| Author |
Message |
Mikko Kuusirati
|
 Posted: Wed 09 Mar, 2016 10:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Keep in mind the Conyers falchion is only 1.2mm thick at the widest point. That one is certainly not made for camp chores, it's a blade designed purely for cutting meat. The Cluny falchion is also a very similar, broad but thin blade, like an overgrown scalpel (just look at the hole corroded through the middle of the broadest - and thinnest - part of it).
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
  |
 |
|
Michael Brudon
Location: South Pacific Joined: 21 Dec 2013
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Mar, 2016 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually 1mm makes them perfect for many chores, where tip velocity will allow cutting light materials at good reach, also where cutting a wide swathe of materials( such as grasses, edible canes and reeds) a decent average blade velocity coupled with not overly thick blade is required. Also as long as they are wide enough, the blade will handle heavier materials such as small saplings and branches as well. Certainly you would need to match it to tasks, iand its probably not a good choice for felling a large tree no.
Its possible historical steel would not function as well this thin as modern steels, someone else may want to chime in on that?
Otherwise its no problem. Example this 24" blade, 1.25mm thick tramontina is possibly one of the most durable and popular brands used on several continents.
http://www.machetespecialists.com/tr24inbumawi.html
There are also other 1-2mm ones out there up to 28" long, 20-24" long ones of 3/16" and 1/8th" and 2mm thickness, including tapered or non tapered, being used to hack tropical greenery 8 hours a day. I have used them for jobs myself.
Again I am not trying to present some sort of machete=swords argument which would be ridiculous. But dimensionally the evidence suggests some falchions achieve the requirements for effective use as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Kew
Location: London, UK Joined: 21 Apr 2012
Posts: 256
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have exactly that machete. It's only 1.2mm thick, but it's a flat piece of steel with an edge ground onto the last centimetre or so.
That in turn means a much sturdier edge and blade than a typical falchion, which is pretty much a fully triangular grind. Because the edge is much more acute, the average thickness is much thinner for the same maximum thickness, so any imperfection in the angle of your swing will result in very serious blade damage.
The other thing to remember is that falchions weren't cheap. If you could afford one, you could also afford a small bill or axe designed as a tool.
HEMA fencer and coach, New Cross Historical Fencing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Gill
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
All this discussion of machetes gives me an idea for an experiment: someone should take an inexpensive one and grind the edge bevels back in stages to make the edge angle successively more acute, testing the durability of the edge while cutting wood for each edge angle. Testing with machetes of different blade thickness and against different woods would also be worthwhile.
It won't be a very good scientific test, of course; I'm sure the quality of the metal used and the uniformity of the heat treatment do make a big difference, but it should give a qualitative idea of how using a finer edge angle increases the likelihood of edge damage. Some idea of the effect of metal quality and heat treatment could also be obtained by repeating the experiment after partially or fully annealing the blade (and perhaps substituting a mild steel plate with an edge ground on for an extreme test).
Giving somebody a machete and a pickaxe-handle could also be a good way of demonstrating why you don't try to cut polearm shafts on the battlefield; they'll cut through it eventually, but...
I suspect that use of swords for clearing brush or other camp chores also did occur quite often before the examples I cited earlier; I just don't know of written proof of it. I do, however, think that it would have become considerably more common with the rise of professional armies - once you get a lot of troops who are probably not very familiar with swords nor highly trained in their use, and are issued them from an armoury, they're much more likely to misuse them (partly through ignorance and partially because the weapons were issued to them rather than purchased by them - sort of a precursor to the rental-car effect). I'm basing this on my interpretation of Monck's comment.
I also agree that you could probably get away with using some swords for clearing light brush and shrubbery - at least until you got overconfident and tried to fell a mighty forest oak. Certainly, grass, reeds and cane that Michael mentioned shouldn't damage a sword under reasonable circumstances; after all, I've seen both Japanese and European swords used to test-cut tough bamboo stems without edge damage. General Monck's complaint involved people trying to cut boughs - in other words fairly thick tree branches - and probably with mortuary swords or something similar with blades more slender than the sort of falchions under discussion. On the one hand I have personally chopped and split fire with a (admittedly overbuilt) double-edged, diamond-cross-section sword with very thin, highly acute-angled edges - and without any edge damage. However, when attempting to over-enthusiastically chop wood with a 1.2mm thick machete (I was used to a sturdier 3mm one), I could feel the thing start to flex dangerously under the impact and had to be more careful to avoid damaging it - so a falchion of similar thickness with a finer grind and no distal taper might have been even more fragile and quite unsuitable to overenthusiastic lumberjacking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Brudon
Location: South Pacific Joined: 21 Dec 2013
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| T. Kew wrote: | I have exactly that machete. It's only 1.2mm thick, but it's a flat piece of steel with an edge ground onto the last centimetre or so.
That in turn means a much sturdier edge and blade than a typical falchion, which is pretty much a fully triangular grind. Because the edge is much more acute, the average thickness is much thinner for the same maximum thickness, so any imperfection in the angle of your swing will result in very serious blade damage.
The other thing to remember is that falchions weren't cheap. If you could afford one, you could also afford a small bill or axe designed as a tool. |
If the cluney manages a true linear taper from spine to edge with a 1.2mm starting thickness, including through that large belly I stand corrected, and would have to adjust my comments to 'somewhat heavier bladed falchions'.
I would say though it must need a lot of touching up after a battle. Coming from an agricultural background, butchering is not a walk in the park for a blade either.Bones will roll thin edges just as well as greenery and saplings.
As to flat grinds , such blades are being used for general machete tasks, though more from a 3mm-4mm+ spine starting thickness.
Last edited by Michael Brudon on Thu 10 Mar, 2016 7:29 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Brudon
Location: South Pacific Joined: 21 Dec 2013
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Gill wrote: | All this discussion of machetes gives me an idea for an experiment: someone should take an inexpensive one and grind the edge bevels back in stages to make the edge angle successively more acute, testing the durability of the edge while cutting wood for each edge angle. Testing with machetes of different blade thickness and against different woods would also be worthwhile.
It won't be a very good scientific test, of course; I'm sure the quality of the metal used and the uniformity of the heat treatment do make a big difference, but it should give a qualitative idea of how using a finer edge angle increases the likelihood of edge damage. Some idea of the effect of metal quality and heat treatment could also be obtained by repeating the experiment after partially or fully annealing the blade (and perhaps substituting a mild steel plate with an edge ground on for an extreme test).
Giving somebody a machete and a pickaxe-handle could also be a good way of demonstrating why you don't try to cut polearm shafts on the battlefield; they'll cut through it eventually, but...
I suspect that use of swords for clearing brush or other camp chores also did occur quite often before the examples I cited earlier; I just don't know of written proof of it. I do, however, think that it would have become considerably more common with the rise of professional armies - once you get a lot of troops who are probably not very familiar with swords nor highly trained in their use, and are issued them from an armoury, they're much more likely to misuse them (partly through ignorance and partially because the weapons were issued to them rather than purchased by them - sort of a precursor to the rental-car effect). I'm basing this on my interpretation of Monck's comment.
I also agree that you could probably get away with using some swords for clearing light brush and shrubbery - at least until you got overconfident and tried to fell a mighty forest oak. Certainly, grass, reeds and cane that Michael mentioned shouldn't damage a sword under reasonable circumstances; after all, I've seen both Japanese and European swords used to test-cut tough bamboo stems without edge damage. General Monck's complaint involved people trying to cut boughs - in other words fairly thick tree branches - and probably with mortuary swords or something similar with blades more slender than the sort of falchions under discussion. On the one hand I have personally chopped and split fire with a (admittedly overbuilt) double-edged, diamond-cross-section sword with very thin, highly acute-angled edges - and without any edge damage. However, when attempting to over-enthusiastically chop wood with a 1.2mm thick machete (I was used to a sturdier 3mm one), I could feel the thing start to flex dangerously under the impact and had to be more careful to avoid damaging it - so a falchion of similar thickness with a finer grind and no distal taper might have been even more fragile and quite unsuitable to overenthusiastic lumberjacking. |
That experiment would be interesting Andrew. This is actually being done to a degree by custom machete makers out there as we speak. I am designing what I think will push the limits of machete like use on a light sword proportioned blade myself and will put it up when I get it made.
I detect a sense the longer term and more experienced members have probably considered, discussed and drawn conclusions on the subject of whether 'some swords can cut other stuff''
We have experienced sword guys like yourself and others above weighing in saying "Sure it can be done, I have done it, and historically other people did it, we have some references, and the actual blades, at least from later eras"
It is not ideal, and certain parametres need to be met, but nor will it automatically destroy an item because its tapered, is meant for killing people, we called it a true 'sword', and we cleared some saplings with it 
I am happy to relinquish falchions as being put to use like this in a period due to the reasons outlined regarding rarity and expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alexis Bataille
Location: montpellier Joined: 31 Aug 2014
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Alexis Bataille wrote: | | Is falchion the best one handed weapon to cut pole arms ? |
No, a saw is better.
You aren't talking about trying to cut one *in battle*, are you? For all the effort and focus that would require, you're much better off just blocking, parrying, or trapping the weapon, and attacking the guy using it! Trying to cut through a polearm is an excellent waste of energy, and a good way to get killed.
Matthew |
"I think it's really important stuff to consider, because polearms generally have such a big advantage over swords, but when you take into consideration the swordsman having a buckler or shield, or wearing armour, and the polearm being chop-able then the balance seems to be redressed slightly. What we need to work towards is deciding how much the balance is redressed, IMO.
Damage to a polearm's shaft is not something you can simulate in sparring unfortunately. Then again, you can't really simulate the sheer power from the blow of a polearm in sparring either, at least not without breaking each other."
Matt Easton 12 Jun 2007
http://fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4458
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alexis Bataille
Location: montpellier Joined: 31 Aug 2014
Posts: 95
|
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, honestly I think that using the Industrial age examples of soldier treatment of there swords to expound on Medieval fighters treatment of there swords is frankly absurd. You are comparing a time period with Bessemer process, steam power, early modern factories and established nationstates with steady tax revenues to issue weapons to soldiers to a time period of split mixture of pure human assembly lines, less types of machinery, and people mainly responsible for providing their own sidearms. If you want to make a historical account counter argument, find a source of the period we are focusing in question, which we are focusing on people were in the habit of using falchions as wood and brush machetes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Brudon wrote: | | T. Kew wrote: | I have exactly that machete. It's only 1.2mm thick, but it's a flat piece of steel with an edge ground onto the last centimetre or so.
That in turn means a much sturdier edge and blade than a typical falchion, which is pretty much a fully triangular grind. Because the edge is much more acute, the average thickness is much thinner for the same maximum thickness, so any imperfection in the angle of your swing will result in very serious blade damage.
The other thing to remember is that falchions weren't cheap. If you could afford one, you could also afford a small bill or axe designed as a tool. |
If the cluney manages a true linear taper from spine to edge with a 1.2mm starting thickness, including through that large belly I stand corrected, and would have to adjust my comments to 'somewhat heavier bladed falchions'.
I would say though it must need a lot of touching up after a battle. Coming from an agricultural background, butchering is not a walk in the park for a blade either.Bones will roll thin edges just as well as greenery and saplings.
As to flat grinds , such blades are being used for general machete tasks, though more from a 3mm-4mm+ spine starting thickness. |
What did you butcher? Pig bone, dear bone, and cow bone aren't the same at all. Also, I've read that cutting living bone is allot different from cutting bone of a dead animal. Because we know for certain than hunting dear and boar (aggressive tusked , hairy pigs essentially) with swords and spears was very popular sport amoungst aristocrats of the period. I've heard from one of Matt's videos that pe4ople used poleaxes to butcher cows and bulls.
|
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Well, honestly I think that using the Industrial age examples of soldier treatment of there swords to expound on Medieval fighters treatment of there swords is frankly absurd. You are comparing a time period with Bessemer process, steam power, early modern factories and established nationstates with steady tax revenues to issue weapons to soldiers to a time period of split mixture of pure human assembly lines, less types of machinery, and people mainly responsible for providing their own sidearms. If you want to make a historical account counter argument, find a source of the period we are focusing in question, which we are focusing on people were in the habit of using falchions as wood and brush machetes. |
I imagine axes and other tools were still in medieval camps but fascine work with swords certainly goes back that far. Let us use a bit of common sense as well.
The original premise
| Michael Brudon wrote: | | I doubt a knight would be clearing brush in his spare time, but would it be fair to assume someone of another class might be swinging a falchion to clear brush or a few small trees? |
Yes it would be fair to assume that it happened.
Cheers
GC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Glen A Cleeton wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Well, honestly I think that using the Industrial age examples of soldier treatment of there swords to expound on Medieval fighters treatment of there swords is frankly absurd. You are comparing a time period with Bessemer process, steam power, early modern factories and established nationstates with steady tax revenues to issue weapons to soldiers to a time period of split mixture of pure human assembly lines, less types of machinery, and people mainly responsible for providing their own sidearms. If you want to make a historical account counter argument, find a source of the period we are focusing in question, which we are focusing on people were in the habit of using falchions as wood and brush machetes. |
I imagine axes and other tools were still in medieval camps but fascine work with swords certainly goes back that far. Let us use a bit of common sense as well.
The original premise
| Michael Brudon wrote: | | I doubt a knight would be clearing brush in his spare time, but would it be fair to assume someone of another class might be swinging a falchion to clear brush or a few small trees? |
Yes it would be fair to assume that it happened.
Cheers
GC |
Common sense used to tell us they sword s at this time were heavy, that Viking leather armor was common, plate armor was heavy, Medieval combat tactics was crude compared to before and after, mail is virtual useless form of armor, anyone not a noble was covered in filth in there everyday lives, the sun rotate around us etc. Given the technical specs to the surviving falchions, the absence of in period accounts of people using falchions as wood and brush tools, the nature of army equipment during that time. I think the evidence point that is wasn't habitual at all. It is something we can generalize about, more not practiced than practiced. Common sense isn't a exacting, safe tool to draw conclusions with. There are several ti,e across many bits of various subjects throughout where common sense was shown to be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Glen A Cleeton wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Well, honestly I think that using the Industrial age examples of soldier treatment of there swords to expound on Medieval fighters treatment of there swords is frankly absurd. You are comparing a time period with Bessemer process, steam power, early modern factories and established nationstates with steady tax revenues to issue weapons to soldiers to a time period of split mixture of pure human assembly lines, less types of machinery, and people mainly responsible for providing their own sidearms. If you want to make a historical account counter argument, find a source of the period we are focusing in question, which we are focusing on people were in the habit of using falchions as wood and brush machetes. |
I imagine axes and other tools were still in medieval camps but fascine work with swords certainly goes back that far. Let us use a bit of common sense as well.
The original premise
| Michael Brudon wrote: | | I doubt a knight would be clearing brush in his spare time, but would it be fair to assume someone of another class might be swinging a falchion to clear brush or a few small trees? |
Yes it would be fair to assume that it happened.
Cheers
GC |
Common sense used to tell us they sword s at this time were heavy, that Viking leather armor was common, plate armor was heavy, Medieval combat tactics was crude compared to before and after, mail is virtual useless form of armor, anyone not a noble was covered in filth in there everyday lives, the sun rotate around us etc. Given the technical specs to the surviving falchions, the absence of in period accounts of people using falchions as wood and brush tools, the nature of army equipment during that time. I think the evidence point that is wasn't habitual at all. It is something we can generalize about, more not practiced than practiced. Common sense isn't a exacting, safe tool to draw conclusions with. There are several ti,e across many bits of various subjects throughout where common sense was shown to be wrong. |
Sure, must be why examples like falchions and gladius were produced for the military in later centuries. Certainly the producers
had no idea why they would choose such archaic forms for trooper sidearms, or that their usefulness as tools was secondary to the extra and superfluous equipment.
Cheers
GC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | . I've heard from one of Matt's videos that pe4ople used poleaxes to butcher cows and bulls. |
Well that doesn't tell us to much 
 Attachment: 346.91 KB
[ Download ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Brudon
Location: South Pacific Joined: 21 Dec 2013
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | [Common sense used to tell us they sword s at this time were heavy, that Viking leather armor was common, plate armor was heavy, Medieval combat tactics was crude compared to before and after, mail is virtual useless form of armor, anyone not a noble was covered in filth in there everyday lives, the sun rotate around us etc. Given the technical specs to the surviving falchions, the absence of in period accounts of people using falchions as wood and brush tools, the nature of army equipment during that time. I think the evidence point that is wasn't habitual at all. It is something we can generalize about, more not practiced than practiced. Common sense isn't a exacting, safe tool to draw conclusions with. There are several ti,e across many bits of various subjects throughout where common sense was shown to be wrong. |
I think an argument using 'past medieval assumptions' to disprove all 'common sense' in another area backed by historical examples , is bordering on rambling frankly.
As to my butchering experience, it obviously includes smaller animals( goat, lamb, pigs/piglet, some indigenous species as well as the heavier stuff) if I am making a comparison to human bones.
You would assume a guy who opens up animals has recognized the size difference between a cow and a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Brudon
Location: South Pacific Joined: 21 Dec 2013
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Mar, 2016 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Glen ,amazing links, more falchions and longer blades in use for such work.
Being massed produced and issued to soldiers of the later military they would be part of an ethos requiring A.decent item life and B.accountability by the users.In other words unless one was a completely bung design ( as the military occasionally does) they generally performed the task- and didn't get broken by soldiers willy nilly doing it.
It seems over the course of these discussions, some people are almost upset by the idea or possibility swords performed as above. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts we get used to telling newbs you can't use a sword for this and that, so maybe this is a natural kneejerk reaction to hollywood convincing the public swords can cut rocks and iron bars etc.
However its gone too far the other way if we ignore historical examples. What else are we here to discuss but history?
My own angle, with less expertise than most here is seeing the machetes in use around the world.There is a 'very grey' area separating 'some swords' exclusively from 'some medium length well made implements of similar steel dimensions' with a different handle designed to hack bushes. In particular in tropical areas, beside what people see on the shelves, there are sword-machetes being done and taking on tough environments.
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Mar, 2016 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Brudon wrote: | | It seems over the course of these discussions, some people are almost upset by the idea or possibility swords performed as above. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts we get used to telling newbs you can't use a sword for this and that, so maybe this is a natural kneejerk reaction to hollywood convincing the public swords can cut rocks and iron bars etc. |
To be fair, it's not really "can't" but rather "shouldn't".
No doubt people did at times use medieval swords, including falchions, for utilitarian cutting tasks, on desperate occasions when they really needed a cutting tool and nothing more suitable was at hand. But the fact is that swords, including falchions, are relatively fragile and expensive while axes and billhooks are robust and cheap. It's exactly like using a Ferrari for farmwork - sure you can do it, in a pinch, but it's far from ideal, a bit of a waste and you'll likely regret it afterwards.
And there's nothing about historical falchions that would make them particularly suited to non-combat tasks like chopping wood or clearing brush. Contrary to popular misconception, medieval falchions are NOT half-sword-half-axes, even the ones that look massive in two-dimensional profile photos (like the Conyers and Cluny specimens). They're just single-edged swords, that's all - of entirely similar mass and construction to double-edged swords, no more robust or tool-like and sometimes, in fact, the exact opposite.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Gill
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Mar, 2016 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: |
To be fair, it's not really "can't" but rather "shouldn't".
|
I agree, and so did poor old General Monck around 1640, after some of his troops ignorantly tried to lop off tree-branches and broke their swords. I suspect that if similarly ignorant people were issued with swords a century or two earlier (maybe peasant levies given arsenal weapons, if that occurred?) some of them would have behaved similarly (though I won't pretend that this is somehow proven). But it is also possible to damage a thin-bladed machete while trying to cut wood (I've nearly done it myself), while the anecdotal evidence available suggests that possibly at least a few swords are or were sturdier than that. So I think Michael makes an important point: it is dangerous to assume anything about the strength or fragility of sword blades based on what is still essentially anecdotal evidence, and it would be good to get a better idea of what sort of abuse different edge geometries could and could not take without major damage, and how failure finally occurs for each - that was why I proposed my reground machete test. A slightly more controlled and scientific test might involve multiple tests on a special guillotine which has a given mass driving a piece of blade downwards, and can accept differently ground blades with or without heat treatment and different cutting media. The blade could even be mounted at different angles to simulate slicing cuts (I wish I had time to do all this!). That might allow us to map out, however imprecisely, under what sort of conditions a sword with a given edge geometry might experience serious edge damage. We all know you can't fell a tree with a sword - but what diameter twig or branch or animal bone can you cut with a 1-2mm thick blade with a given edge angle, and does it buckle, tear or crack when it fails? I'd be interested to find out, even if my results are skewed by using nice homogeneous modern steel.
Brief summary: we know what should have been done; I'd like to know how that compared with what was actually done, and what could be got away with.
| Quote: |
Contrary to popular misconception, medieval falchions are NOT half-sword-half-axes... |
Don't worry - I don't think anyone in this discussion thinks that about falchions (I hope not, at least!)
Finally, if anyone knows more about those big broad-bladed bauernwehr I mentioned earlier, I'd like to hear it. Were they really dual-purpose tool/weapons as is often claimed, and how is this reflected in their blade geometry? I still think these are the most likely candidates for machete analogs in the renaissance (but I want to be convinced otherwise if I am mistaken).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Brudon
Location: South Pacific Joined: 21 Dec 2013
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Mar, 2016 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks gents. No, no one was saying the falchion is a sword-axe on this thread I can see.
My points in summary were.
Regardless of specialised tools doing better jobs, an' item you have on you ' always pokes its head in.
The long machete exists for this reason. And later period falchions and true shorter swords specifically made by large militaries as brush clearers were obviously part of this phenomenon.
Functionally, 'some' of both these types have similar dimensions to 'some' older period falchions, and work fine at the role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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