Youtube comments of Katy (@KatyushaLauncher).
-
78
-
69
-
47
-
44
-
37
-
34
-
32
-
27
-
26
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
@wolfsoldner9029 Bismarck's standard displacement is 41,700 tons which is above the regular 35,000 tons displacement limit that the treaties stated, The Escalator clause can ONLY be used by the Signatories of the Second London Naval Treaty and surprise surprise, Germany is Not a signatory. He said in that drydock video that some of them were protected but Not all of them, the crews of Bismarck literally indicate that happening as the Data from the Fire Control Systems and the Main guns were always late. Let me compare Bismarck to the Nelson-class and King George V-class of treaty battleships, the British had thicker armor and was better protected, they had a Heavier broadside weight, they carried much more advanced Radar and Fire Control Systems all for the price of 35,000 tons and a slower top speed, the Only advantage Bismarck had was her speed
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@griefy4555 "How do you know you haven't corrupted some part of your file system?" - Because I have used Windows since 10 years ago and not once has been corrupt
"Just because you don't see any differences immediately doesn't mean you won't in the future" - Again I have used Windows for a very long time where Windows 7 was still around and not once have I seen any major breakage. If you still think that's not enough time then I don't know what to tell you
" If you don't like the Telemetry and Tracking in Windows, then stay on Linux with it's limited compatibility, buggy, unoptimized bs in most games and a lot of proprietary software. " - I have switched to Linux and I'd gladly stay here than deal with Windows spyware and bloat anytime of the day, it has limited compatibility with games yes but for the majority of my games they work fine, buggy you say? yeah no, haven't had any major problems, most of my games don't even run on Windows yet on Linux they work better. And lastly the only thing proprietary youl'll find in Linux are drivers that need for your proprietary Hardware such as Nvidia dirvers and Wifi card drivers.
" If you use a chromium based browser" - there's a reason why Firefox is the default browser in a majority of Linux distros
"Google is spying on everything you do, your entire search history is saved on a server somewhere" - again there are reasons why alternatives such as Brave Search exist
"messaging apps like Facebook and Discord are also saving everything you say in some private server and is being monitored, " - I don't use Facebook and I use BetterDiscord so I don't have to worry about the tracking all the tracking that you so call
Nice tangent there about Linux, I thought we were discussing about Window debloater scripts here?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stevequerin2504 The Alaska-class don't deserve to be called a Battlecruiser, and that large cruiser is in fact very fitting. Part of the problem comes from a common misconception that battlecruisers were only fast capital ships that were meant to hunt cruisers and disengage when real battleships were encountered. Rather, they had many differing design aspects and intended roles dependant upon nation. The British leaned toward lightly armored ships mounting heavy guns of equal caliber to contemporary battleships, while the Germans stuck with better armor and guns of slightly smaller caliber or in fewer mountings. The common trait was simply speed on a heavy hull with a loss in either protection or firepower. Missions ranged from scouting or trade protection to assisting the battle line by screening cruisers or adding their guns to the fight and chasing the fleeing enemy.
Firstly and at the core of the issue is that the Alaska is essentially a heavy cruiser scaled up to ~30k tons putting it roughly in between contemporary heavy cruisers and battleships and not on par or above battleship displacement as was a common characteristic of battlecruisers. As well, being that they are derived from cruisers, their protection is on the level of cruisers and not battleships.
As far as armament goes, they were also squarely in the middle of heavy cruisers and battleships. Additionally, the oft touted "fact" that the new 12" SH shell outperformed the standards' 14" guns is a bit of an overstatement, they only really stand out in terms of deck penetration, the caveat is that it's a comparison between the modern 12" and the 14" as it was first rolled out in the 1910s and '20s. One would hope that a new weapon taking advantage of the latest design features and practices would be better than a ~20-25 year old design.
Speedwise they were on par with heavy cruisers and battleships at 33 knots, nothing standout there either.
It's my opinion based off of my understanding that the fast battleship is the final evolution of the battlecruiser concept in that it is a product of the desire for an "ultimate warship" (that has both high speed, heavy firepower, and good protection) and the technology to fulfill that desire without the need to drop off either protection or firepower. It's from that understanding that I hold the opinion that the Alaska class is not only not a battlecruiser, but a design that falls short of providing a meaningful advantage over either contemporary heavy cruisers or fast battleships. For the cost of one Alaska you could have a full fledged battleship that can do everything better, or two heavy cruisers that are cheaper and just as capable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
On surface ships, the conning tower was a feature of all battleships and armored cruisers from about 1860 to the early years of World War II. Located at the front end of the superstructure, the conning tower was a heavily armored cylinder, with tiny slit windows on three sides providing a reasonable field of view. Designed to shield just enough personnel and devices for navigation during battles, its interior was cramped and basic, with little more than engine order telegraphs, speaking tubes or telephones, and perhaps a steering wheel. When he said that nobody used the Conning tower, he was correct, There is no evidence that RN captains and admirals used the armoured conning towers on those ships that did have them during World War II, with, for example, Vice-Admiral Holland and Captain Kerr commanding Hood during the Battle of the Denmark Strait from her unarmoured bridge.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mahbriggs The Alaska actually still cost almost as much as a full on capital ship, displacement wise, the Alaska weighted as much a WW1 Battleship and almost weighted as normal WW2 Treaty Battleship as the Alaska's full displacement is almost 35,000 tons, the Alaska's armor may be thinner but due to her sheer size that armor is going multiple and there's also the fact that the Alaska's armor layout is of modern design and still as expensive or even more, you do realize that those smaller guns are much more expensive? Because Alaska and Guam were the only two ships to mount those guns, only ten turrets were made during the war (three for each ship including Hawaii and one spare). They cost $1,550,000 each and were the most expensive heavy guns purchased by the U.S. Navy in World War II. See they're not cheaper, they're also not faster since other Heavy cruisers and even the Iowa-class of Fast Battleships are faster than the Alaska-class, An Battleship or 2 Heavy cruisers have double the amount fire power and anti-aircraft capabilities than a single Alaska. And My point is there's no use building them early on because they're not better than a single battleship or two heavy cruisers
1
-
@mahbriggs The Iowa-class was the second largest battleships in the world so of course the Alaska-class as well as any other WW2 Battleship (except for the Yamato-class) would be smaller. I'm sorry but your reading comprehension is very wrong, that $1,550,000 is the cost OF ONLY one main gun turret of the Alaska-class, that's not even the cost of the whole ship, now if you connect the two dots together, if the Alaska-class's guns cost that much, what would the rest of the ship cost?
And what part of expensive do you not understand? The expense of steel of that time is high and the demand for it as well, so even if the amount of steel used to build the Alaska-class was less than a Battleship, the cost of that steel will be as much as the Battleships, I never said they were battleships. I don't also get that you're trying to argue on a Class of ship that's useless than a Battleship, A Cruisers, and Carrier, it certainly is not nice to have them early on in the war knowing the fact of it's uselessness
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonpitt8145 That's not really poor tactics, as soon as Bismarck was clearly doomed and sinking, Tovey had already ordered all Royal Navy ships except HMS Dorsetshire to go back, Only U-74 and U-556 were anywhere near Bismarck and only U-74 had torpedoes left to engage, Bismarck was still out of Luftwaffe aircover and any plane that could reach Bismarck is too slow and not effectivr bombers. Sending Ark Royal's torpedo bombers is less riskier but slower and not far cleaner, as proved by their previous Torpedo runs, Bismarck's torpedo defense system is quite decent and out of all the Torpedo runs they did against Bismarck, Only 1 made a critical hit, and a hit to rudder does not immediately endanger Bismarck of sinking. HMS Rodney's damage because of her own main guns is cosmetic more than anything, other than shattering every glass below 3 decks, the damage was not significant. Tovey may not be the best admiral but he certainly was right is using the his battleships to their full extent
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikeholton9876 You're aren't anything, Panzerschiff is Armored Ship in German so what? That's the designation that the Germans gave them. The Alaska-class were much more heavily armed than the Scharnhorst-class but not as heavily armored as them, the Alaska-class designation as Large Cruisers is the most fitting, they are not Battlecruisers. Part of the problem comes from a common misconception that battlecruisers were only fast capital ships that were meant to hunt cruisers and disengage when real battleships were encountered. Rather, they had many differing design aspects and intended roles dependant upon nation. The British leaned toward lightly armored ships mounting heavy guns of equal caliber to contemporary battleships, while the Germans stuck with better armor and guns of slightly smaller caliber or in fewer mountings. The common trait was simply speed on a heavy hull with a loss in either protection or firepower. Missions ranged from scouting or trade protection to assisting the battle line by screening cruisers or adding their guns to the fight and chasing the fleeing enemy.
Firstly and at the core of the issue is that the Alaska is essentially a heavy cruiser scaled up to ~30k tons putting it roughly in between contemporary heavy cruisers and battleships and not on par or above battleship displacement as was a common characteristic of battlecruisers. As well, being that they are derived from cruisers, their protection is on the level of cruisers and not battleships.
As far as armament goes, they were also squarely in the middle of heavy cruisers and battleships. Additionally, the oft touted "fact" that the new 12" SH shell outperformed the standards' 14" guns is a bit of an overstatement, as someone in a battleship group I'm in took a look and it seems they only really stand out in terms of deck penetration, the caveat is that it's a comparison between the modern 12" and the 14" as it was first rolled out in the 1910s and '20s. One would hope that a new weapon taking advantage of the latest design features and practices would be better than a ~20-25 year old design.
Speedwise they were on par with heavy cruisers and battleships at 33 knots, nothing standout there either.
To judge the Alaska, it's imo right and fair to compare them to the Iowa, being that they are contemporary battleship and "battlecruiser" designs. Following the battlecruiser design theory, we should see Alaska give up firepower or protection compared to Iowa in order to gain speed. Compared to Iowa, it does both, but does not have any speed advantage, so it falls flat of the intent of a battlecruiser as well racking up a battleship level pricetag.
Based off of my understanding that the fast battleship is the final evolution of the battlecruiser concept in that it is a product of the desire for an "ultimate warship" (that has both high speed, heavy firepower, and good protection) and the technology to fulfill that desire without the need to drop off either protection or firepower. It's from that understanding that the Alaska class is not only not a battlecruiser, but a design that falls short of providing a meaningful advantage over either contemporary heavy cruisers or fast battleships. For the cost of one Alaska you could have a full fledged battleship that can do everything better, or two heavy cruisers that are cheaper and just as capable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheAirplaneDriver Mitchell demonstrated a concept that's so flawed, Brigadier General Billy Mitchell was a firm believer in airpower and that bombing could win a war all by itself. My own opinion is that he was wrong. He was so adamant that Battleships should be phased out and replace them with what exactly? Billy Mitchell was no fan of aircraft carriers either, indeed he believed that they would never be able to achieve the concentration of force that he thought necessary for success in a naval context, or any context for that matter.
Also, the methodologies used in the trial themselves was somewhat flawed in that all of the target ships were at anchor, and were incapable of defending themselves. Therefore conclusions reached as to the obsolescence, or not, of active battleships able to maneuver and fight back, have to be considered somewhat dubious. Certainly given the technology of the time. The aircraft used the drop the bombs that did all of the damage [and created so much of a political storm between the Army, of which the Air Corps was still a part, And the U.S. Navy’s] Was the Martin NBS1, Not, intrinsically, the sort of aircraft that you would think would be particularly survivable in contested air space. Plus, the bombing method uses the time were comparatively crude and there was still a fair amount of belief, certainly in naval circles, and battleships underway would be able to avoid bombs dropped towards them.
Hence this comic: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f7b079bf083ce0c93d3366324b0aa2bc
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manilajohn0182 Shooting at point blank range with reduced powder charges may not simulate range that accurately but it was only thing they can do back in those times
At about 40,000 yards, the U.S. Navy 16"/50 firing a 16" Mark 8 Mod 6 AP projectile (the later Mod 7 and Mod 8 designs were post-WWII, so I usually do not count them and they were no better ballistically, to my knowledge) will hit at about 45° downward angle and 1607 feet/second (489.8 m/sec). Just as with a point blank hit at 2500 feet/second (762 m/sec) and 45° obliquity, this hit too will barely hole the plate as the projectile is hitting at 0° (normal) obliquity, though not completely penetrate it. Any slight barrel wear will lower the muzzle and striking velocities and no holing will occur at these or any other ranges, as mentioned. However, this is so far above any real fighting range (even with radar it is hard to see the target due to the earth's curvature interfering, especially in any kind of imperfect seeing conditions) that I do not even consider it in my computations, while putting the gun barrel up to almost touching the enemy turret is also a pipe dream in real life! Thus, no holing or complete penetrations, ever, though possibly some cracking of the plate and possible jamming of the turret if the crack-off plate piece is dislodged badly enough.
Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by any gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45°, as they were in the actual turrets!!! Even to completely hole the plate all the way through at that inclination requires a brand new 16"/50 Mark 7 or German 38cm SK C/34 gun at point-blank range firing the latest versions of their respective AP projectiles; it might be cracked at a lower striking velocity, but no hole put entirely through it! And they said guns had completely overmatched all armor - not so!!!
I took that from the test that they did, and it says right that no gun could penetrate that turret face plate as it was leaning back at 45° but that means that Iowa's gun could penetrate any other part of Yamato's armor which was not as thick as turret plate but also is not leaning at an angle of 45°. With all that said Iowa's gun may not be able to penetrate a 650mm turret plate of Yamato but Iowa could penetrate any other part of her armor that's not as thick or leaning at 45°
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1