Modern Battleship

Showcase your own starship and weapon designs or other creative artwork
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Modern Battleship

Post by Graham Kennedy »

I've been reading a lot about battleships lately, and I started playing around with what a modern battleship might look like. I'm sure most know the Iowas, but being a Brit I wanted to look at something British. The obvious choice was HMS Vanguard, the last of the British battleships and indeed the last battleship ever built in the whole world.

For various reasons British battleships are generally regarded as being good, but rarely quite the best. In the run up to WWI they tended to sacrifice protection for speed, and suffered for it, notably at Jutland. In the run up to WWII they were somewhat crippled by treaty obligations, and by the time those were truly gone we were more concerned with aircraft carriers anyway.

Note that this ship is not meant to be the original Vanguard preserved and modernised, as was done with the Iowas; rather it's intended to be a new build ship whose design is inspired by the Vanguard. A Vanguard reboot, if you like. The idea was to use present day off the shelf systems wherever possible. I've also tried to be reasonably restrained; truth be told you could probably load this thing down with a LOT more armament than I have.

Image

Stats :

Displacement : 44,500 tons standard, 51,420 tons full load
Length : 814 ft 6 in (249.16 m)
Beam : 107 ft 7 in (33.7 m)
Draught : 30 ft 6 in (9.30 m)

Dimensions and displacement are much as the original ship.

Propulsion : 4 shaft
6 × Rolls-Royce PWR-2 nuclear reactor, 20.5 MW (27,450 shp) each
8 × GEC Turbines, 2 per shaft
4 × Converteam electric motors, 30 MW (40,200 shp) each
6 × Wärtsilä V12 VASA32 diesel generators, 2 MW (2,700 shp) each

I've gutted the original engineering plant. The original Vanguard had 8 oil fired boilers which developed 130,000 shp for propulsion. PWR-2's are the reactors used on the Vanguard and Astute class submarines, and should develop more than enough power whilst lasting Vanguard her entire life without need of refit.
The GEC turbines are also from the Astutes, and arranged two per shaft. Backup generators are taken from the Type 45 destroyers.

With some extra power available, I estimate that the updated Vanguard would hit 31 to 32 knots, compared to 30 for the original. Range would be indefinite, of course.

Sensors :

1 × SAMPSON multi function air tracking radar
1 × S1850M 3-D Air surveillance radar
2 × Raytheon I-band Radar (Type 1047)
1 × Raytheon E/F-band Radar (Type 1048)

The sensor fit is very much in line with the Type 45 destroyer. The S1850M can track up to a thousand targets at distances of up to 400 km, and is said to be very good against stealth targets. The Sampson is an AESA radar, and arguably the best radar afloat with any navy.

Armament :

8 × BL 15 inch Mk I guns (4x2) Mark IN with RP12 RPC;
16 × QF 5.25 inch Mk I guns (8x2) Mark I with RP10 RPC;
96 × Sylver VLS For Aster 15/30, SCALP Naval
24 x RGM-84D Harpoon missile in quad launchers;
6 × 21 cell RAM missile launchers;
2 × 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS;
8 × Typhoon weapon systems with 30 mm cannon;
14 × Stations for L7 7.62mm GPMG

The 15 inch guns were one of the RN's best gun designs, and indeed the whole reason the original Vanguard was built was because they had some "spare" guns and mountings lying around and decided to use them up once they had dockyard space for a new battleship. Range is around 32,500 yards, but there was talk of developing sabot rounds for the Iowas that could considerably extend the cannon range, and there's no reason this could not be done. With those range would, perhaps, double. I would automate these turrets as much as possible to save on manpower.

The secondary 5.25 inchers are as on Vanguard. I was tempted to replace them with modern 4.5 inch turrets but why step down the firepower? An upgrade might be to put the Naval 155mm gun in, if it ever appears. I would automate these turrets as much as possible to save on manpower.

I worked in 96 Sylver cells for Aster 15/30 SAMs and SCALP naval for land attack beyond the range of the guns. The makers claim Tomahawk can also be launched from Sylver, though I don't know if it's ever been done. When the Common Anti Air Modular Missile appears, it should quad pack in these cells.

No less than six 21 cell Ram launchers, for 126 missiles; all have space adjacent for reloads to be carried. 2 Goalkeepers for CIWS cannon. Six quad Harpoon launchers. Frankly I'm tempted to ditch Harpoon and buy Brahmos instead - Mach 3+ over 300 km makes Harpoon look a bit old fashioned in comparison.

8 Typhoon remote weapon stations with 30 mm cannon for defence against fast boats and such.

Finally, a sprinkling of machine gun mounts for defence of the ship in port.

Aircraft

Always a problem on battleships, but I put a lift and an internal hangar. This gives space for 2 EH-101 and 4 Fire Scout UAV for spotting and gun direction,etc.

Armour

Belt 4.5-14.0 in (115-355 mm)
Bulkheads 4.0-12.0 in (102-305 mm)
Barbettes 11.0-13.0 in (280-330 mm)
Turret faces 13.0 in (330 mm)
Conning tower 2.5-3.0 in (65-75 mm)
Deck 5.0-6.0 in (125-150 mm)

As on the original design.

And there we are. A hell of a shore bombardment capability, with deep strike capacity and air defence power few other ships could match, all in a hull that could withstand most of today's non nuclear weapons with ease.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Mikey »

I'm sure I know a very small fraction about battleships compared to some folks here, but I'm forced to ask this: are guns relevant anymore? Would that space be better served on a modern ship to mount S2S and S2A missiles and rocket-pod systems of varying ranges?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Captain Seafort »

Mikey wrote:I'm sure I know a very small fraction about battleships compared to some folks here, but I'm forced to ask this: are guns relevant anymore?
Absolutely - missiles are very expensive while shells, no matter how high-tech, are relatively cheap. The RN found this out the hard way in the Falklands - pre-war the Batch 1 and 2 Broadsword-class frigates were given an all-missile armament, which made them incapable of shore bombardment. After the 4.5 proved its worth there, the Batch 3 Broadswords were lengthened and got a 4.5 of their own.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Mikey »

"Incapable of shore bombardment" is more a function of not having the right type of missiles available, rather than a function of being an all-missile boat, I think. Either way, you do have an excellent point regarding the cost of operation.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Deepcrush »

Looks nice enough, but I do ask what she would be used for other then looking good.

As to looking good, give her the 3x 15in and I'll take one.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Tyyr »

I think the first thing I'd mention is that you'd be better off going to three triple turrets instead of four dual turrets. You'll have an extra gun and be able to have equivalent protection with less weight by having fewer turrets and a shorter main armor belt.

I wouldn't put the VLS's amidship. A loaded VLS is a bomb. Right in the center like that you're inside the main belt armor and due to its design you can't armor the deck like the rest of the ship. It creates a weakness in the armor scheme. I'd put the VLS far forward or aft, maybe both. Mostly just keep it away from the critical spaces. You can again shorten the main belt if you do that. Now you might be able to redesign the VLS with something like an armored cover, say a four inch thick cover that can be retracted when you need to use them then cover it when you don't. If you had that I might put it inside the main belt but with a conventional VLS system I'd put it outside the main armored belt and sensitive areas.

I'd either drop to the 4.5" for secondaries to maintain commality with the fleet or go to the 155mm guns. When you've got the big 15" for bombardment the smaller guns are a bit superfulous. Now the 155mms might be worth it with the extended range.

She has the slab sided look of the old battleships but I would suspect that any new vessel will be incorporating some low observables technology which makes the slab sided look a big no-no.

One thing you might consider is a single ended ship. Have two turrets on the bow and mount your VLS systems to the rear and incorporate a proper hanger for your aircraft. With modern guns and drones for spotting you will be able to more effectively use even a reduced number of main guns to generate even more damage than an older style ship with a lot of guns. The situations where you'll be much better off with 8 or 9 15in guns instead of 4 or 6 will be few and far between in the modern world. Especially if you can drop those shells within a few dozen meters of the target on the first volley.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Graham Kennedy »

The main role would be to support amphibious landings.

Bear in mind, Vanguard carried 100 rounds per gun - that's 800 total, each round weighing around 2000 lbs. How many platforms can deliver eight hundred missiles or bombs? And that's not even counting the 5.25 inchers, which probably carry several thousand rounds between them.

And unlike missiles, that 2000 lb round is mostly solid metal, with a bloody great lump of explosive in the middle - meaning any surface to air missile or anti aircraft artillery will do bugger all to it.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Captain Seafort »

Tyyr wrote:I think the first thing I'd mention is that you'd be better off going to three triple turrets instead of four dual turrets. You'll have an extra gun and be able to have equivalent protection with less weight by having fewer turrets and a shorter main armor belt.
You'd also reduce RoF due to interference between guns andthe crews getting in each others' way.
I'd either drop to the 4.5" for secondaries to maintain commality with the fleet or go to the 155mm guns. When you've got the big 15" for bombardment the smaller guns are a bit superfulous. Now the 155mms might be worth it with the extended range.
I'd go for the 155s for commonality across the forces. We should have the damn thing in service anyway.
Bear in mind, Vanguard carried 100 rounds per gun - that's 800 total, each round weighing around 2000 lbs. How many platforms can deliver eight hundred missiles or bombs? And that's not even counting the 5.25 inchers, which probably carry several thousand rounds between them.
390 rds/gun for Vanguard, so over 6k all told.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Tyyr wrote:I think the first thing I'd mention is that you'd be better off going to three triple turrets instead of four dual turrets. You'll have an extra gun and be able to have equivalent protection with less weight by having fewer turrets and a shorter main armor belt.

I wouldn't put the VLS's amidship. A loaded VLS is a bomb. Right in the center like that you're inside the main belt armor and due to its design you can't armor the deck like the rest of the ship. It creates a weakness in the armor scheme. I'd put the VLS far forward or aft, maybe both. Mostly just keep it away from the critical spaces. You can again shorten the main belt if you do that. Now you might be able to redesign the VLS with something like an armored cover, say a four inch thick cover that can be retracted when you need to use them then cover it when you don't. If you had that I might put it inside the main belt but with a conventional VLS system I'd put it outside the main armored belt and sensitive areas.

I'd either drop to the 4.5" for secondaries to maintain commality with the fleet or go to the 155mm guns. When you've got the big 15" for bombardment the smaller guns are a bit superfulous. Now the 155mms might be worth it with the extended range.

She has the slab sided look of the old battleships but I would suspect that any new vessel will be incorporating some low observables technology which makes the slab sided look a big no-no.

One thing you might consider is a single ended ship. Have two turrets on the bow and mount your VLS systems to the rear and incorporate a proper hanger for your aircraft. With modern guns and drones for spotting you will be able to more effectively use even a reduced number of main guns to generate even more damage than an older style ship with a lot of guns. The situations where you'll be much better off with 8 or 9 15in guns instead of 4 or 6 will be few and far between in the modern world. Especially if you can drop those shells within a few dozen meters of the target on the first volley.
I wanted to stick with the basic Vanguard layout, which is why the two turrets per end layout is used. I don't know if there's space in the hull to upgrade to triple turrets; personally I don't see the need, as the thing can already throw 16 rounds a minute. Seems more than adequate to me.

I did say upgrading to 155 was likely, if and when it becomes available. And whilst 4.5 was tempting... like I said, down gunnning a battleship just seemed wrong.

As for the VLS, I did go back and forth on this somewhat. Current thinking is to move them to the edge of the ship so they explode outwards, but that doesn't really work here unless you want to put them outside the armour itself. So I put them inside figuring that protection of such things is what the armour is for, after all.

I did consider an armoured cover, but it seemed a bit "James Bond" and rather impractical. One might suppose that a VLS with armoured hatches could be developed. Or armour the sides and bottom to direct a blast up and out. In any case battleships are most vulnerable to plunging fire, and that's just how it is. I comfort myself with the idea that with the sheer volume of anti air this thing has, if it's taking hits then your whole fleet is probably already in a lot of trouble.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Captain Seafort wrote:390 rds/gun for Vanguard, so over 6k all told.
Hmm, the source I had must have been wrong.

That's almost as much shore striking ability in this one ship as the entire US Navy would have if you filled every single VLS in the fleet with Tomahawks and sent them all to one place.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by McAvoy »

Ok I know there is some artistic expression when you drew this ship to resemble the Vangaurd. There are a few problems here though.

1. The main 15" guns are no longer available. I know some of the guns are scattered through the land but seriously doubt there will be enough for a battleship. Second the turret design is strictly a WW1 design that really has no bearing on the guns themselves as long as the guns and their equipment and crew fit reasonable inside. So a modern turret doesn't even have to look retro.

Second would be rebuilding the factories that made the 15" shells.

So in the end, the nuVanguard would have actually completely newly designed 15" guns.

In fact the US right now is selling 15 16" guns from their Iowas. http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/v ... Id=4229536 Maybe the British can buy them? :P

2. I don't know if you armored the nuVangaurd, but you shouldn't. The armor industry to make armor plates thick enough is completely gone.

3. Speed is another thing. What is the mission of this battleship? Is it fleet work? What is the fleet's speed? Is it just shore bombardment? Shore bombardment does't require high speed. Fleet speed can vary from 25 to 34 knots. The only reason the Iowas were retained vs. their 27 knot older sisters is speed. Speed to keep up with the fleet carriers. Nowadays, the average speed of a Nimitz class carrier is actually less than that of a Iowa class. Only the Ghettoprise is faster.

Anyway here is help if you want. Go to http://www.shipbucket.com/. Basically parts in paint form so you can arrange it anyway you want to. I am sure someone over there has already did a modernized Vanguard.

EDIT: The HMS Vanguard did carry 100 rounds more or less for each gun.

From http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm Note 5 under Ammunition:
Outfits for all battleships and the battlecruiser Renown were originally limited to APC. Repulse carried 84 APC and 36 CPC per gun. The Courageous class were originally designed for 80 rounds per gun but this was increased to 120 rounds following the Falklands battle, where ammunition expenditure was very heavy. The Royal Sovereign class may have carried 104 rounds per gun as commissioned. In the 1920s, 6 shrapnel rounds per gun were added to most battleships while the outfit for Renown was changed to 96 APC, 24 CPC and 6 shrapnel rounds per gun plus a total of 70 practice rounds. As completed, Hood had an outfit of 289 CPC, 672 APC, 30 shrapnel (stored only in the bow shell rooms) and 82 practice rounds. After her 1929-1931 refit, she carried 160 CPC (TNT burster), 640 APC (Shellite burster), 48 shrapnel and 96 practice rounds. In the latter years of World War II, surviving ships replaced five APC rounds per gun with HE unless they were assigned to bombardment missions, in which case the proportion of HE was greatly increased. Outfits for monitors during World War I was 10 CPC and 90 HE per gun while during World War II it was 30 to 60 APC or CPC and the balance HE. Monitors usually carried 8 practice shells per gun. HMS Vanguard when completed post-war carried 95 APC, 5 HE and 9 practice shells per gun until she was converted to "Royal Yacht" duties in 1947, after which time she rarely carried any main gun ammunition at all.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Captain Seafort »

GrahamKennedy wrote:Hmm, the source I had must have been wrong.
McAvoy wrote:EDIT: The HMS Vanguard did carry 100 rounds more or less for each gun.

From http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm Note 5 under Ammunition:
Yeah, sorry for the confusion - the 390 rds/gun refers to the 5.25s, not the 15s.

Also, it's "HMS Vanguard". No definitive article.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Tyyr »

Captain Seafort wrote:You'd also reduce RoF due to interference between guns andthe crews getting in each others' way.
Except for the fact that the Iowa's had triple gun turrets with dividing partitions between the guns making it impossible for the crews to trip over one another and the fact that Graham already said he'd be automating them as much as possible.
I'd go for the 155s for commonality across the forces. We should have the damn thing in service anyway.
True, really just a question of whether Graham wants it to fit into the current fleet or a five minutes into the future one.
GrahamKennedy wrote:I wanted to stick with the basic Vanguard layout, which is why the two turrets per end layout is used. I don't know if there's space in the hull to upgrade to triple turrets; personally I don't see the need, as the thing can already throw 16 rounds a minute. Seems more than adequate to me.
I wasn't really proposing triple turrets for more fire power, after all I was suggesting going to triples AND dropping one turret so you'd wind up with nine guns instead of 8. It's more about reducing the length of your armored belt and saving some tonnage by compacting things down a bit.
I did say upgrading to 155 was likely, if and when it becomes available. And whilst 4.5 was tempting... like I said, down gunnning a battleship just seemed wrong.
Your main guns are your real killers. Your secondaries are just that, secondary. Back in the day they were for shooting down aircraft or popping destroyers. Both those targets are going to be using long range guided munitions and aren't likely to be in range of your secondaries anyways which makes them sort of dead weight. The 155's have some shore bombardment capability if they have the extreme range ammunition they proposed the things with but then again so do your fifteen inchers. If I were you I'd probably drop the secondary battery down to just eight 155's in dual turrets for an ultra long range gun bombardment capability.
As for the VLS, I did go back and forth on this somewhat. Current thinking is to move them to the edge of the ship so they explode outwards, but that doesn't really work here unless you want to put them outside the armour itself. So I put them inside figuring that protection of such things is what the armour is for, after all.
A PVLS system would be good on this, move your armored belt in and stud the perimeter with VLS cells. The main belt armor will protect the VLS system from sea skimmers but a lot of modern ASM's have pop up options that go for a vertical attack rather than a straight into the side. Like wise a lot of older Russian style ASM dove on their target (of questionable use against a modern AA defense system but still out there).
I did consider an armoured cover, but it seemed a bit "James Bond" and rather impractical. One might suppose that a VLS with armoured hatches could be developed. Or armour the sides and bottom to direct a blast up and out. In any case battleships are most vulnerable to plunging fire, and that's just how it is. I comfort myself with the idea that with the sheer volume of anti air this thing has, if it's taking hits then your whole fleet is probably already in a lot of trouble.
I see where you're coming from but to me those two VLS systems just look like an opportunity to Hood the thing and putting them in the extreme aft or fore can avoid that.
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by McAvoy »

Captain Seafort wrote:
GrahamKennedy wrote:Hmm, the source I had must have been wrong.
McAvoy wrote:EDIT: The HMS Vanguard did carry 100 rounds more or less for each gun.

From http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm Note 5 under Ammunition:
Yeah, sorry for the confusion - the 390 rds/gun refers to the 5.25s, not the 15s.

Also, it's "HMS Vanguard". No definitive article.
Ehh... I do that occasionally.

Also referring to the triple turret layout like the Iowa. It is possible on the Vanguard's hull. The hull design is basically a refinement of the KGV and the Lion class. The only issue is the A and B Turrets may cause a bit more trim at the bow because of increased weight there. Basically you would have to push back the turrets I would say a few feet.

Three triple turrets have been tradtionally shown to weigh about as much as four twin turrets.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Modern Battleship

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Yes, the perfect design would be to have the VLS cells on the edge of the ship and the armour inside them. However, at that point you're making a major depart from the original design, and the whole idea was to have a "modernised version of Vanguard", rather than "a modern ship which has big guns". For the same reason you can't just will triple turrets into being; the whole reason for building Vanguard in the first place was that they had spare 15 inchers and twin mounts available and wanted to use them up.

Putting VLS fore and aft would be a solution, but the helicopter hangar occupies the stern of the ship pretty much from the rearmost gun aft.

Agreed that the 155s are secondary. The way I see it, the idea of them is more to let the ship engage multiple targets at once than anything. I did consider thinning them down to four twin turrets or even four single 155s, but frankly I'm not sure what I'd put in their place given how extensively armed the ship already is. Yet more SAM's on a ship that already carries up to 220 long, medium and short range SAMs seems like overkill. Similarly 24 Harpoons is plenty, there's two Goalkeepers already, and plenty of 30 mm cannon.

McAvoy : Yeah, I know the guns are not available, neither is the ship. Like I said, the point is not "what if we tried to build a modern battleship now". It's more a sort of mixture of fantasy/alternate history/what if.

As for speed, the powerplant I put in can deliver somewhat more power than the original ship had available. The original could do 30 knots, so I presume that the refit would do this or slightly more. Faster than needed perhaps, but more speed can always be useful.

And although I don't work to the same scale as shipbucket, yes I did use it for a lot of the parts :)
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Post Reply