View Poll Results: The Greatest General in History

Voters
43. You may not vote on this poll
  • Napoleon Bonaparta

    6 13.95%
  • Genghis Khan

    11 25.58%
  • Julius Caesar

    5 11.63%
  • Salah ad-Din, Yusuf ibn Ayyub

    1 2.33%
  • Georgy Zhukov

    0 0%
  • Alexander the Great

    11 25.58%
  • Sir Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington

    2 4.65%
  • Charles Martel

    0 0%
  • Sun Tzu

    6 13.95%
  • Akbar the Great

    1 2.33%
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 217

Thread: The Greatest General in History

  1. #111
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    His generals wouldn't of been so eager to open a second front with the Soviets. And his generals aren't the ones that declared war on the US, and go them into the war.
    Actially, neither Hitler, nor his generals wanted to open the Western Front. Hitler decided to invade west, after France and Britain declared war, in the attempt to permanently beat them back, so he could concentrate forces in the east.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #112
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    How far optimally could the Germans of pushed though? The Soviets had moved most of the industry west already, and thus would continue to build and build. Eventually, the sheer numbers would of overwhelmed and available defense. Technology would of been the key I believe. The Germans had the capability to creat the ME 262 back in 1942, 43 at the latest. But they stopped production of it because they didn't see the need. Can you imagine the German Air Force with hundreds of Jet fighters in 1943? They would of been able to re-establish air superiority and rebuilt their industry. There's also the question of The Bomb... could Hitler of continued the war after Berlin, or Munich was leveled?

    If you can't tell, I'm split on how effective Germany could of couldn't of been.
    They didn't have to push through. They only had to keep the Soviets off balance enough to keep expending their troops at a pace that caused them to run out of men before the Germans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #113
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    Even considering the outstanding performance of the German forces, the incredible difference in industry, manpower, and technology would have made defeat inevitable. Only if German industrial policy was changed radically did the Germans have a chance.
    It wasn't until 1943 that the Soviets's numerical superiority became an advantage, because of their unsustainable casualty rate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #114
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,541

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It wasn't until 1943 that the Soviets's numerical superiority became an advantage, because of their unsustainable casualty rate.
    Agreed, the Axis had more population but they were never mobilized for total war. Economic policy in Germany dictated that women labor was not to be used and that forced foreign labor (which Speer opposed) was to be used instead and in smaller quantities. There are other such cases, but the conclusion is that even though the Axis countries had much more manpower, they never utilized it while the Allies used every person they could lay their hands on.
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  5. #115
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    In a hypothetical war between the Western Allies and the Soviets after WWII, the Western Allies would have won hands down. The US still had the world's largest industrial base that was untouched by the war while Soviet industry, admittedly large, was puny compared to the US. The Soviet Union was also incredibly scarred by the war with the result that much of its agriculture and population was reduced. Then there's the air force. The Red Air Force was nothing compared to the Allied air forces, and the Western Front proved that even the most armored tanks were worthless against Allied bombers. Coupled with the strategic air force, the Allies would have gained air superiority. Thus the Soviets would have been superior at the land, the Allies would have dominated the skies. The Allies had the economic base to sustain and still further expand their military while the Soviets suffered much.
    That's for a conventional war. Now you have to add nukes. There's no way the Soviets stood the slightest chance.
    That's what I thought, too...until I began to find out just what we would have faced.

    1. During WWII on the European side, air power was not nearly as decisive as you seem to think - it was most effective against stationary infrastructure targets within range of the bombers. The thing is, except for rail hubs, the Soviets didn't depend on much in the way of infrastructure within range of the bombers. If they had been able to reach some of the major cities in the western USSR, then maybe they could have helped...but against mobile armies on the ground, WWII bombers were not that effective - the targeting technology and skill simply weren't there yet. If you'll remember, even our bombing of ground troops in Vietnam when we had total air supremacy and much bigger and better bombers and bombs, we still couldn't shut down the Ho Chi Minh trail.

    2. The atomic bombs wouldn't have made any difference at all - for instance, in August of 1945 (four months after Berlin fell), we only had enough enriched uranium for two bombs, and it would have taken several months to make enough for a third bomb. The threat that we could continue bombing Japan with more atomic bombs was essentially a grand bluff. Not only that, but the Soviets had spies at Alamogordo - Stalin apparently indicated that to FDR at the Yalta conference. They knew what we were doing and likely knew what we did and did not have. What's more, our bombers did not have the range to reach, say, Smolensk or Minsk or Kiev, much less Moscow.

    3. Look at what the Soviets had just for the Battle of Berlin: "The Battle of the Seelow Heights, fought over four days from 16 April until 19 April, was one of the last pitched battles of World War II: almost one million Red Army soldiers and more than 20,000 tanks and artillery pieces were deployed to break through the "Gates to Berlin" which were defended by about 100,000 German soldiers and 1,200 tanks and guns."

    4. Soviet armor was significantly superior to our own - the T-34 medium tank was arguably the best tank of the war. We had the Shermans which - though they were greatly improved by then - were still crappy.

    5. We had about 1.3 million men in the U.S. Army in Europe when Germany surrendered, and there were a few hundred thousanfd more Brits and French and a few Poles to boot. The Soviets had:

    The three Soviet fronts had altogether some 2.5 million men (including 78,556 soldiers of the 1st Polish Army); 6,250 tanks; 7,500 aircraft; 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars; 3,255 truck-mounted Katyusha rocket launchers, (nicknamed "Stalin Organs"); and 95,383 motor vehicles, many of which were manufactured in the USA.

    Most of their air power was fighters - and though the armored IL-2 would have been outmatched by the P-51, they still would have prevented Western air power from being a decisive factor.

    6. Most importantly, the Soviet lines of communication - their supply lines - were MUCH shorter and more easily traveled. We would still have had to onload and ship our men and materiel across the Atlantic, then offload them in French ports...whereas the Soviets had made great strides not only in repairing the rails all the way from the Urals to Poland, but had probably begun changing the rails in Poland and Germany to the narrower Soviet guage...which meant that all they had to worry about was one long train ride, most of which was out of range of Allied air power.

    And no matter how good you think he was, Patton commanded only one army...and even if he'd been in control of the whole American army, it had already been demonstrated that it was difficult for him to work with the Brits (Montgomery). That was one of Eisenhower's great strengths - he was able to master and coordinate the different nations' armies. I doubt Patton could have done this. Patton was a great tactician and a great motivator...but it takes more than those to be a truly great general.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #116
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Kicked their asses all the way to Siberia. Patton went up against the Germans who had even better armor.
    "The Third Army claimed to have killed, wounded, or captured 1,811,388 German soldiers, six times its strength in personnel.[166] Fuller's review of Third Army records differs only in the number of enemy killed and wounded, stating that between August 1, 1944 and May 9, 1945, 47,500 of the enemy were killed, 115,700 wounded, and 1,280,688 captured, for a total of 1,443,888" quoted from George S. Patton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Had it not been for political agreements, Patton would of been first into Berlin. Zhukov's army performed much more poorly against the Germans and took far greater time to take objectives within Germany. Zhukov's Army wouldn't of held for even a month up against just the Third Army, much less the entire forces that the US and British had. Likely results would of been the fall of Soviet Russia in 2-3 years or less, no communist China, no communist Cuba, no communist North Korea and not communist Vietnam.

    All Zhukov had was armor and numbers and now where near the talent or understanding of three dimensional warfare that Patton had. All that armor really would of meant is a large number of sorties for P-51's outfitted as tank busters.
    "Zhukov's army performed much more poorly"???? Dude, you should read up on the Battle of Kursk sometime. The battles of Kursk, Stalingrad, and just outside of Moscow were all much larger than anything we did on the Western Front. The Soviets faced many more German divisions on the Eastern Front than we did on the Western Front.

    I posted this as a reply to another guy who thinks as you do, but you should read up on it, too:

    =================paste begins==========================

    That's what I thought, too...until I began to find out just what we would have faced.

    1. During WWII on the European side, air power was not nearly as decisive as you seem to think - it was most effective against stationary infrastructure targets within range of the bombers. The thing is, except for rail hubs, the Soviets didn't depend on much in the way of infrastructure within range of the bombers. If they had been able to reach some of the major cities in the western USSR, then maybe they could have helped...but against mobile armies on the ground, WWII bombers were not that effective - the targeting technology and skill simply weren't there yet. If you'll remember, even our bombing of ground troops in Vietnam when we had total air supremacy and much bigger and better bombers and bombs, we still couldn't shut down the Ho Chi Minh trail.

    2. The atomic bombs wouldn't have made any difference at all - for instance, in August of 1945 (four months after Berlin fell), we only had enough enriched uranium for two bombs, and it would have taken several months to make enough for a third bomb. The threat that we could continue bombing Japan with more atomic bombs was essentially a grand bluff. Not only that, but the Soviets had spies at Alamogordo - Stalin apparently indicated that to FDR at the Yalta conference. They knew what we were doing and likely knew what we did and did not have. What's more, our bombers did not have the range to reach, say, Smolensk or Minsk or Kiev, much less Moscow.

    3. Look at what the Soviets had just for the Battle of Berlin: "The Battle of the Seelow Heights, fought over four days from 16 April until 19 April, was one of the last pitched battles of World War II: almost one million Red Army soldiers and more than 20,000 tanks and artillery pieces were deployed to break through the "Gates to Berlin" which were defended by about 100,000 German soldiers and 1,200 tanks and guns."

    4. Soviet armor was significantly superior to our own - the T-34 medium tank was arguably the best tank of the war. We had the Shermans which - though they were greatly improved by then - were still crappy.

    5. We had about 1.3 million men in the U.S. Army in Europe when Germany surrendered, and there were a few hundred thousanfd more Brits and French and a few Poles to boot. The Soviets had:

    The three Soviet fronts had altogether some 2.5 million men (including 78,556 soldiers of the 1st Polish Army); 6,250 tanks; 7,500 aircraft; 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars; 3,255 truck-mounted Katyusha rocket launchers, (nicknamed "Stalin Organs"); and 95,383 motor vehicles, many of which were manufactured in the USA.

    Most of their air power was fighters - and though the armored IL-2 would have been outmatched by the P-51, they still would have prevented Western air power from being a decisive factor.

    6. Most importantly, the Soviet lines of communication - their supply lines - were MUCH shorter and more easily traveled. We would still have had to onload and ship our men and materiel across the Atlantic, then offload them in French ports...whereas the Soviets had made great strides not only in repairing the rails all the way from the Urals to Poland, but had probably begun changing the rails in Poland and Germany to the narrower Soviet guage...which meant that all they had to worry about was one long train ride, most of which was out of range of Allied air power.

    And no matter how good you think he was, Patton commanded only one army...and even if he'd been in control of the whole American army, it had already been demonstrated that it was difficult for him to work with the Brits (Montgomery). That was one of Eisenhower's great strengths - he was able to master and coordinate the different nations' armies. I doubt Patton could have done this. Patton was a great tactician and a great motivator...but it takes more than those to be a truly great general.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  7. #117
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Welington is proof that tactics are everything on the battlefield, even to the rigid formations of the Napoleonic period.
    Tactics are only one part of what decides a battle. Logistics, training, and morale are every bit as important.

    I know this thread is about generals, but I think the naval Battle of Trafalgar is a great example. It was expected that the two lines of ships - the English on one side, and the Spanish and French on the other - would close and slug it out...which would have given the more numerous and better-armed Continental navy the advantage. Nelson negated their numerical and arms advantage by "breaking the line", sending his ships in a line perpendicular to the Continentals, and he proceeded to win the battle (though he did not live out the day).

    That's tactics.

    But what enabled him to use those tactics was the superior level of training the British tars had - their seamanship was world-class, and allowed him to maneuver and fight his ships more effectively. What's more, the British regularly trained their gunners with actual cannon fire and ammunition - this was expensive, but made their gunners much more effective.

    That's training.

    And what enabled the Brits to have such training - particularly on the cannons - was that the Brits made sure their ships stayed well-supplied with everything from sails to lines to gunpowder.

    That's logistics.

    And then there's morale - the British fleet had a very high morale because Nelson was their commander...and they all remembered the Battle of the Nile and the Glorious First of June, both battles that contributed to and further cemented the long, proud tradition of the British Navy. The Spanish and French had no such tradition, and they remembered those other battles too.

    That's morale.

    Tactics are crucial...but they're only crucial element of any battle.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  8. #118
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,541

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    That's what I thought, too...until I began to find out just what we would have faced.

    1. During WWII on the European side, air power was not nearly as decisive as you seem to think - it was most effective against stationary infrastructure targets within range of the bombers. The thing is, except for rail hubs, the Soviets didn't depend on much in the way of infrastructure within range of the bombers. If they had been able to reach some of the major cities in the western USSR, then maybe they could have helped...but against mobile armies on the ground, WWII bombers were not that effective - the targeting technology and skill simply weren't there yet. If you'll remember, even our bombing of ground troops in Vietnam when we had total air supremacy and much bigger and better bombers and bombs, we still couldn't shut down the Ho Chi Minh trail.

    2. The atomic bombs wouldn't have made any difference at all - for instance, in August of 1945 (four months after Berlin fell), we only had enough enriched uranium for two bombs, and it would have taken several months to make enough for a third bomb. The threat that we could continue bombing Japan with more atomic bombs was essentially a grand bluff. Not only that, but the Soviets had spies at Alamogordo - Stalin apparently indicated that to FDR at the Yalta conference. They knew what we were doing and likely knew what we did and did not have. What's more, our bombers did not have the range to reach, say, Smolensk or Minsk or Kiev, much less Moscow.

    3. Look at what the Soviets had just for the Battle of Berlin: "The Battle of the Seelow Heights, fought over four days from 16 April until 19 April, was one of the last pitched battles of World War II: almost one million Red Army soldiers and more than 20,000 tanks and artillery pieces were deployed to break through the "Gates to Berlin" which were defended by about 100,000 German soldiers and 1,200 tanks and guns."

    4. Soviet armor was significantly superior to our own - the T-34 medium tank was arguably the best tank of the war. We had the Shermans which - though they were greatly improved by then - were still crappy.

    5. We had about 1.3 million men in the U.S. Army in Europe when Germany surrendered, and there were a few hundred thousanfd more Brits and French and a few Poles to boot. The Soviets had:

    The three Soviet fronts had altogether some 2.5 million men (including 78,556 soldiers of the 1st Polish Army); 6,250 tanks; 7,500 aircraft; 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars; 3,255 truck-mounted Katyusha rocket launchers, (nicknamed "Stalin Organs"); and 95,383 motor vehicles, many of which were manufactured in the USA.

    Most of their air power was fighters - and though the armored IL-2 would have been outmatched by the P-51, they still would have prevented Western air power from being a decisive factor.

    6. Most importantly, the Soviet lines of communication - their supply lines - were MUCH shorter and more easily traveled. We would still have had to onload and ship our men and materiel across the Atlantic, then offload them in French ports...whereas the Soviets had made great strides not only in repairing the rails all the way from the Urals to Poland, but had probably begun changing the rails in Poland and Germany to the narrower Soviet guage...which meant that all they had to worry about was one long train ride, most of which was out of range of Allied air power.

    And no matter how good you think he was, Patton commanded only one army...and even if he'd been in control of the whole American army, it had already been demonstrated that it was difficult for him to work with the Brits (Montgomery). That was one of Eisenhower's great strengths - he was able to master and coordinate the different nations' armies. I doubt Patton could have done this. Patton was a great tactician and a great motivator...but it takes more than those to be a truly great general.
    Before I respond, I'd like to comment on your post below to the one which I am responding to. If you have ever frequented the History sub-forum, you'll see that I am a fervent admirer of the Eastern Front, arguing tirelessly that it was the single most decisive theater and factor in the war. You'll also find no evidence that I ever dismissed Zhukov as a second-rate general. You'll also have seen that I actually viewed Patton as over-rated in my post.
    1. Although I have no statistics, it's common knowledge that the Allied tactical bombers were very effective against German armor. Big as they were (the heavy ones), they made easy targets, especially considering their reduced speed. You just posted a link to a Wiki article about the strategic bombing campaign. Although I agree that they would not have been able to hit significant targets due to range, they would have been useful to disrupt supply lines and against infrastructure as they were used.
    2. The atomic bomb is a topic I have little knowledge about, though I am aware that the Soviets had thoroughly infiltrated the Manhattan Project and were making plans for A-bombs of their own.
    3, 4. You have my concession as they are pure facts.
    5. The US could have reinforced from the Pacific theater which was ending. I don't have the exact statistics, but add to additional mobilization and the entering of the war by other countries (the likes of Brazil, Argentina, and Turkey which all entered at the last minute against the Axis) then I believe they would have been roughly equal. Add the former German army which was suggested to be used against the Soviets, then the Soviets would have lost superiority.
    6. You'll have to show evidence for the Soviets fixing logistics. I was also aware that the Soviets had a wider gauge, though my memory may be faulty.

    You also forgot the vast industrial difference. While the Soviets had a monstrous army, they had limited industry. Meanwhile US industry alone outstripped the Soviets. Mobilization and industry meant everything in modern wars. The German policy of scorched earth meant that Eastern Europe despite its large landmass, resources, and population was still devastated completely. One needs only to look at starvation rates in the Ukraine and such immediately after WWII to see that an additional war would have been an incredibly folly for the Soviets. Such a war was also a disadvantage to the Allies. My position is only that the Allies would have won, instead of saying that the war should have occurred.
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  9. #119
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,541

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Tactics are only one part of what decides a battle. Logistics, training, and morale are every bit as important.

    I know this thread is about generals, but I think the naval Battle of Trafalgar is a great example. It was expected that the two lines of ships - the English on one side, and the Spanish and French on the other - would close and slug it out...which would have given the more numerous and better-armed Continental navy the advantage. Nelson negated their numerical and arms advantage by "breaking the line", sending his ships in a line perpendicular to the Continentals, and he proceeded to win the battle (though he did not live out the day).

    That's tactics.

    But what enabled him to use those tactics was the superior level of training the British tars had - their seamanship was world-class, and allowed him to maneuver and fight his ships more effectively. What's more, the British regularly trained their gunners with actual cannon fire and ammunition - this was expensive, but made their gunners much more effective.

    That's training.

    And what enabled the Brits to have such training - particularly on the cannons - was that the Brits made sure their ships stayed well-supplied with everything from sails to lines to gunpowder.

    That's logistics.

    And then there's morale - the British fleet had a very high morale because Nelson was their commander...and they all remembered the Battle of the Nile and the Glorious First of June, both battles that contributed to and further cemented the long, proud tradition of the British Navy. The Spanish and French had no such tradition, and they remembered those other battles too.

    That's morale.

    Tactics are crucial...but they're only crucial element of any battle.
    Battle of Myeongnyang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Yi-Soon-Sin is easily one of the best generals in the world in my opinion. He won all of his 13 battles which at first glance may seem insignificant, but when one appreciates the odds, his feats truly become astounding. That battle saw 13 Joseon ships against 333 Japanese ships, yet Joseon still won. Although the article is full of problems being a Wiki article about Korea, the basics are still true.
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  10. #120
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: The Greatest General in History

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    Agreed, the Axis had more population but they were never mobilized for total war. Economic policy in Germany dictated that women labor was not to be used and that forced foreign labor (which Speer opposed) was to be used instead and in smaller quantities. There are other such cases, but the conclusion is that even though the Axis countries had much more manpower, they never utilized it while the Allies used every person they could lay their hands on.
    It wasn't about a bigger population. It was about the Soviets experiencing a higher rate of attrition.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •