. A sword and buckler fighter can make faster "snap shots", but his recovery and followups will be slower.
Most of the time, he will compensate for this by keeping at range, where the superior maneuverability and bind power of the longsword is less of a problem, until he can establish a bind with the buckler, and enter.

The protection of the sword hand is a huge benefit. It basically buys you 30 cm of extra range, and a quite solid guard to hide behind while evaluating the foe, which you do not have with single swords (Where only range will keep you safe from snap shots.) Even the relatively slow I.33 #1 twirl only takes 0,5 seconds from halfsword to hit. The #4 whip is twice as fast, with the #6 stab in same speed range.
Active defending againt these can be pretty hard, unless your guard is perfect.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2007 8:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Quote:
I'll need to go back and reread Paradoxes, but I do recall that Silver came across as almost irrationally against the rapier.


Not at all. He wrote that rapiers were too long, focused only the thrust, and had insufficient protection for the hand.


He also conveniently ignores the rapiers that were of his perfect length, could could reasonably, and had very good hand protection... and were also used in the Italian style (which, by the way, made frequent use of the cut as necessary despite relying primarily on the thrust).

Quote:
Don't jump to conclusions. Fashion dictates personal weapon choices more than effectiveness. Or do you assume that smallswords were superior to rapiers?


Context dictates personal weapon choices more than fashion. (and fashion is indeed part of the context, so I'm not entirely disgreeing with you) Some people in period would say that yes, smallswords were superior to rapiers.

Anyone who saw Maestro Sean Hayes and Puck Curtis fencing 19th century duelling epee this past WMAW 2007 would have absolutely no doubt as to it's effectiveness as a weapon of martial efficiency. It was the greatest match of fencing skill I have ever seen in my life, and I'm sure most of the 200 people watching would agree with me. Is the weapon better than the contemporary saber, which was taught in the exact same tradition? For certain situations or preferences, maybe, but in general, no, else the two weapons would not have been taught alongside each other. Was the weapon purely a fashion statement? Maybe to some extent, but I certainly would never want to fence Maestro Hayes in a duel to the death if he were armed with one, let me tell you, regardless of what weapon I had!

Is a sniper rifle better than a hand gun? Is a nuclear bomb better than a tank? Depends on the situation. We can't divorce the effectiveness of a weapon from the situation that surrounds it.

The rapier vs. broadsword argument often sounds like the samurai vs. knight debate. Wink

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Alexander Hinman




Location: washington, dc
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Reading list: 50 books

Posts: 180

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2007 9:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

What confuses me most about Silver's hierarchy is his placement of polearms therein. What's so great about the welsh hook? What makes it so much better than a partisan or a half-pike? Its versatility?

Is Silver the first to rank weapons? It all seems quite dubious to me.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2007 9:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
He also conveniently ignores the rapiers that were of his perfect length, could could reasonably, and had very good hand protection... and were also used in the Italian style (which, by the way, made frequent use of the cut as necessary despite relying primarily on the thrust).


Were such rapiers common in England in Silver's day? Swetnam certainly liked a very long rapier. Also, what type of rapier provides as good hand protection a basket-hilt?

Quote:
Some people in period would say that yes, smallswords were superior to rapiers.


Indeed. McBane claimed the smallsword had the advantage against the sword and shield.

Quote:
Is the weapon better than the contemporary saber, which was taught in the exact same tradition? For certain situations or preferences, maybe, but in general, no, else the two weapons would not have been taught alongside each other.


I question this logic. Simply because a system teaches two weapons does mean they're even in a fight. Silver loved his short sword, but he gave almost everything else odds against it.
View user's profile Send private message
Lancelot Chan
Industry Professional



Location: Hong Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 1,307

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2007 9:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hmm, interesting, binding the buckler... what I've found in my rare occasions when I work from the contact point of the buckler is that since the buckler is as close to his hand as it could get, my sword has definitely no leverage advantage against the buckler, no matter how close to the strong it is. Thus, he literally could slam my sword around with it while attacking from the other angle with the sword.

Not sure if I was doing it right though. Sad

Ancient Combat Association —http://www.acahk.org
Realistic Sparring Weapons — http://www.rsw.com.hk
Nightstalkers — http://www.nightstalkers.com.hk
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Mon 15 Oct, 2007 6:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As has been written various times here the tool depends on the job. The ´job´ being more than thé job. Fashion has been mentioned as part of the job: the smallsword was considered to be more elegant than a battle axe by some Wink
It doesn´t stop there becouse the job includes the guy doing it. It takes quite a lot of time to train a swordsman but you can give him a job with a pike fairly quickly.
Even though archery takes skill, thus atlent, horse riding requires more of both etcetra.
A very highly trained horseman with a long sword would still have challenge in a farmer with a flail even on a plain...

Take modern weaponry. Looking at ground weapons the tank is thé most effective weapon of all and not even a person nót in his right mind would pit a horseman against one.
Yet the US used true cavalry on horseback to actualy get tó Tora Bora.

´The job´ goes way beyond a waepon´s actual effectiveless.
I guess the réaly conclusive factor hides between the ears. Thát is the ultimate weapon: brainpower.

Like the mamluk furusiya manual states: ´How does the horseman deal with a body of footsoldiers?
He does not! He will leave the field to live another day and fight on one with more favourable conditions.´

hc
View user's profile


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > George Silver on the Relative Advantages of Various Weapons
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
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 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