Somebody please help the infantry.
Think of how many new generations of fighters, naval combatants, and fighting vehicles have been deployed since the 1960s.
Contrast that record to the individual firearm — the rifle, carbine or handgun carried and used by almost any one wearing a uniform. The same basic M16 rifle and M4 carbine first used in Vietnam — with the same basic flaws still uncorrected — remain the primary infantry weapons for the US military today.
Why?
Surely, a nation that can muster $250-$300 billion to develop and deliver the Joint Strike Fighter, $160 billion to build a new family of combat vehicles and $8 billion to develop and build a next-generation aircraft carrier can come up with some spare change to upgrade the infantry’s arsenal of automatic weapons.
All the services are fond of promoting the concept of dominating any potential threat through superior technology. Yet the M16 and M4 remain matched — if not inferior — to the firepower provided by the weapon of choice for insurgents/terrorists/pirates worldwide: the even older AK-47 design and its antecedents.
A new generation of superior guns are available for purchase today, offering improved firepower and less of the reliability problems of the older generation. Examples include the Heckler & Koch 416 enhanced carbine and the FN Herstal Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR).
Giving the Army more cash may not be the answer. Part of the problem is the way the Army manages small arms. Back in the 1950s, the Army was so loathe to develop an automatic rifle to compete with the AK-47 that some think it sabotaged tests on the M16. It fell upon Air Force General Curtis LeMay to rescue the M16 program and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to compel the Army to buy it. Even then, the Army sabotaged the M16 by initially filling the cartridge with the wrong gunpowder. (Read more here.)
More recently, the Army aborted its plan to replace the M16 with the XM29, which was cancelled in 2005 after a $100 million investment.
The good news is that the commercial marketplace has already solved the Army’s problem. The question is whether the Army is willing to bring itself to make the change.
{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }
The US Army is almost constantly trying to deveelop a good rifle .. the M16 was just one of those almost everlasting intermediate solutions that most militaries know.
SPIW project in the 60′s and I believe 70′s
ACR competition sometime around 1980
XM8 project in the past couple of year (XM29 OICW was rather a successor for the M4/M203 combo, not for M16 itself).
I have to admit that a good rifle is very low in the importance concerning army performance … only in light infantry-dominated conflicts are such infantry weapons still very important.
Today, even as low as an infantry squad the firepower is based on about half a dozwn different weapons and the standard rifle is a lesser oe among them.
By the way – I consider the case of US Army rifle development as a proof for institutional incompetence. It’s as bad as when the USMC spends all its money on very expensive aviation assets and a single oversized amphibious armoured vehicle while its infantry equipment, trucks and some other stuff sucks.
If there is going to be used, every military device has to be the best you can afford. If the device is unreliable, then the user’s confidence is going to be necessarily low.
Moreover: every american enemy since krauts in Ardennes knows that he has to be in close touch with american soldiers in order to avoid overwhelming artillery and air strikes. Then, in such situation, individual weapon is almost as important as training in order to succeed.
Think about all the repetitive tales of 5.56 bullet going through skinny enemies without causing too much harm. I just cannot realize why US Army, the wealthiest in the world, just don’t buy the very best. I mean,
I have been reading about this it seems for years.
During Vietnam, people were lauding the virtues of the AR15 and the Stoner Weapons System. The M14 was criticized for being impossible to use on automatic, impossible to keep clean under tropical conditions and having only a 20-round magazine.
Once the M-16 was adopted, the criticism really started.
The weapon jammed. The bullet was so light that it was easily deflected by sparse vegetation. The bullet would not penetrate even thin hut walls. The bullet had such high velocity and low mass that it completely penetrated through an enemy without incapacitating him. The powder fouled the unlined chamber. The weapon was impossible to hold on target on automatic. It had only a 20-round magazine. And again, the bullet was simply not lethal at any range.
Some of these criticisms have been addressed satisfactorily, but the weapon still uses the 5.56mm bullet.
I have read accounts from combatants in Iraq who swear that they have hit an enemy with multiple rounds, but he keeps on running.
Are there any recent combat veterans out there from Iraq and Afghanistan who have actually shot an enemy with the M4 or M16A2? What are the facts? How can us older veterans help to get the Army
One would think after 4 years in Iraq, The Army would realize, that the two most important individual weapons for street patrols and CQB is the rifle and hand grenades.
I personally have hated the M16 since its inception. The M4 is slightly better, but not as good as the aftermarket. GAS PISTON’s PLEASE! The 5.56 debate never ends, but changing to 6.8mm in the middle of a war makes no sense for anyone other than SOF. Although I wish it would happen. The aftermarket modified M14 7.62mm ROCKS!
The 2008 budget has the Army buying M4′s, not something better, like the HK 416 or Sig 556. I personally love new Magpul Masada 5.56, but it’s not a high volume weapon like the others.
The biggest problem, is Iraq needs a different rifle than Afghanistan. A short barrel 5.56mm works in Iraq, but Afganistan needs a longer barrel 7.62mm. Only SOF gets to have both.
The problem hasn’t been developing alternatives; look at all the neat bang bang toys you can buy on the civilian marketplace, or the proof of concept stuff the manufacturers have been showing at trade shows. The problem has been that no Army colonel believes he’s going to get his star based on introducing a new rifle. Choice of small arms is almost a religious issue, with lots of divided, bickering communities. Adding fuel to the fire are all the manufacturers – if their product isn’t going to be selected the next best thing is to keep the competitor’s product out too.
Sysadm, I like how you characterize this as a religious issue for the army. I completely agree. It’s almost as if the subject is too dear to the heart of any soldier for reason to prevail. I think that helps explains why it took the air force to introduce the M16, and why it may again take the air force to introduce a .45-calibre pistol.
Don’t forget that it was the Air Force that introduced the .38 caliber revolver to replace the .45. Everybody wanted a .38 in a holster back then, just like the Air Force.
Well, I disagree at a couple of levels:
1) I think the idea that the 5.56mm round lacks stopping power is a myth. A round kills through kinetic energy – and the primary component of kinetic energy is velocity, not mass (K=i/2 mv squared, where m is mass of the round and v is velocity). The NATO-standard 5.56mm round has significantly greater muzzle velocity than the short 7.62mm round that the older Kalashnikovs use (3300 ft/sec, versus 2330 ft/sec) – and while I’ve never been on the receiving end of Kalashnikov fire, I helped treat guys who were shot with M-16 rounds at Towle courts in ’95 – even the injuries to extremities were severe, and they were all – all – in shock.
2) The M-16A2 is lighter than the AK-47, and the M-4 is lighter than the M-16A2 – so for general handiness, there’s not really a contest. The Kalashnikovs I was trained on in the old OPFOR weapons cadre course were poorly bored, and generally inaccurate – even taking moderate use into account. The quality of the boring is inferior to American workmanship, hands down, and the weapon itself is inferior in striking quality. Given that it’s heavier, less accurate, and has less hitting power, what, exactly are the grounds for preferring it to the M16A2 or the M4?
Earl,the biggsest issue I have with Bullpups is that reloading a Bullpup from prone is a huge pain. Considering how often modern infantry goes to the prone position, that’s a serious consideration.
I vote for the SCAR
Nanonymous,
Fair questions. Both the M16 and M4 are widely considered superior to the AK47 for accuracy, but not reliability. Stopping power is a much-debated point, and I’ll leave it aside. Modern rifles use a gas-powered piston to chamber the next round, which dramatically reduces the jamming problems caused by the M16 and M4 design. So you lose the reliability problem and keep the superior accuracy with the new weapons.
“Modern,” eh? The Kalashnikov was designed shortly after the Second World War, and Stoner designed the AR-15 in the early 1960s, so I doubt that “modernity” is really the argument in favor of the design, if any.
Look, the M-16 action is, mechanically, about as simple as the Kalashnikov – it breaks down into more parts, but it’s gas-operated, too – the gas simply blows back directly on the bolt carrier group, rather than acting through a piston. Pull the bolt carrier group out, and pull the guts out of a Kalashnikov, and it’s not as if there are more moving parts to jam in an M-16 – there are fewer. The jamming argument really depends on two qualities – closer machining tolerances (and there’s a tradeoff, because those are exactly what give you better accuracy) and dirtier ammunition.
That jamming argument is, I found (as in “when I was using one”) a myth. It happens a lot when you’re firing blank rounds, because blanks are much, much dirtier than ball rounds – fire thirty blank rounds through an A2, clean it, and fire thirty ball rounds, and you’ll see the difference. The reputation for being dirty and jamming clung unfairly to the M-16A2 through the nineties, because most guys fired it with a blank adaptor (which is essentially a collar with a muzzle-sealing screw designed to retain enough gas to cause the bolt carrier to recoil – it also retains carbon).
The fact of the matter is that the round that everyone complained about in Vietnam isn’t even compatible with the A2 – it was last used on the M-16A1. The M16A2 uses the NATO-standard round, which the US adopted after the other NATO allies started using it. The complaints James Fallows includes in “National Defense” about the Army rejecting the original round that Stoner used in favor of an inferior one may have applied when he wrote it, but they don’t apply now.
There’s got to be somebody out there who has pointed his M16 at a bad guy and pulled the trigger. What happened? Did it work? Do we need something better?
Thanks, Moose.
Here’s an ICE agent with a Bullpup:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=400127732&size=o
I no longer remember where I got this photo, but of course no details were given on his weapon. I immediately copied it however because of the configuration. I think this is the Steyr AUG.
Many Armys around the world, UK, France, Australia, China are adopting this configuration. I agree that this is not a reason for us to do so, but I do think the Brits, Australians and Israelis at least haven given it some thought.
I can no longer imagine myself diving to the ground, ripping off a clip, then frantically trying to reload my weapon–but I’ll try. OK, I get it. The clip is digging into the ground under my right armpit, and I’ve got to turn it sideways and upside down to get the new clip in. But, Hey, I was in the NAVY! What the hell do I know about the right way to reload an assault rifle in combat?
The helmet was modified for the same reason. (I dive to the ground, my back pushes helmet down over my nose, knocks off my glasses, I try to prop up helmet while fumbling with rifle…).
Now army surgeons tell us that they are seeing more wounds to side and back of head and neck, because helmet protection has been reduced in these areas. Marine Corps will not adopt new helmet!
But the Bullpup helps to solve the maneuverability problem in close quarters and vehicles while retaining barrel length for range and accuracy out to 300 (?) yds.
I see the SCAR (SCAR-L, SCAR-H) solves the problem of different theaters requiring different calibers.
But we still need a single weapon with interchangeable barrels for short, carbine, infantry, sniper, SAW versions. How versatile this would be, and would significantly reduce logistics requirements. Does the SCAR satisfy such a requirement?
The British SA-80 isn’t exactly a great success story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80
The L85A2 may have solved these problems.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm
And the IDF is adopting the TAR21 Tavor, a bullpup.
“Field testing,” not adopting – the M16 is still the general service rifle. We’ll see whether they get all of the difficulties ironed out. They might – but let’s face it, the fact that the M-16 has replaced a domestically produced weapon modeled on the Kalashnikov is, to my mind, a pretty definitive statement of quality. It doesn’t mean something better can’t be designed – it just means it hasn’t been.
And with that, I’m out.
Is it only my personal impression or do the U.S.A. and Great Britain historically have an irrational aversion against buying any “Heckler&Koch” products, even when their own “Super-Power” weapons occupy the World
It’s just your personal impression. The U.S. buys foreign small arms (not to mention larger stuff) pretty routinely – the M249 SAW and the M240 machine gun were both Belgian designs and the M9 Beretta is Italian – the 120mm main gun on the M1A1 is a Rheinmetall design, which hardly suggests the U.S. has a particular aversion to all things German. And having handled both of them, I can tell you that the SAW and the 240B are both good weapons – the 240 in particular is an unbelievable improvement over the old M60 machinegun – which was based on the German MG42, and which every troop I knew was glad to see hit the road – hard to clean, prone to malfunction, poorly engineered – if ever there was a small arm nobody will miss, it’s the M60. If there was an aversion to German design and engineering, the Pig would certainly explain it.
Anecdote, anecdote anecdote; please. There are always “stories” – the crazier they are, the wider their dissemination, because they’re entertaining. Look, as I said below, I have SEEN men who were shot with 5.56mm rifle rounds. They were down – they weren’t shot fourteen times, either. The round has stopping power, because its muzzle velocity gives it a lot of kinetic energy. I noticed your news report doesn’t address that particular point.
As for Iran’s military wisdom – well, pardon me if I stick with the judgment of the Army that didn’t take eight years to not quite get to Basra.
Nanonymous:
Where is Towle courts and what happened there in 1995?
Earl,
“Towle Courts” is the gym at Fort Bragg – used to stand on Ardennes Street, directly across the street from the HQ buildings for the 4-325 AIR and two of the artillery battalions of the 82nd. There is – or was, I understand the 82nd area at Bragg has been completely redone – a sunken track and stadium right next to it. A disgruntled NCO from one of the 325 battalions went into the woods behind the stadium on the night before a brigade run with an AR-15 and a couple of hundred rounds of ammo, dug himself a spider hole, and waited until morning. When the brigade was formed up on the field in the stadium, he started shooting. He was eventually taken down by a couple of SF soldiers who were running down a side street, but he killed one man and wounded a whole bunch more. He got the death penalty, but it was, I understand, overturned a year or two ago on appeal. I think his name was Kreischer, or something like that. Right around Thanksgiving.
Thanks, Nanonymous.
Not good memories.
Earl, I believe SCAR does in fact fill all those requirements in spades. All variants have high commonality, both the L and H can be configured in short, standard, and long configurations, and the design is intended to support a SAW variant easily. SOCOM has its head on straight, and SOCOM likes it alot.
Good info on it here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/smith.pdf
To
If you think a round kills only by tumbling, than you don’t know very much about ballistics, wound mechanics, or basic physics, for that matter.
Nor do you know much about the US effort to support the muj, if you think they beat the Sovs with a few old Enfields.
Ironically, you’re displaying eactly the same sortof semi-religious tribal pride in procurement that’s mentioned above.
Good Morning Folks,
A good lively dicussion going on here, can’t help but jump in.
Several issues are at play here so I will start with the basic service rifles the M-16A2/4′s and the M-4/M-4A1′s. Both are of the the Eugene Stoner design and are operationaly different from the gas piston system uses in the AK-47 and the AK-74. This appears to be at the heart of the operating problems that the Stoner system has and still suffers.
In all respects with the exception of relability the M-16 is a susperior weapon. The M-16 of today is NOT the same as the Vietnam M-16, it has evolved.
The hopeful replacement for the Stoner System weapoms will be the XM-8 which was throughly tested and vented by a batallion from the 82d. AB Div. in 2005 and found to be superior to there M-16′s in all ways. The XM-8 ran 15K rounds through several sample weapons without a stoppage, no Stoner design weapon has ever done that.
The test samples were sent to Ft. Detrick Md. for final approval of the brass and it was found wanting because it fail a heat test on full auto where some of the furniture melted. The fact that the M-4 can’t even perform this operation was not a factor.
The reason for the love affair with the Stoner Weapons is of corse Colt Firearms who own all the rights for the weapon. The XM-8 is a product of H&K which of course is owned by Beretta who manufacture the M-9 Handgun for the Military.
Generals and Pentagon beaucrats are very much aware of their post service employment and so is Colt, don’t expect the XM-8 to be adopted anytime soon.
As to the ammunitation. The 5.56 for general use is here to stay, it’s virtue is only 3.5lbs. of recoil. The 7.63 with 16lbs, of recoil is far to much for our modern Military who is now about 20% female. Just for dicussion the 30-06 of the world wars and Koerea had 19lbs. of recoil.
There are two canidates out there for soldiers such as Combat and SOF who need more of a round, the are the 6.8mm SPC and the 6.5mm Grendel. Bother these round come in at 115gr vs. the 62gr. of the 5.56mm (for special uses the 5.56mm can also be had in a 77gr. Mach round) Both these rounds come in at about 9lbs. of kick and are not suitable for support troops with min. weapons training.
On to the stopping power of the various bullets. I’m likely one of the few here who has first hand experience in this but I can say that it is true at less the 50 meters that a single hit form a 5.56mm round will not bring a man down if it hits soft tissue and no bone, but surprise neither will will the 7.62mm either although it has almost three time the energy of the 5.56mm. The problem is of course the non-expandinmg Ball Bullet which the Military uses.
The solution is of course a political one not a techincal one. Let the Military use the same expanding bullets that hunters can use and kills at short range will be more common. The down side of course is the enemy will also change there bullets too and more Americans will die. Take your pick.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
To nanonymous:
For freefallingbomb:
You’ve got so many intellectually disingenuous thoughts in your post, it’s hard to choose. I’ll just tackle a couple.
“And should the talibans EVER lay hands on some sort of Stinger missiles or even on
To Steve, to Earl and to nanonymous ( to nanonymous “pre-emptively” too ) :
Do you U.S. Americans want to sleep forever on your laurels?
Things changed a bit, you know?
Or do you think that former honour is a justification for present shame?
Hitler appealed to Germany’s former honour too, even a lot ( and in fact it had been cheated by the Allies after World War One, when they illicitly converted President Wilson’s 14 Points for a truce into a Versailles Treaty for peace, but that
How did this conversation go from, how and why the US has obsolete small arms, to which country is the most “evil”? It appears ‘Nonoymous’ fell off the rocking chair first, and then it got nasty, with ‘Freefallingbomb’ taking the whacko prize so far. Please keep the discussion relevant to the story as much as possible. This is not the place for conspiracy theories, and outdated nationalistic world views.
A 5.56mmx45mm 62gr has muzzle energy of 1200 ft/lbs; Even the 77gr only delivers 1300 ft/lbs. A 7.62x51mm has muzzle energy of 2600 ft/lbs. Rough numbers. They don
To: Mr.Byron Skinner
Good morning, not-so-(n)anonymous Mr. Byron Skinner!
1)
Here’s an example of how I think the conversation went astray:
Perhaps one poster insults others by writing:
“…outdated nationalistic world views.”
Then tries to take the high ground by first preaching:
“This is not the place for conspiracy theories…”
Then by returning to the original topic with rational and relevant comments.
While I agree that we have gone astray from the topic, it is not BT’s place to set us straight. His sort of behavior is almost gauranteed to set at least a few people off.
I am still interested in hearing from some people with real world experience with this inportant topic, not another bullshit artist like BT. Perhaps Byron Skinner is the only one we have heard from so far.
Good Morning freefallingbomb,
Interesting response to my post. Although I’m not sure you understood what I said I will TRY and respond to your comments.
1. I’m not sure where we disagree here. If you would have included my comments on the 6.5 and 6.8mm bullets as being more suited for Infantry and combat troops I can’t see any real point s of dispute here.
2. On expanding bullets, I only mentioned that they would be a solution to the problem of close quarter take down power. If you finished my quoting my statement you would have noticed that I said if we start using expanding bullets we could also expect the enemy to do likewise. I didn’t suggest this solution to the prioblem.
3. Regarding foreign weapons. The ones you mention are all vintage firearms the G-3 is from the 60′s if I recall and the XM-8 is of foreign drsign, H&K it is a revision of the H&K G-36 if I recall, which is widely used by Germany.
Although I didn’t mention it in this post but have before I thing the H&K MP-7 with its 4.6mm cartidge would be an excellent choice oas a weapon for combat support troops and support troops. It is verstial, less expensive then the M-9, and has more fire power. In fact I don’t think that I mentioned any weapon of domestic design as being in the mix. Althout the Barlett 416 looks good at this point as along range Sniper Rifle. It still need a lot more field testing.
The problems of weapons design and useage are more then just technical problems. They also embrace national cultures, politicial considerations as well as being aware that it could come back at ya.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
To Earl’s last comment from the 25th of February of 2007, 11:36 a.m.
Hat off to EVERY SINGLE phrase of that post of yours!
( First I thought of saying EXACTLY THE SAME to BT too, but then I thought to myself: Eagles don’t feed on sparrows.
I think that blind patriotism is his problem… )
Byron S(k)inner is indeed from a platoon farther ahead: Any possible replies to HIS posts need to be thoroughly recherched first!
But they will…
I know that it
To M. Byron Skinner:
You said:
Re. freefallingbomb’s post on February 25, 2007.
Here, you state:
“The best ASSAULT RIFLE in the World:
The classic G3 in the 7,62 mm calibre ( 4,4 kgs weight, 600 rounds per minute )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G3
I don
Good Morning Thomas L. Nielsen, freefallingbomb et. all,
Some interesting comments here. First I will address Mr. Nielsen, me thinks you answered your own questions as well as I could.
It’s the ammo baby. For the weight of 100 rds. of 7.62x51mm NATO a rifleman can carry nearly 300 Rds. of 5.56x49mm NATO and current Infantry tacts uase the spray and pray at targets around a 150 meters or less, the choice seem quite appearent of the perfered round for us in an assualt rifle.
Another point that elimates the 7.62x51mm Rd. is that it is almost uncontrolable in either three round burst or full auto(rock and roll for my generation of Riflemen) for the majority os soldiers. The U.S. M-14 E-2 was not a successful weapon, very few ever qualified on the weapon in AIT, I was one who did.
The G-3 as far as I know is not considered an assualt rifle but just a standard service rifle for the era much the same as the U.S. M-14.
Now to freefallingbomb somewhere out in out in never-neverland. Both the Russians and Chinese have there own Assualt Weapon programs already in place and both are way ahead of the U.S. The Russians are currentlt fielding the “excellent” AK-74 in a 5.45x39mm round and it has been given high marks by NATO for accuracy and durability. It was fielded in 1974.
The Chinese have another (so far as we know) excellent assualt the Type 90 in their own 5.8mm round. Although not much is know about this weapon in the west, it appears to be a solid weapon. It has been in actual use in the field with SOF Battalions since 1990.
So freefallingbomb as you surly can see the U.S. is playing a game of catch up here. The Russians and Chinese have already committed tp 21st. Century assualt weapons programs while the U.S. is still fielding what is in essense 70 year old WW II technology with the Stoner AR operating system.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
The most compelling argument for change is that new small arms are relatively cheap (everyone in the U.S. Army could get a new rifle for $1 billion even at $2,000 each). This is the cost of 1 destroyer (or less in the case of the DD(X)), or 10 fighter aircraft (give or take, depending on the model).
There are lots of commentators who looked at the XM-8 (and its descendants) and found it wanting vis-a-vis other possible alternatives. This may very well be true. I don’t recall any who thought the proposed new model was worse than a legacy M-4 or M-16. If we spend $1 billion on an improvement from the status quo, and then have to spend another $1 billion five years later on something even better, so be it. Buying new guns also eliminates the need to buy new M-4s and M-16s, so it isn’t a complete loss even then.
It appears, looking through the dark glass that its Defense Procurement that the reason an upgrade was abandoned was an issue of proper contracting fairness. In other words, the loser could have sued for lost profits due to a rigged process. In peacetime, that attitude makes sense. In a time of war, if we have to pay some other company its 40% markup of lost profits (perhaps $400 million), on top of the $1 billion contract price paid to the winner, so be it.
To the poster Thomas L. Nielsen:
Strange: I
To the poster “ohwilleke” :
The XM-8 has “descendants” ALREADY ? ( I thought that it hadn’t even been born itself yet! )
To Freefallingbomb:
“In most NATO countries the complete marching equipment of the AVERAGE infantryman ( NO : NOT of any paratroopers! ) is around 51 kgs, everybody has to walk cross-country for 20 kms
“The XM-8 has “descendants” ALREADY ? (I thought that it hadn’t even been born itself yet)”
“Pre-natal siblings” would have been a better choice of words. The way the reps for the thing talk about it as a “family” of weapons, you’d think they celebrated each other’s birthday parties and went to church together on Sundays.
A good history of the technology here:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
To the poster Bob Ehling:
To freefallingbomb:
I admit that maybe the tone was a bit harsh in my original comments on the G3. Please misunderstand me the right way: I’m certainly not calling the G3 a useless, constantly malfunctioning piece of crap. Far from it. It’s solid, powerful and accurate. But my personal experience with the weapon makes me hesitate to call it the “best service/assault rifle ever”.
Something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark ? Certainly. After all, right-wing extremism is on the rise, and we pay 50% income tax. Talk about rotten…..
Oh, and BTW, I have several good friends in the German armed forces (and no, I don’t feel compelled to scream insults at them, although their “ancestors” did sort of show up for breakfast one morning in 1940 and didn’t go home for 5 years). After all, you can’t dislike people who are that good at engineering, and who make such good beer, and whose language is so cool (have you ever heart a German drill sergeant order recruits around ? Good Golly Ms. Molly is all I’m saying).
And speaking of: If you don’t mind revealing it – Which is your European country ? Just for the records ?
Regards and all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark
To the poster Thomas L. Nielsen:
To the poster Bob Ehling:
Thanks for your answer. Just three or four insignificant remarks:
1)
Response comments below [in brackets].
But who
The game is the only hobby of him. He would like to give up, in all of us comfort and encouragement. He decided to join us to play the new mountain, he was still playing knife, I also playing a doctor, and we all give him a little Scions of Fate money. He touched me most is that I give up a 93 levels, as he went to mountain play.
Although I already buy dofus kamas to you, and you will not put this in your heart.
Although I already buy dofus kamas to you, and you will not put this in your heart.
I started to play cronous in college. At that time the cronous was not updated, and had little cronous money.
After playing game I always write down my feelings of this game to share with everyone. Now I was playing this Shaiya gold game and want to write a article about the Shaiya game.