| Author |
Message |
|
Nicolas Gauthier
Location: Quebec city Joined: 18 Oct 2012
Posts: 32
|
 Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 12:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Lukas MG wrote: | Are you sure, all Indian mail is created equally bad? Pretend I hadn't said anything about where the mail was from... wouldn't you have expected the mail to perform just the way it did? Proof against the sword it would have encountered, not enough protection against later swords and similarly shaped arrow heads, etc... that's EXACTLY what you would expect. In fact, Mike Edelson got very similar results using very high quality mail: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131
His Albion Talhoffer performed pretty much exactly like the longsword I used. So I don't believe this stuff is as bad as you make it out to be. Maybe the quality of Indian mail generally got better, or this one just is superior to most.
Regarding the "intended for costume, not warfare": That argumentation is flawed. Albions aren't intended for warfare. Most spend their time hanging on walls, looking pretty. NOTHING made today for the modern collector is intended for the use it would have seen back then. Yet I don't see anyone complaining how Albions aren't good for tests. For what purpose something was made is irrelevant, as long as the end product fits for what you want to do with it. Further more, "costume" doesn't inherently mean bad quality. It can be perfectly good, or not.
So, ignore for a while the origin of the mail used and focus on it itself. I uploaded some pretty close-up pics, look at the mail and tell me, what's off about it. That will make this discussion much more relevant. Mark Shearer's questions go in the right direction I believe, if the rings size/thickness is wrong, it has a much higher impact on its performance that its land of origin. |
Your statement about Albions swords not intended for warfare strike me. Are you sure about that ? Of course we don't need to use a sword on a battlefield today, and modern swords are not made with the intent of kiling someone. But an Albion is still a real weapon, and it could probably be successfully used by a soldier on a battlefield in the medieval time, if we could time travel. Considering that serious sword makers like Albion or Arms and Armor base their swords dimensions and characteristics on museum swords, which were made during the medieval period, the result of a modern made sword should be pretty similar to what was used on a medieval battlefield (except that swords today have better steel and would be probably too perfect in their overall look and finish).
|
|
  |
 |
|
Edward Lee
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Albion sword would probably have be the quality of what a lord would have had. At least that's in my opinion. Swords used by common soldiers and city guards might have a lower quality. Of course that if both of those swords are made in the correct way and the only difference is that the nobleman's sword would be gilded with gold and commoner's with nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukas MG
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Nicolas Gauthier:
Of course I'm sure that when Peter Johnsson designed those swords, his goal was not to make a sword to kill people with! Nobody uses swords for actual combat nowadays! That doesn't mean that he didn't make them so close to originals that they could be used for exactly that purpose and with good effect. What I'm getting at is that neither the mail from India nor Albions nor any historical arms and armor is actually made today with that in mind, what people back then were thinking when forging a sword or riveting mail. I was answering to Dan Howard's statement that Indian mail is a costume accessory, unlike historical mail. That's true of course but goes for all and every historical arms and armor made today.
That does NOT mean that they cannot perform as well or better for what their historical counterparts were intended for! Costume doesn't equal bad quality.
I hope this clears things up...
@Erik S: Thanks for the pic, that mail indeed looks quite similar. Ring thickness and size seems very close, the original does look a bit denser though. Either way it's comparable.
Last edited by Lukas MG on Tue 15 Jul, 2014 2:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
 |
|
|
Augusto Boer Bront
Industry Professional
Location: Cividale del Friuli (UD) Italy Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 294
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukas MG
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Against cuts, the padding certainly has a huge impact regarding protection against trauma. Against thrusts, I'm not so sure... Mike Edelson tested exactly that and once the sword tip went through the mail, the gambeson below didn't slow it down any. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicolas Gauthier
Location: Quebec city Joined: 18 Oct 2012
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lukas MG wrote: | @Nicolas Gauthier:
Of course I'm sure that when Peter Johnsson designed those swords, his goal was not to make a sword for use in battle! Nobody uses swords for actual combat nowadays! That doesn't mean that he didn't make them so close to originals that they could be used for exactly that purpose and with good effect. What I'm getting at is that neither the mail from India nor Albions nor any historical arms and armor is actually made today with that in mind, what people back then were thinking when forging a sword or riveting mail. I was answering to Dan Howard's statement that Indian mail is a costume accessory, unlike historical mail. That's true of course but goes for all and every historical arms and armor made today.
That does NOT mean that they cannot perform as well or better for what their historical counterparts were intended for! Costume doesn't equal bad quality.
I hope this clears things up...
@Erik S: Thanks for the pic, that mail indeed looks quite similar. Ring thickness and size seems very close, the original does look a bit denser though. Either way it's comparable. |
Ok, i misunderstood you 
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: Mail vs sword: a test |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | If you look through all of the known authentic European riveted mail examples similar types can be found |
Those links are smaller, the weave is denser, and the solid links are thicker than anything coming out of India. You also have seven centuries of oxidation and wear on top of modern attempts to clean and restore it.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lukas MG wrote: | | I can also say that the holes for the rivets were drifted. If you look at it closely, you see how material was forced to the side (first mail pic, the rings on the very right, I lack the vocabulary to correctly describe it). |
So instead of really crappy mail, you just have crappy mail. The only thing your test does is to reinforce the fact, yet again, that this stuff wasn't intended to stop weapon points. Nobody expects a hollywood costume or even civilian kevlar vest to stop a military round.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Dean F. Marino
Location: Midland MI USA Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lukas MG wrote: | @Nicolas Gauthier:
Of course I'm sure that when Peter Johnsson designed those swords, his goal was not to make a sword to kill people with! Nobody uses swords for actual combat nowadays! That doesn't mean that he didn't make them so close to originals that they could be used for exactly that purpose and with good effect. What I'm getting at is that neither the mail from India nor Albions nor any historical arms and armor is actually made today with that in mind, what people back then were thinking when forging a sword or riveting mail. I was answering to Dan Howard's statement that Indian mail is a costume accessory, unlike historical mail. That's true of course but goes for all and every historical arms and armor made today.
That does NOT mean that they cannot perform as well or better for what their historical counterparts were intended for! Costume doesn't equal bad quality.
I hope this clears things up...
@Erik S: Thanks for the pic, that mail indeed looks quite similar. Ring thickness and size seems very close, the original does look a bit denser though. Either way it's comparable. |
OK -gotta comment..... first? THANK YOU. You took the time to put THIS particular maille through a serious test. And it COST you to do that, just to give us some data. THANK YOU.
Second - If "Peter Johnsson designed those swords, his goal was not to make a sword to kill people with! " ? I don't want any of his products. His choice -and I respect it... but I DO want swords that are totally lethal. Oh, the product may be attractive - I respect that. I just don't want it .
Now -for everyone else....
THIS particular maile may very well be less than what you expect of it.... I am certainly NOT an expert on the quality of this item. But PLEASE - if you wish to denigrate it? OFFER A superiour ALTERNATIVE. Trying to say this nicely (I will likely fail).... stop bitching and give your brothers a better choice. SOME of you have done so. ANYONE can make a stink - it takes a very big person, who should be respected for their skill, to make a better suggestion that might benefit those that are ignorant in this area... I CERTAINLY am ignorant - and would LOVE good data on superior products .
In edhil, hai edhil. In edain, hai edain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Plenty of comments above on the mail itself (denseness of weave, solid rings, strength of riveting).
But there is plenty of evidence that "typical" mail is not sufficient by itself in a high-threat environment. If you want your armour to stop high-energy arrows and cavalry lances, do not wear "typical" mail by itself. There are at least 4 historical solutions:
1. "Super" mail. Extra thick rings, doubled rings, etc.
2. Textile/padding/felt - mail - textile/padding/felt sandwich.
3. 2 layers of mail
4. mail + coat of plates or lamellar or similar.
If "typical" mail by itself was felt to be sufficient, why would people have bothered with the weight, bulk, and expense of additional layers? So I am not surprised to find that good armour-piercing weapons can go through "typical" mail. Even if the mail in this sample is of inferior quality, we should find that good armour-piercing weapons can go through historical mail.
From "The Knight and the Blast Furnace", we have some data (see http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25576 for details). 120J will put an arrow through a particular sample of 15th century mail, 170J to go through that mail and underlying textile armour. A high draw weight warbow can deliver 135J or more (for long-draw bows, you can get to that even with under 100lb draw weight), which will penetrate the mail, but not the complete set of armour.
The penetration of the Indian mail by the pointy sword doesn't tell us much that is useful, unless you want to wear that kind of mail for protection against sharp weapons. It does tell us that it's plausible that weapons can penetrate mail.
The failure of the round-tipped sword to penetrate does tell us something useful. Specifically, if mail that is probably inferior to historical Viking/Dark Ages mail stops a sword that is probably superior to historical Viking/Dark Ages swords, then it's a good bet that Viking/Dark Ages mail could stop Viking/Dark Ages swords. Just the mail alone, with no other layers of armour needed. So, we might expect to find that mail was worn over just a shirt, rather than being worn over textile/padded armour. So if we wonder why we don't have good evidence of Viking/Dark Ages gambesons being worn under mail, we might have a functional answer (we might also want to know how the mail fares against one-handed spear thrusts).
As for complaining about the quality of Indian mail, isn't that the first step towards getting better mail? I everybody says "OK, that stuff's good enough", why would people make more expensive better mail? It was complaints about the inadequacy of butted mail that have led to riveted mail being so readily available today. I don't know of any better comparable mail at similar prices. There is welded mail, but the main suppliers only go up to wire thickness of 0.7mm, which is pretty thin. (the only heavier commercial welded mail I know of is http://www.weldedchainmail.com/ which is a respectable 1.2mm). Yes, good to have info on better products. If there are no better products, what can be done except complain? (Well, the adventurous could go and start a business.)
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler Jordan
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Jul, 2014 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | There is no such thing as "decent quality import mail from India". These costumes are completely unsuitable for weapons testing.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189
Indian mail was specifically designed for the SCA market and intended to resist nothing more substantial than a rattan stick. It is lighter and stronger than the butted mail that re-enactors used to wear but that is all that can be said for it. |
It does tell us that even 'costume' maille can hold up to a thrust from a quality XII, which is actually kind of surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Augusto Boer Bront
Industry Professional
Location: Cividale del Friuli (UD) Italy Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 294
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | Plenty of comments above on the mail itself (denseness of weave, solid rings, strength of riveting).
But there is plenty of evidence that "typical" mail is not sufficient by itself in a high-threat environment. If you want your armour to stop high-energy arrows and cavalry lances, do not wear "typical" mail by itself. There are at least 4 historical solutions:
|
[snipped good stuff]
All very good points. I'll add that mail was worn by itself for at least a thousand years and was considered perfectly acceptable against the threats of the time before it started being reinforced in the manner you described. That's why these tests, performed out of context, aren't much use. If the mail in this test can't stop a sword thrust then it wouldn't have been worn when that attack was likely. Either a denser mail would have been worn or the lighter mails would have been layered with something else like a curie, or CoP, or jack.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukas MG
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
But the mail DID stop the sword thrust from the XII, that's the important thing here! Timo Nieminen elaborated on that...
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is the same issue that has come up many times.
If armour was not sufficient it would have been replaced
And
If a weapon was not sufficient it would have been replaced
The key is that armour is not perfect protection. I am sure mail failed at times. Especially with weapons made to penetrate it specifically. Or by blunt force trauma. But mail has many advantages and enough protective qualities that it remains viable for millennia.
I think this test is indeed interesting for several reasons. Shows the points of the blade are a very key part of their effectiveness for specific uses.
Dan,
'If the mail in this test can't stop a sword thrust then it wouldn't have been worn when that attack was likely. Either a denser mail would have been worn or the lighter mails would have been layered with something else like a curie, or CoP, or jack.'
I still am not sure you are right with this. It completely ignores things like economics and the better than no armour aspect.
Not every person on the battlefield will be stabbed but people slash and cut as well.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Heff
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dean F. Marino wrote: |
Second - If "Peter Johnsson designed those swords, his goal was not to make a sword to kill people with! " ? I don't want any of his products. His choice -and I respect it... but I DO want swords that are totally lethal. Oh, the product may be attractive - I respect that. I just don't want it .
|
I don't want to speak for Lukas, but I think what he was saying was that because we live in 2014 and not 1014....the swords that Albion makes are not marketed as deadly killing weapons...even though they are. So when they sat down to design the swords...I doubt they said OK, how can we make the deadliest killing sword possible, instead they designed them as close to the original specs of swords of that type so they handled and performed like the originals...which by the way WERE designed to kill. So, yes...Albion swords are serious true weapons...but I imagine the design strategy was more how do we make these as close to the originals as possible...not how to we make the deadliest swords. In both cases the end result is the same: A 100% real and functional weapon which has a primary function of damaging humans.
The church is near but the roads are icy. The tavern is far but I will walk carefully. - Russian Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | This is the same issue that has come up many times.
If armour was not sufficient it would have been replaced
And
If a weapon was not sufficient it would have been replaced
The key is that armour is not perfect protection. I am sure mail failed at times. Especially with weapons made to penetrate it specifically. Or by blunt force trauma. But mail has many advantages and enough protective qualities that it remains viable for millennia.
I think this test is indeed interesting for several reasons. Shows the points of the blade are a very key part of their effectiveness for specific uses.
Dan,
'If the mail in this test can't stop a sword thrust then it wouldn't have been worn when that attack was likely. Either a denser mail would have been worn or the lighter mails would have been layered with something else like a curie, or CoP, or jack.'
I still am not sure you are right with this. It completely ignores things like economics and the better than no armour aspect.
Not every person on the battlefield will be stabbed but people slash and cut as well.
RPM |
Good point, but it depends on social status, there are loads of evidence that the mail is now where near the quality of mail worn by knights, kings, etc. But, armor often last longer than there first wearers and passed down because of sheer expense of it in the first place, so if you were lower class man and managed to save money long to have armor above a padded jacket, you would probably try to where it until rusts away. As I criticism of you, Randall, you point about armour not being perfect protection is sound but conflated. The stab shown on the pointy sword would have gotten the person killed, and since most current evidence indicate that the main weapon of all soldiers in a medieval army, from knights to levys, for several reasons, was a spear, puncture threats would have been a much more common threat against armour than swords, people that could afford to improve or replace their armour would probably made their gear to resist puncture first. Now the principle that armour isn't designed for complete protection, ie it is designed to keep from getting killed, not prevent you from getting hurt, can probably explain why mail lasted so long, it is easy to repair and good mail is resistant to slashing wounds and stabbing wounds which were for pretty long time in human history, much more common threat than people designed to inflict via shock force, which even if inflicted, is relatively easy to treat on a living subject, you just get split and a wrapping. We ee history armour such as curries, early cops, etc come into play when maces were started to be commonly use, which inflict sudden and heavy blunt force trauma, and horses being bred and spears being designed capable of delievered force behind spears than a man of foot would have no chance of ever generating. Also, the no armour aspect ignores how thick and durable a padded armour can be made, as seen in highland cotun and the fact a gambeson immensed in salt water can be made to resist blades
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukas MG
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bryan Heff wrote: | | Dean F. Marino wrote: |
Second - If "Peter Johnsson designed those swords, his goal was not to make a sword to kill people with! " ? I don't want any of his products. His choice -and I respect it... but I DO want swords that are totally lethal. Oh, the product may be attractive - I respect that. I just don't want it .
|
I don't want to speak for Lukas, but I think what he was saying was that because we live in 2014 and not 1014....the swords that Albion makes are not marketed as deadly killing weapons...even though they are. So when they sat down to design the swords...I doubt they said OK, how can we make the deadliest killing sword possible, instead they designed them as close to the original specs of swords of that type so they handled and performed like the originals...which by the way WERE designed to kill. So, yes...Albion swords are serious true weapons...but I imagine the design strategy was more how do we make these as close to the originals as possible...not how to we make the deadliest swords. In both cases the end result is the same: A 100% real and functional weapon which has a primary function of damaging humans. |
That's exactly what I meant, thanks for putting it in other words! As I elaborated already, I was merely answering to Dan Howard's statement that my mail used is a "costume" and not intended for warfare, unlike the original. As no replica made today is intended for actual war, that argument is flawed. "Costume" doesn't inherently mean bad quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, there is shit ton you can do to protect yourself with just good , dense fabric and/or stuffing. To make something out of cloth to come close to being as protective as good chainmail, from what I've read here, it has to be pretty heavy and stiff but it still probably be cheaper than a brand new mail shirt. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21053
Last edited by Philip Dyer on Wed 16 Jul, 2014 11:33 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | But there is plenty of evidence that "typical" mail is not sufficient by itself in a high-threat environment. If you want your armour to stop high-energy arrows and cavalry lances, do not wear "typical" mail by itself. There are at least 4 historical solutions:
1. "Super" mail. Extra thick rings, doubled rings, etc.
2. Textile/padding/felt - mail - textile/padding/felt sandwich.
3. 2 layers of mail
4. mail + coat of plates or lamellar or similar. |
Even then, at the end of the sixteenth century Humphrey Barwick mocked Sir John Smythe for recommending jacks, mail, and brigandines. Barwick wrote that the brigandine was the best of these armors and that it was equivalent to a coat of plates. He then proceeded to give an account of one lancer impaling a counterpart armed with a good coat of plates. (This isn't necessarily a fair refutation given that infantry and light cavalry had much more to fear than couched lances.)
| Humphrey Barwick, 1592 wrote: | | [A]s for the armours, the best is the Brigandine, the which is but equall with a coate of plate of the best making, which M. Euers or Ewry was armed with, when as the Lord of Grange called Kirkaudie a Scot, and the saide M. Ewry did runne the one at the other, in a challenge by them made with sharpe Speares: but how fell out the same? euen like to haue beene the death of that good and valiant Gentleman M. Ewrye, for Kirkaudy ranne him cleane through the armour, as in at the brest and forth at the back, through both: then to what purpose is that arming in that manner? For shot, all men doth know that the like armours will not defend ye force therof, no not the Pistoll being the least of all the rest. For example, was not the Duke of Anieu, the [...]icount of Tourain, the Lord of Chandeuoir, slaine with Pistoll shot, vpon S. Laurence day, néer vnto Saint quintins in Varmendoe, with manye thousands of mener persons? and likewise the Constable of Fraunce Memorancie, was slaine with a Pistoll before Paris, who were better armed then any Brigandine can be of, as by the Duke Anieu his armour, yet readye to be shewed in England, it may be witnessed. Why then should such meane armors be allowed, with men· of vnderstanding and knowledge? it were most fit that our enemies were so armed: for if it would defend against any thing, it wold serue best against archers, whose force is like vnto that maner of arming. |
Smythe himself gave an account of an arrow killing via penetration of a gusset of mail protecting the armpit. On the other hand, Blaise de Monluc recounted how a mail sleeve protected him from an English arrow.
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | From "The Knight and the Blast Furnace", we have some data (see http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25576 for details). 120J will put an arrow through a particular sample of 15th century mail, 170J to go through that mail and underlying textile armour. A high draw weight warbow can deliver 135J or more (for long-draw bows, you can get to that even with under 100lb draw weight), which will penetrate the mail, but not the complete set of armour. |
According to The Knight and the Blast Furnace, at 120 J the simulated arrowhead completely defeated the mail-plus-jack combo and put a 35mm (1.378in) dent in the plastilene behind. And that's with a jack that would weigh 3lbs just to cover my torso from the shoulders down to the navel - about the same weight as a 1.2mm breastplate. Williams doesn't say how much the mail weighs, but I'd guess it weighs as much as the jack or more.
Williams on page 934-935 does claim that you'd need 50-60 J beyond defeating the armor and padding to inflict a serious wound, but I find this unlikely. A 1.378inch puncture - assuming an equivalence between plastilene and the human body - already constitutes a potentially dangerous wound depending on location. Add 50-60 J and it might go all the through the target. (Modern hunting arrows with that KE and less at times full penetrate deer.) Additionally, there's some evidence that drop test differ from actually shooting arrows at mail and that other arrowhead designs perform better against mail than the one Williams tested.
| Quote: | | The failure of the round-tipped sword to penetrate does tell us something useful. Specifically, if mail that is probably inferior to historical Viking/Dark Ages mail stops a sword that is probably superior to historical Viking/Dark Ages swords, then it's a good bet that Viking/Dark Ages mail could stop Viking/Dark Ages swords. |
Probably, but there's also the human element missing from the equation. I don't know about y'all, but I ain't Pero Niño - not even close. If you used me to assess historical armor performance you'd get a thoroughly skewed understanding of how it functioned against folks far stronger and more skilled.
| Quote: | | Just the mail alone, with no other layers of armour needed. So, we might expect to find that mail was worn over just a shirt, rather than being worn over textile/padded armour. So if we wonder why we don't have good evidence of Viking/Dark Ages gambesons being worn under mail, we might have a functional answer (we might also want to know how the mail fares against one-handed spear thrusts). |
Maybe, though if I recall correctly a Byztantine military written in the tenth century clearly and explicitly noted the importance of padding under armor. That doesn't mean warriors in Northern Europe did the same thing, but I tend to suspect they did.
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Wed 16 Jul, 2014 1:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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