±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 566
Total: 566
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Photo Gallery
02: Community Forums
03: Community Forums
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Photo Gallery
07: Home
08: Home
09: Photo Gallery
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Your Account
13: Photo Gallery
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Home
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Photo Gallery
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Member Screenshots
29: Photo Gallery
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Photo Gallery
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: Photo Gallery
36: Community Forums
37: Downloads
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Photo Gallery
45: Downloads
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Home
50: Member Screenshots
51: Photo Gallery
52: Statistics
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: Home
56: Photo Gallery
57: Statistics
58: Photo Gallery
59: Community Forums
60: Member Screenshots
61: CPGlang
62: Home
63: Photo Gallery
64: Community Forums
65: Home
66: Photo Gallery
67: Home
68: Community Forums
69: Member Screenshots
70: Home
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Home
74: Member Screenshots
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Home
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Home
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Photo Gallery
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Downloads
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Downloads
91: Photo Gallery
92: Home
93: Home
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Home
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Downloads
100: Home
101: Community Forums
102: Photo Gallery
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Home
106: Community Forums
107: Downloads
108: Photo Gallery
109: Community Forums
110: Home
111: Photo Gallery
112: Your Account
113: Photo Gallery
114: CPGlang
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Home
118: Photo Gallery
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Home
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: Home
126: Community Forums
127: Community Forums
128: Photo Gallery
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Downloads
132: Community Forums
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Community Forums
137: Community Forums
138: Community Forums
139: Community Forums
140: Your Account
141: Community Forums
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: Community Forums
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Community Forums
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Community Forums
151: Home
152: Home
153: Community Forums
154: Photo Gallery
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Community Forums
158: Community Forums
159: Photo Gallery
160: Community Forums
161: Community Forums
162: Community Forums
163: Your Account
164: Photo Gallery
165: Your Account
166: Community Forums
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Community Forums
170: Photo Gallery
171: Community Forums
172: News Archive
173: Community Forums
174: Home
175: Photo Gallery
176: Community Forums
177: Community Forums
178: Community Forums
179: Community Forums
180: Your Account
181: Community Forums
182: Your Account
183: Community Forums
184: Photo Gallery
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Community Forums
188: CPGlang
189: Community Forums
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Photo Gallery
193: Community Forums
194: Photo Gallery
195: Photo Gallery
196: Community Forums
197: Community Forums
198: Community Forums
199: Photo Gallery
200: Photo Gallery
201: Community Forums
202: Community Forums
203: Community Forums
204: Community Forums
205: Community Forums
206: Photo Gallery
207: Photo Gallery
208: Home
209: Community Forums
210: Community Forums
211: Downloads
212: Community Forums
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Home
216: Community Forums
217: Community Forums
218: Community Forums
219: Community Forums
220: Community Forums
221: Community Forums
222: Community Forums
223: Community Forums
224: Member Screenshots
225: Downloads
226: Photo Gallery
227: Community Forums
228: Photo Gallery
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Your Account
233: Community Forums
234: Community Forums
235: Community Forums
236: Community Forums
237: Member Screenshots
238: Community Forums
239: Community Forums
240: Community Forums
241: Photo Gallery
242: Photo Gallery
243: Community Forums
244: Community Forums
245: CPGlang
246: Community Forums
247: Community Forums
248: Downloads
249: Photo Gallery
250: Photo Gallery
251: Community Forums
252: Photo Gallery
253: Community Forums
254: CPGlang
255: Statistics
256: Photo Gallery
257: Downloads
258: Photo Gallery
259: Home
260: News Archive
261: Community Forums
262: Photo Gallery
263: Photo Gallery
264: Photo Gallery
265: Home
266: Photo Gallery
267: Photo Gallery
268: Community Forums
269: Community Forums
270: Downloads
271: Community Forums
272: Community Forums
273: Photo Gallery
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Photo Gallery
277: Photo Gallery
278: Community Forums
279: CPGlang
280: Community Forums
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Community Forums
285: Photo Gallery
286: Community Forums
287: Community Forums
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Photo Gallery
291: Downloads
292: Home
293: Photo Gallery
294: Home
295: Community Forums
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: Community Forums
301: Community Forums
302: Community Forums
303: Community Forums
304: Photo Gallery
305: Photo Gallery
306: Downloads
307: Community Forums
308: Community Forums
309: Statistics
310: Downloads
311: Home
312: Community Forums
313: Your Account
314: Community Forums
315: Community Forums
316: Photo Gallery
317: Community Forums
318: Photo Gallery
319: Community Forums
320: Member Screenshots
321: Photo Gallery
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Downloads
325: Downloads
326: Community Forums
327: Home
328: Community Forums
329: Community Forums
330: Community Forums
331: Community Forums
332: Community Forums
333: Community Forums
334: Community Forums
335: Photo Gallery
336: Photo Gallery
337: Community Forums
338: Community Forums
339: Downloads
340: Community Forums
341: Community Forums
342: Community Forums
343: Community Forums
344: Your Account
345: Photo Gallery
346: News Archive
347: Community Forums
348: Community Forums
349: Home
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Community Forums
353: Photo Gallery
354: Home
355: Community Forums
356: Community Forums
357: Community Forums
358: Community Forums
359: Photo Gallery
360: Community Forums
361: Photo Gallery
362: Community Forums
363: Statistics
364: Photo Gallery
365: Home
366: Photo Gallery
367: Community Forums
368: Photo Gallery
369: Community Forums
370: Community Forums
371: Your Account
372: Community Forums
373: Photo Gallery
374: Photo Gallery
375: Community Forums
376: Photo Gallery
377: Community Forums
378: CPGlang
379: Photo Gallery
380: Downloads
381: Home
382: Home
383: Photo Gallery
384: Community Forums
385: Community Forums
386: Community Forums
387: Your Account
388: Community Forums
389: Photo Gallery
390: Community Forums
391: Home
392: Photo Gallery
393: Home
394: Community Forums
395: Community Forums
396: Community Forums
397: Photo Gallery
398: Home
399: Community Forums
400: Community Forums
401: Community Forums
402: Photo Gallery
403: Community Forums
404: Photo Gallery
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Your Account
408: Member Screenshots
409: Community Forums
410: Community Forums
411: Community Forums
412: Community Forums
413: Community Forums
414: Home
415: Community Forums
416: Home
417: Community Forums
418: Community Forums
419: Photo Gallery
420: Photo Gallery
421: Community Forums
422: Home
423: Community Forums
424: Community Forums
425: Community Forums
426: Community Forums
427: Community Forums
428: Community Forums
429: Community Forums
430: Community Forums
431: Community Forums
432: Community Forums
433: Home
434: Photo Gallery
435: Community Forums
436: Community Forums
437: Community Forums
438: Your Account
439: Photo Gallery
440: Community Forums
441: Photo Gallery
442: Community Forums
443: Home
444: Community Forums
445: Photo Gallery
446: Community Forums
447: Community Forums
448: Home
449: Community Forums
450: Community Forums
451: Community Forums
452: Community Forums
453: Photo Gallery
454: Downloads
455: Community Forums
456: Downloads
457: CPGlang
458: Downloads
459: Community Forums
460: Photo Gallery
461: Community Forums
462: Community Forums
463: Home
464: Community Forums
465: Community Forums
466: Community Forums
467: Community Forums
468: Community Forums
469: Community Forums
470: Community Forums
471: Community Forums
472: Community Forums
473: Community Forums
474: Community Forums
475: Community Forums
476: Community Forums
477: Community Forums
478: Community Forums
479: Community Forums
480: CPGlang
481: Community Forums
482: Your Account
483: Community Forums
484: Photo Gallery
485: Community Forums
486: Home
487: Photo Gallery
488: Photo Gallery
489: Your Account
490: Community Forums
491: Community Forums
492: Downloads
493: Community Forums
494: Community Forums
495: Community Forums
496: Community Forums
497: Home
498: Community Forums
499: Community Forums
500: Community Forums
501: Member Screenshots
502: Community Forums
503: Photo Gallery
504: Community Forums
505: Community Forums
506: Community Forums
507: Photo Gallery
508: Photo Gallery
509: CPGlang
510: Community Forums
511: Photo Gallery
512: Community Forums
513: CPGlang
514: Home
515: Downloads
516: Statistics
517: Photo Gallery
518: Home
519: Community Forums
520: Community Forums
521: Community Forums
522: Photo Gallery
523: Photo Gallery
524: Photo Gallery
525: Community Forums
526: Community Forums
527: Community Forums
528: Community Forums
529: Community Forums
530: Community Forums
531: Community Forums
532: Community Forums
533: Community Forums
534: Member Screenshots
535: Photo Gallery
536: Your Account
537: Home
538: Community Forums
539: Community Forums
540: Photo Gallery
541: Community Forums
542: Photo Gallery
543: Community Forums
544: Community Forums
545: Community Forums
546: Community Forums
547: Community Forums
548: Community Forums
549: Community Forums
550: Photo Gallery
551: Community Forums
552: Community Forums
553: Community Forums
554: Community Forums
555: Community Forums
556: Community Forums
557: Community Forums
558: Photo Gallery
559: Home
560: Home
561: Community Forums
562: Photo Gallery
563: Photo Gallery
564: Photo Gallery
565: Community Forums
566: Member Screenshots

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Armor penetration formula
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
blair
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:05 am
Post subject: Armor penetration formula

A long time ago I had cme across an article that described a formula regarding the increased resistance of armor depending on the degree of angle. I'm sure I have my numbers mixed up but basically the formula stated that If you took a a plate of armor 2 inches thick and then angled it by 25 degrees the armor would then have the same penetration resistance depth of 4 inches of vertical armor.

The higher the angle then the higher the resistence depth.

Does anyone know any more about this principle/theory?
Back to top
View user's profile
JimWeb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1439
Location: The back of beyond
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:29 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Blimey this is really basic geometry!!!

Pick up a book which will represent our armour plate - measure its width then angle it at 45 degrees and measure it from corner to corner - That how thick the armour becomes along the horizontal....

Rolling Eyes

_________________
TTFN
Jim

If your not a member of JED then your
not serious about anything military..

***********************
www.jedsite.info
JED Military Equipment
***********************
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website ICQ Number
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:55 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Where is Lorrin (from the old board) when you need him Rolling Eyes

If I understand your question Jim has the basics laid out pretty well. When I explain this on tours at Aberdeen I use my hand spaced about3" apart first vertically then at an angle. A 45 degree angle gives you about 1.707 times the thickness that vertical plate will, a 60 degree angle doubles the thickness. This is all geometry , Sines & Cosines (depending on if you are measuring the angle from the horizontal or vertical)

There would be a higher chance of the round 'glancing off' as the angle increases but I'm not sure this would be easy to calculate especially since the shape of the nose and the relative hardness probably play into the factoring.

And if you hit an angled plate (say the 47 degree nose of a Sherman) at an angle off of dead ahead (say 45 degrees off to the side) the angle effect is compunded. ( you get thickness * 1.7 (approx factor for 47 degree armor * 1.7 factor for the angle shot) or a total increase in thickness of 2.89.

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
JWB2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

IIRC ricochet or "skip" starts when the slope is 45* or greater. Firing tests have shown that resistance can actually degrade when the slope exceeds about 56*. I imagine these facts heavily influenced the slope of both the Sherman and the Panther glacis plates.
Back to top
View user's profile
JimWeb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1439
Location: The back of beyond
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:30 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- JWB2
IIRC ricochet or "skip" starts when the slope is 45* or greater. Firing tests have shown that resistance can actually degrade when the slope exceeds about 56*. I imagine these facts heavily influenced the slope of both the Sherman and the Panther glacis plates.


Yes but rounds have been designed to overcome this by having flat angled fronts under ballistic caps to enable them to dig in.

Cool

_________________
TTFN
Jim

If your not a member of JED then your
not serious about anything military..

***********************
www.jedsite.info
JED Military Equipment
***********************
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website ICQ Number
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:08 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- blair
A long time ago I had cme across an article that described a formula regarding the increased resistance of armor depending on the degree of angle. I'm sure I have my numbers mixed up but basically the formula stated that If you took a a plate of armor 2 inches thick and then angled it by 25 degrees the armor would then have the same penetration resistance depth of 4 inches of vertical armor.

The higher the angle then the higher the resistence depth.

Does anyone know any more about this principle/theory?


Goes like this:

Y/cos(Z)=X

where Y is the thickness of the armour plate
where Z is the angle of the armour, with vertical=0
and X is the effective thickness of the armour.

As an example using the frontal hull armour of the Soviet T34 , you get

Y=45mm
Z=60 degrees

and thus:

45/cos(60)=90

meaning that the distance the projectile has to travel through the armour plate is doubled when the plate is sloped at 60 degrees.

However......

That is not by any means equal to the actual resistance of the armour plate in any condition. Far from it. To even begin to approach that issue, you need to take into account a large number of factors including armour quality and hardness, projectile type (AP, APC, sub-caliber, HEAT etc.), projectile design, projectile caliber, projectile hardness and a lot of other elements.
The problem is mainly that while a perpendicular hit on the armour plate will spend most of its energy on going through the armour plate, once the projectile hits a sloped surface, it will have a tendency to move away from the plate and under the right conditions simply bounce off. Whether it bounces or not depends among other things on the shape of the projectiles nose: a pointed nose will tend to bounce, a flat nose will tend to dig in. It also depends on the relationship between the diameter of the projectile (d) and the thickness of the armour (t): if the so-called t/d ratio is more than 1 (say, 45mm of armour hit by a 37mm round) hitting, the projectile will be more likely to bounce off. If the t/d ratio is less than 1 (say, 45mm of armour hit by 75mm projectile) then the projectile will be less likely to bounce off.

It soon gets very complicated....... Smile

I'm deeply suspicious of the idea that an angle of more than 56 degrees will degrade performance, at least not in general. If that was the case, then tanks would have 55 degree slopes on their front hull and no more, which is clearly not the case. The T34 had 60 degree slope on the front hull and post-war tanks tend to get as much slope as possible, just look at Soviet designs. Also, US tanks like the M48 (60 degree front hull) and the M60 (65 degree front hull) shows an increase in slope over the WWII designs (M4 Sherman 56 and 47 degrees, M26 Pershing 56 degrees).

Claus B
Back to top
View user's profile
LeeW
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:09 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

In addition once a projectile starts to penetrate it will tend to turn toward the orthoganal.

Face hardened vs homogenious can effect this as well.

For naval vessels there some info at:
www.navweaps.com/index...x_tech.htm
and of course:
www.navweaps.com/index...nathan.htm
which has some formulas and programs as well as info.

Unfortuantly I don't know of a simlar site for AFVs some of this will relate but exactly how is not my area of expertise.
Back to top
View user's profile
JWB2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:43 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Yes but rounds have been designed to overcome this by having flat angled fronts under ballistic caps to enable them to dig in.

That only happens if the projectile is harder than the armor.

I'm deeply suspicious of the idea that an angle of more than 56 degrees will degrade performance, at least not in general.

That is the result of a firing test conducted by the US Army. IIRC it was 90mm vs Panther type armor so it probably has a lot to do with undermatch. Post war tank armor was desiged to deal with HVAP and early APDS.
Back to top
View user's profile
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:22 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

That is the result of a firing test conducted by the US Army. IIRC it was 90mm vs Panther type armor so it probably has a lot to do with undermatch. Post war tank armor was desiged to deal with HVAP and early APDS.


But the T-34s armour wasn't.....

90mm projectile vs 80mm of Panther frontal armour gives a T/D of 0.88 which is not exactly a massive "undermatch", in fact it is in the same ballpark as, say, a German 75mm vs a late-war Sherman hull at 63mm (T/D 0.84). In the latter case, your logic would dictate that hitting the Shermans armour at an angle of 40 degrees from the side would have a better chance of penetring than a hit at 30 degrees from the side. That sounds rather counterintuitive to me.....
I've yet to see an actual test result, official penetration data or an emperically based penetration formula that would result in what you describe - resistance of armour degrading at angles over 56 degrees. So unless you can point to the exact tests, I'd have to say that it is either a fairy tale or at least a misunderstanding.

Claus B
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:33 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- bsmart
Where is Lorrin (from the old board) when you need him Rolling Eyes


We'll remember you said that, Bob...especially if he actually shows up and registers to post. Wink (Be sure to notify Bushy, he'll need to lay on an extra terabyte or two of bandwidth). Alas, we don't have Russ on hand (owing to other "distractions" at the moment, lucky him) to keep him in check if he does.

...and I'm on my way out of the country for a couple of weeks, so if his apparition appears....handle it! Mr. Green
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:18 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Hey, I never had a problem with Lorrin. I didn't agree with all his theories (Heck I'm not sure I even understood all his theories Rolling Eyes ) but he did bring a passion and dedication to the discussions.

Have a good trip (you gotta arrange for a layover in the Philly/ Baltimore/DC) region on one of them so we can visit Aberdeen) and we'll try to keep everyone under control (or at least keep them from parking the tanks on the zoomies runway)

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:59 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Doug,

Alas, we don't have Russ on hand (owing to other "distractions" at the moment, lucky him)


I was wondering how Russ was doing, good to here he's OK, I miss his posts.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
piney
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 2330
Location: Republic of Southern New Jersey
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 2:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

I miss Russ too. no fun not having to warn against spit takes

Jeff Lewis
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- Joe_D
Doug,

Alas, we don't have Russ on hand (owing to other "distractions" at the moment, lucky him)


I was wondering how Russ was doing, good to here he's OK, I miss his posts.

Joe D


I spoke with Russ recently, and am happy to report that his absence is due to his having discovered romance that is occupying a lot of his time, which inexplicably, he is finding preferable to the company of a bunch of fellow curmudgeons. "Bully for him", I say! We mean to do a tour of the El Monte collection soon (when I get in off the road for more than two weeks at a time Rolling Eyes ) but he sounded great!

I miss his humor as well.....

This update brought you courtesy of the Flagship Lounge at Chicago O'Hare Airport....
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
JWB2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:50 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- clausb
That is the result of a firing test conducted by the US Army. IIRC it was 90mm vs Panther type armor so it probably has a lot to do with undermatch. Post war tank armor was desiged to deal with HVAP and early APDS.


But the T-34s armour wasn't.....

90mm projectile vs 80mm of Panther frontal armour gives a T/D of 0.88 which is not exactly a massive "undermatch", in fact it is in the same ballpark as, say, a German 75mm vs a late-war Sherman hull at 63mm (T/D 0.84). In the latter case, your logic would dictate that hitting the Shermans armour at an angle of 40 degrees from the side would have a better chance of penetring than a hit at 30 degrees from the side. That sounds rather counterintuitive to me.....
I've yet to see an actual test result, official penetration data or an emperically based penetration formula that would result in what you describe - resistance of armour degrading at angles over 56 degrees. So unless you can point to the exact tests, I'd have to say that it is either a fairy tale or at least a misunderstanding.

Claus B

I got the info from C.G. Erickson a few years ago at one of the visits to Littlefields.
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 2
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page 1, 2  Next



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 cannot download files in this forum