Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

Were Shermans Called "Ronsons"? No, They Weren't

Recommended Posts

I recently got a PDF copy of John Buckley's "British Armour in the Normandy Campaign 1944."  It's a really good read and helps to explain the reason the Sherman got a bit of a bad reputation in British service.  And since a good many of the books on the Sherman and Allied armor was written by the British, it's not hard to understand why the Sherman got so much bad press.  In a nut shell, Montgomery was loathe to sacrifice too many infantrymen in the Normandy campaign due to British manpower shortages, so he was willing to use (or misuse) his armor units in breakthrough operations that resulted in high tank losses.  

British M4s also didn't have proper ammo storage from what I recall, making the M4 more flammable when hit which could lead to the "Ronson" moniker in a unit which could have been the origin of postwar usage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British doctrine for ammo stowage in M4s from what I've always heard tended to be something like. "WHAT THE HELL, I STILL SEE A TINY SPOT OF FREE SPACE LEFT DOWN IN THERE? THIS IS NOT A PROPER LOADING MEN!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Field Marshall is an example, more than any other allied leader, of a soldier who went into WW2 spooked.  The experience of Great Britain in the Great War is not enviable, and this caused a considerable amount of alternate history writing in the 1920s and 30s, but Montgomery knew that the British had fought dumb at 3rd Ypres, and although the official British history often refers to this battle as a great offensive victory Montgomery saw that the British strategy of throwing men into an enemy line that would not fail could ruin the war effort.  He was one of the people who called Haig "Butcher Haig" behind his back, and after the war when the British command declared Haig to be a war hero Montgomery never could swallow that.  he also knew that his two comrades, Wavell who had served on GHQ in the Great War, and Auchinleck had been handed raw deals by Churchill for failure to exhibit what some might call "cautious aggression," which meant for Churchill throwing every last crumb you have into whatever pet project Churchill had and never saying you were defeated by a superior enemy,

 

So Montgomery, who had every possibility of being just as good as Wavell, was a lap dog when he landed at Normandy, ready to snarl or curl up as his master commanded, and very concerned lest his master say a harsh word.  American Generals had a significant advantage in having Eisenhower in the chain of command, which assured they could tend things without as much interference, unless they ran foul of Harry Hopkins.  

 

The massive losses of tanks by the British had more to do with keeping Churchill in statistics than any failure of tactics.  Churchill had been taught in WW2 that an advance cost x men per meter taken.  He wanted to see those meters taken, and if you lost x*5 men he expected to see x5 meters taken.  He was also told a tank was worth 100 men, so it was cheaper to keep Churchill handy to get a bunch of tanks blow up, especially since they lacked enough fuel in the first place, than it was to simply use tanks and infantry in their most effected manner.  The failure at Market Garden becomes more understandable once the logic Churchill operated on is understood.

 

The US and Great Britain each lost around 10,000 tanks and SPAT in Europe, total of around 20,000 vehicles.  The Germans lost around 4000 actual tanks, but also lost 75,000 other armored vehicles which included STUG, SPAT 1/2 track, and 1/2 Track weapon carriers.  They also lost 90,000 AT guns.  Be careful when someone tells you the allies lost 5 to 1 tanks, in reality the Germans lost 4 armored vehicles for every armored vehicle lost by the allies and it took 12 or more AT guns in the field to generate a tank kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look through the Combat Mission game forums, one of the first big forums for gamers on line, from the late 1990s and you will discover that the US tank suffers from a PR problem originating from model designers in the 1950s and made worse by the American tank hating designers of Squad Leader.  The result was a lot of bad press on the US tanks that was made up.  

 

There are dozens of threads in the Combat Mission forum about how US soldiers derived no benefit from the gyrostabilizer in their tanks and often disconnected them.  The comments will say that crews were not even trained in their use.  All of which is bollocks.

 

The tank gyro was invented by a guy named Clinton Hanna and was installed on every US tank.  It could not be removed without changing the mount, although it could be operated in a neutral mode where it would not affect tank barrel position.  The gyro required no training as it was only on, or off.  If it was on then it kept the current cradle location of the canon no matter how the tank moved on the vertical axis.  The gyro was mentioned numerous times by German staff as a significant quality issue that the faced with German armor.

 

The main advantage that they gave was in quicker first round firing times when a tanks came to a halt, and the ability to fire one or two rounds accurate when they tried to escape.  This advantage meant that US tank guns were nearly twice as accurate in its first shots before and after a move than German.    To counteract that argument you need to get rid of the historical gyro, so you have to make the crews too stupid to use it, or make it, or such good armorers that they disconnect it.  There is on evidence this ever happened in any number of events.

 

At the same time you have to give German tanks every advantage.  German optics were between 1 and 3% sharper at 500meters that US, so you make up a German optics advantage and give German tanks a +10% to hit, or else the MkIV is at a disadvantage to the M4.

 

That's the trouble with game design with a World War 2 theme. You have to gimp the Allies and buff the Germans so each side has a chance of winning. Or else have a medley of different victory conditions. I am looking at my copy of Advanced Squad Leader. And while I enjoyed playing with friends, I do realize that the game design is flawed from a historical context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you see this with the modeling of the Hellcat in most games.  In real life the Hellcat was only defeated 80 times by other tanks (mines and infantry weapons did another 80 or so).  There are more than a dozen AARs where M18 platoons took 5 to 1 against Panthers, Tigers, and MkIVs including Arracourt and Noville.

 

Play an M18 platoon in ASL or CM and you basically will get killed by a single MKIV, even if you use realistic tactics.  Your MkIV is impervious to the 76mm at unrealistically long ranges, and even though its turret cannot spin fast enough to rack a hit on the M18 few games will simulate this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you see this with the modeling of the Hellcat in most games.  In real life the Hellcat was only defeated 80 times by other tanks (mines and infantry weapons did another 80 or so).  There are more than a dozen AARs where M18 platoons took 5 to 1 against Panthers, Tigers, and MkIVs including Arracourt and Noville.

 

Play an M18 platoon in ASL or CM and you basically will get killed by a single MKIV, even if you use realistic tactics.  Your MkIV is impervious to the 76mm at unrealistically long ranges, and even though its turret cannot spin fast enough to rack a hit on the M18 few games will simulate this.  

Just look at how Wargaming and Gaijin are handling it now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are they?

' Disregard historical documents, obtain "balance" '.

 

Gaijin literlly pulled out the "Secret Russian tests" card to justify the changes, though that seems to be par for the course for that group.

Aytime conflicting data is presented, for the most part they refuse to change it, or term things like P38 flight manuals and Hunnicutt's works as " Not of a historical nature" or some nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sold my first games at GenCon South and Suncoast Skirmishes in 1980 - the Battle of Leyte Gulf and Eclipse.  Both were laid out using an Apple II and had four pages of rules.  

 

Leyte Gulf required 8 players (which is why I only sold 100 copies) - 4 American and 4 Japanese, and was based on the theory that command disintegration or integration could affect the outcome of a major battle.  The goal of each player is to accumulate enough points to win the game individually.  Each player draws cards for motivations, and wins points for gaining their motivations which can include sinking enemy heavy units, sinking enemy light units, disrupting the landings / protecting the landings, avoiding having their own units sunk, keeping units from entering certain sea spaces or restricting enemy from those same spaces.  

 

Most game designers achieve balance by modifying the strength of units in a battle, so Jutland by Avalon Hill overestimated the throw weight of German ships, in many games ships like the Bismarck are given armor ratings many times that of the Nelsons, and at Midway American air units are FAR stronger than they were historically.  In my game though I was very careful to play the ships as they were - if the Japanese show themselves to American radar controlled battle line they will loose.  Where I balanced things was in the points awarded for different actions.  Idid this by playing the game and making a statistical record of the results of two players until two random players from 9 play-testers, all experienced war-gamers, would have a rough 50% to win no matter what side they drew.  Took 315 plays before the math stabilized.

 

Testing is expensive, and I spent more time testing my game than my profits ever paid back.  Now days game designers do not even release stable or complete games, the games are released in middle Beta and IF players stick then maybe the game will be completed.  But Internet noodles have ruined any chance to make the game accurate once it is released.  

 

German tanks were susceptible to gang tactics.  Lob enough 75mm at a Tiger tank and eventually you get a vision or mobility kills.  But evertime a Tiger succumbs to an American tank there are 10,000 posts online about how awful a game is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad thing is I'm not even talking doctrinal useage.  It's basic things, like... Well, here, this is an example of the "quality" of research--

 

9y5NA5z.jpg

 

Yes.

Those are radiators.

 

In a M3 Stuart...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that my knowledge of engines is high school level, although I have been inside of many tanks for historical research, but my understanding having stood next to a Continental 600 series engine is that the whole series was radial and air cooled.

 

Now, I have seen enough historical conundrums to make me a believer in nearly anything being possible, but what function would two large water jackets have to serve on a radial engine?  Now, I know tea kettles would be hung by engines to provide a supply of hot water, could this merely represent the divisional tea production tank?

 

Edit: I suspect that their game engine has a radiator hit built into its tables and they do not desire to have Stuarts have a unique hit table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuel tank's completely wrong as well, and I'm fairly sure it's missing a lot of ammo stowage in the main hull around where the crew stand. Also, with the ammo stowage it does have present, one of those is actually a battery compartment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did this to the M4 as well. Had the radiator horizontally mounted across the top of the engine. The current M41 still has some wacky "radiator".

 

More howlers in that M3 image are the locations of the fuel cell, and the munitions racks.  It's like they just threw parts in the hull and gave it a brisk shake.

 

The really stupid part is- They implemented the vehicles this way.

 

It was as if the people they paid to make test and approve the models could not be bothered to crack a book, of any kind, to proofcheck their work before introducing some ridiculous modelling such as that.

 

Eventually after many many bug reports they -kind of- fixed some of the really glaring bugs, but it's as if they literally have nobody checking the finished work before rubber-stamping it out the door.

 

The M-18, the model looks okay, but because of the 'cat's performance it quickly became a source for complaint because of how Gaijin cobbled it's ground forces terrain modelling (and their ridiculous maps/missions, and laughable damage modelling. All that aside-).

 

A vehicle that could do 50 MPH over flat terrain is going to win a countdown based capture the flag map far more effectively than a Tiger I or IS..

That's not the fault of the vehicle, that's crappy implementation and map design.

SO how does Gaijin address this?

 

Nerf the M-18. In numerous ways.

Brilliant!

 

No, let's not take a step back and try to fix the numerous glaring faults this vehicle presented with our game mechanics, instead let's ignore historical data and make the machine fit those ridiculous parameters. It's not as if anyone will notice! (Five + threads and hundreds of pages of posts, and still climbing..)

 

This is a company who's sole difference from Wargaming's offerings is this facade of "historical accuracy" , when in practice they are more than willing to claim "secret test documents" when beaten over the head with a copy of "Armored Thunderbolt" or "Sherman".  (Or actual A/C flight manuals.. Their flight model justifications for many soviet aircraft consist of a two sentence paragraph, usually "The aircraft displayed superb climb and performance tendencies", while doing things like introducing the P-38J with the flight parameters of the non turbo-supercharged Mod 322 then basically ignoring the bug reports for over a year).

 

Wargaming at least took the road of "Hey, it's a game, we'll keep em close but expect "balance".

 

Gaijin on the other hand made a huge deal of "historical accuracy" then fails to even crack a book to proof their models.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most game designers achieve balance by modifying the strength of units in a battle, so Jutland by Avalon Hill overestimated the throw weight of German ships, in many games ships like the Bismarck are given armor ratings many times that of the Nelsons, and at Midway American air units are FAR stronger than they were historically.

 

That's kind of weird because the US air capability was actually pretty strong. Both Jimmy Thach and Dick Best turned in very good performances with their squadrons that day, the US had a lot of squadrons to throw at the Japanese between three decks and Midway, and US CAP had much earlier warning due to good radar control rather than looking to see which pickets were putting up flak. Not having all their killing power in short 20mm magazines helped a lot too. Wargaming Midway would get very ugly very fast because the way the splintered US flight groups attacked and the problem with the Japanese getting caught off guard are vital to the battle and would be very tricky to model.

 

The biggest problem with Midway is that to model it right the first Japanese strike has to go against the island and good freaking luck getting the Japanese player to do that.

 

 

Edit: I suspect that their game engine has a radiator hit built into its tables and they do not desire to have Stuarts have a unique hit table.

 

In that case why not a 1x1x1 shim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Thach and Best turned in what is known as a super-optimal performance - NO amount of modeling would normally predict what happened in that event using any model which can be built.  That is what makes the actions of that day so amazing and the people involved heroes.  Which means Midway is a outlier.  

 

Given the forces available and the tactics used, Midway should have been a loss for the Americans. Japanese recon just happened to be weak in the one area it was needed to be strong, and two mistakes that the Japanese made are mistakes no war-gamer would ever make - throwing a first strike at Midway and then the arm and rearm fiasco.  

 

Look at it this way.  Early in my career I was present at a plane crash is Sioux City, Iowa (actually a hour late as I was about 50 miles away when we were notified it was coming in).  Our expert pilot, a Vietnam vet, took one look at the scar on the ground and new what happened, the pilot did not line up his approach right and did not properly account for crosswind, allowing a wing to stall and flip the plane into a million pieces.  The video footage some ANG guy took confirmed the expert opinion from the expert witness.  His expert opinion was based upon weighing best facts, and comparing what he saw with when he had seen for thirty odd years as a flyer.  

 

Only he was wrong.  When he found out what actually happened he said someone was making the story up, because it was impossible.  The pilots and one more guy had, when control had been lost to the plane, flown the aircraft using only the thrust controls.  CBS put twenty master pilots into the best state of the art simulators and simulated the same error.  The pilots had days to plan what they would do, and had the exact data to aid in their flying the simulator, and the best that any pilot did was lawn dart their plane four kilometers from the runway, most died in minutes of the loss of control as the three people could not work together well enough and stalled the airliner trying to make their first turn.  Scale RC simulations since then always ends up with lawn darts.  To this day the feat of those three pilots in bringing that airliner in is so impossible that it is never ever taught by most schools.  Complete loss of primary control is a fatal event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did this to the M4 as well. Had the radiator horizontally mounted across the top of the engine. The current M41 still has some wacky "radiator".

 

More howlers in that M3 image are the locations of the fuel cell, and the munitions racks.  It's like they just threw parts in the hull and gave it a brisk shake.

 

The really stupid part is- They implemented the vehicles this way.

 

It was as if the people they paid to make test and approve the models could not be bothered to crack a book, of any kind, to proofcheck their work before introducing some ridiculous modelling such as that.

 

Eventually after many many bug reports they -kind of- fixed some of the really glaring bugs, but it's as if they literally have nobody checking the finished work before rubber-stamping it out the door.

 

The M-18, the model looks okay, but because of the 'cat's performance it quickly became a source for complaint because of how Gaijin cobbled it's ground forces terrain modelling (and their ridiculous maps/missions, and laughable damage modelling. All that aside-).

 

A vehicle that could do 50 MPH over flat terrain is going to win a countdown based capture the flag map far more effectively than a Tiger I or IS..

That's not the fault of the vehicle, that's crappy implementation and map design.

SO how does Gaijin address this?

 

Nerf the M-18. In numerous ways.

Brilliant!

 

No, let's not take a step back and try to fix the numerous glaring faults this vehicle presented with our game mechanics, instead let's ignore historical data and make the machine fit those ridiculous parameters. It's not as if anyone will notice! (Five + threads and hundreds of pages of posts, and still climbing..)

 

This is a company who's sole difference from Wargaming's offerings is this facade of "historical accuracy" , when in practice they are more than willing to claim "secret test documents" when beaten over the head with a copy of "Armored Thunderbolt" or "Sherman".  (Or actual A/C flight manuals.. Their flight model justifications for many soviet aircraft consist of a two sentence paragraph, usually "The aircraft displayed superb climb and performance tendencies", while doing things like introducing the P-38J with the flight parameters of the non turbo-supercharged Mod 322 then basically ignoring the bug reports for over a year).

 

Wargaming at least took the road of "Hey, it's a game, we'll keep em close but expect "balance".

 

Gaijin on the other hand made a huge deal of "historical accuracy" then fails to even crack a book to proof their models.   

 

First, do not feel I am defending Gaijin.  I am explaining why it happens, not condoning it.

 

The original war-games were designed so that Generals could learn to be Generals without spending the money to get the troops out into the field.  Accuracy was important, but there was an aspect of political accuracy.  Simulationists who worked with military gaming had pretty early on found that the Minie rifle was the death knell for offensive cavalry.  But Minie armed rifles were nerfed in table top exercises for many years in German high command.  When the Chassepot was adopted by the French the German war game masters assigned it a firepower rating of the Dreyse but the range of a Minie, which caused political howls among many Generals who soon discovered that cavalry got decimated by Chassepot armed units.  Likewise there was a political group who opposed use of steel in artillery, preferring brass, and they insisted that steel cannon be toned down and have several disadvantages applied to them.  So the M18, which by numbers should not be the most effective tank killer in the ETO, was in real life a monster.  Why?  Because the turning mechanism on a tank turret is a major factor when engaging fast vehicles, because the M18 had gyros which allowed quick pre and post move shots, and because in Europe few tank battles occurred at 2500 meters, most happened at 500 where the 76mm had a good chance of achieving an Mkill.  The M18 is less sexy than the Tiger, so making it the killer it was is unpopular.

 

Combine that with budget constraints that limit research time and you have money and pissed off customers as the main answer not to go for accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of a serious scenario sim, I agree, you are simulating a set of events.  You can "bias" to try and enhance the realism.

 

However that is not the case with Warthunder.  It's a vehicle simulator where you are facing opponents in numbers the real vehicle never saw.  (Me262's facing F86's for example. Yes, it happens.)

 

I know what you mean about the "maintaining the image" as well, but at that point can you call it a "historically accurate simulation" ? Eventually you chase all your customers off (Something Gaijin seems unusually apt at)

 

An aside-

 

 

the M-18 did not mount a gyrostabilizer. Just a scarily fast power traverse. (image related)- The handwheel to the far right is the manual elevation (very light and fast), then you see a knob on a lever, that's the manual firing lever. Then the pistol-grip of the power traverse, and the vertical crank off the manual traverse (two speed).

 

PbrWLzg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of getting too involved in the "Ronson debate", nor complicate matters further.  However, have a look at at wartime advertising for Ronson's competitor, Zippo. You will find the expression "lights every time" WAS used as an advertising slogan, for Zippo.. In addition, I am pretty sure that I have seen a Nazi propaganda leaflet referring to Sherman's with the phrase "lights every time"

 

Just for the record, I do not think Sherman's were more likely to burn than other WWII tanks, especially once wet storage of ammunition came into use.

 

Cheers

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of getting too involved in the "Ronson debate", nor complicate matters further.  However, have a look at at wartime advertising for Ronson's competitor, Zippo. You will find the expression "lights every time" used as an advertising slogan. In addition, I am pretty sure that I have seen a Nazi propaganda leaflet referring to Sherman's with the phrase "lights every time"

 

Just for the record, I do not think Sherman's were more likely to burn than other WWII tanks, especially once wet storage of ammunition came into use.

 

Cheers

Marsh

Post the leaflet. Easy enough. I read German.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't got the leaflet. It was in English, not German, aimed at Allied troops, not German ones. I can not find a link.

 

Meplat, let me just edit this as I think you misunderstand my intent - 

 

1. I do NOT believe that the Sherman was referred to as a Ronson by Allied troops during the war. Possible exceptions being the flamethrower variants and then used in a complimentary manner rather than a dismissive one.

 

2. I was merely pointing out that the expression "lights every time" was a wartime advertising slogan, but for Zippo, not Ronson lighters.

 

3. I am 60 years of age and have being doing historical research in military affairs long before the internet and probably long before you were born. I am pretty sure I have seen a German propaganda leaflet referring - in English - to Sherman's lighting every time. I do not have a link to said leaflet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of a serious scenario sim, I agree, you are simulating a set of events.  You can "bias" to try and enhance the realism.

 

However that is not the case with Warthunder.  It's a vehicle simulator where you are facing opponents in numbers the real vehicle never saw.  (Me262's facing F86's for example. Yes, it happens.)

 

I know what you mean about the "maintaining the image" as well, but at that point can you call it a "historically accurate simulation" ? Eventually you chase all your customers off (Something Gaijin seems unusually apt at)

 

An aside-

 

 

the M-18 did not mount a gyrostabilizer. Just a scarily fast power traverse. (image related)- The handwheel to the far right is the manual elevation (very light and fast), then you see a knob on a lever, that's the manual firing lever. Then the pistol-grip of the power traverse, and the vertical crank off the manual traverse (two speed).

 

PbrWLzg.jpg

 

 

I did not know this.  I have been in four Hellcats in the US, all in movie use, and I actually spun the turret on one, and the turret was a shock at how accurate you could move it. I assumed its light feel was the gyro.  An here I mean when the M18 was moving I was able to not only keep a crosshair on a stationary target, but swing between two targets.  I wonder if the quality of the turret movement is related to weight of the turret?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know this.  I have been in four Hellcats in the US, all in movie use, and I actually spun the turret on one, and the turret was a shock at how accurate you could move it. I assumed its light feel was the gyro.  An here I mean when the M18 was moving I was able to not only keep a crosshair on a stationary target, but swing between two targets.  I wonder if the quality of the turret movement is related to weight of the turret?

Perhaps both weight and balance. The early M10s were a nightmare to lock on to the target because of poor weight distribution, hence the duckbill and other modifications to the turret rear. This actually increased weight but improved balance and consequently accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't got the leaflet. It was in English, not German, aimed at Allied troops, not German ones. I can not find a link.

 

Meplat, let me just edit this as I think you misunderstand my intent - 

 

1. I do NOT believe that the Sherman was referred to as a Ronson by Allied troops during the war. Possible exceptions being the flamethrower variants and then used in a complimentary manner rather than a dismissive one.

 

2. I was merely pointing out that the expression "lights every time" was a wartime advertising slogan, but for Zippo, not Ronson lighters.

 

3. I am 60 years of age and have being doing historical research in military affairs long before the internet and probably long before you were born. I am pretty sure I have seen a German propaganda leaflet referring - in English - to Sherman's lighting every time. I do not have a link to said leaflet

 

I was just hoping you had a copy of the paper...

I did not know this.  I have been in four Hellcats in the US, all in movie use, and I actually spun the turret on one, and the turret was a shock at how accurate you could move it. I assumed its light feel was the gyro.  An here I mean when the M18 was moving I was able to not only keep a crosshair on a stationary target, but swing between two targets.  I wonder if the quality of the turret movement is related to weight of the turret?

Oh no, the stabs of that era would only operate in elevation anyhow, and in the '18 it's manual El, power/manual Az. 

 

Now a lot of the live M18's have the power traverse deactivated for "normal" use, because it's stupidly fast.  Like carnival-ride quick. SO depending on which gear you have the manual traverse in, it can spin pretty fast.  I'm told the SOP was to leave the manual in high ratio, and use the power for quick/coarse adjustment and the manual for fine.

 

The only time I'm cranking on it though is when the silly thing is broken down.. Usually to get to the batteries.. It's easy to spin because the mount is well balanced, and there's a huge assed radio in the bustle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of getting too involved in the "Ronson debate", nor complicate matters further.  However, have a look at at wartime advertising for Ronson's competitor, Zippo. You will find the expression "lights every time" WAS used as an advertising slogan, for Zippo.. In addition, I am pretty sure that I have seen a Nazi propaganda leaflet referring to Sherman's with the phrase "lights every time"

 

Just for the record, I do not think Sherman's were more likely to burn than other WWII tanks, especially once wet storage of ammunition came into use.

 

Cheers

Marsh

 

It's an interesting lead.

 

Now if we can start finding some wartime Zippo adverts.

 

Thanks Marsh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...