|
Post by britishball on Oct 20, 2018 14:37:27 GMT -6
I never said that Uboats weren't effective compared to how much the Germans wasted on Wunderwaffe or overly complicated tanks or planes, just that barring a few odd months the submarines as a whole never pulled their weight; either compared to the Heer or Luftwaffe. Submarines "pulled their weight" with a factor of almost 10:1 even when averaged over the entire war and including the years of 1943-45. I already linked the report before, but feel free to read it again and point out the flaws you can find in it when coming to this conclusion that the submarines never pulled their weight: web.archive.org/web/20080409052122/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.htmlThe performance of the submarine as far as I have read was superior in efficiency to any weapon in use in the Luftwaffe or Heer that I have read about, but do feel free to attempt to prove me wrong. Actually the closest anyone came to beating Britain was the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain when they were bombing airfields, a lot of similar documentaries claim that if they kept bombing them rather than switching to London they could have knocked out the RAF by preventing it from taking off, this is of course also wrong, you can take a Spitfire or Hurricane off on any field provided its long enough, refuelling and repairs would be a nightmare as would coordinating 40 planes taking off from random fields in a twenty mile radius but if there is one thing we proved in WW2 its that the British are good at adapting and persevering, "Keep calm and carry on" etc. But whilst there was little problem producing planes we did have a shortage of pilots, the Battle of Britain was never going to be won in 1940 but if Hitler had kept it going rather than switching to attack the Soviets he could have ground down our pilots to nothing but the same dregs that the Japanese were left with in 1945, and won that way I disagree strongly with this view. According to what I read over half of the pilots survived getting shot down and the battle of Britain was fought over British soil. This means that for each pilot lost by the British Germany will lose 2-3 pilots, so any shortage of pilots would ( and did ) hit the Luftwaffe over twice as hard as it hit the RAF. During the battle of Britain the RAF historically lost 1500 aircrew and the Luftwaffe lost 3500 ( killed or captured ). On top of this we have the fact that the RAF had a flood of experienced volunteer pilots applying from all of the defeated allied nations of Europe ( especially Poland ) as well as American volunteer pilots. Germany had no such thing to rely on, but had to pay precious oil and use precious airplanes for the long and cumbersome job of training new aircrew from scratch. Even if the Luftwaffe had focused on hitting the RAF airfields in southern UK there are plenty of airfields they can retreat to further north that are out of range from Me 109 escort meaing bombers must hit them unescorted ( a distaster ), and airfields that can field fighters are very cheap and easy to build more of as needed. Point is we wouldn't have known how strongly the Soviet people would fight without seeing it, just as we wouldn't have known how well the British could adapt without seeing it (I mean we went in with biplanes and came out with Jet fighters) so that is why I am pushing for as accurate a simulation as can be achieved. And a little less emphasis on "just blockade them with Uboats" as the default tactic. I fully agree that a blockade with just more uboats alone could never have defeated or starved Britain. A multi pronged approach to isolate them would have been needed focusing on things like: - Keeping USA out of the war at any and all costs
- Supporting the uboats with long range airpower, both for recon purposes and to hit convoys and escort ships + forcing them to divert assets to AA (done very successfully against the Arctic convoys)
- Deploying some air recon like submarine launched floatplanes in the middle of the Atlantic to spot convoys out of range from land based air ( the Japanese had this capability for example )
- Securing additional bases for uboats on the flanks of UK for example along Spain, Portugal or Iceland
- Persuading Spain to join the war denying the UK the shortcut to the Mediterranean through Gibraltar which stretches their convoys further
- Winning the intelligence war, both in keeping the naval enigma secure and when it comes to decryption of Royal Navy codes
- Winning the technological war, developing more modern submarines and weapons like the Type XXI, better homing torpedoes and superior radars and radar warning
Perhaps the surface fleet also could have some place in such an isolation strategy, but probably only if Germany managed to complete their Carrier which would have been able to protect such a raiding fleet from British Carriers. Looking at what they achieved the submarine fleet was vastly more effective than the surface fleet, especially when considering you could get 50 submarines for the price of a single Battleship. The main flaw in the idea of submarines and why I say they didn't pull their weight isn't because they literally didn't sink more than they weighed, or indeed ten times as much they weighed but that that didn't matter. At no point were they going to win, so they were a waste of time and money, like the Bismarck, you aren't going to beat the RN with two battleships so just don't even build them, use those resources and that time on something else, like the Luftwaffe that stands a chance. Admittedly I've not studied the Luftwaffe's war, I knew they took more losses but I thought Germany had more pilots, more population, conscripts, a larger and longer pre-war pilot drive which gave them better aces and bigger training classes. I guess conscripts could be used as ground crew freeing up actual Germans who would have been ground crew to be pilots? As many volunteers as Britain had they would have started to dry up beyond Feb 1941, if the Battle of Britain had been kept going, all the Czechs and Poles and people from occupied territory were just the ones who escaped before the invasions, the volunteers from the Med would have to run a huge gambit on a civilian ship to get to Britain, as would any from the Colonies, pretty much only the US volunteers would be capable of getting to us and if we started losing they'd have even less reason to risk it. If the RAF abandons the South East and pulls out then its open season on London as the fighters won't be up in time to stop the He-111 from burning it to dust, and losing the whole South East of England was never really an option. I have no concrete proof but I do maintain a healthy scepticism of your "just build Type 21 Uboats" approach, I've not heard overly positive things about them. I'm sure you're a nice guy but I think you might be barking up the wrong tree here. So to speak...
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 21, 2018 2:50:11 GMT -6
The problem with the argument of cease putting resources into the Navy and transfer the to the Luftwaffe is manifold. 1. Foreign conscripts are really not who you want in your ground support pool, many oprotunities for sabotage. I would note that actual German use of foreign conscripts (differs from SS volunteers) was in disposable meatshield units like those on the beaches and it was due to their lack of reliability. 2. The Luftwaffe pretty decisively proved it was not institutional organized for a fight to knock out Britain (I actually recently wrote an analysis of the battle of Britain focusing on the Luftwaffe). They were not organized or in my opinion capable under the flaky leadership of Goering for the nessisary operations. Their long range and strategic bombing targeting and organization was frankly crap, they did not have the range or tactics for long range bomber escort, and tbh their plane designs (with a couple exceptions, FW 200) were not up to the task of knocking out the Brits. 3. Finally looking at our historical sample set German pilot attrition was massively higher than that of the Brits, unsustainable in fact. Unless you posit that all these now unemployed navy types can be converted into many, many more pilots then it doesn't work. 4. Finally, there are places German air simply can't go for range constraints. Anywhere kinda northern Britain is a Deathtrap for German attacks due to lack of escort. And unescorted bombers die in droves. A defeat of Britain needs one of two things A. A cross chanel invasion, B. Destroying their capacity to make war through destruction of imports. I do not believe the Luftwaffe capable of either of these goals even with any resources gained from scrapping or abstaining from any naval programs.
Plus once the Germans go into Russia it reduces the forces facing the Brits substantially.
Incidentally in fairness to the kreigsmarine their serface navy building was intended to A. Be for a war in 1942 and B. Be for parity with France only.
NOTE: I do not intend the above discorce as insulting in any way, if I have offended be assured it is cause I am crap at what my dad would call interpersonal relations
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Oct 21, 2018 6:26:04 GMT -6
The problem with the argument of cease putting resources into the Navy and transfer the to the Luftwaffe is manifold. 1. Foreign conscripts are really not who you want in your ground support pool, many oprotunities for sabotage. I would note that actual German use of foreign conscripts (differs from SS volunteers) was in disposable meatshield units like those on the beaches and it was due to their lack of reliability. 2. The Luftwaffe pretty decisively proved it was not institutional organized for a fight to knock out Britain (I actually recently wrote an analysis of the battle of Britain focusing on the Luftwaffe). They were not organized or in my opinion capable under the flaky leadership of Goering for the nessisary operations. Their long range and strategic bombing targeting and organization was frankly crap, they did not have the range or tactics for long range bomber escort, and tbh their plane designs (with a couple exceptions, FW 200) were not up to the task of knocking out the Brits. 3. Finally looking at our historical sample set German pilot attrition was massively higher than that of the Brits, unsustainable in fact. Unless you posit that all these now unemployed navy types can be converted into many, many more pilots then it doesn't work. 4. Finally, there are places German air simply can't go for range constraints. Anywhere kinda northern Britain is a Deathtrap for German attacks due to lack of escort. And unescorted bombers die in droves. A defeat of Britain needs one of two things A. A cross chanel invasion, B. Destroying their capacity to make war through destruction of imports. I do not believe the Luftwaffe capable of either of these goals even with any resources gained from scrapping or abstaining from any naval programs. Plus once the Germans go into Russia it reduces the forces facing the Brits substantially. Incidentally in fairness to the kreigsmarine their serface navy building was intended to A. Be for a war in 1942 and B. Be for parity with France only. NOTE: I do not intend the above discorce as insulting in any way, if I have offended be assured it is cause I am crap at what my dad would call interpersonal relations I actually completely agree, but I still think the Luftwaffe was a better gambit than the Kreigsmarine when it came to fighting the UK. Which goes to show how bad the KM were I guess...?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2018 11:00:08 GMT -6
I just wanted to add a couple of interesting links and two comments. The production method for the Type XXI and Type XXIII U-boats was not unique. Henry J. Kaiser used the same method to build Liberty ships. That’s why he was able to produce as many as he did. Speer was using the same methods as car manufacturers were using and Kaiser steel was involved in supplying car manufacturers with steel and aluminum. The wars of the 20th century were characterized by two important factors: technological advancement and attrition. I used the word attrition in the sense of numbers. You could not have one without the other. The German's developed some excellent technology but could never field enough of them to win the war. Either in advanced aircraft, tanks, field weapons or submarines. This, IMO, is the reason that the U-boat could never have won the war alone. They could never build enough of them without the rest of their military production suffering. Possibly if Speer had been in control before the war, maybe he could have put the German industry on a wartime footing and done better. However, that is speculation because he still had to deal with Hitler. www.uboatarchive.net/XXI/XXIConsiderations.htm - This link is a translation of a German by document on the Considerations for Employment of the Type XXI U-boat. www.uboatarchive.net/Miscellaneous.htm - This link is the next higher page that as some interesting records by Doenitz and others.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Oct 21, 2018 13:27:12 GMT -6
The main flaw in the idea of submarines and why I say they didn't pull their weight isn't because they literally didn't sink more than they weighed, or indeed ten times as much they weighed but that that didn't matter. I was not talking about weight ( and neither did the document I linked that you clearly didn't bother reading ), but about the cost/value of the German investment into submarines versus the cost/value of damage caused by them for the Allies. I assumed this is what you meant by "pulling their weight", not the actual weight in tons ( which depending on how you count is closer to about 25-50 times advantage for the submarines ). Admittedly I've not studied the Luftwaffe's war, I knew they took more losses but I thought Germany had more pilots, more population, conscripts, a larger and longer pre-war pilot drive which gave them better aces and bigger training classes. I guess conscripts could be used as ground crew freeing up actual Germans who would have been ground crew to be pilots? As many volunteers as Britain had they would have started to dry up beyond Feb 1941, if the Battle of Britain had been kept going, all the Czechs and Poles and people from occupied territory were just the ones who escaped before the invasions, the volunteers from the Med would have to run a huge gambit on a civilian ship to get to Britain, as would any from the Colonies, pretty much only the US volunteers would be capable of getting to us and if we started losing they'd have even less reason to risk it. If the RAF abandons the South East and pulls out then its open season on London as the fighters won't be up in time to stop the He-111 from burning it to dust And where does that bring us then? Back to your own reason to why the Luftwaffe lost... because they started focusing on London and allowed the RAF to recover... I have no concrete proof but I do maintain a healthy scepticism of your "just build Type 21 Uboats" approach As I already wrote I fully agree with your healthy skepticism of any "just build 21 uboats" approach or more of the same being capable of turning around the war, which is why I lined out something completely different in my reply. I am starting to develop a healthy skepticism to you having read my reply.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2018 13:33:48 GMT -6
Gentlemen: I strongly urge both of you to back off of the current direction and tone of this discussion. Let's return to submarine technology in the period of RTW2 and its possible effectiveness in the game and history. Big brother is watching you.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 21, 2018 13:42:30 GMT -6
Gentlemen: I strongly urge both of you to back off of the current direction and tone of this discussion. Let's return to submarine technology in the period of RTW2 and its possible effectiveness in the game and history. Big brother is watching you.
Yes, he is
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Oct 21, 2018 17:25:07 GMT -6
Gentlemen: I strongly urge both of you to back off of the current direction and tone of this discussion. Let's return to submarine technology in the period of RTW2 and its possible effectiveness in the game and history. I never deviated from that topic. My problem at the moment however is that the British Gentleman I am discussing with keeps arguing with me on points where I already agreed with him many posts back. If you think it will help I can apologize for agreeing with him.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2018 17:46:29 GMT -6
Gentlemen: I strongly urge both of you to back off of the current direction and tone of this discussion. Let's return to submarine technology in the period of RTW2 and its possible effectiveness in the game and history. I never deviated from that topic. My problem at the moment however is that the British Gentleman I am discussing with keeps arguing with me on points where I already agreed with him many posts back. If you think it will help I can apologize for agreeing with him. I don't think apologizing is necessary, my personal opinion. Let's all just move on to other discussions about submarines and their usage in the game based on history evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Oct 21, 2018 20:30:50 GMT -6
The production method for the Type XXI and Type XXIII U-boats was not unique. Henry J. Kaiser used the same method to build Liberty ships. That’s why he was able to produce as many as he did. Speer was using the same methods as car manufacturers were using and Kaiser steel was involved in supplying car manufacturers with steel and aluminum. Speer and Kaiser didn't use the same methods. For starters, Kaiser insisted that the hulls be waterproof.
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Oct 22, 2018 5:22:33 GMT -6
The main flaw in the idea of submarines and why I say they didn't pull their weight isn't because they literally didn't sink more than they weighed, or indeed ten times as much they weighed but that that didn't matter. I was not talking about weight ( and neither did the document I linked that you clearly didn't bother reading ), but about the cost/value of the German investment into submarines versus the cost/value of damage caused by them for the Allies. I assumed this is what you meant by "pulling their weight", not the actual weight in tons ( which depending on how you count is closer to about 25-50 times advantage for the submarines ). Admittedly I've not studied the Luftwaffe's war, I knew they took more losses but I thought Germany had more pilots, more population, conscripts, a larger and longer pre-war pilot drive which gave them better aces and bigger training classes. I guess conscripts could be used as ground crew freeing up actual Germans who would have been ground crew to be pilots? As many volunteers as Britain had they would have started to dry up beyond Feb 1941, if the Battle of Britain had been kept going, all the Czechs and Poles and people from occupied territory were just the ones who escaped before the invasions, the volunteers from the Med would have to run a huge gambit on a civilian ship to get to Britain, as would any from the Colonies, pretty much only the US volunteers would be capable of getting to us and if we started losing they'd have even less reason to risk it. If the RAF abandons the South East and pulls out then its open season on London as the fighters won't be up in time to stop the He-111 from burning it to dust And where does that bring us then? Back to your own reason to why the Luftwaffe lost... because they started focusing on London and allowed the RAF to recover... I have no concrete proof but I do maintain a healthy scepticism of your "just build Type 21 Uboats" approach As I already wrote I fully agree with your healthy skepticism of any "just build 21 uboats" approach or more of the same being capable of turning around the war, which is why I lined out something completely different in my reply. I am starting to develop a healthy skepticism to you having read my reply. I don't need to read whatever cherry picked reports you have come up with, it seems I lost the thread of this argument because I thought you were arguing in favour of Type21 Uboats. As I have already stated the Uboats never came close to winning the war and the Germans knew it. I'm happy with Donitz himself admitting to the failure being a pretty good reason not to look much further into them. To put this into game terms and bring everything back to RTW2 subs probably shouldn't be as effective, especially if you can set naval budget, steel and shipyards aside to build MN (Merchant Navy) ships, which are a non fighting entity on the map. So an Empire class or Liberty class, you set the tonnage and spacing to carry war material and then build 50 or 100, this will mean you can build less destroyers that quarter but you'll top up losses you've taken fighting Uboats in "Convoy Protection" missions. I have no idea if there are plans to do anything like this; convoy raiding to be on map or abstracted, to actually actively build MN or have that abstracted, I'm just positing ideas.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Oct 22, 2018 8:18:23 GMT -6
I don't need to read whatever cherry picked reports you have come up with And this is why you lost my respect. You have contributed no research, reports or evidence yourself to the discussion to support your views, only your feelings, and you also refuse to read anything you even suspect won't fit with your established view. I am open to reading anything you can link which proves me wrong and will thank you for it, because it meant I learned something, please go ahead and show me your historical source that support your views. Now about that report being cherry picked to favor the Type XXI submarine, let's take a look at what it actually claims instead of speculating. The report compares only actual cost of and damage done to allied merchant ships, warships or aircraft, and as such the type XXI submarines contribute zero to the German balance, only actual damage that has been historically documented by older submarines is counted. Against this is the cost of all German expenses in submarines over the entire war which includes the ~12 % that is the 123 + 59 completely constructed type XXI + type XXIII submarines that in total sunk nothing or almost nothing. If we instead exclude the type XXI and type XXIII from the report ( which is what you would do if you wanted it to be cherry picked to favorable to the German side ) it would not conclude that "The Allies spent at least 9.6 times the German investment.", that number would instead be closer to "11.3 times the German investment". If we want to cherry pick further and only deal with the first half of the war ( numbers from uboat.net/ops/combat_strength.html ), Then the German costs in uboats would only be about 1/3:ed, while their tonnage sunk would still be ~78% of the total for the entire war. This further changes our numbers and conclusion to: "The Allies spent at least ~22 times the German investment for the years of 1939-1942" Now let's also include cost of allied capital warships sunk by submarines as well as an estimate of costs of repairs as well ( both warships and merchants ), and let's throw in the cost of coastal defense craft and minesweepers used for ASW missions for good measure ( all of which are excluded in the report ). Do you think we can make it to 30 times more? Maybe? I don't have time to find all those numbers now, but I think you get the point. Now this is starting to look more like a proper cherry picked report, don't you think? The other interesting conclusion of the report is the following: "Conclusion: The Japanese lost or spent 42.3 times as much as the Americans.". After reading this it is hard to deny that more advanced Submarines up against an enemy that puts ASW and convoy construction in lower priority could be absolutely devastating historically. As I stated before I don't ask for anything as radical as this to be present in the game, just a possibility to have investments into superior submarines ( both numerical and technological investments ) to pay off if your up against an enemy that did not invest as much into ASW. I think this would be healthy for the game balance as well so that you can't get away with ignoring ASW totally if you plan to fight Germany or USA at least. I'm perfectly fine with allowing Battleships and Carriers to take the spotlight, but I also think there are alot of opportunity here for example how escort Carriers were used to deal with submarines or ASW/Convoy Escort.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Oct 22, 2018 8:38:20 GMT -6
So an Empire class or Liberty class, you set the tonnage and spacing to carry war material and then build 50 or 100, this will mean you can build less destroyers that quarter but you'll top up losses you've taken fighting Uboats in "Convoy Protection" missions. I have no idea if there are plans to do anything like this; convoy raiding to be on map or abstracted, to actually actively build MN or have that abstracted, I'm just positing ideas. This is a pretty interesting idea, especially seeing how historically both landing crafts needed for invasions and escort Carriers to defend the convoys with were often built by the same civilian yards or converted from civilian merchant ships or liners. More detail into total Civilian Shipping tonnage and production capacity could add increased depth ( no pun intended ) to allow a better model of the bloody battles for the Atlantic and Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Oct 22, 2018 12:52:42 GMT -6
I don't need to read whatever cherry picked reports you have come up with And this is why you lost my respect. You have contributed no research, reports or evidence yourself to the discussion to support your views, only your feelings, and you also refuse to read anything you even suspect won't fit with your established view. I am open to reading anything you can link which proves me wrong and will thank you for it, because it meant I learned something, please go ahead and show me your historical source that support your views. Now about that report being cherry picked to favor the Type XXI submarine, let's take a look at what it actually claims instead of speculating. The report compares only actual cost of and damage done to allied merchant ships, warships or aircraft, and as such the type XXI submarines contribute zero to the German balance, only actual damage that has been historically documented by older submarines is counted. Against this is the cost of all German expenses in submarines over the entire war which includes the ~12 % that is the 123 + 59 completely constructed type XXI + type XXIII submarines that in total sunk nothing or almost nothing. If we instead exclude the type XXI and type XXIII from the report ( which is what you would do if you wanted it to be cherry picked to favorable to the German side ) it would not conclude that "The Allies spent at least 9.6 times the German investment.", that number would instead be closer to "11.3 times the German investment". If we want to cherry pick further and only deal with the first half of the war ( numbers from uboat.net/ops/combat_strength.html ), Then the German costs in uboats would only be about 1/3:ed, while their tonnage sunk would still be ~78% of the total for the entire war. This further changes our numbers and conclusion to: "The Allies spent at least ~22 times the German investment for the years of 1939-1942" Now let's also include cost of allied capital warships sunk by submarines as well as an estimate of costs of repairs as well ( both warships and merchants ), and let's throw in the cost of coastal defense craft and minesweepers used for ASW missions for good measure ( all of which are excluded in the report ). Do you think we can make it to 30 times more? Maybe? I don't have time to find all those numbers now, but I think you get the point. Now this is starting to look more like a proper cherry picked report, don't you think? The other interesting conclusion of the report is the following: "Conclusion: The Japanese lost or spent 42.3 times as much as the Americans.". After reading this it is hard to deny that more advanced Submarines up against an enemy that puts ASW and convoy construction in lower priority could be absolutely devastating historically. As I stated before I don't ask for anything as radical as this to be present in the game, just a possibility to have investments into superior submarines ( both numerical and technological investments ) to pay off if your up against an enemy that did not invest as much into ASW. I think this would be healthy for the game balance as well so that you can't get away with ignoring ASW totally if you plan to fight Germany or USA at least. I'm perfectly fine with allowing Battleships and Carriers to take the spotlight, but I also think there are alot of opportunity here for example how escort Carriers were used to deal with submarines or ASW/Convoy Escort. I'm really not interested in your respect; when I was in school we taught this stuff to 12 year olds. Fritz never sunk enough ships, nor shot down enough planes, to win the war. But he shot down closer to enough planes than he sunk close to enough ships. QED the Luftwaffe did better than the KM. It's literally at the bottom of the Wikipedia page for Battle of the Atlantic; where I took everything I said about Submarines failing to do their job. I mean think what you want I ain't the thought Police but when there is such decisive evidence so readily available I'm not going to go burying myself into every report trying to find tiny discrepancies or alternative facts, here and there. I'm reminded of that now old saying about Google; "I can find a thousand papers saying vaccines don't cause autism and only two that do. Which do you believe?" when there is such powerful evidence so available of course you can find alternatives. And I want it to be known I'm not saying anything you've put forward is statistically wrong, if you say you've got a report that says the Allies spent 22 times as much money on convoys as the Germans did on Subs, that's fine, it may well be right, but it didn't work. There is an alpha point that they needed to achieve, and that was starving out Britain, failing to do that means that any money spent on them was a waste, beyond maybe a cursory fleet aimed at harassing, I get the theory about forcing the Allies to spend money on Anti-submarines measures but that is still making them spend money on Warships... I mean it's not like they won't find someother use for them... if the Germans had forced the Allies to waste 22x as much money on making Cheese or something totally useless in some great Nationalistic Cheesemaking Propaganda gambit then maybe it would be useful but "tricking" the Allies into building Warships and such is kind of silly, given that the British would probably have spent most of that on ships anyway. As I said I'm not the thought Police, I really only intended to chip in from the side and offer the British opinion on the Submarines that supposedly "brought us to the brink of surrender" as so many awful BBC documentaries might have you, or anyone else who watches them, believe. Pointless arguments about things that happened 76 years ago aside, I am looking forward to RTW2 and hope it launches to even greater success than RTW1, I can't wait to get my hands on it and get stuck in, and hope that we get the most...serious simulation as can be realistically be achieved.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 22, 2018 14:08:47 GMT -6
Gentlemen: I enjoy reading 'informative' comments from both of you. But we are now past that point, you have both been warned, and if you don't drop this now I fear the community will be going on without you.
If you haven't prevailed in discussion to this point IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Please: take the hint and DROP IT.
|
|