Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I understand all of that, what I'm trying to figure out is the what/how/when of the forces involved. Seems like the effect hovers somewhere between "bolt 100% closed" and "bolt 99.999% closed."
Direct Blowback in WWII submachine guns
- Thread starter Booner63
- Start date
- Status
Excellent descriptions of the principles of blowback and all automatic mechanism can be read in volume IV of The Machine Gun by George M. Chinn. Even though this series have been out there for almost 60 years, hardly anyone reads Volume IV. Few people read Vol 1 either, but of those who read any of Chinn’s books, most people prefer the pretty pictures and history found in Vol 1 compared to the operating principals in Vol IV. You can download all of the volumes for free here:
http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=347-The-Machine-Gun-(by-George-M.-Chinn)
Not only was the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon for real, it used greased ammunition! You can see at exactly 2:14 on this WW2 video a Sailor’s hand painting grease on the 20 mm ammunition loading machine for the Oerlikon anti aircraft machine guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9dR3h2HdnBQ
This is a direct contradiction to the section in Hatcher’s Notebook which claims that greased ammunition dangerously raises pressures . That whole section is built around junk science, junk science used to excuse the Army of responsibility when single heat treat 03’s blew up on the firing line, and a fortuitously timed cover up when the tin can ammunition of the 1921 National Matches started blowing up rifles. The 1921 National Match ammunition was issued with tinned bullets. The tin cold soldiered itself to the case necks and that created a horrible bore obstruction which blew up rifles. The fact that the Oerlikon was firing around 700 to 900 greased rounds a minute should cause any intelligent being to question the objectivity of Hatcher’s account and the “research” proving that grease was the problem.
As Chinn says:
I have not looked inside my Chinn for technical data tonight, his books are concept books. But I have found a dribble of data in Brassey’s “Small Arms” by D. F Allsop & M.A. Toomey. This is an excellent book, too bad even fewer people have read it than Chinn’s series.
In this book, the section dealing with blow back with Advanced Primer Ignition starts on page 75. It does discuss the British 9mm SMG L2A3 and its API. In so far as your question, here is the snippet: “As a broad approximation the bolt has some 0.76 mm to go before it encounters the breech face. The impulse given by the burning of the propellant causes a rapid slowing up the forward movement of the breech block. When the maximum chamber pressure has developed as shown in Fig 6.3, the breech block is still 0.46mm clear of the rear face of the chamber and still moving forward. Thus while the bullet is still in the bore the breech block is either moving forward, momentarily at rest, or being driving slowly backwards.”
http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=347-The-Machine-Gun-(by-George-M.-Chinn)
Not only was the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon for real, it used greased ammunition! You can see at exactly 2:14 on this WW2 video a Sailor’s hand painting grease on the 20 mm ammunition loading machine for the Oerlikon anti aircraft machine guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9dR3h2HdnBQ
This is a direct contradiction to the section in Hatcher’s Notebook which claims that greased ammunition dangerously raises pressures . That whole section is built around junk science, junk science used to excuse the Army of responsibility when single heat treat 03’s blew up on the firing line, and a fortuitously timed cover up when the tin can ammunition of the 1921 National Matches started blowing up rifles. The 1921 National Match ammunition was issued with tinned bullets. The tin cold soldiered itself to the case necks and that created a horrible bore obstruction which blew up rifles. The fact that the Oerlikon was firing around 700 to 900 greased rounds a minute should cause any intelligent being to question the objectivity of Hatcher’s account and the “research” proving that grease was the problem.
As Chinn says:
I have not looked inside my Chinn for technical data tonight, his books are concept books. But I have found a dribble of data in Brassey’s “Small Arms” by D. F Allsop & M.A. Toomey. This is an excellent book, too bad even fewer people have read it than Chinn’s series.
In this book, the section dealing with blow back with Advanced Primer Ignition starts on page 75. It does discuss the British 9mm SMG L2A3 and its API. In so far as your question, here is the snippet: “As a broad approximation the bolt has some 0.76 mm to go before it encounters the breech face. The impulse given by the burning of the propellant causes a rapid slowing up the forward movement of the breech block. When the maximum chamber pressure has developed as shown in Fig 6.3, the breech block is still 0.46mm clear of the rear face of the chamber and still moving forward. Thus while the bullet is still in the bore the breech block is either moving forward, momentarily at rest, or being driving slowly backwards.”
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Yep, that's it all right!
Thanks for the memory jogger!
Rc
Thanks for the memory jogger!
Rc
@Sam1911
The difference that this would make is most likely pretty minor, but I figured I'd say it since it does occur in open bolt guns, but not in closed bolts (at least not with the bolt anyway; maybe with other firing mechanisms)
Whenever something is pushed, it doesn't behave like it appears to: like a rigid body moving with all portions at the same rate. Instead, it's atoms slowly displace each-other, moving at the speed of sound (this was a theory of how the speed of light could be topped: you have a point one light year away from a starting point; at this a plank of wood stretches from the start to nearly the end. The idea is that if light is shined from this point at exactly the same time the board is shoved, the board would reach the end-point first. But this is not so. Through observing the behavior of other matter it was discovered that if we could perform an experiment like this, the board would appear to compress at the beginning, and after a long time of atoms displacing each-other, would appear to un-compress at the endpoint. However, it would take the board 891,837 years to do so moving at the speed of sound, while it would take light only one year)
So if we apply this to what happens in an open bolt mechanism, once the bolt face strikes the breech face, the bolt would "compress" as the cartridge started to move backwards, meaning the cartridge would have to overcome the forward motion of the rearward molecules of the bolt as well as compress the frontwards end of the bolt,whereas in a closed bolt the rearwards end has already "compressed" and "uncompressed", and the cartridge only has to compress the front end.
Again, the effect this would have is most likely minor, as the length of the bolt relative to the distance sound (and thus the molecules) travel in the time it takes for the cartridge to ignite is practically immeasurable. But thought I might as well throw that out there.
The difference that this would make is most likely pretty minor, but I figured I'd say it since it does occur in open bolt guns, but not in closed bolts (at least not with the bolt anyway; maybe with other firing mechanisms)
Whenever something is pushed, it doesn't behave like it appears to: like a rigid body moving with all portions at the same rate. Instead, it's atoms slowly displace each-other, moving at the speed of sound (this was a theory of how the speed of light could be topped: you have a point one light year away from a starting point; at this a plank of wood stretches from the start to nearly the end. The idea is that if light is shined from this point at exactly the same time the board is shoved, the board would reach the end-point first. But this is not so. Through observing the behavior of other matter it was discovered that if we could perform an experiment like this, the board would appear to compress at the beginning, and after a long time of atoms displacing each-other, would appear to un-compress at the endpoint. However, it would take the board 891,837 years to do so moving at the speed of sound, while it would take light only one year)
So if we apply this to what happens in an open bolt mechanism, once the bolt face strikes the breech face, the bolt would "compress" as the cartridge started to move backwards, meaning the cartridge would have to overcome the forward motion of the rearward molecules of the bolt as well as compress the frontwards end of the bolt,whereas in a closed bolt the rearwards end has already "compressed" and "uncompressed", and the cartridge only has to compress the front end.
Again, the effect this would have is most likely minor, as the length of the bolt relative to the distance sound (and thus the molecules) travel in the time it takes for the cartridge to ignite is practically immeasurable. But thought I might as well throw that out there.
Nom de Forum
Member
SlamFire1,Excellent descriptions of the principles of blowback and all automatic mechanism can be read in volume IV of The Machine Gun by George M. Chinn. Even though this series have been out there for almost 60 years, hardly anyone reads Volume IV. Few people read Vol 1 either, but of those who read any of Chinn’s books, most people prefer the pretty pictures and history found in Vol 1 compared to the operating principals in Vol IV. You can download all of the volumes for free here:
http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=347-The-Machine-Gun-(by-George-M.-Chinn)
Not only was the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon for real, it used greased ammunition! You can see at exactly 2:14 on this WW2 video a Sailor’s hand painting grease on the 20 mm ammunition loading machine for the Oerlikon anti aircraft machine guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9dR3h2HdnBQ
This is a direct contradiction to the section in Hatcher’s Notebook which claims that greased ammunition dangerously raises pressures . That whole section is built around junk science, junk science used to excuse the Army of responsibility when single heat treat 03’s blew up on the firing line, and a fortuitously timed cover up when the tin can ammunition of the 1921 National Matches started blowing up rifles. The 1921 National Match ammunition was issued with tinned bullets. The tin cold soldiered itself to the case necks and that created a horrible bore obstruction which blew up rifles. The fact that the Oerlikon was firing around 700 to 900 greased rounds a minute should cause any intelligent being to question the objectivity of Hatcher’s account and the “research” proving that grease was the problem.
As Chinn says:
I have not looked inside my Chinn for technical data tonight, his books are concept books. But I have found a dribble of data in Brassey’s “Small Arms” by D. F Allsop & M.A. Toomey. This is an excellent book, too bad even fewer people have read it than Chinn’s series.
In this book, the section dealing with blow back with Advanced Primer Ignition starts on page 75. It does discuss the British 9mm SMG L2A3 and its API. In so far as your question, here is the snippet: “As a broad approximation the bolt has some 0.76 mm to go before it encounters the breech face. The impulse given by the burning of the propellant causes a rapid slowing up the forward movement of the breech block. When the maximum chamber pressure has developed as shown in Fig 6.3, the breech block is still 0.46mm clear of the rear face of the chamber and still moving forward. Thus while the bullet is still in the bore the breech block is either moving forward, momentarily at rest, or being driving slowly backwards.”
I am not so sure Chinn's statement about the need for lubrications is appropriate for all types of blowback action firing "high powered ammunition". I will have to check but I don't think some of the autocannons using blowback with lock actions require it. I do know that oiling cartridges has been a desperate measure to improve functioning in other poorly designed automatic weapons. Thanks for the link to Chinn's books. They were always too expensive when I was young and poor.
caribou
Member
Oiling or waxing full sized rifle cartridges was common until it was discovered that 'pre extraction' was needed, often in the form of a twist or slight pull on a case that's been fired as the mechanism opens. The problems of increased pressures was found that excessive oiling in the chamber would lead to "dieseling' , igniting the oils under pressure, creating higher pressures. The smaller the surface area, the higher the pressure. Larger chambers have larger surface areas and barrels around them able to withstand the dieseling effect much more easily.
Other ideas were used to solve primary extraction problems. One of the most effective ways to extract a cartridge that was still under residual pressure and chamber adhesion was fluting.
Fluting a straight walled cartridge chamber would help with primary extraction, with gas floating the case, but rotation of the unlocking bolt is the most common was to deal with high pressure case extraction in modern small arms.
The 9X18 Makarov round was developed from the German "Ultra" 9mm round, which was as high a performance that a blowback Pistol was tolerable in weight and safety with, not a submachine gun. Subguns can burn some pretty hot ammo, which would make a pistol rather heavy, needing a locking mass and the associated weight with a full sized pistol. Haveing an effective round and a simple, light, unlocked mechanism called for pushing the limits for pure blowback. 9x18 was the sweet spot in pistols that work.
H&K came up with a relatively light submachine gun that started its 'fireing cycle' with the bolt closed, and without a bolt flopping forth to upset precise aim and ignite the cartridge, the MP-5 is light and accurate while being safe with very high velocity rounds.
Other ideas were used to solve primary extraction problems. One of the most effective ways to extract a cartridge that was still under residual pressure and chamber adhesion was fluting.
Fluting a straight walled cartridge chamber would help with primary extraction, with gas floating the case, but rotation of the unlocking bolt is the most common was to deal with high pressure case extraction in modern small arms.
The 9X18 Makarov round was developed from the German "Ultra" 9mm round, which was as high a performance that a blowback Pistol was tolerable in weight and safety with, not a submachine gun. Subguns can burn some pretty hot ammo, which would make a pistol rather heavy, needing a locking mass and the associated weight with a full sized pistol. Haveing an effective round and a simple, light, unlocked mechanism called for pushing the limits for pure blowback. 9x18 was the sweet spot in pistols that work.
H&K came up with a relatively light submachine gun that started its 'fireing cycle' with the bolt closed, and without a bolt flopping forth to upset precise aim and ignite the cartridge, the MP-5 is light and accurate while being safe with very high velocity rounds.
Last edited:
Greases and oilers basically went on the ash heap of history after chamber flutes were introduced by the Russians, copied by the Germans and used in their roller bolts. I think chamber flutes are a better solution, but even today, FN decided to go the route of a lubricated cartridge in 5.7 cartridge.
FN PS90 5.7×28mm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_5.7×28mm
FN's 5.7×28mm cartridge cases are covered with a special polymer coating for easier extraction with the PS90 carbine due to the high chamber pressures and lack of case tapering.[32] In addition, this coating ensures proper feeding and function in the magazines.[32]
Paul Mauser used greased 8mm cartridges in his early 1905 semi automatic rifle, but greases and oils are undesirable from many respects for field weapons. It is my recollection that the pre WW2 requirements the US Army put out for a semi automatic rifle were for a mechanism that required no oilers. Some of the earliest semi rifles, like the Thompson, has oiled pads in the magazines, I suspect these were dirt magnets .
I paid $100.00 for my Vol 4 and was happy to pay it, because those Chinn books were hard to find. Hatcher's Notebook was less than $20.00 and has gone through at least 15 editions. And there in lies the problem, after Hatcher's Notebook comes out , with that section on the "dangers" of greased bullets, it is as if the entirety of the American shooting community took a drill to their forehead and sucked out half their brains through the hole. There are other cases of group amnesia as large (weapons of mass destruction anyone?) but this one totally removed the memory of greased cases, oiled cases, oilers, etc, from the shooting community, with Hatcherites shouting down anyone who brought up the practice.
During load development I lubricate the heck out of my cartridges because I do not want to reduce bolt thrust or to confuse the transition from rounded to flat primers. I want the full bolt thrust applied to my bolt lugs so I can tell just when I have a maximum load. Parasitic friction between a dry case and a dry chamber disguises maximums loads and it is common to read statements by shooters who get a drop of oil on their cartridges and suddenly experience high pressure indications. The problem for them was that their reloads were over max, but case to chamber friction hid that fact, and once that friction is broken, they see high pressure indications.
In so far as dieseling, I have never seen it in 223, 257 Roberts, 6.5 X 55, 270 Win, 308, 30-06, etc, and virtually every WW1 service cartridge was used in a mechanism with an oiler. If dieseling was a problem I would have seen it and read about it long ago.
Last edited:
BobWright
Member
The famous "Grease Gun", or M3 submachine gun, was indeed simple blowback. In fact, it was simplicity to the utmost.
Original M3s had a cocking lever on the side of the receiver, the M3A1 simply had a hole in the bolt. The shooter opened the cover of the ejection port, stuck his index finger into the hole, and pulled the bolt back. The gun could be cocked by opening the cover and swinging the gun downward smartly and jerking it to a stop. Inertia would cock the bolt.
The cartridge case was stopped by the chamber before the firing pin struck and fired the primer.
The M3A1 could be changed from .45 ACP to 9mm by unscrewing the barrel, removing the bolt assembly, replacing the bolt assemby with a correct 9mm assembly, and screwing a 9mm barrel onto the receiver. New magazines were required, of course.
The cyclic rate of fire was 450 RPM, and made a pop-pop-pop sound. Removing the bolt from the guides and threading two extra recoil springs onto the guide bars greatly increased the rate of fire. The sound was more of a brrrrp!. Don't know what the resulting rate of fire was, but sure sounded impressive. Resulted in some jams, though.
Bob Wright
Original M3s had a cocking lever on the side of the receiver, the M3A1 simply had a hole in the bolt. The shooter opened the cover of the ejection port, stuck his index finger into the hole, and pulled the bolt back. The gun could be cocked by opening the cover and swinging the gun downward smartly and jerking it to a stop. Inertia would cock the bolt.
The cartridge case was stopped by the chamber before the firing pin struck and fired the primer.
The M3A1 could be changed from .45 ACP to 9mm by unscrewing the barrel, removing the bolt assembly, replacing the bolt assemby with a correct 9mm assembly, and screwing a 9mm barrel onto the receiver. New magazines were required, of course.
The cyclic rate of fire was 450 RPM, and made a pop-pop-pop sound. Removing the bolt from the guides and threading two extra recoil springs onto the guide bars greatly increased the rate of fire. The sound was more of a brrrrp!. Don't know what the resulting rate of fire was, but sure sounded impressive. Resulted in some jams, though.
Bob Wright
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
As a rule of thumb, 9mm Mak is about the max you can run in a conventional pistol and have reasonable weight and slide racking force. It is a rough technical limitation for that application. Larger guns can use higher reciprocating mass (the biggest effect in delaying a blowback) and spring pre-tension (lesser impact) and a side (or top) handle to give the human operator a better grip than pinching a slide.
MechTech pistol-carbine upper receivers have a BCG (they call it something different) that weights about 2.5lb and high spring pre-tension and work great with 10mm Auto and .45 Rowland. The reciprocating part is almost half the weight of the assembled upper+lower. My .45 and 10mm uppers shoot very clean, cleaner than a recoil operated pistol.
Mike
MechTech pistol-carbine upper receivers have a BCG (they call it something different) that weights about 2.5lb and high spring pre-tension and work great with 10mm Auto and .45 Rowland. The reciprocating part is almost half the weight of the assembled upper+lower. My .45 and 10mm uppers shoot very clean, cleaner than a recoil operated pistol.
Mike
Telekinesis
Member
SlamFire, thanks for the link to Chinn's The Machine Gun. I've been looking everywhere for an affordable print version, but being able to have all the volumes in PDF is great.
Gonna be doing some light reading when I get home tonight
Gonna be doing some light reading when I get home tonight
mrming
Member
http://www.orions-hammer.com/blowback/
That fellow seems to have worked out the majority of the math. Its mostly based on the aforementioned Chin book.
9mm bolt should end up weighing around 1.8 pounds as I recall if you are relying upon inertia alone.
http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1389.html
Uzi, which I think most agree is an open bolt design come in around 1.4 or less. so, clearly additional forces are in play.
Dwell time for pressure curve from the first link is down around 1 ms.
I recall but am unable to provide links at present for bolt action strength calcs. While friction of the case in chamber wasn't a dominate factor it was significant enough to be worth calculating.
i'd suggest that it is a thing, and it seems observable in existing arms by reviewing bolt weights in some modern pieces vs the expected weights.
If we assume the bolt is moving in recoil at around 12 fps, spring probably isn't bouncing it back in any faster. Most likely, its moving a lot slower.
12 fps * 12 inch = 144. 144 / 1000 (ms) = .144 inch per ms. A mm is roughly 0.03". Is it reasonable to expect a 5 pound recoil spring to create a return velocity of 1/10th or less vs the 1k+ pound impulse applied the opposite way by the cartridge firing? Probably.
The time it takes in forward travel of that 1mm of protrusion of the firing pin is probably longer than the entire dwell time required for the pressure to discharge.
Only question left is.. how fast do primers ignite? That I don't have a ready answer for. Most explosives have a detonation velocity well above 5k fps. How long for it to mechanically light though? No clue. But i'd be surprised if the primer ignition takes longer than the entire powder burn and pressure drop off. Given the forward motion being say, 1/4 of the rear it'd give a full ms for ignition before fully seating the bolt on just a 1mm protrusion.
That fellow seems to have worked out the majority of the math. Its mostly based on the aforementioned Chin book.
9mm bolt should end up weighing around 1.8 pounds as I recall if you are relying upon inertia alone.
http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1389.html
Uzi, which I think most agree is an open bolt design come in around 1.4 or less. so, clearly additional forces are in play.
Dwell time for pressure curve from the first link is down around 1 ms.
I recall but am unable to provide links at present for bolt action strength calcs. While friction of the case in chamber wasn't a dominate factor it was significant enough to be worth calculating.
i'd suggest that it is a thing, and it seems observable in existing arms by reviewing bolt weights in some modern pieces vs the expected weights.
If we assume the bolt is moving in recoil at around 12 fps, spring probably isn't bouncing it back in any faster. Most likely, its moving a lot slower.
12 fps * 12 inch = 144. 144 / 1000 (ms) = .144 inch per ms. A mm is roughly 0.03". Is it reasonable to expect a 5 pound recoil spring to create a return velocity of 1/10th or less vs the 1k+ pound impulse applied the opposite way by the cartridge firing? Probably.
The time it takes in forward travel of that 1mm of protrusion of the firing pin is probably longer than the entire dwell time required for the pressure to discharge.
Only question left is.. how fast do primers ignite? That I don't have a ready answer for. Most explosives have a detonation velocity well above 5k fps. How long for it to mechanically light though? No clue. But i'd be surprised if the primer ignition takes longer than the entire powder burn and pressure drop off. Given the forward motion being say, 1/4 of the rear it'd give a full ms for ignition before fully seating the bolt on just a 1mm protrusion.
Nom de Forum
Member
Nom de Forum
Member
I suspect the designers of API blowback SMGs used a significant "fudge factor" back in the slide rule days to increase the bolt weight so that any tolerance problems from manufacturing or wear would be compensated to prevent too many blown cases.
Jim Watson
Member
How is the oil to ignite when there is no air? A cartridge is a lean environment, there is not enough oxygen in the powder to oxidize even all the carbon and hydrogen of the nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine.
But won't there always be air available to the chamber from the breech and muzzle ends of the barrel? What I'm getting out of this discussion is that the "dieseling" is occurring between the chamber and the outside of the casing. The oil would ignite when compressed between the chamber wall and the outside of the casing and combustion would occur because so much space at the front and rear of the chamber would still allow oxygen to be present.
Admittedly though, I'm a novice in this conversation.
Last edited:
The book, German Military Rifles and Machine Pistols 1871-1945 by Has Dieter Gotz makes the claim that the Germans captured a Russian machine aircraft machine gun in Spain and it had a fluted chamber. That was a key invention that made the delayed blowback roller bolt function.
I also have the book “Full Circle” and a number of people make the claim they invented the delayed blowback roller bolt, there are probably as many claimants to the invention of the fluted chamber as there are claimants to the Czarist throne
That would be interesting to know if it was done, but without physical specimens or test reports, I will stick with Chinn. Vol 1 page 571 “The British made available to the United States at this time the results of a test show the failure of an attempt to fire the weapon without lubricating the ammunition.”
The more I study this, the more I find what General Hatcher knew and when he knew it. I cannot believe that he did not understand that what he was writing in 1947 was a whitewash of an Army created train wreck. I have gone through the Arms and Man on Google books, read that Hatcher was there at the beginning of so many things. He was at the meeting in 1920 that decided to get greased bullets out of matches, the primary concerns were about dirt getting on the grease and scratching the chambers/barrels of loaner rifles. But, interestingly enough, the topple point, the final argument against those who wanted to keep grease in, was “increased bolt thrust”. Hatcher knew, as did everyone on that board, that increased bolt thrust is only a concern if you are issuing structurally deficient rifles. And at that time, the Army had one million low number 03’s which were breaking all over the place. But neither he, nor anyone else at a high level in the Ordnance Dept is letting it be known that Army rifles were defective. Hatcher shot high power against Swiss teams in Switzerland, (they used greased bullets till the 1980’s), he was the illustrator for the 1936 Major Naramore book. Naramore points out that the tin on the bullet of the tin can ammunition caused a bore obstruction, therefore the fault was with the ammunition. General Hatcher writes for the 1930’s Army Ordnance magazine, when he lead Small Arms Development, about lubrication being needed for delayed blowback mechanisms. When he was in charge of Army Ordnance, the US built over 150,000 20 mm cannons that required greased ammunition. He was also a reviewer of Chinn’s Machine Gun Book series.
Post WW2, in his retirement, Hatcher needs to maintain good relations with the Army. He is going to use all his personnel connections, management abilities, personnal charm to crawl to the top of the NRA, and that requires not antagonizing the Army. I have examined the current salary structure, his NRA Executive Board income was probably six to eight times greater than his Army retirement. Currently, the top NRA positions are paid $600,000 to $800,000 a year. The NRA of the period is an Army creation, has been since the 1870's, was run during his junior officer years by an active duty Brigadier General, was later run by active duty and retired military officers, and whose operating budget is heavily subsidized by Army money. It is my recollection, from the American Rifleman of the early 60’s, Army money was 25% of the total NRA budget. In everything he wrote, Hatcher minimizes the Army role and responsibility for any Army created failure.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
There just isn't anywhere in there for enough air to burn anything.
Red herring.
Red herring.
- Status
