Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why straight? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next 
Author Message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 1:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have regrettably little of my own to add on the subject. However...

"You should not have a favourite weapon. To become over-familiar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well. You should not copy others, but use weapons which you can handle properly. It is bad for commanders and troops to have likes and dislikes. These are things you must learn thoroughly."
-- Miyamoto Musashi, Go Rin No Sho

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 1:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Richard Fay wrote:
Hello again!
Oh well, I've typed enough for today!


Richard, I concede the point, and it's been fascinating reading your responses.


Greg you said

Greg Coffman wrote:
If we take it as granted that any sword designs which we today have historic record of, then it stands to reason that those swords were proven effective in their historic use.
Of course, we must always remember that swords for parades, and the Japanese equlivent, the 'temple swords,' don't count, even though we have them and good records thereof, as they were not iintendedfor battle. But I'm sure you know that, but I toss it out for the record.

Also, you said

Greg Coffman wrote:
"However the only double-edged swords that I have ever heard of are straight. This is a "form follows function argument," however the function in question is not cutting ability but how the weapon handles and which techniques can be employed.......................<big snip>.........However the only double-edged swords that I have ever heard of are straight. This is a "form follows function argument," however the function in question is not cutting ability but how the weapon handles and which techniques can be employed. "


Do you have evidence that the false edge on messers was blunt? I've always been brought to understand it was sharp, much as on the katana with the half-length sharp false edge which has a number of replicas on the market at present. http://bugei.com/product_662_detailed.htm

Indeed, to my understanding, quite a few swords which were 'mostly' single edged had small but sharp false edge.





AS to mail being cut proof, remember that doesn't count Axes! There are lots of stories of Axes cleaving mail. Also, I'm 'loosely' informed that the 'great sword of war' (which is to say a VERY heavy longsword) might have had some mail cleaving abilities. And it might not have. Can anyone offer much evidence either way?

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Kyro R. Lantsberger





Joined: 21 Apr 2006

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 2:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
There are some acounts of them cleaving through the cutlesis of some europien sailors, I don't know wether thats true or not but... and I have seen friend use a cheep stainless steel Katana and cut holes into an old Shevy 1 tun van.


That explains how I easily vanquished an army of Samurai with my FORD!!!! ------> I feel very satisfied being the first to notice this obvious hanger.

As to the actual subject. I think we often forget that European swords and sword arts comprise a number of different weapons from a number of different nations over the course of centuries. Cut vs. Thrust is an enormous debate, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that even within Longsword systems, there is a great degree of difference and many nuances between the Fiore/Vadi based systems and the Lichtenauer.

There has been mention of Cavalry sabres, Falchions, Messers, etc. existing in Europe over the course of many years as well. It is our temptation to make a "sword box" to put all of this knowledge into, which causes us to make sweeping generalizations and overlook some of the most interesting and intriguing facts, taking the true fun out of sword hobbies.

I think a particular item I would like to pass on to Jake is that he seems to be an enthusiastic individual, and very interested in weapon history and archaeology. (Its cold here, many typos) From following the thread, I would say that you have run into a great deal of mythology and pseudo history. Check the book lists that people have made on this forum, there are some very well researched people on here, and the level of discussion is usually quite high.
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
To say that you can’t cu through mail is foolish.

You need to read much, much more to make such an absolute statement. One must consider the context of how mail was used to protect the wearer. As an example, I can make dozens upon dozens of test scenarios where I can cut mail with a sword. One such example would be to place a mail garment on a stump of wood and whack it. I'd break the rings and possibly cut into the stump. But this tells us absolutely nothing about the protective abilities of mail on a properly armoured man. There are many discussions about this topic on this site and I highly suggest you read them. Further, there are published articles and other avenues of information on this subject that I suggest you pursue. The simple fact is that mail was an effective form of protection against edged weapons when and how it was used historically. Period.

The discussion of mail armour effectiveness in general, and how well a sword can cut mail, is more properly left in its own topic and best in one of the many existing topics on the subject on this site.

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Vincent Le Chevalier




Location: Paris, France
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 4:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
There is a difference between a 10 knife and a 40 inch sword (I suggest you review the laws of circular motion and force). Again I’m not saying it was easy to cut through mail, just that you statement of “you can’t cut mail” is not completely true.


Laws of circular motion are the same for curved or straight swords. The one difference between these is in the draw cut effect. The draw cut effect is the same for a knife and for a sword. The point of mail armor was mainly to negate this effect, and for all we know it was very effective. If anything, the use of mail armor would have favoured the use of straight swords in my opinion, because it negates one of the only advantages of curved blades.

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
If a sword couldn’t cut through mail then the sword would have been replaced with the mace or some other crushing weapon.


To some extents, it happened. The weak point of the mail armour was its relatively low protection against blunt trauma. The thing is that not everyone was wearing full mail armour, and that a piercing sword can still be efficient. But plate armor was not developed for a better protection against slashes; plates were added because they were better against thrusts (they can glance off, instead of being caught in rings) and because they were more efficient against crushing weapons (a plate can transmit the impact on a larger surface).

--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
A. Jake Storey II




Location: USA
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 41

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 4:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

You should note that I was speaking of the difference between a knife and sword not a curved sword and straight sword when referring to the laws of circular motion. Meaning that a 40 inch sword will have much more force towards the end of it’s blade then a 10 inch knife. Nor did I suggest that plate armor was developed for protection against slashes. Again, I’m not saying that mail was a weak form af armor, if it was it wouldn’t have been used. What I am saying is that you can’t just say that you can’t cut mail. It may be hard but to just say that as an absolute doesn’t seem right. Though I can’t verify which one it was (I moved recently and can’t find the books I would need), one of the Crusades shows the knights wearing full mail, but they were beaten by the turks. Granted this may be do to arrows, but it seems unlikely that mail left them invulnerable to swords. But, this is not about armor or which kind is better or how good it is, just on why there seems to be more strait swords in europe then curved.
Only you can deny yourself your rights.
Too ignore the rights of others, is to forfeit you own!
Thereby, in your crime, YOU bring Justice on your own head!!!
View user's profile Send private message
Sam Barris




Location: San Diego, California
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 630

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 5:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
You should note that I was speaking of the difference between a knife and sword not a curved sword and straight sword when referring to the laws of circular motion. Meaning that a 40 inch sword will have much more force towards the end of it’s blade then a 10 inch knife. Nor did I suggest that plate armor was developed for protection against slashes. Again, I’m not saying that mail was a weak form af armor, if it was it wouldn’t have been used. What I am saying is that you can’t just say that you can’t cut mail. It may be hard but to just say that as an absolute doesn’t seem right. Though I can’t verify which one it was (I moved recently and can’t find the books I would need), one of the Crusades shows the knights wearing full mail, but they were beaten by the turks. Granted this may be do to arrows, but it seems unlikely that mail left them invulnerable to swords. But, this is not about armor or which kind is better or how good it is, just on why there seems to be more strait swords in europe then curved.


I don't recall anyone making absolute statements about the inability of a sword to cleave mail. As for the failure of the Crusades, there are enough factors that came into play there to fill a modestly sized set of encyclopedias. We can't simply say that it was due to mail or arrows or any other single variable.

As far as the prevalence of straight swords in Europe, I must add my own theory to the mix. Previous posts have clearly demonstrated that there were many different types of curved swords in Europe, as well as a great variety of stright swords in the Middle East and Asia. We can verify this for ourselves by looking through museum photos and period art. I think the imbalance you're speaking of might have as much to do with our perception of the past as with its reality. An astonishing number of sword-related misconceptions--from the weightless rapier to the twenty pound broadsword to the katana that cuts like a lightsaber--arise from Hollywood or other similar producers of entertainment. Some random filmmaker with dubious historical credentials gets an idea about how an ancient weapon must have functioned and decides that it would look good in a movie. Soon, because people are very impressionable creatures, everyone believes that what they've seen is the truth. Because we like things simple and predictable, certain patterns and images become established as canon. I noticed a similar occurence with regard to paleontology when Jurassic Park was released. Every educational documentary on the subject from that day forward had to spend half of its runtime explaining that we really don't know whether or not the dilophosaurus spit poison or if velociraptor was a brilliant pack hunter. And don't even get me started on The DaVinci Code. The sheer volume of pseudohistorical nonsense that book/movie inspired could collapse into itself and form a new black hole.

Anyway, just a thought. We don't always have the clearest view of the past, after all. Generally, we seem to see what we'd like it to have been with far greater clarity.

Pax,
Sam Barris

"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 5:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
one of the Crusades shows the knights wearing full mail, but they were beaten by the turks. .


Actually most of the time they wailed on the Turks.... In truth the reason the Crusades failed was that no one wanted to live there. They had this strange idea they could win the war... then go home to Europe where it was NICE, rather then living in the nasty ole desert. Can't say I blame them, you couldn't pay me enough to live in that part of the world, even without all the violence. But yes, the trouble was too few were willing to remain on station... Not that they couldn't (generally) win the battles when they had decent numbers.

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Joe Fults




Location: Midwest
Joined: 02 Sep 2003

Posts: 3,646

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 6:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
To say that you can’t cu through mail is foolish. This test was done by an average modern swordsman (he said this twice)!


Actually this has been well tested and debated. Almost all modern mail fails to meet the standards set byhistorical mail, which its worth noting was pretty diverse in its own right. Also the mail does not work in isolation. The garment under and often the garment over the mail create a protective system. Pounding on modern mail without base garments does not give an accurate representation of mail performance.

Search this forum a bit and you will find plenty of information on mail and its performance from people who really have studied this subject in earnest. One has to be very careful when drawing conclusions.

"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
View user's profile Send private message
Torsten F.H. Wilke




Location: Irvine Spectrum, CA
Joined: 01 Jul 2006

Posts: 250

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 8:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think maille wouldn't have been so prevalent throughout history if it only worked marginally in combat... my thoughts at least. But, on the other hand, look at the modern soldier. His military issue fatigues certainly don't stop bullets or bombs in any remote fashion, and he still goes into battle whether by choice or not. All armour eventually gets outdated and replaced by something different, albeit chainmaille which went very slowly... kinda off-topic though Worried
View user's profile Send private message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct, 2006 8:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Torsten F.H. Wilke wrote:
I think maille wouldn't have been so prevalent throughout history if it only worked marginally in combat... my thoughts at least. But, on the other hand, look at the modern soldier. His military issue fatigues certainly don't stop bullets or bombs in any remote fashion, and he still goes into battle whether by choice or not. All armour eventually gets outdated and replaced by something different, albeit chainmaille which went very slowly... kinda off-topic though Worried


I take it you aren't familiar with the Personal Armor System, Ground Troops, otherwise known as PASGT.....

Actually I think they've upgraded since then....

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 570

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 12:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
Though I can’t verify which one it was (I moved recently and can’t find the books I would need), one of the Crusades shows the knights wearing full mail, but they were beaten by the turks. Granted this may be do to arrows, but it seems unlikely that mail left them invulnerable to swords. But, this is not about armor or which kind is better or how good it is, just on why there seems to be more strait swords in europe then curved.

Let's take a look a what the "turks" actually wrote about the armour of the crusader knights.

"A Latin Knight as long as his horse was in good condition, could not be knocked down. Covered by mail from head to foot... the most violent blows had no effect on him But once his horse was killed, the knight was thrown and was taken prisoner."
Baha al Din, close friend and biographer of Saladin
View user's profile Send private message
Thomas Watt




Location: Metrowest Boston
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 159

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 5:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

George Hill wrote:
Torsten F.H. Wilke wrote:
I think maille wouldn't have been so prevalent throughout history if it only worked marginally in combat... my thoughts at least. But, on the other hand, look at the modern soldier. His military issue fatigues certainly don't stop bullets or bombs in any remote fashion, and he still goes into battle whether by choice or not. All armour eventually gets outdated and replaced by something different, albeit chainmaille which went very slowly... kinda off-topic though Worried


I take it you aren't familiar with the Personal Armor System, Ground Troops, otherwise known as PASGT.....

Actually I think they've upgraded since then....

With another upgrade in the works...
the Interceptor Body Armor stops bullets so well that we've got troops getting shot, and getting right back up to return fire.
Works so well in fact that the guys on the other side have switched from shooting to roadside bombs.

Back onto topic, I note that the mfrs of Cold Steel blades demonstrate pushing a dozen different (of their) sword models through the hood of a car with ease. And this includes a mix of European straight blade designs, Chinese blade designs (straight and curved) as well as katanas. Not really sure this proves anything, except perhaps that the demonstrator (owner/president of the company) has roughly the same stocky build as I do, albeit more skill with a blade.
View user's profile Send private message
William Knight




Location: Mid atlantic, US
Joined: 02 Oct 2005

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 7:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Okay, if the cutting difference between straight and curved swords is so marginal against unarmoured opponents why do we have curved swords at all? Because it seems to me that a straight sword is moe versatile than a curved one, having a better thrust, two edges etc, what would the advantage a curved sword would posess to offset this? I have no cutting experience, but it seems to me like the blade geometry of a single-versus double-edged sword would have some effect on the cutting performance against flesh in certain conditions? I mean, something like a grossmesser or the conyers flachion, with their relatively broad, thin blades would probably cut different than a stiff diamond section or hollow-ground blade because the blade can be thinner and the edge more acute because of the lack of a blade on the other side. But then I guess it doesn't answer the curvature questions, even congecturally, since a straight, single-edged sword (like many flachions or some swiss sabers) would possess the same characteristics of blade geometry. And of course a Katana has a fairly thick blade compared to the european singled-edged swords I have in mind, too.
-Wilhelm
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Thomas Obach
Industry Professional



Location: Elliot lake
Joined: 17 Dec 2003

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 8:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

maybe the curved sword was easier for horseman to have a side arm... ...

also... i may add that a curved sword like the shamshir is harder to forge than a straight sword.... in some respects.. ..
- so why go to the extra effort?
-- and in the middle east there was alot of chain mail aswell..

- maybe the curved blade is less likely to get stuck in a cut ? .... or less shock to the blade since your cutting on abit of an angle?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Glen A Cleeton




Location: Nipmuc USA
Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 1,968

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 8:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Thomas Obach wrote:
maybe the curved sword was easier for horseman to have a side arm... ...

also... i may add that a curved sword like the shamshir is harder to forge than a straight sword.... in some respects.. ..
- so why go to the extra effort?
-- and in the middle east there was alot of chain mail aswell..

- maybe the curved blade is less likely to get stuck in a cut ? .... or less shock to the blade since your cutting on abit of an angle?


Some of the better thoughts to this so far (imo).

The original poster is asking why and expressing preference. What has not been put forth here is that the Japanese adopted curved blades, they did not invent them. This is true of other regions as well. Curved blades have been used in conjuction with straight blades, in some cultures at different periods.

The cavalry reasoning is a good one. For discussion of easier to draw and wield around a horses head in melee, to less transmitted shock or aiding in a passing cut; all have been written of.

Worth pointing out though that the later European systems used both straight and curved swords for these very reasons. Straight swords considred better lance substitutes and curved better for melee. Intrestingly, the bulk of the major powers in Europe went with a straight bladed sword for their last attempts at a universal cavalry sword. Go Figure.

It is ok to be enthusiastic about a particular sword type. In trying to understand the overall picture, one really needs to look closely at context that includes more than the superficial.

A good place to start, on the internet, for Japanese swords, their relation to culture and history would be Richard Stein's Japanese Sword Index.

Cheers

GC
View user's profile Send private message
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 11:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I will second the idea that the primary reason for the use of back-curved swords is their advantages in cavalry usage. My evidence simply being association between those soldiers that used them and whether or not they were predominantly cavalry. Interestingly, though a great many cavalry formations have had a great deal of uncertainty as to which was better.

* * *

I think that is necessary to distinguish types of curved blades. As this conversation should proceed more clearly and logically.

Weapon designs like the messer and falchion might be called leaf-style blades. These weapons have a widened and curved blade at the CoP but the point is still straight from the hilt and the false edge is sharpened at the lower end.

Weapons like the katana and shasmir might be called (back-)curved blades. These weapons curve away from the cutting side, and only occasionally (to my knowledge) have sharp false-edges. These are the curved swords that are typically associated with cavalry.

Weapons like the kopis, falcata and kukhri might be called forward-curved blades. These weapons curve towards the cutting edge, but curve back towards straight, presumably as a concession to thrusting ability. These, along with leaf-style blades are generally thought of as excellent 'chopping' blades.

I welcome suggestions on my 'typology' :-9
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 11:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

George Hill wrote:
Do you have evidence that the false edge on messers was blunt? I've always been brought to understand it was sharp, much as on the katana with the half-length sharp false edge which has a number of replicas on the market at present. http://bugei.com/product_662_detailed.htm

Indeed, to my understanding, quite a few swords which were 'mostly' single edged had small but sharp false edge.

While the last sentence is true, the katana and tachi I have seen that feature a false edge are all modern replicas - and all at the lower end of the price scale, at that. I have read of some historical nihonto that did indeed sport a false edge (or fullers, another feature I've personally only seen on modern low-end replicas), but to my knowledge it was actually quite rare.

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 12:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

PErsonally, I think the important of the shield is being overlooked.

Point of note, most cultures using shields tend to use double edged blades.

In the case of the European Longsword, the standard sword was such a shield use sword, and the Longsword devoloped out of it. Admittedly, it developed in a way which allows both edges to be used quite effectively, but it grew out of the earlier pattern nonetheless.

With a shield, we have some evidence of the Romans and others using 'hooking draw cuts' whereby you press against his shield with yours and hook the other fellow behind the knee and slice the strings in his leg. This cannot be done as quickly with a single edge blade, due to the need to turn it around. Being able to deliver hooking cuts of one type or another may have been a primary motivation for using a double edged blade during the time which shields were widespread.

Remember that the Japanese used double edged blades themselves before the gave up the shield in favor of the bow. Note that the shield was not much of an issue during the time of the 'samurai sword," due to the fact the Japanese ideal warrior was an archer for a very long period.

If the Japanese had very regular contact with a shield fighting culture, (rather then very long periods of isolation and civil war) then we can pose any number of 'what ifs' about potential sword and fighting style development. Nonetheless, they DIDN'T and ended up a 'standard' of curved swords.

Back in our shield cultures: Once most people use the double edged blade, it becomes the standard, and it's natural the standard would develop into many directions....unless there was something better. As the curved sword isn't a great deal better, the 'standard' remained in play. Remember that China used shields, (Although I've had a hard time getting good references on Chinese shields) and had long peirods where both types of swords existed.

Hmm... I'm going to do a search on Chinese shields.

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Alexander Hinman




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

Posts: 180

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 12:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

George Hill wrote:
PErsonally, I think the important of the shield is being overlooked.

Point of note, most cultures using shields tend to use double edged blades.

I'm not sure how much I agree with this statement. Especially if you look at the various Turko-Mongolic steppe cultures, and eventually the Russians, the post-Abbasid Egyptians, the Sikhs...

Also, look at the popularity of single-edged blades among other shield-using cultures. The Falcata, the Messer, the Seax, the Falchion are all widely used in the West at some time or another. I don't think you 'hamstringing' conclusion holds much water, partucularly given the possibility of double-edged, curved swords.

I think the cavalry angle is a much more sensible one to pursue than the shield angle.

I was considering the concept of simplicity of production, but that makes little to no sense given the amount of hilt decoration put into many curved swords.

Quote:
Back in our shield cultures: Once most people use the double edged blade, it becomes the standard, and it's natural the standard would develop into many directions....unless there was something better. As the curved sword isn't a great deal better, the 'standard' remained in play.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that shield-using peoples are more inclined toward the use of double-edged swords? Or that once a weapon shape becomes predominant in a culture it is often quite hard to change?
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why straight?
Page 4 of 5 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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