Ta16 I can always count on you for dishing out the blue water Navy knowledge.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48701456]Generally this is a fucking horrible idea.[/QUOTE]You take normal gun.
Then you add some electromagnets.
Hook those up to a series of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor]supercapacitors.[/url]
Add a control board.
Done!
There, now your cannon has an increase in muzzle velocity. Actually, funny thing about this, the military is already [url=www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA322875]looking[/url] at this. There are technical barriers to this but there have been technical barriers to literally everything we use.
Would sure be great if you didn't make wild assumptions.
[QUOTE=OvB;48701905]There's a reason railguns are on ships. No land or air vehicle is going to have the ability to power one of them for quite some time.[/QUOTE]We're not accelerating the projectile from 0, we're accelerating it from about three quarters it's original muzzle velocity so you [i]don't[/i] need much power to [u]assist[/u] an already ongoing chemical reaction. Much like a rocket launching into space the lion's share of energy is used in that initial acceleration because of conservation of momentum which is best left to a chemical reaction, once the object is moving it can be further accelerated (hence my labeling of this system as [i]magnetic assistance[/i] rather than propulsion) as the existing chemical reaction finishes inside the barrel. Both the burning propellant and the magnetic forces are accelerating the projectile as it leaves the muzzle, and again, technical challenges have limited the exploration of this until right now. We're at a stage where we can develop a functional, combat effective railgun so we can probably start looking at magnetically assisting conventional guns.
[QUOTE=Ta16;48702441]Do you not know how railguns work? If the system fails the gun just doesn't work. There is NO propellant charge on a railgun round.[/QUOTE]Yup, it sure is a good thing I wasn't talking about railguns!
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48707628]You take normal gun.
Then you add some electromagnets.
Hook those up to a series of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor]supercapacitors.[/url]
Add a control board.
Done![/quote]
lol any velocity increase from a using a standard propellant before shooting it through a railgun would be absolutely minute in comparison to the velocity from just the railgun. All adding a propellant charge will end up doing is cause the already massively complex gun to be even more complex because now you have to deal with the massive release of gas intrinsic to using a propellant charge.
[quote]
There, now your cannon has an increase in muzzle velocity. Actually, funny thing about this, the military is already [url=www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA322875]looking[/url] at this. There are technical barriers to this but there have been technical barriers to literally everything we use.[/quote]
Again the velocity gain from a propellant charge isn't going to add much meaningful power to a round thats already hypersonic due to being fired from a railgun. The military is probably looking into it as a stopgap solution until their understanding of railguns is sufficient that the powder becomes superfluous.
[quote]
We're not accelerating the projectile from 0, we're accelerating it from about three quarters it's original muzzle velocity so you [i]don't[/i] need much power to [u]assist[/u] an already ongoing chemical reaction. Much like a rocket launching into space the lion's share of energy is used in that initial acceleration because of conservation of momentum which is best left to a chemical reaction, once the object is moving it can be further accelerated (hence my labeling of this system as [i]magnetic assistance[/i] rather than propulsion) as the existing chemical reaction finishes inside the barrel. Both the burning propellant and the magnetic forces are accelerating the projectile as it leaves the muzzle, and again, technical challenges have limited the exploration of this until right now. We're at a stage where we can develop a functional, combat effective railgun so we can probably start looking at magnetically assisting conventional guns.[/quote]
What exactly would the point of a magnetically assisted conventional projectile be exactly? All it ends up doing is massively over complicating the system by essentially fusing two separate guns (the conventional one and the railgun) into the same system for what would be a relatively minor increase in velocity (Again railguns are hypersonic). Combining both a railgun and a conventional one would take about the space as having both a railgun and a conventional and would have very little benefit if any.
[editline]18th September 2015[/editline]
Not only that but think of the logistics and space concerns. Now each ship with that system has to have both a rather large capacitor bank AND a magazine to store the powder charges (unless of course they're connected to the shell, in which case it would decrease the available space in the magazine anyways).
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48711927]lol any velocity increase from a using a standard propellant before shooting it through a railgun would be absolutely minute in comparison to the velocity from just the railgun. All adding a propellant charge will end up doing is cause the already massively complex gun to be even more complex because now you have to deal with the massive release of gas intrinsic to using a propellant charge.[/QUOTE]Got any numbers to back up any of that? You sound pretty sure of yourself in saying that it absolutely cannot ever, ever work, while I'm just saying "yeah, it'd be cool to look at."
You didn't read the report, (which says basically it's doable but there are challenges) my posts, (assuming I'm still talking about a ship) or anything except what you quoted so I'm going to have to wait for you to post some actual data to support your "NOPE, NOT EVER" claim because I'm not going to argue with somebody who won't even read.
[editline]18th September 2015[/editline]
Oh and before you start quoting my posts to try and prove my position is anything other than what I stated above, consider this a clarification that the above statement is a clarification of my position.
Okay lets assume for a moment that there is a large increase in velocity.
Lets look at the problems with a dual propellant electromangetic hybrid weapon.
In order to make the weapon you need to literally have two weapons (A conventional gun and a railgun) and combine them into the same weapon. This effectively doubles both the complexity and the size of the weapon. Not only that but you also increase the logistical needs for the weapon. Space on ships is already at a premium, but with a propellant railgun hybrid you'd be looking at the logistical requirements for one weapon doubling (the need for propellant storage and the need for capacitor banks) on the ship the weapon is installed onto. I don't think any potential gain can be made from effectively making a weapon twice as big and need twice as much logistical support.
As for the velocity, a railgun doesn't need to go faster. There is literally no reason for it. A propellant charge wouldn't add much velocity to the railgun because the railgun is already shooting objects at hypersonic velocities.
The only way I could see a dual propellant/electromagnetic weapon being needed is if the weapons platform cannot support a large enough capacitor bank for the weapon to reach the needed velocity. This is most certainly not the case for a ship specifically designed to mount a railgun.
[editline]18th September 2015[/editline]
I also never said it wouldn't work. I said its unnecessary
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48712987]Got any numbers to back up any of that? You sound pretty sure of yourself in saying that it absolutely cannot ever, ever work, while I'm just saying "yeah, it'd be cool to look at."
You didn't read the report, (which says basically it's doable but there are challenges) my posts, (assuming I'm still talking about a ship) or anything except what you quoted so I'm going to have to wait for you to post some actual data to support your "NOPE, NOT EVER" claim because I'm not going to argue with somebody who won't even read.
[editline]18th September 2015[/editline]
Oh and before you start quoting my posts to try and prove my position is anything other than what I stated above, consider this a clarification that the above statement is a clarification of my position.[/QUOTE]
Essentially its the same reason we don't have double-barreled tanks: it takes up too much space and isn't very productive
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48713235]In order to make the weapon you need to literally have two weapons (A conventional gun and a railgun) and combine them into the same weapon.[/QUOTE]Okay, let's go with rails and let's go with an existing weapons platform like the 120mm L/55 Rheinmetall gun.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48713235]This effectively doubles both the complexity and the size of the weapon.[/QUOTE]Let's see, the L/55 version of that gun has a barrel weight of 1,347 kg, and let's use everything after the bore extractor for the rails. So we're going to be losing about 458kg, and if I'm coming up with this right the total weight of the gun with rails increasing the length to L/59 is going to be just shy of 1,448 kg so it's by no means a doubling of size in any way. Hm, as for complexity you may have a point there but this is a 120mm gun and it does need not only regular overhauling but also constant maintenance. Since tank crews are constantly repairing everything, I'm not sure they'll care about any increase in maintenance. (what tedious maintenance would they be expected to perform on a railgun anyway? Replacing blown capacitors?)
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48713235]Not only that but you also increase the logistical needs for the weapon. [/QUOTE]In regards to what, exactly? Oh, so motor pools will have to keep supercaps on hand and the tank crew will have to have a box of them? That's the weakest component in the system, they [i]will[/i] blow and they [i]will[/i] need to be replaced.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48713235]Space on ships is already at a premium, but with a propellant railgun hybrid you'd be looking at the logistical requirements for one weapon doubling (the need for propellant storage and the need for capacitor banks) on the ship the weapon is installed onto.[/QUOTE]Not. Talking. About. Ships. For the last fucking time.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48713235]As for the velocity, a railgun doesn't need to go faster. There is literally no reason for it. A propellant charge wouldn't add much velocity to the railgun because the railgun is already shooting objects at hypersonic velocities.[/QUOTE]Ugh, we're not talking about making a railgun fire faster projectiles, we're talking about making a conventional weapon fire faster projectiles. There's a big, big, big difference between the two especially since the USN railgun project is reaching the hard limit on projectile speed, the test shots at NSWC showed the projectiles trying to turn into plasma. Once you start going past about 5,000 m/s (just shy of mach 15 at sea level) there aren't many materials that won't literally explode from the aerodynamic shock and the heat generated. I can think of only a handful off the top of my head, and most of them make shitty choices for big bullets.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48713235]The only way I could see a dual propellant/electromagnetic weapon being needed is if the weapons platform cannot support a large enough capacitor bank for the weapon to reach the needed velocity.[/QUOTE]That's exactly the scenario I was talking about, a tank already weighs a lot and there isn't a lot of space. Accelerating an existing tank round, such as the M829, (10kg projectile) from it's original muzzle velocity of 1,670 m/s (total of 882 kJ) to 2,130 m/s (1,468 kJ, almost double) would require roughly an additional 550~ kg worth of electrical components not including the modifications to the barrel of the weapon. This weight could be distributed [i]anywhere[/i] in the tank, by the way. (I don't have any references for these numbers, I did them last night and didn't save links to the off-the-shelf electrical components I found online)
The major downside to this weapon system is the capacitors would take at least 107 seconds (1m 47s) to charge for a shot, meaning any rounds fired while the capacitors were charging would be conventional and a change in doctrine would probably have to follow.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48713235]I also never said it wouldn't work. I said its unnecessary[/QUOTE]Alright, fine, so after everything I just typed up do you still think it's unnecessary?
[QUOTE=mralexs;48713339]Essentially its the same reason we don't have double-barreled tanks: it takes up too much space and isn't very productive[/QUOTE]Apples =/= Oranges
[editline]18th September 2015[/editline]
Really you couldn't get any faster firing speed than that, even if you had all sorts of power generation capability. That would require really, really fancy supercaps that would, of course, be very expensive and very fragile. So a single weapon that's firing an assisted projectile would need to conserve the high-velocity shots for appropriate targets, and as I said several posts ago certain ammunition types do not enjoy any benefits from higher muzzle velocity. HEAT rounds don't get any more effective the faster they fire, HESH actually [i]lose[/i] effectiveness, and certain payload munitions like beehive or canister rounds are either unaffected or have a reduction in efficiency. Only the solid kinetic shots, such as the APFSDS or obsolete rounds like the APDS and APCR really see a drastic increase in effectiveness the faster they go.
I also touched up on the total speed of certain materials such as depleted uranium, move that fast enough and it'll violently detonate because uranium has a high degree of pyrophoricity, and alloying with stabilizing metals only somewhat diminishes this or compromises it's armor-piercing capabilities. (or it's lethality, part of the reason why depleted uranium is so effective is it turns into dust much like solid brass does on impact, and this dust self-ignites causing massive damage and casualties)
[editline]18th September 2015[/editline]
Oh, and when I did the math it was a lot of rounding off. I'm lazy. Whatever.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48713890]
Apples =/= Oranges
[/QUOTE]
Apples and oranges are both fruit. Tank cannons and railguns are both weapons. The argument works
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48713890]Okay, let's go with rails and let's go with an existing weapons platform like the 120mm L/55 Rheinmetall gun.[/quote]
Okay
[quote]Let's see, the L/55 version of that gun has a barrel weight of 1,347 kg, and let's use everything after the bore extractor for the rails. So we're going to be losing about 458kg, and if I'm coming up with this right the total weight of the gun with rails increasing the length to L/59 is going to be just shy of 1,448 kg so it's by no means a doubling of size in any way. Hm, as for complexity you may have a point there but this is a 120mm gun and it does need not only regular overhauling but also constant maintenance. Since tank crews are constantly repairing everything, I'm not sure they'll care about any increase in maintenance. (what tedious maintenance would they be expected to perform on a railgun anyway? Replacing blown capacitors?)[/quote]
How exactly are you getting the precise weight of that? Based on what components? Are you taking into account the capacitor and powder storage requirements?
Also its going to require vastly more maintenance. Railguns need sensitive electronics, there's no way around that. A tank is going to be moving in rough terrain on a daily basis. Sensitive electronics and rough terrain do not mix. "A little more maintenance" is a bit of an understatement. Now you have to carry both spare components for the railgun and the gun aspect of the weapons system. Not only that but you're also going to have to train the crew to deal with the highly sensitive electronics that will accompany the railgun. Furthermore the capacitor bank itself would represent a massive threat to the crew if the tank gets hit. Explosives don't necessarily explode if you tank a direct hit. Capacitors WILL discharge if they are damaged.
[quote]
In regards to what, exactly? Oh, so motor pools will have to keep supercaps on hand and the tank crew will have to have a box of them? That's the weakest component in the system, they [i]will[/i] blow and they [i]will[/i] need to be replaced.[/quote]
Yeah and thats another logistical concern for relatively little gain. Tanks rarely engage at ranges for a railgun to be anything but massive overkill.
[quote]
Not. Talking. About. Ships. For the last fucking time.[/quote]
okay
[quote]
Ugh, we're not talking about making a railgun fire faster projectiles, we're talking about making a conventional weapon fire faster projectiles. There's a big, big, big difference between the two especially since the USN railgun project is reaching the hard limit on projectile speed, the test shots at NSWC showed the projectiles trying to turn into plasma. Once you start going past about 5,000 m/s (just shy of mach 15 at sea level) there aren't many materials that won't literally explode from the aerodynamic shock and the heat generated. I can think of only a handful off the top of my head, and most of them make shitty choices for big bullets.[/quote]
Again its not necessary unless tank armor sees significant increases of durability. Railguns are going to be overkill to the point where a kinetic penetrator round will go through both sides of the tank with little issue. Something that's not really needed in tank warfare at this point in time, especially if you take into account the possibility of collateral damage from a shell over penetrating and striking a building, which given the current state of warfare the US conducts, is a distinct possibility.
[quote]
That's exactly the scenario I was talking about, a tank already weighs a lot and there isn't a lot of space. Accelerating an existing tank round, such as the M829, (10kg projectile) from it's original muzzle velocity of 1,670 m/s (total of 882 kJ) to 2,130 m/s (1,468 kJ, almost double) would require roughly an additional 550~ kg worth of electrical components not including the modifications to the barrel of the weapon. This weight could be distributed [i]anywhere[/i] in the tank, by the way. (I don't have any references for these numbers, I did them last night and didn't save links to the off-the-shelf electrical components I found online)[/quote]
That's the weight, not the space the weapon will be taking up.
Sticking capacitor banks evenly around the tank is a great way to guarantee a discharge if the tank gets hit from any direction.
[quote]
The major downside to this weapon system is the capacitors would take at least 107 seconds (1m 47s) to charge for a shot, meaning any rounds fired while the capacitors were charging would be conventional and a change in doctrine would probably have to follow.[/quote]
So basically you're asking tank crews to have to compensate in the heat of combat for two different shell velocities. I'm reminded of the old story of Mig pilots firing both over and under B-29's in korea because of the mismatch in velocity between their 23 and 37mm guns.
Also how exactly will the tank recharge the capacitor bank? Are you thinking of adding a massive generator to the tank as well?A generator to a tank that already eats massive amounts of fuel? Or do you want a reactor on the tank? Or perhaps a hydrogen fuel cell? All of these will take fuel and/or cause a massive increase in the size of the tank.
[quote]
Alright, fine, so after everything I just typed up do you still think it's unnecessary?[/quote]
Absolutely. There quite simply is not a need at present time for such a massively fast round in tank warfare. Plus the weapon you are describing comes with a ton of things that simply add unnecessary complexity to a tank (having to compensate for two different shell velocities in combat, adding capacitor banks as well as an ammo rank, a weapons system that will require twice the training and twice the maintenance) for an advantage that would be complete unjustifiable overkill in todays warfare.
[quote]
Apples =/= Oranges[/quote]
Its more like you trying to crossbread an apple and an orange and wall you end up with is the apple core and the orange peel.
[editline]18th September 2015[/editline]
[quote]
Really you couldn't get any faster firing speed than that, even if you had all sorts of power generation capability. That would require really, really fancy supercaps that would, of course, be very expensive and very fragile. So a single weapon that's firing an assisted projectile would need to conserve the high-velocity shots for appropriate targets, and as I said several posts ago certain ammunition types do not enjoy any benefits from higher muzzle velocity. HEAT rounds don't get any more effective the faster they fire, HESH actually [i]lose[/i] effectiveness, and certain payload munitions like beehive or canister rounds are either unaffected or have a reduction in efficiency. Only the solid kinetic shots, such as the APFSDS or obsolete rounds like the APDS and APCR really see a drastic increase in effectiveness the faster they go.[/quote]
So now the crew has another thing to keep track of for no reason (loading the correct ammo type for the inbetween shot with lower velocity).
[quote]
I also touched up on the total speed of certain materials such as depleted uranium, move that fast enough and it'll violently detonate because uranium has a high degree of pyrophoricity, and alloying with stabilizing metals only somewhat diminishes this or compromises it's armor-piercing capabilities. (or it's lethality, part of the reason why depleted uranium is so effective is it turns into dust much like solid brass does on impact, and this dust self-ignites causing massive damage and casualties)[/quote]
DU already detonates at the velocity modern tank guns achieve. Further speed won't help that. An overpenetration due to the round going right through the tank also won't help that.
Oh, and when I did the math it was a lot of rounding off. I'm lazy. Whatever.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48716083]Absolutely. There quite simply is not a need at present time for such a massively fast round in tank warfare.[/QUOTE]Okay, if you say so. I disagree and you really didn't respond to my post, or you didn't understand it, so let's just leave it at a general disagreement.
[editline]18th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=mralexs;48715432]Apples and oranges are both fruit. Tank cannons and railguns are both weapons. The argument works[/QUOTE]... I don't think you know what you're even saying. Yes, they're both weapons and apples and oranges are different fruit, but [i]both are still different.[/i] I really don't feel like explaining this any further than that, it's pretty simple.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48716316]Okay, if you say so. I disagree and you really didn't respond to my post, or you didn't understand it, so let's just leave it at a general disagreement.
[/QUOTE]
Then why don't you surmise your post for me. Or perhaps offer an actual form of rebuttal other then "You didn't understand so I'm not going to respond" because I'm fairly certain I understood exactly what you where trying to say.
Ah yes, I am sure enjoying wasting a whopping 17% of our budget on fighting a non-existent war with a non-existent Soviet Union.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png[/t]
Sure, that number has dropped a bit recently, but it is still incredibly high.
We have the [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg"]highest rate of military spending per GDP in the entire developed world, including RUSSIA[/URL]. It blows my mind how much money goes to a complete waste of time. We could be funding socialized medicine or paying college debt without having to raise a single tax if we just conceded to cut defense spending some.
But we won't because America loves tanks and guns because Saint Reagan said we should protect the world from the Soviet Union and the dirty brown Muslims.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48716332]Then why don't you surmise your post for me. Or perhaps offer an actual form of rebuttal other then "You didn't understand so I'm not going to respond" because I'm fairly certain I understood exactly what you where trying to say.[/QUOTE]I already did that and you did the same shit, I said I wasn't going to argue with somebody who won't read.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48716664]Ah yes, I am sure enjoying wasting a whopping 17% of our budget on fighting a non-existent war with a non-existent Soviet Union.[/QUOTE]Way to start off by saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about" in the most convoluted way possible.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48716664]We have the [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg"]highest rate of military spending per GDP in the entire developed world, including RUSSIA[/URL].[/QUOTE]Oh, wow, less than a fifth of our budget is going toward defense spending. That's [i]defense spending[/i] by the way, not just buying actual military equipment. Why don't you investigate the military research and see how much money goes into that, because without that you wouldn't even be making this stupid uninformed post on a computer that weighs less than a ton. Or at all really because [i]the internet[/i] is required and that kinda couldn't have been possible without defense research.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48716664]It blows my mind how much money goes to a complete waste of time.[/QUOTE]See above, but let me specifically say that our strong military presence is, in itself, a deterrent for armed conflicts. We can park a carrier group somewhere and it'll menace people into going to the negotiating table, and we contribute so much money in international aid and relief [i]through the military.[/i] I wouldn't call global stability and humanitarian relief a waste of time, but hey, that's just me.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48716664]We could be funding socialized medicine or paying college debt without having to raise a single tax if we just conceded to cut defense spending some.[/QUOTE]Did you not see how half the graph was devoted to social security and healthcare? YOU posted it.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48716664]But we won't because America loves tanks and guns because Saint Reagan said we should protect the world from the Soviet Union and the dirty brown Muslims.[/QUOTE]Ah yes, everything is Reagan's doing isn't it? Surely this behavior doesn't extend further back, and I'm sure Eisenhower was just talking out of his ass when he said "you know this military-industrial complex is getting out of hand." Nah, it's about them Muslims and the Soviet Union! Reagan's behind all of this!
[editline]19th September 2015[/editline]
About that last point, if we just "cut defense spending" (I'm convinced you don't even know what that means anyway) it would likely tank our economy, the companies that produce the things the military needs are [i]vital[/i] elsewhere.
Except I quite clearly read and addressed your points. The reason I said the same thing a lot was because the answer was the same.
You also said complete bullshit like having every other shell have a different velocity.Which I addressed because that's a truly retarded idea. Furthermore you did your "math" without actually explaining any aspect of where you obtained your inputs from other then "this certain make of gun weighs this much so lets arbitrarily say that somehow removing a few components and adding a nondescript electromagnetic acceleration system as well as a capacitor bank will somehow decrease the weight"
Let me put it like this. The only possible way such a system would be more useful then a simple cannon is for a dedicated platform who's sole purpose is tank hunting. It would also only be able to shoot once the capacitor banks recharge because your idea of having each intervening shell being shot via conventional propellant is retarded for reasons that I already addressed but you likely didn't read due to your apparent casual dismissal of everything I said.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48718630]Except I quite clearly read and addressed your points. The reason I said the same thing a lot was because the answer was the same.[/QUOTE]No, you really didn't.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48718630]You also said complete bullshit like having every other shell have a different velocity.Which I addressed because that's a truly retarded idea.[/QUOTE]If you can't figure out that the APFSDS ammunition can still be used in a non-assisted shot then that's not my problem. I don't even think you read my posts at all because I made this pretty clear.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48718630]Furthermore you did your "math" without actually explaining any aspect of where you obtained your inputs from other then "this certain make of gun weighs this much so lets arbitrarily say that somehow removing a few components and adding a nondescript electromagnetic acceleration system as well as a capacitor bank will somehow decrease the weight"[/QUOTE]I looked it up? I mean I can't reference the specific electrical components because I figured this out before we even started this discussion and didn't think I'd have to hold somebody's hand through it, but whatever, I really don't give enough of a shit to hunt it down. If you can't even fucking google the gun itself (freely available information by the way) then I'm certainly not going to waste effort on you.
I did dismiss everything you said because it was the same exact shit, you didn't read, you didn't even bother to consider my point, you're just interested in arguing for whatever reason. I'm not, so I won't.
[editline]19th September 2015[/editline]
It's not even that important anyway! This doesn't even have anything to do with the DDG-1000 aside from using a [i]theoretical[/i] design of a weapon that's somewhat similar to something on the ship. I don't even know why I bothered to continue to respond after you glossed over the report I found. That was stupid of me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
