Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Sharpshooters
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Smokeskin @ Jul 27 2011, 08:58 AM) *
... or "high angle" just means high compared to normal shooting but not above 45 degrees.


Pretty much this.

Also, I think the intent was to get an Afghani sniper to duck or otherwise stop shooting at him, not with any real hope of actually killing the guy, but he scored a lucky hit and took out the sniper's rifle.





-k
CanRay
Still prefer the tankers solution to snipers.

Then again, I also like explosions...
MikeKozar
QUOTE (Smokeskin @ Jul 27 2011, 04:58 AM) *
So let's see.

Either the soldier actually fired his weapon in a wholly ineffective way against his better knowledge.

Or the soldier fired the weapon effectively, and either KarmaInferno heard the story wrong, or the guy who told him the story told it wrong, or KI told it wrong, or "high angle" just means high compared to normal shooting but not above 45 degrees.


That's the third post you've made which attacks KarmaInferno for his improbable Soviet anecdote. Just curious - were you looking for a retraction, an apology, or both?

I did some Googling, and it looks like machine guns have historically been used in indirect fire mode, particularly when ammo is plentiful and area denial is an objective. One example given is on the Western Front in WWI, where machine guns were used to pepper the area behind the trenches to make resupply difficult. Source: http://www.ww2f.com/small-arms-edged-weapo...-effective.html

The trick seems to be that historically, it is used as suppression fire, and enemy casualties were not the main objective. There seems to be some question as to how lethal a lucky hit from an indirect barrage of machinegun fire would be, but if you're just trying to harass enemy movement and logistics, it could be of significant psychological value.

As far as sniping someone at close range with an assault rifle, by shooting nearly straight up? Seems like more trouble then it's worth. After all, situations like that are what grenades are for.
Blitz66
I don't know how true it is, but my high school physics teacher said that a bullet fired into the air would come down with almost exactly the same force it had when it left the barrel, because air resistance on it is negligible and gravity would act equally to slow it down and then to speed it back up, over the same distance. So the force shouldn't really be an issue.

The real problem is aiming. Even if you had a formula on hand to calculate the precise angle you need, the best it could do, in my opinion, would put it in the center of a fairly wide circle that the bullet will fall into. Every tiny irregularity affecting its flight path would have the full length of the parabola to alter the trajectory. So yeah, you could put lead into the air for indirect fire, but unless you're firing into an enemy mosh pit, you're probably not going to hit anything worth hitting, even with the perfect angle provided to you. Cover fire is the only really effective way to use it.

Unless you happen to have an enemy mosh pit handy. In that case, have fun.
KarmaInferno
As I said a few posts ago, "high angle" meant "higher than is normal for direct fire". Apologies if I was unclear.

Mythbusters did testing on actual high angle gunfire, though, and concluded that if the round was being fired at a steep enough angle to actually have gravity be able to significantly bleed off the force, then yes, the bullet would be more or less non-lethal when it finally came back down. This happened mostly at very high to vertical angles - the bullet would lose momentum and slow down, stop, and gravity would pull it back down. Really, it would be no different than someone up at the apex of the bullet's flight just dropping a bullet. At worst maybe you'd get a bruise if it hit you.

However, at lower angles where the bullet can mostly maintain it's forward velocity throughout it's arc, the round was probably still very much lethal if it actually hit someone. There's been actually quite few incidents of accidental shootings this way - one medical center in LA reported in a ten year span in the 80s to the 90s over a hundred cases of folks getting hit by bullets fired into the air around the holidays. About a third were killed in the accidents.

QUOTE
I don't know how true it is, but my high school physics teacher said that a bullet fired into the air would come down with almost exactly the same force it had when it left the barrel, because air resistance on it is negligible and gravity would act equally to slow it down and then to speed it back up, over the same distance. So the force shouldn't really be an issue.


It's not true. The amount of force exerted by the powder charge of a bullet being fired is MUCH greater than anything gravity can impart to the same bullet. The only reason gravity can stop a vertically fired bullet is because gravity exerts a continuous downwards force, whereas the bullet's upward energy is supplied all at once from the powder charge.

Also, the story I related, if it is indeed true, had the soldier using multiple rounds, adjusting his angle as his spotter told him how far he was off target. Which is what "walking fire' means.



-k
CanRay
Math is hard. I'm going to go make cookies for the boys. Tee hee.
Smokeskin
QUOTE (MikeKozar @ Jul 28 2011, 06:15 AM) *
That's the third post you've made which attacks KarmaInferno for his improbable Soviet anecdote. Just curious - were you looking for a retraction, an apology, or both?


I don't think there's anything wrong with KarmaInferno's story. Walking fire in with a spotter isn't uncommon with for example tri-pod mounted machine guns. The technique can be used without a mount, but it is very difficult because you're aiming at a spot in the air and have to correct from that - which is why it is a good story that a guy does it with an AK-47.

It was only the interpretation that he was aiming at an angle above 45 degrees I was objecting to. I wasn't looking for anything from KarmaInferno, except maybe the confirmation that the story wasn't about aiming above 45 degrees, which he gave. He and I are seem to be in perfect agreement on it.

QUOTE (MikeKozar @ Jul 28 2011, 06:15 AM) *
I did some Googling, and it looks like machine guns have historically been used in indirect fire mode, particularly when ammo is plentiful and area denial is an objective. One example given is on the Western Front in WWI, where machine guns were used to pepper the area behind the trenches to make resupply difficult. Source: http://www.ww2f.com/small-arms-edged-weapo...-effective.html


Indirect fire doesn't have to be plunging though. If the terrain is right, you can place yourself so a small hill covers your position, but the bullets can arc over it and hit the target without plunging. Much more deadly and much more precise. If you want to drop bullets down into trenches, you'll need plunging fire by firing closer to vertical. It needs a mount made for it I would think, or digging a hole for a mount so it is steady and pointing upwards though, as most mounts won't elevate that high. Without elevation markers or some other way of aiming, you'd be very hard pressed to get rounds falling into the area for any type of indirect fire.
Traul
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Jul 28 2011, 06:15 AM) *
It's not true. The amount of force exerted by the powder charge of a bullet being fired is MUCH greater than anything gravity can impart to the same bullet. The only reason gravity can stop a vertically fired bullet is because gravity exerts a continuous downwards force, whereas the bullet's upward energy is supplied all at once from the powder charge.
You missed the point. The gravity magnitude does not matter. Gravity slows down the bullet on the way up, then it accelerates it on the way down, and the two exactly cancel each other. If the target is at the same altitude as the shooter, the bullet reaches him at muzzle speed. What if you take the same shot on Jupiter? Muzzle speed. And on the moon? Muzzle speed too.

The only thing that really slows down the bullet is air friction. Indirect fire is less lethal than direct because the trajectory is longer so the bullet suffers from more friction. Gravity has nothing to do with that.
Smokeskin
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Jul 28 2011, 07:15 AM) *
However, at lower angles where the bullet can mostly maintain it's forward velocity throughout it's arc, the round was probably still very much lethal if it actually hit someone. There's been actually quite few incidents of accidental shootings this way - one medical center in LA reported in a ten year span in the 80s to the 90s over a hundred cases of folks getting hit by bullets fired into the air around the holidays. About a third were killed in the accidents.


Under normal firing, the drag forces on the bullet is strong enough to overcome the gyroscopic effect and keep it pointing nose forward. If you fire it close to straight up, at the top of the arc the trajectory changes direction quickly while the air speed is so low the drag can't overcome the gyroscopic force. So the bullet is now travelling somewhere between backwards and sidewards through the air, and drag destabilizes it - the axis of spin remains largely unchanged compared to the ground, but the bullets orientation changes so it is no longer spinning nose-to-tail (sort of like a spinning top as it falls). I'm pretty sure this is what mythbusters saw, the projectiles were hitting the ground sideways, but they misinterpreted why - I believe there was still spin along a vertical axis, but the bullet had turned so it's length axis was describing a cone.

Falling that way, the bullet has high air resistance and won't hit hard, and getting killed by that would be very unlucky.

A bullet that can keep its nose oriented in the direction of flight however, that will hit very hard, especially a rifle bullet with a high ballistic coefficient - it is very aerodynamic and has a high sectional density, so its terminal velocity will be significant.
Smokeskin
QUOTE (Blitz66 @ Jul 28 2011, 06:47 AM) *
I don't know how true it is, but my high school physics teacher said that a bullet fired into the air would come down with almost exactly the same force it had when it left the barrel, because air resistance on it is negligible and gravity would act equally to slow it down and then to speed it back up, over the same distance. So the force shouldn't really be an issue.


Air resistance is very significant. The round I use for hunting loses 32% of its velocity in just 300 meters of flight. Even a .408 Cheytac round loses over 10% of its velocity over 300 meters.

Because of this, the bullet won't go nearly as high as would be needed to accelerate it back up to muzzle speed even if it was in a vacuum on the way down, and air resistance will slow it falling down too. And is I commented above, if fired too straight up, it won't come down nose first, making it even worse.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Traul @ Jul 28 2011, 05:06 AM) *
You missed the point. The gravity magnitude does not matter. Gravity slows down the bullet on the way up, then it accelerates it on the way down, and the two exactly cancel each other. If the target is at the same altitude as the shooter, the bullet reaches him at muzzle speed. What if you take the same shot on Jupiter? Muzzle speed. And on the moon? Muzzle speed too.

The only thing that really slows down the bullet is air friction.

Incorrect.

A) Escape Velocity is a little above 11000 meters a second.

An AK can generate barely 715 meters a second. Even on a planet with no atmosphere, gravity would still eventually overcome the bullet's momentum and drag it back. Air friction does have an effect as well, but it's not the only effect in play.

B) There is a maximum downward force gravity can impart to a bullet.

You know that air friction you mentioned? Applies against gravity too. Only since the overall pull of gravity at any given point is much lower, you reach the point where the downward pull of gravity is equal to the resistive effect of air friction MUCH faster. At this point gravity cannot accelerate the bullet any further. This is known as terminal velocity.

The gun overcomes the air friction on the upwards leg of travel by sheer massive force.


QUOTE (Traul @ Jul 28 2011, 05:06 AM) *
Indirect fire is less lethal than direct because the trajectory is longer so the bullet suffers from more friction. Gravity has nothing to do with that.


This part is somewhat true. However, if the AK is generating 1500 foot pounds of force to a target, and 600 foot pounds is the lethal amount, reducing the bullet's striking force to 1200 FP or 1000 FP is still "lethal", even if it is technically "less lethal".





-k
MikeKozar
QUOTE (Smokeskin @ Jul 28 2011, 12:50 AM) *
Indirect fire doesn't have to be plunging though. If the terrain is right, you can place yourself so a small hill covers your position, but the bullets can arc over it and hit the target without plunging. Much more deadly and much more precise. If you want to drop bullets down into trenches, you'll need plunging fire by firing closer to vertical. It needs a mount made for it I would think, or digging a hole for a mount so it is steady and pointing upwards though, as most mounts won't elevate that high. Without elevation markers or some other way of aiming, you'd be very hard pressed to get rounds falling into the area for any type of indirect fire.


No, no, of course not. Per the linked webpage, the indirect fire wasn't going into the trenches, but rather being spread around the field behind the trenchworks. That is to say, if you were trying to run supplies in from the next town, you would need to worry about stray bullets until you got into the trenches, and that was deliberate. I suspect that this only works if the elevation to drop behind is reasonably low and the distance is reasonably far, but I would probably consider letting players in my game use a heavy weapon for suppression fire over a wider range if the situation was right and the enemy had appropriate odds of a miss.
Mardrax
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Jul 28 2011, 07:31 PM) *
Incorrect.

I think he was just talking about the bullet impacting the ground at the same speed it left the muzzle, if it'd be fired straight up. This would be mostly correct when ignoring air resistance, which a high school physics teacher would often be happy to do. (mostly, because I'm assuming the muzzle isn't at ground level)
Sadly, you can't.

While a bullet is generally shaped for optimal aerodynamics, and fired from a rifled barrel to keep it on a course that makes maximum use of that, air resistance is still considerable on an object with that kind of speed. When it comes back down, it likely loses the stabilising spin, starts tumbling and rolling, and aerodynamics go to hell, increasing air resistance manifold.

This not only makes impact speed smaller, but very likely also makes impact area larger, since it's unlikely the bullet strikes point-down. This distributes the force over a much larger area, which decreases trauma, and greatly decreases chances of penetration.
Aku
QUOTE (Mardrax @ Jul 28 2011, 01:54 PM) *
I think he was just talking about the bullet impacting the ground at the same speed it left the muzzle, if it'd be fired straight up. This would be mostly correct when ignoring air resistance, which a high school physics teacher would often be happy to do. (mostly, because I'm assuming the muzzle isn't at ground level)
Sadly, you can't.

While a bullet is generally shaped for optimal aerodynamics, and fired from a rifled barrel to keep it on a course that makes maximum use of that, air resistance is still considerable on an object with that kind of speed. When it comes back down, it likely loses the stabilising spin, starts tumbling and rolling, and aerodynamics go to hell, increasing air resistance manifold.

This not only makes impact speed smaller, but very likely also makes impact area larger, since it's unlikely the bullet strikes point-down. This distributes the force over a much larger area, which decreases trauma, and greatly decreases chances of penetration.


This was found in the aforementioned mythbusters episode as well, iirc. instead of getting a "hole",shaped like a bullet, the ground had an oblong indention, indicating that the bullet had turned sideways and was tumbling on its return trip.
Smokeskin
QUOTE (Aku @ Jul 28 2011, 08:04 PM) *
This was found in the aforementioned mythbusters episode as well, iirc. instead of getting a "hole",shaped like a bullet, the ground had an oblong indention, indicating that the bullet had turned sideways and was tumbling on its return trip.


This is most likely not the case though. The axis of spin is still vertical, but the bullet just isn't pointing nose up. External ballistics studies have shown this, and it is very difficult to imagine the force that would eliminate the bullet's spin.
Aku
QUOTE (mythbusterresults.com)
Bullets fired into the air maintain their lethal capability when they eventually fall back down.

busted / plausible / confirmed

In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.
Mardrax
Shame Mythbusters is far from a reliable source. They've messed things up on more than one occassion.
DWC
QUOTE (Smokeskin @ Jul 28 2011, 01:22 PM) *
This is most likely not the case though. The axis of spin is still vertical, but the bullet just isn't pointing nose up. External ballistics studies have shown this, and it is very difficult to imagine the force that would eliminate the bullet's spin.


The same air resistance that saps the round's forward (or vertical in this case) velocity is going to degrade the angular momentum, reducing the spin. The forces are easy to imagine from a fluid mechanics perspective.
CanRay
There's only one solution to this: TO THE FIRING RANGE!!!

*Runs off and comes back sheepishly* Um... You folks in the States can do that...
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jul 28 2011, 01:38 PM) *
There's only one solution to this: TO THE FIRING RANGE!!!

*Runs off and comes back sheepishly* Um... You folks in the States can do that...


Heh... No Range, eh CanRay? Poor Canadian... smile.gif
CanRay
No range, no firearm, not wanting to deal with all the watch lists I'd be put on for purchasing a legal one with today's laws...

Damned 'Tories, I agree with them on one thing, and it's the one they bail out on.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jul 28 2011, 01:49 PM) *
No range, no firearm, not wanting to deal with all the watch lists I'd be put on for purchasing a legal one with today's laws...

Damned 'Tories, I agree with them on one thing, and it's the one they bail out on.


frown.gif
CanRay
Don't even get me started on the firearms registry and the travesty that's been.

Back to shooting people in the face for money at one mile, please, before I get started.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jul 28 2011, 02:09 PM) *
Don't even get me started on the firearms registry and the travesty that's been.

Back to shooting people in the face for money at one mile, please, before I get started.


How about that BARRETT? Hell of a Rifle...
Stahlseele
And it's kinda legally obtainable right?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jul 28 2011, 03:33 PM) *
And it's kinda legally obtainable right?


Costs about $9,000 or so, yes. For Hunting, of Course.
Stahlseele
of course.
for like.
i don't know . .
what IS ther to hunt in america?
i mean, what is LEFT to hunt?
Traul
Liberals?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jul 28 2011, 04:00 PM) *
of course.
for like.
i don't know . .
what IS ther to hunt in america?
i mean, what is LEFT to hunt?


Ahh, Come on...

In Colorado Alone:
Bear
Elk
Moose
Antelope
Deer
Mule Deer
Turkey

Our Ranch in Texas has
Deer
Mule Deer
Sika Deer
Axis Deer
Russian Wild Boar
Javalina
Antelope
Black Bear (Though you better be mauled if you shoot a Bear in Texas, as they are not allowed for hunting, and will get you arrested because there are not that many on the Edwards plateau (15 to 20 known bear in 1995)

Of course, none of these need a Barrett... My 6.5mm Swedish works on all but the Bear
Of course, the Barrett DOES work for Liberals... smile.gif
Miri
And everywhere else.. politicians.
Smokeskin
QUOTE (DWC @ Jul 28 2011, 09:21 PM) *
The same air resistance that saps the round's forward (or vertical in this case) velocity is going to degrade the angular momentum, reducing the spin. The forces are easy to imagine from a fluid mechanics perspective.


A rifle with a 1:10" twist at 800 m/s will spin 2,400 times per second or 144,000 rpm. That's a lot of spin you need to reduce by surface friction alone, quite different from the forward movement that also has to push air aside. Imagine the sort of friction needed to reduce spin by 200 rps or 12,000 rpm EACH second - it would still take 12 seconds to get rid of the spin.

As it starts to fall back to earth and the bullets orientation changes, it now has to push air aside to spin though. But even if we imagine the bullet tip is 1 cm away from the spin axis, this is only 6.3 cm circumference per revolution, so it is only rotating at about 150 m/s, and that's the tip, the rest of the bullet is moving slower. That's fairly slow and it won't be enough air resistance to bleed away 144,000 rpm of spin, especially when you consider that the air resistance drops as the spin slows.

So sure, the forces are easy to imagine, but once you quantify it, it looks very different.

Also, doppler radar measurements of bullets in flight confirm this. Bullets don't lose their spin in flight, period.
Blitz66
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jul 28 2011, 10:00 PM) *
of course.
for like.
i don't know . .
what IS ther to hunt in america?
i mean, what is LEFT to hunt?

My family's farm in Kansas is one of the best places to hunt whitetail dear in the country. There are also coyotes, bobcats, wild turkey, and quail.

So, apparently my high school physics teacher was wrong, and dismissed the air resistance incorrectly. Good to know. I'm not buying the idea that the spin stops, though. Insufficient force acting on it, as demonstrated by numbers and tests, apparently.
CanRay
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jul 28 2011, 05:00 PM) *
of course.
for like.
i don't know . .
what IS ther to hunt in america?
i mean, what is LEFT to hunt?
Scared Canadian Tourists.
MikeKozar
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jul 28 2011, 02:00 PM) *
of course.
for like.
i don't know . .
what IS ther to hunt in america?
i mean, what is LEFT to hunt?


The thing to remember about America is that it is *BIG*, as in there is a *lot* of undeveloped spaces where there are still some big critters. I've had work about 8 miles from Seattle, and they mentioned that they had brown bears going after their birdfeeders. A friend went to a tech conference in another state and was warned by the front desk staff before he went jogging at dawn, because that's when the local mountain lions are most active. Not to mention the sort of stuff you find in the Everglades - not hard to find stories of 7 to 10 foot alligators (that's about three meters, BTW) that wander into populated areas in Florida. The only thing I would consider using a Barrett on though would be a bull moose - those things are bigger then my car. I think those are mostly Alaska, though.

Seriously, those guns are for killing engine blocks.


QUOTE (Traul @ Jul 28 2011, 02:13 PM) *
Liberals?


Hey, now. biggrin.gif
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (MikeKozar @ Jul 28 2011, 10:10 PM) *
The thing to remember about America is that it is *BIG*

I have a few friends from Europe that upon visiting the US, they are flabbergasted at driving for days and days and still not running out of USA to travel.

Hell, a couple of our states you can drive 800 miles in a straight line and not leave the state.

Tons of wildlife in them thar hills & woods. smile.gif



-k
Blitz66
QUOTE (MikeKozar @ Jul 29 2011, 03:10 AM) *
Hey, now. biggrin.gif

Now? Yes. Good idea. Since you suggest it, now is the best time for liberal-hunting.
Mardrax
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jul 29 2011, 02:15 AM) *
Scared Canadian Tourists.

"Oh my $deity! I just shot you! Are you alright?"
"Oh, I'm sorry, I completely stepped into your line of fire there, my bad. You have my apologies. Would you like me to refund the bullet? I'm truly sorry."
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Mardrax @ Jul 29 2011, 06:57 AM) *
"Oh my $deity! I just shot you! Are you alright?"
"Oh, I'm sorry, I completely stepped into your line of fire there, my bad. You have my apologies. Would you like me to refund the bullet? I'm truly sorry."


Heh... Awesome... smile.gif
Dreadlord
QUOTE (Mardrax @ Jul 29 2011, 08:57 AM) *
"Oh my $deity! I just shot you! Are you alright?"
"Oh, I'm sorry, I completely stepped into your line of fire there, my bad. You have my apologies. Would you like me to refund the bullet? I'm truly sorry."


Wouldn't you also have to say that in French immediately afterwards? wink.gif
CanRay
QUOTE (MikeKozar @ Jul 28 2011, 10:10 PM) *
The thing to remember about America is that it is *BIG*
And if you think the USA is big and spread out, try Canada and prepare to freak the hell out.

I know I did when I woke up in the Prairies.
QUOTE (Dreadlord @ Jul 29 2011, 11:10 AM) *
Wouldn't you also have to say that in French immediately afterwards? wink.gif
Only if it's written.
MikeKozar
QUOTE (Blitz66 @ Jul 28 2011, 08:36 PM) *
Now? Yes. Good idea. Since you suggest it, now is the best time for liberal-hunting.



Sorry, I wasn't clear. When I said "Hey now! biggrin.gif " I was trying to say that I know we're all friends here, but this is not the place to start flamewars about American politics. Maybe we could get back to talking about Shadowrun, huh?
CanRay
Considering that Liberal is an actual political party in Canada, I was wondering if we were going to get a major hunting tourism boom up here again.

After they cancelled the spring bear hunts which cut the knees off a lot of Northern Communities, and increased the bear populations to where they started to be a problem to humans and the other wildlife in the area... Well, something new would be a good option.
suoq
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jul 28 2011, 04:00 PM) *
of course.
for like.
i don't know . .
what IS ther to hunt in america?
i mean, what is LEFT to hunt?

http://outdoornebraska.ne.gov/hunting.asp

In Nebraska, the only barrier to hunting is getting into the "overbooked the second they're announced" Hunter Safety courses. On the good side for us, the BSA summer camp out here offers Hunter Safety to all boys earning their Rifle Shooting or Shotgun Shooting merit badges, so my son is now good to go and a couple of the leaders who hunt have offered to take him with them this season.

-------------

On gravity: The deceleration force at any given height is equal to the acceleration force at any the same height or, in Portal Physics. Speedy thing goes up, Speedy thing goes down.

Air resistance and fluid mechanics are still serious barriers to velocity. Gravity is not.
CanRay
In Canada, there is quite a bit of hunting that goes on. (We're a country of rocks and trees after all.).

Our obstacle is the firearms laws currently on the books which makes it really frightening to attempt to buy or inherit a firearm unless you got in when the laws went into place and you were able to get in through the Grandfather Clauses... frown.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012