Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Battle of Britain - Me109 Better Than the Spitfire?


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

Poll: Which is the Better Fighter of the Battle of Britain? (96 member(s) have cast votes)

Which is the Better Fighter of the Battle of Britain?

  1. Spitfire (71 votes [73.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.96%

  2. Me 109 (12 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

  3. Neither (please state) (13 votes [13.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.54%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Gage

Gage

    Moderator

  • Super Moderators
  • 3,694 posts
  • LocationLincolnshire

Posted 25 September 2010 - 04:50 PM

I watched James Holland's BBC programme for the Battle of Britain called the Real Story this afternoon. I haven't read his recently released book.
Some of the aspects of the programme were good. How he looked at the battle from the German side with diary and prisoners bugged conversations.

But Mr Holland seems to think that the outstanding fighter of the Battle of Britain is the Me 109E. Because it was better armed with more firing time, had direct injection and could outdive the Spitfire.
What do you think? Is he right?
  • 0

'There I stood at the bar, wearing a Mae West, no jacket, and beginning to leak blood from my torn boot. None of the golfers took any notice of me - after all, I wasn't a member!' Kenneth Lee - after being shot down on the 18th August 1940.

Andree Borrel (Denise) SOE

♫ Now wicked tongues can speak and rewrite history But you can't keep the truth contained And like the song was sung Realize we're one and we're here to stay 


#2 CL1

CL1

    .

  • Registered Users
  • 13,802 posts

Posted 25 September 2010 - 05:18 PM

G


They did seem to put the 109 above the Spitfire.
The shot of the 303 and the cannon shell comparison did show the shortcoming of the 303.
A few of the Pilots also said the Spitfire took a bit of time to wind up and by then the 109 had absconded.
  • 0

#3 Smudger Jnr

Smudger Jnr

    Our Man in Berlin

  • Registered Users
  • 9,447 posts
  • LocationBerlin, Germany.

Posted 25 September 2010 - 06:37 PM

Craig,

There has been much dabate on this subject over the years and both sets of Pilots said that their plane was the best.

When analysed both planes were extremely similar, but the Bf 109 always had fuel injection and was therefore more responsive in certain circumstances.
It was a fact that the Bf 109 Pilot could just stick forward and dive away from danger, whereas the Spitfire's fuel supply suffered from the effects of gravity and spluttered momentarily, providing a window of opportunity for the 109 Pilot to get away.

Good pilots in both machines could give a good account of themselves and I believe that this is the reason why the Spitfires were usually engaging the fighter escort whilst the Hurricane pilots took on the bombers.

I suppose the debate will never end, but both planes were good for their day and both stayed the course of the war in different marks.

Regards
Tom
  • 0
Reconnaissance Corps - Only the enemy in front.

#4 blacksnake

blacksnake

    As old as I feel.

  • Registered Users
  • 276 posts

Posted 25 September 2010 - 06:46 PM

Gage... I didn't see the programme you refer to. But have seen others about the BoB. All comparing the Spit with the 109, and all trying to establish which fighter was the superior. It's obviously an argument that will never be settled.

I think the best programme I watched had two veterans of the battle, one RAF and the other Luftwaffe actually sit in their opponents airplanes. Both giving their views on the comparisons and differences between the two fighters. Still, neither changed their opinion on the fact that they thought "their" fighter was superior to the other.

Many statistics need considering aside from aircraft losses. The 109's range, the recovery of downed pilots etc. etc. Personally, if an argument hasn't been settled after the best part of 70 years then it never will be.
  • 1

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Les Braves, St. Laurent Draw, Omaha Beach.


#5 Paul Reed

Paul Reed

    Ubique

  • Super Moderators
  • 6,577 posts
  • LocationUK/France

Posted 25 September 2010 - 06:48 PM

I enjoyed the programme, and while there was very little 'new' in it, it was well put together. However, I don't think they went into this issue well enough.

Interesting site on it here:

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E
  • 1





 

"The only way you get out of infantry is on a stretcher or six feet under..."

Battlefields of WW2
: The Guide to visiting WW2 Battlefields.

www.ww2battlefields.com


#6 Stormbird

Stormbird

    Restless

  • Registered Users
  • 521 posts

Posted 25 September 2010 - 07:52 PM

This discussion will never be settled unless - maybe - we can agree on a few criteria, for example:
- Do we discuss models (armament included) available only during a certain time period, typically 10th July - 31st Oct 1940 ?
- Are we interested in fighter vs. fighter only, or also other scenarios ?
- What considerations should be given to fixed differences like
-- Aggressor vs. defender
-- Performance by flight level
-- Tactics given by order
- On the other hand
-- Tactics by personal initiative or choice
-- Actual recorded attrition rate (per flight hour or mission or downed enemy a/c or what?)

And so on and so forth. These discussions if attempted to be fair, tend to be, however interesting, very complicated.

And please let us never settle on anything of the above, since we so enjoy the discussion ! :)
  • 0

Aldri redd for mørkets makt, stjernene vil lyse.

http://translate.google.com/#no/en/


#7 Gage

Gage

    Moderator

  • Super Moderators
  • 3,694 posts
  • LocationLincolnshire

Posted 25 September 2010 - 08:04 PM

Heinz Knoke was still flying a Me 109 E4 with II/JG 52 over England in May 1941 when he wrote of the Spitfires he encountered:
The bastards can make such infernally tight turns; there seems to be no way of nailing them.

It was interesting that Holland didn't even mention the turning radius of the Spitfire.


There is no doubt that the 20mm cannon is superior even with it's lower rate of fire. But I did read that eight .303s would knock down a brick wall.
  • 0

'There I stood at the bar, wearing a Mae West, no jacket, and beginning to leak blood from my torn boot. None of the golfers took any notice of me - after all, I wasn't a member!' Kenneth Lee - after being shot down on the 18th August 1940.

Andree Borrel (Denise) SOE

♫ Now wicked tongues can speak and rewrite history But you can't keep the truth contained And like the song was sung Realize we're one and we're here to stay 


#8 Stormbird

Stormbird

    Restless

  • Registered Users
  • 521 posts

Posted 25 September 2010 - 08:10 PM

... But I did read that eight .303s would knock down a brick wall.

It was also quite important whether they were adjusted to center at a distance according to the handbook, or considerably shorter, which many pilots found was more effective.
  • 0

Aldri redd for mørkets makt, stjernene vil lyse.

http://translate.google.com/#no/en/


#9 Gage

Gage

    Moderator

  • Super Moderators
  • 3,694 posts
  • LocationLincolnshire

Posted 25 September 2010 - 08:15 PM

It was also quite important whether they were adjusted to center at a distance according to the handbook, or considerably shorter, which many pilots found was more effective.


Didn't some pilots harmonise their guns at 250 yards instead of 400?
  • 0

'There I stood at the bar, wearing a Mae West, no jacket, and beginning to leak blood from my torn boot. None of the golfers took any notice of me - after all, I wasn't a member!' Kenneth Lee - after being shot down on the 18th August 1940.

Andree Borrel (Denise) SOE

♫ Now wicked tongues can speak and rewrite history But you can't keep the truth contained And like the song was sung Realize we're one and we're here to stay 


#10 blacksnake

blacksnake

    As old as I feel.

  • Registered Users
  • 276 posts

Posted 25 September 2010 - 08:19 PM

If only it was as simple as... "The RAF won the BoB, so must have had the superior fighter!"

But, as Stormbird has so rightly pointed out, there are many different factors to be considered. And, it IS an enjoyable argument, simply because there will never be a definitive answer... :confused:
  • 0

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Les Braves, St. Laurent Draw, Omaha Beach.


#11 Stormbird

Stormbird

    Restless

  • Registered Users
  • 521 posts

Posted 25 September 2010 - 08:24 PM

So I have read. The handbook said 400 despite the weapon being proven ineffective over 300.
(Sorry, Blacksnake, I missed your post in between.)

Edited by Stormbird, 25 September 2010 - 08:31 PM.

  • 0

Aldri redd for mørkets makt, stjernene vil lyse.

http://translate.google.com/#no/en/


#12 Oggie2620

Oggie2620

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 640 posts
  • LocationBury St Edmunds

Posted 25 September 2010 - 09:07 PM

I personally think that however good any aircraft it is the quality of the pilot is the most important part of the equation... The training and their ability are the reason they survived or not despite their aircraft... Is it just me?
  • 0
:poppy: RIP Sgt Edgar William Harvey RNZAF and his crew :poppy:

#13 al49

al49

    Junior Member

  • Registered Users
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 01:23 AM

Several other factors should also be considered.Time over target for the Luftwaffe was only 10 minutes.If they had been able to engage for longer, then would their advantageous "trigger time" have mad a bigger difference? As well as this,the psychological effect of knowing you could end up in the channel for spending too much time over target,must have been a huge disadvantage.
  • 0

#14 James S

James S

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 3,064 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 07:44 AM

I "voted" before reading the poll and find myself on an 8-1 hiding ! :D
I voted neither as I saw it pretty much as a trade off with not a lot to pick or choose between them.
Quite a few folks have identified the design and mechanical issue which gave each the edge in certain circumstances , but for much of the time the ME had to fight at a disadvantage because of where the battle was being fought and how they were being made to fight it.
Looking at just the machines themselves discounting all other issues I think at that moment in time, summer of 1940 they were "neck and neck" , in the long term the Spitfire proved to be the better of the two with a great development life inherent to the airframe and its design.

(I recall in an older view of the "Battle" "Macky" Steinhoff stating that in his opinion the Luftwaffe was fighting a battle which they were not equipped to undertake and that good as the 109 was the nature of the battle put it at a disadvantage.)

I did enjoy the programme and whilst Paul is right the amount of new material which was in it was limited for me the Luftwaffe crews having to be at "cockpit readiness" to defend their own bases was something of a surprise in how intrusive this was, and the insight into the Luftwaffe pilots view of the battle and what "they were experiencing and thinking" was a refreshing. ( So often the "B of B" is only looked at from "our side").
It was a well put together and did pull the various strings together at different levels.

I have heard it said the Willy Messerschmitt was "the blue eyed boy" and his designs were looked upon more favourably than others, this may or may not be the case and whilst not wishing to change the direction of the thread it is worth being thankful that the FW190 was not entering service in 1940.
  • 0

#15 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 593 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 11:34 AM

The Me 109 was a couple of yeas older and designed as "the smallest airframe that could carry the designed engine". Because of this it could not be adapted to make full use of the second generation engines (DB 605) of 1500Hp and could not even carry the third generation 2000Hp ones. As the Me 109 started life with the Kestrel you could even say it was one generation behind!.
This became a handicap as heavier firepower and armour were required later in the war to deal with four engined bombers.
For BoB vintage the Me 109 was possibly slightly more advanced than the current generation Spitfires, but the differences very small and not enough to compensate the German's tactical disadvantages.
It's heavier wing loading meant less manouverablity but firepower, and the fuel injection, gave it a very slight edge all the rest being equal. IMO it' a lot safer to dive away when disadvantaged than to attempt to outturn your opponent, but if your mission is bomber escort ......
  • 1

#16 Jamie Holdbridge-Stuart

Jamie Holdbridge-Stuart

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 127 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 01:09 PM

I think Holland was talking bollocks, and he knew it. What he should have done was show how many .303 bullets got wanged off compared to one 20mm cannon shell.
I've read of a Spitfire pilot recalling a 109 disintegrating after catching a good squirt from his eight Brownings.
  • 0

"Wot did you do in the war Grandad?"

"I was with Harry... at the Bridge."


:salut:


#17 geoff501

geoff501

    1.0594630943592952645618252949463

  • Registered Users
  • 2,169 posts
  • LocationHut Six

Posted 26 September 2010 - 02:10 PM

It was interesting that Holland didn't even mention the turning radius of the Spitfire.

I was just reading Stephen Bungay's book this morning and found this in chapter 5: " The wing also featured 'wash-out'. It had a slight twist along it, which meant that during tight turns the wing root would stall before the tip, giving the pilot a safe warning. Many blessed Mitchell for that."
  • 0
The WW2 Commonwealth Casualty Search Engine:
http://www.hut-six.c.../search39-47.php

"Well, the most important thing that was new was the idea of URI -- or URL. The idea that any piece of information anywhere should have an identifier, which will not only identify it, but allow you to get hold of it. That idea was the basic clue to the universality of the Web. That was the only thing I insisted upon." Tim Berners-Lee.





#18 Jaeger

Jaeger

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 246 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 08:36 PM

The Spit get's my vote. Bless the lads who flew that pretty bird.
  • 0

#19 rnr1

rnr1

    Junior Member

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 08:58 PM

I don't know. But what is great about the battle of britain is that it puts head to head those that believed that the future is based on freedom against those that believed it was based on oppression. Thank god for that.
  • 0

#20 phylo_roadking

phylo_roadking

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,667 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 09:29 PM

Unfortunately for the .303 Browning and the brick wall - all that a rifle-calibre bullet did was puncture relatively small holes in aircraft. In WWI and the interwar period rifle-calibre defensive fire was enough for bombers to equally see off fighters ;) it took a awful amount of rwork to get bullets from a pair of rifle-calibre MGS to hit anything vital...

Hence the MG multibanks were a way of simply putting MORE lead on a target....but all THAT meant was perhaps three or four SETS of bullets from the bullet-stream might intersect the path of the target! :huh:

Cannon rounds blew holes in things and chunks out = more chance of damaging something vital ;)

EXCEPT - remember that BoB-era 109 only had TWO! So back to the same issue of exactly how many useful rounds could hit a moving/twisting/evading target in your few seconds'-long bullet stream!:P Yes those TWO could do more damage....but they had a smaller chance of hitting than EIGHT streams of converging lead...
  • 0
A great soldier once said -
“What? Oh, nonsense, Benton. I tell you that's a beach out there. It's probably Norfolk or somewhere like that… See that nobody wanders in. We can't have the place overrun with holiday makers. I'll nip out, find a phone and tell the authorities exactly where we are. I'm fairly sure that's Cromer. Back in a jiff.”

#21 James S

James S

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 3,064 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 09:15 AM

The armament issue , the 303 would not have done any fighter a lot of good but it would have been less effective against armour on bombers , poor crew protection in a glazed nose did the bomber crews no favours.
The canon did give an advantage , slower rate of fire but a bigger punch 3-4 hits would have made a mess and if the aircraft got home...repair times longer and the damage often Cat. "E".
The various advantages / edges each would have had that would be down to a good pilot who knew how to get the best out of his aircraft, new lads with limited hours on a learning curve would have been vulnerable.
In the hands of experts there would have been little to pick between them but the operational advantage more and more swung in the favour of the RAF and increasingly the Luftwaffe was fighting a battle they could not win.
It has been said since but was not perhaps fully recognised at the time Dowding did focus and concentrate his resources both on the air and on the ground so very well.....he was in a different league from Goring such a total contrast.

Edited by James S, 27 September 2010 - 09:22 AM.

  • 0

#22 Smudger Jnr

Smudger Jnr

    Our Man in Berlin

  • Registered Users
  • 9,447 posts
  • LocationBerlin, Germany.

Posted 27 September 2010 - 09:41 AM

The armament issue , the 303 would not have done any fighter a lot of good but it would have been less effective against armour on bombers , poor crew protection in a glazed nose did the bomber crews no favours.
The canon did give an advantage , slower rate of fire but a bigger punch 3-4 hits would have made a mess and if the aircraft got home...repair times longer and the damage often Cat. "E".
The various advantages / edges each would have had that would be down to a good pilot who knew how to get the best out of his aircraft, new lads with limited hours on a learning curve would have been vulnerable.
In the hands of experts there would have been little to pick between them but the operational advantage more and more swung in the favour of the RAF and increasingly the Luftwaffe was fighting a battle they could not win.
It has been said since but was not perhaps fully recognised at the time Dowding did focus and concentrate his resources both on the air and on the ground so very well.....he was in a different league from Goring such a total contrast.


James,

Have to agree with your comments.

It was no wonder that both sides wanted captured aircraft to fly and test.

This was to find out the strengths and weaknesses and adopt new tactics to counter the enemies advantages if any.

As far as Canons are concerned, the British knew that canons were the way forward but could not get over the problems of stoppages caused by "G" Forces.

When the problems were sorted out after the B of B the British and Commonwealth fighters became more dangerous to their opponents.

During the Battle of Britain there were many cases of He 111s and Do 217's crash landing in France shot full of .303 rifle calibre rounds.

This would not have been the case if the planes had been struck by canon fire as sometimes one well placed round of canon will bring a plane down.

Regards
Tom
  • 0
Reconnaissance Corps - Only the enemy in front.

#23 slaphead

slaphead

    Yay! my book cover is out

  • Registered Users
  • 675 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 10:38 AM

Can we ask "Winkle" Brown? he should know... Why didnt the programme interview him?

One (two?) other points was that if it had not been for the Battle of France I think it would have been the 109 that dominated the sky.

Paul Richey states that the original setup for the brownings in a Huricane was that they were not set to convergent streams of bullets but divergent streams to enhance the chance of at least one bullet hitting something as the target twists away.
I would assume the Spits guns were originally set up the same.

The second is that the Hurricanes didnt get armour for the pilot until No1 Squadron took some from some unservicable Fairey Battles (I think) and lets face it, it was pilots we were short of. Even if the Spit vastly outclassed the Me, if there were no Hurricane pilots left the workload on the Spits would have been too great.
  • 0

#24 James S

James S

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 3,064 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 10:43 AM

The rogue elements in the question have to be operational / tactical aspects and the pilots.
The Luftwaffe pilots were increasingly placed at a disadvantage tactically whilst operating at the limits of their endurance - our own men much less so - a one on one pure fighter engagement how often did this happen as the battle progressed ?
I think as with most things Tom the various qualities of the aircraft become lost against the background of the battle and how it was fought.
Whilst national pride will always make me come down on the side of the "Spit" , in reality I think it was a very close run affair , in the initial engagements at least but as the battle progressed the deck increasingly stacked up against the Germans and as they failed to make the break through time ran out for them.
  • 0

#25 phylo_roadking

phylo_roadking

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,667 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 01:17 PM

The Luftwaffe pilots were increasingly placed at a disadvantage tactically whilst operating at the limits of their endurance - our own men much less so - a one on one pure fighter engagement how often did this happen as the battle progressed ?


This is the one thing I had to disgree with on the programme in question - for although it might have been LW pilots' opinions that the advantage radar gave the RAF was that they got height over their incoming opponents...this is only really true of the later stages of the BoB, when the LW was flying to more distant targets such as London.

If you take a look at Bishop - what will strike you is how many times in the first half of the BoB the tables were actually turned - and it was RAF fighters that were still climbing to altitude when attacked by "freehunting" 109s with a height advantage...to their cost :( He accounts for many days when the RAF took greater losses on a one-to-one basis when fighters were being sent up from fields near the coast like Manston, Lympne, Hawkinge etc. and simply didn't have TIME to gain a height advantage.

What we often forget is good old Pythagoras :lol: Over the last decade, with a plethora of good flight sims, we have become far more acquainted with a sense of an air battle being in three dimensions...but possibly at the cost of forgetting the simple horizontal and vertical distances involved ;) Enemy aircraft crossing the coast and heading for London still took x-amount of time to get there - time that RAF fighters from fields nearer to London in their Sectors had to get to their GCI'd altitude...but fighters from fields within 3-4-5 miles of the Kent Coast were still struggling to reach the bombers' altitude when they crossed the coast.

The canon did give an advantage , slower rate of fire but a bigger punch 3-4 hits would have made a mess and if the aircraft got home...repair times longer and the damage often Cat. "E".



James, this might certainly apply to bombers - who might be kind enough to stay in your sight for several long seconds, long enough for 3-or 4 cannon rounds to hit home...but the problem was fighters...who were not only doing everything they could to kill you - but also trying not to spend more than a second or two in the centre of YOUR gunsight ;)
  • 0
A great soldier once said -
“What? Oh, nonsense, Benton. I tell you that's a beach out there. It's probably Norfolk or somewhere like that… See that nobody wanders in. We can't have the place overrun with holiday makers. I'll nip out, find a phone and tell the authorities exactly where we are. I'm fairly sure that's Cromer. Back in a jiff.”

#26 Gibbo

Gibbo

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 491 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 01:48 PM

In the TV programme, Holland made a lot of the Me109 having 55 seconds worth of ammo for each of its 2 machine guns, compared with 15 seconds for the 8 guns of the Spitfire and Hurricane. Those without specialist knowledge might have assumed that the Me109 had that amount of ammo for all its guns. I just had a browse through his book, and he mentions there, but not on the TV programme, that the Me109's 20mm cannon had ammo for only 7 seconds. Quite possibly the fault of the TV company rather than him, but a bit misleading.
  • 0
Martin

My blog at http://warandsecurity.com/ deals with military history and current national security issues.

#27 James S

James S

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 3,064 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 04:30 PM

PRK
James, this might certainly apply to bombers - who might be kind enough to stay in your sight for several long seconds, long enough for 3-or 4 cannon rounds to hit home...but the problem was fighters...who were not only doing everything they could to kill you - but also trying not to spend more than a second or two in the centre of YOUR gunsight


Take your point on that but don't discount the MG's . ;)
I think so much of it would boil down to the pilots and their level of experience.
That tail on the E 109 - always struck me as looking delicate.
Mr Bishop's book , don't have it but may well try and pick it up .
  • 0

#28 James S

James S

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 3,064 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 06:13 PM

The 109 was not kind to novice pilots, poor forward vision , the narrow under carriage , inclined to pull and overturn .... did the Spitfire have similar tendencies ?
  • 0

#29 Smudger Jnr

Smudger Jnr

    Our Man in Berlin

  • Registered Users
  • 9,447 posts
  • LocationBerlin, Germany.

Posted 27 September 2010 - 06:53 PM

James,

The Spitfire also suffered from a very narrow undercarriage track, just like the Bf 109 and was not so forgiving when landing.

I believe that the Spitfire was a little more rugged than the 109 as this plane had a tendency to lose undercarriage legs at first until it received modifications.

It was always difficult to land planes with narrow tracked undercarriage, unlike the Hurricane with it's very wide Track, which all the pilots thought was excellent.

A good pilot will adapt the planes best assets to suit his method of flying and fighting.

Regards
Tom
  • 0
Reconnaissance Corps - Only the enemy in front.

#30 phylo_roadking

phylo_roadking

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,667 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 06:55 PM

I think so much of it would boil down to the pilots and their level of experience


Certainly - for of course on that depends how long you can keep t'bugger in your gunsight! ;)

The 109 was not kind to novice pilots, poor forward vision , the narrow under carriage , inclined to pull and overturn .... did the Spitfire have similar tendencies ?


Poor forward vision....on the ground :P Mind you, almost ALL in-line piston-engined fighters had this problem! In the air it was better, that bubble canopy allowed the pilot far more peripheral vision, the ability to look over your shoulder FAR more than the 109.

BUT if you Google on "groundloop" - just look how many more hits you'll find that relate to SPITFIRES compared to 109s! BOTH aircraft seem to have had a major problem on the ground - but for some strange reason (the buggers lost???) the 109s' is far better remembered!
  • 0
A great soldier once said -
“What? Oh, nonsense, Benton. I tell you that's a beach out there. It's probably Norfolk or somewhere like that… See that nobody wanders in. We can't have the place overrun with holiday makers. I'll nip out, find a phone and tell the authorities exactly where we are. I'm fairly sure that's Cromer. Back in a jiff.”




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users