Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nemisis on August 22, 2010, 09:37:12 PM
-
The Ki-43 Oscar, specificly the Ki-43-IIa and Ki-34-IIIc.
The IAR 80A, and IAR 80C
Re 2005
thoughts?
-
All are winners, still want that He-111 and P-63
-
My thoughs... hmm
well, I would say just the Ki-43-IIb, What is a Ki-34 I have never heard of it? we need the Ki-44 IIb and IIc, We need the Ki-45 Kai-B, Ki 100, Ki-21 IIb, and thats what I think the Japanese plane set should get for now, as for the Italians, well lets see...
Re-2001, P.108, S.M.79, C.200, and G.50
that about sums up my thoughts :)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-34) Ki-34: Basically the C-47 only a wee bit faster. I don't think we need another transport, though... Unless it becomes possible for us to get the C-47's from the Korean conflict!!! :x :x :x No, not really.
KI-43 has even weaker guns than the F2B which is dissapointing, but it can hold its own and hold a decent amount of ords... I'd like to see it added, it would fill out the Japanese planeset more.
IAR 80- Yes. A decent plane that isn't American (Karnak has rubbed off on me) :devil
RE .2005 Yes, very nice Italian aircraft and from what I've researched it has higher performance than the C .205.
NICE Loadout, too. 3x 20mm guns with a total of 550 rounds and two upper cowling 12.7mm guns with 350 rpg.
-
Where is the B-2....oppps. Almost ruin this thread.
-
Where is the B-2....oppps. Almost ruin this thread.
Rubber Ducky pwease?
C'mon Oakranger don't be a..... Wednesday Babe crasher.... You all know who... :noid
-
uh, wldcat, you know the armament of the Ki-43 was 2 7.62mm MG's, which would put it at par with the F2B for total armament and surpass it for forward armament, right?
Ki-21 is definatly one of the less important additions, IMO. Would love to see the Re 2001, S.M 79, and the ki-44.
And can we please leave the ducky out of this? It wouldn't be too bad of a bet that HTC ignores those.
-
IAR 81c
-
Boomerang and G.55 please.
-
I don't think we'll be getting the G.55, just this sad feeling I have :(.
-
I don't think we'll be getting the G.55, just this sad feeling I have :(.
Thankfully for us you've never been correct about squat.
ack-ack
-
In a strange sort of way we already have a Japanese transport plane in game. Just as it appears the Ki-34 was a license build Douglas DC-2, the Japanese also acquired the manufacturing rights to the DC-3/C-47 prior to the outbreak of war and served with the Imperial Japanese Navy.
:)
-
Thankfully for us you've never been correct about squat.
ack-ack
I lol'd
-
KI-84lb :rock
-
"The types ko, otsu, and hei, the Ki 43-IA (2x7.7mm), Ki 43-IB (1x7.7mm and 1x12.7mm), and Ki 43-IC (2x12.7mm)." KI-43
THE ORIGINAL ARMAMENT
Both primary source documents and the general literature agree that the prototype and pre-production Ki 43-1's featured two armament combinations namely two 7.7mm machine guns or two 12.7mm "machine cannon " (in Japanese army parlance). The number 10 and 13 pre-production aircraft (serial numbers 4310 and 4313) carried two 12.7mm guns. The other prototype and pre-production aircraft carried two 7.7 mm guns [4].
Congratulations, you called me on a typo, F2A. Wanna cookie?
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 machine guns
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 machine guns
2 × 100 lb (45 kg) underwing bombs
(Wiki)
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/f-types/f2a.htm (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/f-types/f2a.htm) More reliable site.
Congrats, I think you wanted me to feel like an idiot being called out by a 12 year old. Cool, want a cookie?
(http://www.browneyedbaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/snickerdoodles-main.jpg)
-
na wildcat, I just never hear about the F2A in the game (always hear called the B239, brew, or brewster). I though you really were talking about the F2B.
-
It's cool, you still get the cookie.
Is it just me or has there been a little mini-flux of aircraft wishes?
-
IDK, maybe. I usually ask for GV's, but none of gotten any added as of yet, so I figure I might as well ask for some EW/MW planes.
-
Two Japanese 12.7mm guns are plenty to kill with. You won't get many snap shot kills, but you will get kills. I have killed with the two 12.7s on the Ki-84 multiple times and it is nothing like as manueverable as the Ki-43.
5,900 Ki-43s were built and it is one of the most important missing aircraft in AH.
-
The Ki-43 was just as important to the IJ Army Air Force as the Zero was to the IJ Navy Air Service. Honestly, I am surprised that HTC has over looked this plane to begin with.
ack-ack
-
The Ki-43 was just as important to the IJ Army Air Force as the Zero was to the IJ Navy Air Service. Honestly, I am surprised that HTC has over looked this plane to begin with.
Two Japanese 12.7mm guns are plenty to kill with. You won't get many snap shot kills, but you will get kills. I have killed with the two 12.7s on the Ki-84 multiple times and it is nothing like as manueverable as the Ki-43.
5,900 Ki-43s were built and it is one of the most important missing aircraft in AH.
These. I'll agree you can get kills, no doubt about it, but the punch is nowhere as powerful as a tater. Japanese 12.7mm guns were formidable.
-
Aim for the cockpit, ever since I started doing that almost 80% of all my kills not are from a 1 second or less burst to the cokcpit, thats what the real Ki-43 pilots did
-
Aim for the cockpit, ever since I started doing that almost 80% of all my kills not are from a 1 second or less burst to the cokcpit, thats what the real Ki-43 pilots did
I suspect if they were told to aim for the cockpit it was probably the same reason it was recommended for US pilots. In the Oscar and Zekes, the O2 tanks were located behind the cockpit and hits there would cause them to explode killing the pilot.
ack-ack
-
would be cool if HTC were to model that.
-
AH I see ack ack, I did not know that, although, I suspect that a Direct hit to the pilot was almost the only way a Ki-43 could bring down an F4U or F6F without using vast ammounts of ammo? I dont know how thiick the pilots back armour was on those planes but wasnt it almost an inch thick?
-
later models had 12.7mm (.50's) MG's and even 20mm cannons.
-
later models had 12.7mm (.50's) MG's and even 20mm cannons.
I don't think more than two prototypes (Ki-43-IIIb) were made with 20mm cannons and never entered into production by war's end. That is if you can show any proof that the Ki-41-IIIb was produced (beyond the 2 prototypes) in numbers and saw active operational combat service on a squadron level.
ack-ack
-
Don't think they were produced in numbers, but my point is that the number of rounds it would take to bring down an F6F or an F4U would depend on the model of Ki-43.
-
Don't think they were produced in numbers, but my point is that the number of rounds it would take to bring down an F6F or an F4U would depend on the model of Ki-43.
No it wouldn't.
ack-ack
-
Don't think they were produced in numbers, but my point is that the number of rounds it would take to bring down an F6F or an F4U would depend on the model of Ki-43.
A "weaker" bullet in a more sensetive area of an F4U could do the same damage as a shot from a 20mm into the fuselage . Gun loadout has more to do with it that than with the model. Position of the bullet has more to do with it than model.
-
So Ack-Ack, you're saying that it would take more 20mm rounds than 7.7mm rounds to knock the wing off (assuming same target area)? If the 7.7's were more leathal to fighters, why did the niki have a 20mm armament?
And fbWldcat, I can see your point, but since you were saying it would take lots of ammunition to bring down an F4U, I think its only fair to assume the rounds impact in the same area (all hit the wing, as opposed to 7.7's in the wing and 20mm's in the fuselage).
-
I don't think you get what he meant, he was saying that a 7.7mm round can be just as effective as a 20mm cannon round depending on where the round hits, if I get a head shot on you with a 7.7mm, its gonna do allot more damage then if I hit you in the rudder or aileron with a 20mm, it really all comes down to how good of a shot you are.
-
So Ack-Ack, you're saying that it would take more 20mm rounds than 7.7mm rounds to knock the wing off (assuming same target area)? If the 7.7's were more leathal to fighters, why did the niki have a 20mm armament?
I don't think you get what he meant, he was saying that a 7.7mm round can be just as effective as a 20mm cannon round depending on where the round hits, if I get a head shot on you with a 7.7mm, its gonna do allot more damage then if I hit you in the rudder or aileron with a 20mm, it really all comes down to how good of a shot you are.
Imowface had no troubles understanding.
ack-ack
-
I get that Imowface, but I don't think that chance of a lucky hit or level of accuracy should be taken into account when discussing how many rounds it would take to kill a fighter. Thats like asking what loadout for a bomber is more effective at killing hangers, and then saying "well, what if some are soft already?".
-
That is one thing you are wrong about though, while you are right, the number of rounds it takes to kill a fighter is not important, accuracy is, one common thing to all aces of all country's in WW2 is that they were all great shots, if you are inaccurate, you can put hundreds of bullets into something and not take it down, however if you are, you can take a couple rounds and end the fight before it even starts
-
Uh, a lot of the best fighter pilots actually claimed to be poor shots. That's why they always got in close.
-
and which ones would that be? so your saying hartmann got his 200+ kills just by "getting up close" ? or that Ivan Kozhendub did the same? if you didnt know, Ivan was considered the "deflection shot master" and I dont recall him ever saying he was a bad shot?
-
I get that Imowface, but I don't think that chance of a lucky hit or level of accuracy should be taken into account when discussing how many rounds it would take to kill a fighter. Thats like asking what loadout for a bomber is more effective at killing hangers, and then saying "well, what if some are soft already?".
No, you don't get it. You seem to think that it takes X amount of ammo to take down planes when that is not the case at all. There is no "golden" number on how many rounds it takes to shoot down a plane with any type of ammo. Yes, cannon rounds like 20mm rounds do have more destructive power than machine gun caliber rounds but that doesn't mean it takes 5 rounds to take down a Corsair with a 20mm cannon and 150 rounds when using .50 cals. It doesn't work that way in real life or in game.
To prove my point, here is the story of "Half-Pint" and Robert S. Johnson.
June 26, 1943 mission details:
Early in the morning forty-eight Thunderbolts took off from the advanced base at Manston. Having previously been criticized for going off on his own, this morning Johnson resolved to stay in formation. The three squadrons of the 56th Fighter Group were all up: the 61st (Johnson's), 62nd, and 63rd. Before the mission, Johnson felt the cold fear that he always felt, and which he was able to channel into higher alertness. They flew up, over the Channel, into France, and soon spotted sixteen Fw-190s. Before Johnson could communicate or coordinate with his flight, he was hit. 20mm cannon shells ripped through his plane, smashing the canopy, punching holes in the plane, and inspiring in Johnson an overwhelming urge to bail out. More explosions smashed the plane, and Johnson's frantic "Mayday!" calls drew no response. Fire began to envelope the cockpit.
The Thunderbolt spun crazily out of his control and the twisted and jammed canopy frame resisted his repeated, superhuman, full-body efforts to open it. As he struggled vainly with the canopy, the engine fire miraculously went out, but he could hardly see, as oil spewed back from the battered engine. He tried to squeeze out through the broken glass of the canopy, but the opening was just too small for both him and his chute. Trapped inside the P-47, he next decided to try to crash-land and evade. He turned the plane south, toward Spain - the recommended evasion route. After struggling with hypoxia and hallucinations(?), his thoughts came back into focus and he realized that the aircraft was still flying fairly well. He headed back for England, counting on his high altitude to help him make a long, partially-powered glide back home.
The instrument panel was shattered. The wind constantly blew more oil and hydraulic fluid into his cut up face and eyes. He had neglected to wear his goggles that morning, and any attempt to rub his eyes burned worse than ever. He and his plane were horribly shot up, but incredibly he was still alive. He made for the Channel, desperate to escape the heavily defended enemy territory.
Swiveling constantly, he froze in horror as he spotted a plane approaching him, an Fw-190, beautifully painted in blue with a yellow cowling. Johnson was totally helpless, and just had to wait for the German to get him in his sights and open up. The German closed in, taking his time with the crippled American fighter. Johnson hunched down behind his armor-plated seat, to await the inevitable. The German opened up, spraying the plane with 30-caliber machine gun fire, not missing, just pouring lead into the battered Thunderbolt. Johnson kicked his rudder left and right, slowing his plane to a crawl, and fired back as the German sped out in front of him.
The Focke-Wulf easily avoided the gunfire from the half-blinded Johnson, and circled back, this time pulling level with him. The pilot examined the shattered Thunderbolt all over, looking it up and down, and shook his head in mystification. He banked, pulled up behind Johnson again, and opened up with another burst. Somehow the rugged Republic-built aircraft stayed in the air. The German pulled alongside again, as they approached the southern coast of the Channel. Still flying, Johnson realized how fortunate it was that the German found him after his heavy 20mm cannons were empty.
As they went out over the Channel, the German get behind and opened up again, but the P-47 kept flying. Then he pulled up alongside, rocked his wings in salute, and flew off, before they reached the English coast. Johnson had survived the incredible, point-blank machine gun fire, but still had to land the plane. He contacted Mayday Control by radio, who instructed him to climb if he can. The battered plane climbed, and after more communication, headed for his base at Manston. Landing was touch and go, as he had no idea if the landing gear would work. The wheels dropped down and locked and he landed safely.
(http://www.bigwing.net/images/56th%2020.jpg)
(http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj5.jpg)
As you can see, there was no magic number for how many 20mm cannon or .30 caliber machine gun rounds it takes. The only reasons why the Butcher Bird turned around was that he was out of ammo and close to England, having used pretty much all of its .30 caliber rounds trying to destroy Johnson's P-47.
Your bomber example is another poor example to use, why? Because unlike airplanes, destroyable objects like the hangers, town buildings, radar, etc. all have a set hardness that requires a certain amount of ordnance (in pounds) to destroy. Which is why people will mention that such and such target is soft to let the other guy bombing that he doesn't have to drop the full load to take out an already damaged building.
ack-ack
-
and which ones would that be? so your saying hartmann got his 200+ kills just by "getting up close" ? or that Ivan Kozhendub did the same? if you didnt know, Ivan was considered the "deflection shot master" and I dont recall him ever saying he was a bad shot?
You can have computer sights of anything you like, but I think you have to go to the enemy on the shortest distance and knock him down from point-blank range. You'll get him from in close. At long distance, it's questionable.
I opened fire when the whole windshield was black with the enemy . . . at minimum range . . . it doesn't matter what your angle is to him or whether you are in a turn or any other maneuver.
— Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, GAF.
I am not a good shot. Few of us are. To make up for this I hold my fire until I have a shot of less than 20 degrees deflection and until I'm within 300 yards. Good discipline on this score can make up for a great deal.
— Lt. Colonel John C. Meyer, USAAF.
Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.
— Major Thomas B. 'Tommy' McGuire, USAAF.
Granted, Hartmann doesn't say he's a bad shot, but he does say get in close to where the difficulty of the shot is minimal. I seem to recall both Billy Bishop and Greg Boyington favoring similar tactics in their biographies but I haven't found the exact quotes yet. Again, several fighter pilots spent a lot of time practicing their shooting (hunting and sport shooting in their spare time, etc.), but there was definitely a school of aces who favored getting in close where deflection and range were minimal and blasting away.
-
I know there isn't a specific number of rounds a fight can take before it gets shot down. Still, assuming the same aimpoint and level of accuracy, in general, which will shoot off a wing first: 2 7.7mm MG's, 2 12.7mm MG's, or 2 20mm cannons? Thats all I'm saying.
-
20mm are heavier, so they do more damage, If they are pulling alot of G then the wing would proboly come off even though the 20mm's didn't sever it completely.
-
It likey would, which is something I hadn't though about. It would be cool if HTC would lower the structural integrity of shot up wings, stabalizers, and control surfaces. Might make for some interesting fights.
Oh and Ack-Ack, I missed your comment on the bomber thing: There is a set ammount of ordanance needed to destroy a hanger in the game, and people call out what hangers are soft. They also call out "that spities tail is real soft", in the hopes that someone will finish it off, either giving them the kill or preventing their target from escaping.
I use the bomber loadouts as an example because you can't know exactly how soft they are, and if you know which ones are soft at takeoff, the situation will likely have changed by the time you arrive. Your going to outsmart yourself in a hurry if you just assume that all the hangers have been hit with a 1000lb bomb and take a B-26 with the 500's so you can save time and have some ord left over to hit the ammo bunkers and the troops. Same as if you assume you'll kill the pilot after firing around 50 rounds at him.
-
Only need one round to kill a pilot :) so If I fire 50 rounds at a cockpit, I know for a fact that I will kill the pilot, I dont asume stuff like that when im in a fight, I shoot stuff untill I know the plane is down for good
-
At it, not into it. Again, I don't think that pilot kills and the like should be taken into concideration when discussing the damage of different calibers and types of rounds.
-
Oh and Ack-Ack, I missed your comment on the bomber thing: There is a set ammount of ordanance needed to destroy a hanger in the game, and people call out what hangers are soft. They also call out "that spities tail is real soft", in the hopes that someone will finish it off, either giving them the kill or preventing their target from escaping.
When someone says something like "that spitfire is damaged" is to let everyone else know that the bandit is damaged and most likely a free lunch. Unlike objects like hangers and the like, planes don't have a "hardness number" so it doesn't take XX amounts of hits to destroy.
ack-ack
-
:noid M-18... :noid
-
Only need one round to kill a pilot :)
A couple of nights ago I was returning to base with 10 kills and only 5 rounds of .50 cals left when I was bounced by a Spitfire Mk XVI. My only real option was to try and fly him into the ground, which I was almost succeeding in when a P-47 (one that I had already shot down about 3-4 times during my sortie) came in for the pick and forcing me to break off the Spitfire in order to meet the Jugs attack. I easily reversed on the merge when the P-47 presented a sweet shot which I took with my final 5 rounds. I was pretty much resigned to the fact that these rounds weren't really going to do squat unless I scored the Golden BB hit but I figured I was gonna die anyway so might as well go out swingin'. So I fire and watch as my 5 rounds go smack into the cockpit and must of given the Jug driver an instant pilot wound because he just rolled over inverted and flew straight into the ground. Now I was really screwed because now I had 0 rounds and the Spitfire Mk XVI had taken advantage of my having to engage the Jug to get into position for the kill. Managed to live for a couple of minutes more dancing with the Spitfire but with 0 rounds, I didn't last much longer than that.
ack-ack
-
Only need one round to kill a pilot :) so If I fire 50 rounds at a cockpit, I know for a fact that I will kill the pilot, I dont asume stuff like that when im in a fight, I shoot stuff untill I know the plane is down for good
Something that Bishop used to say all the time as well. :)
-Muzzy
-
No, there is no set number of bullets required to shoot down a fighter, but that doesn't mean you should assume that you'll take off his wing, or deal some other catastrophic damage to your opponent on the first pass.
Another example of what I'm talking about: GV's have no set number of shells needed to destroy them. From past experience, I plan on M4's needing two rounds to kill at 800yds and under, 3 rounds at 800-1400, and 5+ rounds at 1400yds+. Frontal shots with only slight angling of my targets chassis, of course. Oh sure, you may get a lucky hit and kill him in 4 rounds at 1600yds, but just because it can happen doesn't mean you should plan on it being a regular occurrence.
I guess what I'm saying is plan for the worst and all supprises will be pleasant ones.
-
No, there is no set number of bullets required to shoot down a fighter, but that doesn't mean you should assume that you'll take off his wing, or deal some other catastrophic damage to your opponent on the first pass.
Why not? That's what usually happens to the planes I engage, not many survive my first burst. Those that do survive the first burst usually suffer major damage like a loss of a flight control or engine damage.
ack-ack
-
For you, if one pass kills are normal, then YOU should plan for that, it doesn't mean others should. Depending on the plane I'm in, I assume it will take a good 1 second burst or more to knock down a fighter such as the P-51. As such, I'm always plesantly supprised when I make a good shot or get the golden BB and kill him with a 1/2 second burst.
-
the hands down ultimate unbeatable way to kill a fighter, or any airplane actually is acuracy, you it seems to me like you think there is a set way to kill an airplane, while in reality there is no instructions on how to shoot things down, but if there was, page 1 paragraph 1, line 1, would probably sound like this : aim your planes guns at the part of the other guys plane that you want to remove, best way to describe this is by attacking bombers (they dont blow up so fast) so, say Imowface is crusing along in his J2M3, and see's a lone B-24, as I start to close in, the tail gunner opens up at 600 yards out, okay, I put my X on the tail turret, 1 second burst, tails gone, now, not only do I want to shoot this guy down, but I also want to make him very dizzy on the way, so pull up dead astern swing out to the left, put my little X over his wing root, 2 second burst and bam, see you later B-24 hope you brought your barf bags. now on the other hand, maybe I have had a couple of drinks before bomber hunting and my aim is a bit shakey, might spray a 6 second burst on the whole length of the wing, and nothing happens, so I have now just used 4x as many rounds, and got 4x less damage then the first time before drinking a whole wack load of sake
-
the hands down ultimate unbeatable way to kill a fighter, or any airplane actually is acuracy, you it seems to me like you think there is a set way to kill an airplane, while in reality there is no instructions on how to shoot things down
For the most part you've hit the nail in the head, the key is good gunnery and knowing where to hit the plane you're firing at. I suspect Nemisis doesn't aim where he's shooting other than pointing his nose at the target and firing, hoping to score a lucky hit. There are critical areas to aim for on a plane:
- Engine
- Wing root
- Cockpit
- Tail (where the tail assembly meets the fuselage)
Those are the four traditional weakspots on an airplane and hits to these areas will usually result in critical damage. Someone also mentioned something earlier in this thread that there is one common thing that all the aces shared and that was they always waited until they were close to the bandit before firing. Hartmann (as someone used as an example earlier) waited until he was really close, 200 yards or closer and he would aim for the critical areas and at the range he fired at and area he was aiming at, he would kill most times with the first burst.
ack-ack
-
well ack, Its nice to see that you and I agree on something for once :cheers:
-
For the most part you've hit the nail in the head, the key is good gunnery and knowing where to hit the plane you're firing at. I suspect Nemisis doesn't aim where he's shooting other than pointing his nose at the target and firing, hoping to score a lucky hit.
This is how the overwhelming majority of players shoot - including myself most of the time. Only in planes like 109F or I can get close enough & saddle up to aim for specific parts, and (to hell with modesty) I'm a considerably above-average shooter in AH. Most of my kills are done with crossing snapshots or at relatively long ranges.
I'd guess less than 5% of players are really able to consistently go for specific parts when shooting at another fighter.
-
This is how the overwhelming majority of players shoot - including myself most of the time. Only in planes like 109F or I can get close enough & saddle up to aim for specific parts, and (to hell with modesty) I'm a considerably above-average shooter in AH. Most of my kills are done with crossing snapshots or at relatively long ranges.
I'd guess less than 5% of players are really able to consistently go for specific parts when shooting at another fighter.
I'd also say less then 5% of the players will also spend time reading anything they can find on gunnery and playing offline a few hours a week practicing their gunnery and aiming skills.
ack-ack
-
I-16, 120 bullets? Shoot em in the engine or the tail, you score a kill. I haven't played in almost 4 months, I wonder how bad my aim is at this point....
:lol
-
I can pretty much nail bombers engines when I'm not dodging tracer fire. Specific targets are always on my mind when I'm firing, but you really only have a second or two of thought when you're in close (most times) so a lot of times it's instinctive. I suppose just having it in your head to shoot at a specific spot helps, but I'd rather get some hits in rather than lose the shot because I hesitated looking for a wing root.
-
naw Ack-Ack, I can aim for the wing, tail assembly, and the fuesalage. I will admit I can't aim for the engine or the cocpit unless i get inside of D350
-
If you can aim for very specific parts of a plane at D350 like that, then I salute you.
For us normal people, We'll just take any shot we can get, and keep firing untill we see something really big fall of of their plane.
I cant aim like that ever and have more trouble shooting down an AFK plane then a maneuvering one.
And Dick Bong had terrible gunnery. He had to basically pull ace pilot mode to get his kills.
I remember reading somewhere that he got to close and got one of his calls by ramming an enemy plane.
-
Yup, just killed a P-51B with my stuka of doom today. He was dumb enough to try to turn fight me, so I started to shoot out is engine.
Love the stuka, makes a nice tight turn, and is stable.
-
Yup, just killed a P-51B with my stuka of doom today.
Cookie(s)?
(http://www.yorkblog.com/eatersdigest/Chocolate%20Chip%20Cookies.jpg)
-
i kinda want to say it again... :noid
-
No need, BAR, no need. Everyone knows that you really really want the M-18!!!
-
Only if they're oatmeal raisin cookies :D.
-
No need, BAR, no need. Everyone knows that you really really want the M-18!!!
but...i wanted to say it!!! :cry
-
but...i wanted to say it!!! :cry
(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u99/B2MX/simpsons_nelson_haha-1.jpg)
-
lol, don't laugh at 321BAR's pain. He made a good GL during the scenario.