Jump to content

A6M5 Zero


RobOnPlane

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Hiromachi said:

Japanese engineers didn't live under the rock. It makes not sense to reinvent the wheel when optimal solution exists elsewhere. And Revi 2b was considered at a time a fine gunsight that was used as basis for designs in more than Japan. Besides, the same point could be made about armament. Japanese Type 99 20 mm cannon was a licensed copy of Oerlikon FF used in Bf 109, PZL P.24 or bunch of other designs around the world. 

Although realistically I dont think the statement is wrong. Zero design was of Japanese origin. However what it was furnished with wasn't up to Mitsubishi but IJN. And it doesnt change its origin just as furnishing Hurricanes by VVS with 12.7 mm Berezin machine guns didnt make them Soviet.

 

As for propeller, that's a bit of exaggeration. Constant speed unit in the propeller was based off the Hamilton Standard design (due to acquired licence), which at a time (again) was leading prop company. But propeller blades were designed by Sumitomo Heavy Industries. 

Yes, Absolutelly right, in my opinion...

And yes, the Zero is missing in DCS, without a doubt. Witch model, year or navy or not navy is another point, but there should be Zero, specially if the Marianas Islands are comming our way, plus some Japaneese assets. 

I have spoken...😜

Saludos.

Saca111


Edited by Sacarino111
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sacarino111 said:

.......... Witch model, year or navy or not navy is another point, but there should be Zero, specially if the Marianas Islands are comming our way, plus some Japaneese assets. 

I have spoken...😜

Saludos.

Saca111

 

If I am not mistaken, the "Zero" was never anything but a Navy a/c. The A6M was never operated by the IJA.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AG-51_Razor said:

If I am not mistaken, the "Zero" was never anything but a Navy a/c. The A6M was never operated by the IJA.

I'm pretty sure this is correct and I know for a fact that IJA Oscars were often mistaken for Zeroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rakkis said:

I'm pretty sure this is correct and I know for a fact that IJA Oscars were often mistaken for Zeroes.

Nakajima_Ki-43-IIa.jpg

that would be easy to do I hope we get both as opfor for the Corsair. I don't care which but both would be nice. 

On 11/1/2020 at 7:27 AM, Doc3908 said:

A couple of months ago I stumbled on a post in the Mods section about Zuikaku carrier (which in itself is quite nicely done): https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/dcs-world-topics/mods-and-apps/dcs-mods/287684-ww2-aircraft-carrier-zuikaku. But there was also a mention of an A6M that the guy had done. Here's the link to his site: http://virtualcockpits.web.fc2.com/mod/dcsw_reisen52/dcsw_reisen52.html. Unfortunately, the Zero is no longer flyable, but it makes a nice AI enemy to test your skills against. And, believe me, it will test your skill (though I'm not sure how realistic the flight model is...). Here's a video of me taking on an AI-controlled A6M in my I-16 (one of very few victories I managed against this A6M)...

 

 

 

I guess our next World War II theater could be China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rakkis said:

I'm pretty sure this is correct and I know for a fact that IJA Oscars were often mistaken for Zeroes.

HI, I don´t want to be misunderstood, or be "finiki" (is that a word?), but I could remember Zero attacking Pearl Harbor. I have just checked Internet and found that A6M2 Zero model 11 Zeke  took part in that attack, as well utilised from ground bases in helpeing the fleet or the japanes army As I am not any kind of expert in that matter, maybe I mistakenly thought that the Zeke was some kind of navalised Zero. Not arguing, just wanting to explain that if there was a naval one, it would be a geat add to DCS, along with some japanese assests, like carrier os Val etc. for the Marianas islands.

Kindly.

Saludos.

Saca111


Edited by Sacarino111
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...

 

So the A6M was used exclusively by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) and as far as I am aware never by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). 

 

"Zeke" was the Allies official reporting name for the A6M; "Zero" was the Japanese nickname (Reisen) but this also became a common colloquialism among allied flyers.

 

There were land based variants of the A6M produced without a tail-hook, because despite being Navy owned and operated, the IJN found itself with less and less carriers as the war progressed but still had island airfields to defend.

 

The Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) was given the reporting name "Oscar" was used exclusively by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA); however, given the similarity of layout (close cowled radial, low wing, bubble canopy) both types were frequently confused for each other.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Ok...

 

So the A6M was used exclusively by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) and as far as I am aware never by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). 

 

"Zeke" was the Allies official reporting name for the A6M; "Zero" was the Japanese nickname (Reisen) but this also became a common colloquialism among allied flyers.

 

There were land based variants of the A6M produced without a tail-hook, because despite being Navy owned and operated, the IJN found itself with less and less carriers as the war progressed but still had island airfields to defend.

 

The Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) was given the reporting name "Oscar" was used exclusively by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA); however, given the similarity of layout (close cowled radial, low wing, bubble canopy) both types were frequently confused for each other.

Hi.

Thanks for the information. Allwas good to lissen to the peolple who knows something about something.

Chhers.

Saca111

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zero is more iconic, and overall the better fighter by a considerable margin in my opinion. But I always had a thing for Ki-43. It is like you take Zero, and crank up all its advantages AND disadvantages. Insanely light and maneuverable, insanely fragile as well. Isn't particularly fast, but still climbs like crazy. Not much in the way of firepower. And it is just weirdly pretty. As a future potential DCS module, I'd prefer Zero, it just makes more sense, but would LOVE to play around with a Ki-43 in DCS too if it becomes a thing at any point.

 

I'm amazed that Japanese pilots were able to shoot down Lightnings, and even P-47 with it, even though rather rarely as far as I know.

 

Of course, with Japanese WW II fighters, there is the issue of availability of information and/or accessible airframes. Original documentation is said to be destroyed for most of them, and little or no airframes survive for most types. If we'd like a performance-wise comparable Japanese opponent to existing P-47, P-51, and upcoming F4U1-d, Ki84, Ki-61, Ki-100, or N1K2-J would be better fits than any A6M Zero or Ki-43 Hayabusa. Or arguably even a J2M Raiden. But as far as I know, there isn't much data left for most of them, and frankly, they aren't as iconic as the Zero.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends really. A6M2 and A6M3 were far better aircraft than Ki-43-I and early Ki-43-II. To start with, Zero did not have particular issues with structural integrity while first Oscars delivered by Nakajima at the end of 1941 gave pilots headaches due to bending wings. But over time Nakajima put a lot of effort into improving the airframe. Oscar gained similar to Zero reflective gunsight, armament was increased to two 12.7 mm machine cannons (as Japanese labeled HMGs) and unlike Zeros, protective measures were introduced. By the end of production of first series (Ki-43-I) protected fuel tanks were installed. Ki-43-II gained more powerful engine (same as A6M3 / A6M5 Zeros), proper armored plate and better protected fuel tanks. By the end of the 2nd series and especially with introduction of Ki-43-III, Oscar was a fairly well protected aircraft. Fuel tank protection was comprised of various layers of rubber and other dedicated materials, which likely wasnt as good as U.S. all rubber fuel tanks, but was on pair with German or other nation solutions. And armor protection grew to three armored plates (small one to protect the head, large piece covering back and lower parts of body and another small piece angled below the pilots butt and legs). It was 13 mm thick, but high hardness steel was used which proved in tests, when two .50 cal rounds fired at it dented it, but failed to penetrate. And later Oscars were as fast as Zeros.

 

By late 1943 Zero gained some performance but firepower and protective measures remained almost the same as in early ones (the sole protective measure introduce was fire extinguisher system which could detect fire and in case of detection, would spray CO2 to extinguish flames). 

 

Another aspect could be discussed as flight characteristics. Oscar required lower stick force for lateral control producing better roll rate, especially at high speeds. So all in all, I would switch from Zero to Oscar by late 1943 if I had to fly either. Better firepower would be nice but Ho-103 compensates a lot with explosive rounds and its better to have armored plate than not to have it 🙂

 

As for opponents and theaters. Personally I am not a fan of rushing to late war designs. Data on late war Japanese designs are limited indeed, but I simply favor early to mid war stuff. I'm pretty sure that decent balance could be created with high levels of realism if something like 1943 New Guinea theater was selected. You can stick there Zeros, Oscars, Ki-61s and even newer dive bombers like D4Y1, while Allies have whole range of aircraft from Wildcats and P-40s, through Lightings, Spitfire Vs and Corsairs up to early P-47 D-2s. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Hiromachi said:

That depends really. A6M2 and A6M3 were far better aircraft than Ki-43-I and early Ki-43-II. To start with, Zero did not have particular issues with structural integrity while first Oscars delivered by Nakajima at the end of 1941 gave pilots headaches due to bending wings. But over time Nakajima put a lot of effort into improving the airframe. Oscar gained similar to Zero reflective gunsight, armament was increased to two 12.7 mm machine cannons (as Japanese labeled HMGs) and unlike Zeros, protective measures were introduced. By the end of production of first series (Ki-43-I) protected fuel tanks were installed. Ki-43-II gained more powerful engine (same as A6M3 / A6M5 Zeros), proper armored plate and better protected fuel tanks. By the end of the 2nd series and especially with introduction of Ki-43-III, Oscar was a fairly well protected aircraft. Fuel tank protection was comprised of various layers of rubber and other dedicated materials, which likely wasnt as good as U.S. all rubber fuel tanks, but was on pair with German or other nation solutions. And armor protection grew to three armored plates (small one to protect the head, large piece covering back and lower parts of body and another small piece angled below the pilots butt and legs). It was 13 mm thick, but high hardness steel was used which proved in tests, when two .50 cal rounds fired at it dented it, but failed to penetrate. And later Oscars were as fast as Zeros.

 

By late 1943 Zero gained some performance but firepower and protective measures remained almost the same as in early ones (the sole protective measure introduce was fire extinguisher system which could detect fire and in case of detection, would spray CO2 to extinguish flames). 

 

Another aspect could be discussed as flight characteristics. Oscar required lower stick force for lateral control producing better roll rate, especially at high speeds. So all in all, I would switch from Zero to Oscar by late 1943 if I had to fly either. Better firepower would be nice but Ho-103 compensates a lot with explosive rounds and its better to have armored plate than not to have it 🙂

 

As for opponents and theaters. Personally I am not a fan of rushing to late war designs. Data on late war Japanese designs are limited indeed, but I simply favor early to mid war stuff. I'm pretty sure that decent balance could be created with high levels of realism if something like 1943 New Guinea theater was selected. You can stick there Zeros, Oscars, Ki-61s and even newer dive bombers like D4Y1, while Allies have whole range of aircraft from Wildcats and P-40s, through Lightings, Spitfire Vs and Corsairs up to early P-47 D-2s. 

Splendid!

In conclusion, we need (badly) japaneese assets plus some fighter module (zoer, Oscar...). No talk about WWII carriers, also needed. In deed. my doctor has the same opinion as I do... Wishlist?

Saludos

Saca111

Saca111

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Zero plus Japanese carrier is a must. Would be a missed opportunity to not have these. Carrier vs carrier battles would be a new and exhilarating WW2 experience. Flying over open ocean with only a friendly carrier force to land on. And if you lose all your carriers... you have no where to land. 😆

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 2/6/2021 at 1:47 PM, Hiromachi said:

As every pilot Saburo Sakai had limited knowledge of the entire scope of air war, being low ranking flyer at a time. His memoirs (but not Martin Caidin reconstruction of them) are good source for variety of events and experiences, but I would not take them for granted for any information. Especially when it comes to organization and unit employment across the frontline.

 

There were Zeros in China. I've written article about that few years ago: 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/27807-debut-of-zero-sen/

It's based on a number of sources, including 12th Ku combat reports and one of its pilots translated diary. 

I checked - you are 100% right. The conflict I meant was in 1938-1939. Saburo Sakai flew then A5M which was inferior (according Sakai) to Soviet fighters both in speed and agility I'm not sure about climb. A6M in 1940 are absolutely possible 🙂

Prepared as always you are young Padawan 😉

 

With my regards 303_Kermit

As for Wish... A6M vs F4F - or N1K1(ew. Ki61-II) vs F4U. Any other combination makes IMHO little sense.


Edited by 303_Kermit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a Zero is necessary. It wouldn't make much sense introducing a player aircraft that would get absolutely ruined by P-51D and Corsair. Their only hopes would be to get the enemy slow or come in from a stealthily position. Kind of ridiculous to be honest if the goal is to recreate the almost non-existent late-war KDR of the A6M5. Keep it as an AI aircraft and focus on more important aircraft like La-5/7 and a Yak of some kind.


Edited by IcedVenom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Zero is one of the most iconic aircraft of WW2. I bet it will sale well, no matter what opposition it faces in game. Just look at what DCS modules are available right now outside of WW2. The most legendary aircraft of all eras, not only the top performers. No everyone just plays competitive multiplayer.

Most likely it will be possible to deactivate water injection in our F4U in mission editor, once it is released. Combat between F4U and Zero in the Solomons in 1943, when the Japanese still had well trained pilots available, wasn't as one sided as you suggest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Cunctator said:

The Zero is one of the most iconic aircraft of WW2. I bet it will sale well, no matter what opposition it faces in game. Just look at what DCS modules are available right now outside of WW2. The most legendary aircraft of all eras, not only the top performers. No everyone just plays competitive multiplayer.

Most likely it will be possible to deactivate water injection in our F4U in mission editor, once it is released. Combat between F4U and Zero in the Solomons in 1943, when the Japanese still had well trained pilots available, wasn't as one sided as you suggest.  

F4U-1's vs. A6M2's. This thread is talking about the A6M5. With the direction props are taking in DCS with all being late-war variants such as K-4, P-51D and late Spitfire I don't think any player controlled zero is a good idea. Should instead focus on early war props to fill out opposition to the I-16, A6M2 can then be one of them but not until there are equal planes for it to face, else it would be a bloodbath for the Zeros. These are American pilots though, so I guess the Japanese have a chance lol


Edited by IcedVenom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Being a bit of an armchair historian and having spent a lot of time on the Pacific campaigns in earnest, especially in regards to the march up the Solomons, I just plain want a Pacific theater sim! And especially a Zero! I don't care if it's an A6M2, 3, or 5 anyone of them will do, but I do think some appropriate adversaries need to be included. If you're going to do early war / Guadacanal period you have to have the F4F Wildcat, midwar the F6F Hellcat and Corsair (which would take you into the late war as well). Of course if you're going to do late war, where DCS seems to be focused right now, then you really need the N1JK-1/2 George or Ki-84 Frank to be competitive and fair (along with the A6M5), and mid-war the Ki-61 Tony.

You can't do the Pacific without the Zero. It was exclusive to the IJN but was also their most produced AC outnumbering all their other production fighters. And for a great portion of the war it flew in far greater numbers as a land based fighter than carrier based. The Ki-43 Oscar is interesting if your going to do Burma and mainland China, but was lacking in many ways compared to the Zero as pointed out in previous comments here, and did not really have much of a presence in South Pacific so is a non-starter for me.

 

As far as documentation on these types goes there is actually a lot more material available on the web (and other sources) than folks realize. I have even found links to engineering evaluations, with photos of interior airframe components, done by the US during the war for several of these aircraft on sites as diverse as the War Thunder forum (an arcade sim I refuse to fly, but I still found those links to be useful!-). I even found one of these reports on the Ki-44 Tojo none of which are in existence now except maybe in bits and pieces in the jungles New Guinea. There are also many surviving examples of some of these AC around the world where enterprising folks can dig up more technical info as well. There's a ton of good info on their carriers and other fleet vessels these being a little better documented despite many of them being destroyed rather early in the war. So personally I think it's all within the range of possibility if the devs really were committed to it.

 

Give me an escort carrier, and one fleet carrier, the Solomons or Marianas map and just a few models on each side and I'm one happy camper! The combat flight sim world has been sorely missing a good solid Pacific theater sim since IL-2 Pacific and 1946 made their debut. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Props said:

Being a bit of an armchair historian and having spent a lot of time on the Pacific campaigns in earnest, especially in regards to the march up the Solomons, I just plain want a Pacific theater sim! And especially a Zero! I don't care if it's an A6M2, 3, or 5 anyone of them will do, but I do think some appropriate adversaries need to be included. If you're going to do early war / Guadacanal period you have to have the F4F Wildcat, midwar the F6F Hellcat and Corsair (which would take you into the late war as well). Of course if you're going to do late war, where DCS seems to be focused right now, then you really need the N1JK-1/2 George or Ki-84 Frank to be competitive and fair (along with the A6M5), and mid-war the Ki-61 Tony.

You can't do the Pacific without the Zero. It was exclusive to the IJN but was also their most produced AC outnumbering all their other production fighters. And for a great portion of the war it flew in far greater numbers as a land based fighter than carrier based. The Ki-43 Oscar is interesting if your going to do Burma and mainland China, but was lacking in many ways compared to the Zero as pointed out in previous comments here, and did not really have much of a presence in South Pacific so is a non-starter for me.

 

As far as documentation on these types goes there is actually a lot more material available on the web (and other sources) than folks realize. I have even found links to engineering evaluations, with photos of interior airframe components, done by the US during the war for several of these aircraft on sites as diverse as the War Thunder forum (an arcade sim I refuse to fly, but I still found those links to be useful!-). I even found one of these reports on the Ki-44 Tojo none of which are in existence now except maybe in bits and pieces in the jungles New Guinea. There are also many surviving examples of some of these AC around the world where enterprising folks can dig up more technical info as well. There's a ton of good info on their carriers and other fleet vessels these being a little better documented despite many of them being destroyed rather early in the war. So personally I think it's all within the range of possibility if the devs really were committed to it.

 

Give me an escort carrier, and one fleet carrier, the Solomons or Marianas map and just a few models on each side and I'm one happy camper! The combat flight sim world has been sorely missing a good solid Pacific theater sim since IL-2 Pacific and 1946 made their debut. 


References are a problem for Japanese aircraft. As for Russian planes even for common types there tends to be very few surviving examples with none original and in flying condition. Even the basic issue that any documentation that exists will need to be translated from Japanese is a problem.

 

To build a DCS aircraft you need complete systems modelling, it’s not proving easy even for common Western types like the Spit and P51. Flight test data is only part of the story as it only produces a few numbers, that’s why Nick Grey is keen on modelling planes with flying examples, you can talk to the pilots and have them validate your FM. Even historical flight test data has its limitations, there’s the issues with captured examples being damaged or not maintained properly, ideally you need source data from the manufacturers for serial production aircraft. Prototypes could be quite different to serial production aircraft, you really want to model the performance of a front line example not some one-off special. 

 

I think the Zero is very likely as there are flying examples. I imagine ED will be keen to be seen to not be “making stuff up”, I’m no sure how they’d react to other developers having more of a punt though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can certainly appreciate the diligence and effort to make these planes as real as possible! I wouldn't expect anything less from crew at DCS. I also acknowledge that the US (and British) evaluations of these AC made during the war can be flawed for the reasons that Mogster pointed out. But at this point in history there may never be enough data, especially from the few lucky pilots that have actually flown them like the guys at Planes of Fame, or now that most of the original pilots have passed on, to effectively model them to perfection. So I am kind of the school of thought that you do the best you can with what you have available, tweak as you go, and hope for the best, rather than not trying at all. We are 70+ years removed from the WW2 era and cannot expect things to be exactly perfect at this point, but I'm willing to bet the extraordinary devs found at DCS can still provide for a great set of planes modeled pretty darn close to reality with the resources that are still available today. I personally feel it is worth the effort.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

I’m kind of dubious of the whole flying examples / documentation thing...

 

we have 3 Luftwaffe modules, supposedly to full DCS standard... but no flying examples for any

 

 


There may not be existing original examples of the precise marque’s featured in game but there are original flyable in-line and radial FW190s and original BF109s in abundance, then there’s the replicas. Historical data is available in reams also.

 

There are flyable original Zeros and Ki43s iirc and plenty of surviving airframes, someone sold Ki43 replicas a while back iirc. I can see the Zero and Ki43 being goers.
 

There’s one original Ki84 in existence and it was comprehensively looted after being left knocking around in Japan outside a museum for a while. Most other Japanese planes have no existing examples outside jungle wreckage. No one has seen these planes in motion or flown these planes since WW2. Most Japanese data was destroyed in the fire bombing of Japan, what was left was destroyed to stop the allies getting hold of it. I’m not sure what ED or anyone else would base a fully featured DCS module on. It’s very unfortunate but this is reality...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least 3 surviving N1KJ George in the US, both in supposedly flying condition - one is at the Smithsonian and may still be under restoration (there are videos about this one on youtube about the painstaking work involved) and another at the National Naval Aviation museum in Pensacola, FL and one at the USAF National Museum in Dayton OH (I have seen this one up close and supposedly all AC there are restored to airworthiness though they never fly them and I'm sure there are exceptions). They also recently recovered one in Japan from underwater that is being currently restored. That Ki84 Frank was flying in the '70s there is a video of this, but Mogster is correct about it being rather derelict now. According to Wikipedia there are 4 surviving Ki-61 Hein out there one of which is being restored to airworthy status in New Zealand and another in good condition in California, one that was restored recently by Kawasaki in Japan and another in restoration New Zealand. I could go on as there are other Japanese models out there in different states of repair so getting many specs for these AC is not beyond hope.

 

I could put a comprehensive set of links to documentation here, but it would fill the page. If there is interest I will post this info. Like I mentioned before I am an avid student of WW2 Pacific aviation and there's a lot more info out there than many folks realize.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Props said:

There are at least 3 surviving N1KJ George in the US, both in supposedly flying condition - one is at the Smithsonian and may still be under restoration (there are videos about this one on youtube about the painstaking work involved) and another at the National Naval Aviation museum in Pensacola, FL and one at the USAF National Museum in Dayton OH (I have seen this one up close and supposedly all AC there are restored to airworthiness though they never fly them and I'm sure there are exceptions). They also recently recovered one in Japan from underwater that is being currently restored. That Ki84 Frank was flying in the '70s there is a video of this, but Mogster is correct about it being rather derelict now. According to Wikipedia there are 4 surviving Ki-61 Hein out there one of which is being restored to airworthy status in New Zealand and another in good condition in California, one that was restored recently by Kawasaki in Japan and another in restoration New Zealand. I could go on as there are other Japanese models out there in different states of repair so getting many specs for these AC is not beyond hope.

 

I could put a comprehensive set of links to documentation here, but it would fill the page. If there is interest I will post this info. Like I mentioned before I am an avid student of WW2 Pacific aviation and there's a lot more info out there than many folks realize.


The last 15 years or so there does seem to be a lot more retrieval’s of documented jungle wrecks, for good and for bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

ZERO…!!!!

 

(I saw them)

 

 

well, actually no… hugely excited to see a pair of “Zeros” feature in the Marianas trailer - faded to disappointment as freeze frame revealed them to be Antons

 

a cheap ruse 😕

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...