# The M113A3 is going to Afghanistan



## ProPatria Mike (6 Nov 2006)

Well, They must be deep in flinch mode in Ottawa if they are bringing out the ole mothbolled M113 APCs they bought in the sixties. They can park em beside those obsolete tanks they wasted a million bucks a pop importing but wont drive beyond the wire.  Have they up armoured those crates or have they been siting rotting in a yard since the wall came down? 


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/05/afghanistan.html

O'Connor says military 'scrambling' to find soldiers for Afghanistan
Last Updated: Sunday, November 5, 2006 | 6:45 PM ET
CBC News

Canada's military is "scrambling" to find soldiers to send to Afghanistan as it seeks to keep front-line troops from being overworked, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Sunday.

"What we're trying to do in principle is try to avoid having people who are in daily operations to go back [to Afghanistan] a second time before the end of February, '09," O'Connor said, referring to the date to which Parliament extended the Afghan mission.

"So that's had them scrambling to figure out where all the troops are coming from."

O'Connor said he believes it will be "no great challenge" to avoid sending soldiers back to Afghanistan for a second deployment because recruiting is up.

The military is lowering its fitness standards for new recruits and moving training and administrative personnel into combat units.

In the Canadian Forces, which includes land, air, sea and special operations personnel, there are 62,000 regular members, 25,000 reservists and 4,000 Canadian Rangers. More than 2,000 Canadians are serving in Afghanistan.
Continue Article

On Sunday, Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's chief of defence staff, confirmed a CBC report earlier this week that the military will send members of the air force and navy to Afghanistan, with some of them serving in dangerous situations.

"Minister O'Connor and I have a unity of thought and a unity of effort on this one," he said. "Our aim is to simply use all the Canadian Forces to do this very complex mission, to use every man and woman in uniform rather than have a small number carry the burden, as we have traditionally done over the last decade."

"Our efforts are to look after our men and women, to execute this mission successfully, and to reduce the risk to them as they do that work for us."

He also acknowledged the military was planning to send scores of Vietnam-era M113 armoured personnel carriers to move soldiers around the battlefield.

In private briefings, senior army officials told CBC News that even with the changes, there are simply not enough troops in the army to sustain the government's foreign policy, which made O'Connor's one-tour pledge unrealistic.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said the plans prove the Afghan mission is too much for the military to handle.

"I don't fault the military; I fault this government," Dosanjh told CBC News Sunday. "They have not done adequate preparation for the extension. They didn't take stock of what we had in terms [of] troops. They simply, blindly, as a cynical political ploy, extended the mission for two additional years."

10 years before Afghan forces ready: military trainer

The deployment plans come as a top military trainer in Afghanistan said it will be at least 10 years before Afghan troops can handle national security without help from Canadians and other foreign soldiers.


British Col. Paul Farrar, deputy commander of the international assistance wing of the Kabul Military Training Centre, said Sunday that the four-year-old Afghan National Army is making real progress, but it is painfully slow.

The assessment isn't exactly good news for countries, including Canada, who pin their exit strategies from Afghanistan on the ultimate hand-over of security duties.

Forty-two Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died in the country since 2002.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Nov 2006)

Wow! Mike.  You really have been away for a while and aren't having a good time filtering out the crap that the ignorant civie Reporters are spewing.  The Leopard C2 that we are sending is up-armoured and has some of the best sights available and will be outside the wire.  The M113's is an interesting concept in the news, but they are being used as training platforms in the Training Center in Wainwright.  There are also M113's that have been upgraded to what is now called the TLAV - definitely not your Vietnam era M113.  I have yet to hear of any of them being slated to go to Afghanistan.  (Same goes for CF 18's.)

I find it interesting how that idiot of the Liberal Defence Critic is spouting off on how ill-prepared the Government is for the continuation of the Afghan deployment, when it was successive terms of Liberal Governments who put the CF into such a sad state of affairs.  It was the Liberals who created 'Force Reduction', did not make any major Defence purchases, etc. not the Conservatives.  Ujjal Dosanjh can stick his head back up that orifice that it has been hiding in and keep it there.


----------



## Wookilar (6 Nov 2006)

And the TLAV's are fairly kick-as@. Never worked on one (that engine compartment is even more cramped than it was before), but got to tool around in a few. Go like stink! Definetely not the old APC.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Nov 2006)

> Well, They must be deep in flinch mode in Ottawa if they are bringing out the ole mothbolled M113 APCs they bought in the sixties. They can park em beside those obsolete tanks they wasted a million bucks a pop importing but wont drive beyond the wire.  Have they up armoured those crates or have they been siting rotting in a yard since the wall came down?



You really have no idea do you?  You're so far out of touch that you're singularly ill-equipped to be commenting on current operations.  "Mothballed", "ole" "obsolete", "won't drive beyond the wire", "crates", "rotting"... can you fit more nastiness into a single paragraph?

Again, you have zero idea of what you're talking about.  None.  If you're going to see fit to comment on current operations, as least do us the courtesy of doing some background reading and research before doing so.

TR, out.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> And the TLAV's are fairly kick-as@. Never worked on one (that engine compartment is even more cramped than it was before), but got to tool around in a few. Go like stink! Definetely not the old APC.


To add to your post, those "new" M113s, not only having better armour protection than previously, now have the benefit (some of them, anyway) of a Remote Weapons station (RWS) or the old Grizzly "1 metre" turret.  And yes, they definately go like stink!  I was amazed the first time I saw one flying by!


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2006)

ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> One thing is certain, those tanks that have been delivered to Astan were brought out of mothballs to do the job and, contrary to your inane ramblings, have yet to be used operationally.
> 
> And those APC's were taken out of the line for a reason.



The tanks were definately not mothballed (the ones currently over there).  Yes, they were checked and maintained, and add-on armour, well, added.
They (the tanks) were used operationally in Europe from about 1977 (or so) until 1994.  Also, used in Kosovo, and they were "there", behind the scenes, at Oka (but never used).
Those old APCs were taken out of the line for a reason, that's true.  EVERYTHING is done for a reason.  For starters, we got ourselves new APCs (LAV 3: google it).  Now, the current M113s you see "out there" are definately not the same as the ones I jumped out of back in the 80s and 90s (and until 2000, actually).  The have a vastly improved power plant, they have extra armour protection, and they have newer weapons stations.  Also, Canada is NOT the only nation still using the M113s.   The M113 is being used as an APC (battlefield taxi with some armour protection) whereas the LAV 3 is being used as an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), though it really is just a heavily armed APC.  Anyway, I digress.

The point is, the M113 of old is definately not the T-LAV we see today.


----------



## McG (6 Nov 2006)

ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> the ole mothbolled M113 APCs they bought in the sixties


It is not.  It is the new (upgraded in the last 6 or so years) TLAV that was only recently through fielding to CERs and Armd Regts.



			
				ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> Have they up armoured those crates or have they been siting rotting in a yard since the wall came down?


They have done more than that in the upgrades.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Those old APCs were taken out of the line for a reason, that's true.  EVERYTHING is done for a reason.  For starters, we got ourselves new APCs (LAV 3: google it).  Now, the current M113s you see "out there" are defdefinitelyt the same as the ones I jumped out of back in the 80s and 90s (and until 2000, actually).  The have a vastly improved power plant, they have extra armour protection, and they have newer weapons stations.  Also, Canada is NOT the only nation still using the M113s.   The M113 is being used as an APC (battlefield taxi with some armour protection) whereas the LAV 3 is being used as an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), though it really is just a heavily armed APC.  Anyway, I digress.
> 
> The point is, the M113 of old is definately not the T-LAV we see today.



Well yes and no to the M113's Von Garvin, the power plant on the new M113's (read MTVL/T-LAV FOV and M113-A3) is essentially the same as the the M113-A2 only thing they have added to the new one is a computer control to boost horsepower. Did a trial about a 2 years ago with them, and well I found the powerplants just don't work very well. Ended up changing about 15 power packs in a 3 month period mind you we were pushing these apc's to the max with max weight and hp.

Mind you the inclusion of the Grizzly turret T-LAV/MTVL FOV seems IMHO to be a plus gives CC abit of protection and the ability to use the wpns while in a "hatches down" environment. 

But essential Von Garvin is right the MTVL/T-LAV FOV are essentially battlefield taxis pure and simple.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Nov 2006)

> *From what I understand, only five of the tanks have been upgraded and then with only medium armour.* As for the APC's the modernization plan went out the chute once the government changed direction. Four hundred million was spent, if you recall, before they were officially mothbolled the fleet and put up for sale. No body would buy em cause they are obsolete.  Now we are sending them to Astan.



Stop.  For the love of god, you have no idea what you're posting about.  All tanks headed to Afghanistan have been fully modified - period.  All are Leopard C2s with the massively upgraded fire control system, new turrets and very effective add on armour.  

Second, you're confusing the OLD M113s and TLAV.  It is TLAV that we are currently planning on sending.  TLAV was NOT in service when you were in.  The modification programme did go ahead for these vehicles.

 :


----------



## Journeyman (6 Nov 2006)

ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> *From what I understand....*



Oh, well _there's_ the problem right there! You're not getting it, are you? There are people here - - with current information and operational experience - - trying to gently and loving tell you that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not saying that Cyprus and the Reeperbahn aren't valued experiences in today's army, but in this particular matter, you've shown that your opinion is sorely lacking.

Again, I'm speaking only about  "the poster's position, not the poster."

So please, let it end there. Read...and maybe, learn.


 edit - - damn TR.  Outdrawn.


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Nov 2006)

http://www.dewengineering.com/military/m113.html

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=58&more=58

http://www.dewengineering.com/military/leopard.html

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=55&more=55

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard-afghan.htm


----------



## ProPatria Mike (6 Nov 2006)

You act like I said this and not the minister of National Defense before committee. 

I did not, 

He did!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard-afghan.htm



Cplcaldwell:  as is typical with CASR articles, this one has significant errors...  FYI.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Nov 2006)

*TR:* Yes. 

_<In a shameful act of self defence he retorts>_ 
The pix do show the up-armouring quite clearly though 8)

And in an act of contrition I would add: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Leopard_MBT


----------



## dglad (6 Nov 2006)

The difficulty is arising from taking a CBC report of what was said by the MND.  It would be better, by far, to wait until we hear the actual, operational communications from the military.  As has already been pointed out, the "Vietnam-era" M113 is essentially a non-issue; it's actually the TLAV being discussed--a very different vehicle.  So there's an inaccuracy in the CBC report right there; perhaps understandable, because to the average CBC reporter or member of the public, the distinction is largely invisible.  But it's an inaccuracy nonetheless.  And as for the Leopards, they have been heavily upgraded, and have been exercising quite vigorously in Edmonton (I employed Leopards in my company group on Urban Ram in 2001, and I know they've been busy since then).

Perhaps any reaction based on a CBC news report should be more...measured.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (6 Nov 2006)

Thank you Teddy! As I said, only five or six have been upgraded with the Mexas system..... Also relevant .... some of  the CF’s 28-year old  tanks were being reconditioned and  B Sqn of  Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians) trained for their deployment to Afghanistan at CFB Wainwright.

Reconditioned??? But I was just told they are are up to standard, ready to go? However can this be?  

Tell me, your a tanker, what was B sqn using prior to this?


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Nov 2006)

Okay one last time....



> The second generation of Canadian Leopard tanks was presented to the Army at CTC Gagetown November 23, 1999. The Leopard C2 sports a new thermal sight and enhanced digital fire control system upgrade. The improved operational capability over the old Leopards is like night and day-literally. The old Leopard C1 tanks had serious deficiencies when operating during conditions of low visibility due to night, smoke, dust and fog.
> 
> *DND purchased 123 surplus Leopard 1A5 tanks from the German Ministry of Defence in order to put their turrets on the chassis of 114 Canadian Leopards. The remaining nine turrets are being used for spare parts, test equipment and training aids while the contractor bought back the German chassis. *
> 
> ...


   
http://www.army.dnd.ca/GGHG/OpsTrg_files/AFV/AFV_L1/leoC2/Info_leoC2.htm (How the Horse Guards relate to this I dunno.. noethless a DND site...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Nov 2006)

My last word and last try:



> As I said, only five or six have been upgraded with the Mexas system.



Not correct - all the tanks were uparmoured before deployment.  None of the tanks had the system installed before the Sqn was warned.  This is SOP, as there are limited numbers of uparmour kits in the system.



> Also relevant .... some of  the CF’s 28-year old  tanks were being reconditioned and  B Sqn of  Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians) trained for their deployment to Afghanistan at CFB Wainwright.



B Sqn was training in Wainwright _when they were warned_ for deployment.  They completed their training, shipped their tanks back to Edmonton for _maintenence_ and pre-movement checks, had the uparmour installed and away they went.



> Reconditioned??? But I was just told they are are up to standard, ready to go? However can this be?



Nice, but inappropriate, use of sarcasm.  As I just said, the tanks were in use in Wainwright immediately before the deployment.  Essential maintenance was performed, along with the pre-movement preparations, then the armour was installed.  We could have shoved them on to an aircraft "as is", but the movements people wouldn't have liked that very much - to put it mildly.



> Tell me, your a tanker, what was B sqn using prior to this?



B Sqn was using the tanks that they currently have in Afghanistan.  Same vehicles (with some minor switching of CFRs for ones in slightly better shape for deployment)...

Stop taking media reports as being true.


----------



## McG (6 Nov 2006)

CBC News said:
			
		

> He also acknowledged the military was planning to send scores of Vietnam-era M113 armoured personnel carriers to move soldiers around the battlefield.





			
				ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> You act like I said this and not the minister of National Defense before committee.
> ...
> He did!


The MND did not say this.  A reporter wrote the sentence in order to paraphrase the MND; the reporter added his own bad information.


----------



## William Webb Ellis (7 Nov 2006)

I only caught the end of this on the CBC yesterday or the day before (when babies are teething the days run together)

What I thought I heard was we are sending or thinking of the sending the M113 overseas.

Is this the case? If so the story mentioned the M113A3.    What seperates the A3 from the other variants?  Also, would be interested in opinions on this decision.  These were old vehicle back in the early 90's.....

If I miss heard let me know.


----------



## super26 (7 Nov 2006)

The M113A3 has gone through a while refit new powerpacks,drive train,driver systems,extra length and road wheel, as well some have had the turrets off of the grizzly placed on them from what I have heard they are pretty good here are the new variants

M113A3 Personnel carrier with Remote Weapon System (RWS)
M113A3 Personnel carrier with One Metre Turret
M113A3 Mobile Repair Team
M577A3 Command Post
MTVL Basic Personnel Carrier / Light Re-supply
MTVC Heavy Re-supply
MTVE Engineer Vehicle
MTVF Fitter (Repair) Vehicle
MTVR Recovery Vehicle


----------



## Bobbyoreo (7 Nov 2006)

The A3 is the NEWER...one...with the turret from the old grizzlies!!! 

Yea..and all those other mods that he said.... ;D


----------



## super26 (7 Nov 2006)

If you go to the link below and look under equipment you will find pics and info about the M113A3

www.army.forces.gc.ca


----------



## super26 (7 Nov 2006)

I found the folowing info about the refit

The M113 is being refurbished and upgraded into nine new variants of mechanized support vehicles. The role of the new M113 variants is to provide the Army with combat support and combat service support vehicles to augment the new LAV III fleet. A total of 289 vehicles are being upgraded. The remaining M113s will be declared surplus.

The scope of the upgrade includes new engines, transmissions and drive trains; the provision of add-on armour; and the stretching of 147 vehicles to increase their capacity and mobility. The M113's original power pack provided a maximum of 210 horsepower, which limited the mobility and carrying capacity of the vehicle. A new power pack will be installed in all the refurbished vehicles, which will provide a maximum of 400 horsepower. In addition to increasing mobility and cargo capacity, this upgrade in power will also allow an upgraded armour package to be installed on the vehicle. This will greatly enhance the protection afforded to Army soldiers deployed on overseas missions.

Delivery of the upgraded M113s started in 2001, and will continue in stages. Final delivery will be complete by 2006. It is anticipated that the upgraded M113s will be in service until 2020


----------



## ProPatria Mike (7 Nov 2006)

Does anybody know exactly how many of these vehicles were actually refit and, more importantly, how many of the infantry models are serviceable?


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2006)

ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> Does anybody know exactly how many of these vehicles were actually refit and, more importantly, how many of the infantry models are serviceable?


Yes, and three.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (7 Nov 2006)

Three?


----------



## paracowboy (7 Nov 2006)

everyone. The media does NOT need to know this stuff, because Timmie doesn't need to know it. I don't care how Open Source it may be.

If Mike wants to wallow in his ignorance, and display it to the world, let him. The more detailed you get in shooting down his silly rant, the more details you give the carrion-feeders in the press, and the more details they will then send over the MSM, informing Timmie as to EXACTLY what's coming his way. That's bad.

He doesn't need to know how many variants of anything are in theatre. Nobody outside of theatre, and those supporting them here, do.

He can choose to believe the serving pers on these boards, or he can choose to belive the jackals and vultures in the press.


----------



## geo (7 Nov 2006)

Heh....
I knew all those freshly serviced and painted turrets were going to be used for something good.  The old Grizzly & Cougar carcasses are all parked there - topless, sort of  while the turrets looked all shiny & sort of new..... 
So... this explains that I guess.


----------



## geo (7 Nov 2006)

From the BAE / Uniteddefense.com 

The M113A3 was type classified Standard. All new APC vehicles produced since 1987 and all converted vehicles since 1989 are the A3 variant. Vehicles have been fielded both in the U.S. and in foreign countries. The M113A3 was initially fielded in 1987 and U.S. production of new M113A3s was completed in 1992. M113A3s are currently being produced for Thailand as a direct sale. Conversion of M113A2 vehicles to M113A3 vehicles has been underway at BAE Systems since 1994. 

Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light (MTVL) - the latest derivative of the M113 line of armored carriers – is available as a new vehicle or as a conversion.  It offers exceptional automotive performance, substantial payload capacity and a large tailorable interior.  Benefiting from the latest simulation and optimization techniques, its cross-country mobility exceeds that of virtually anything in its class.  MTVL features an upgraded powertrain with a 400 hp 6V53TIA electronically controlled engine and a reconfigured suspension geometry giving it more than 15 inches of roadwheel travel.  Using M113 common components ensures high reliability, availability and maintainability – plus a proven design, common maintenance techniques and an established logistics support base.  As with all M113 variants, it is roll-on/roll-off transportable on a C-130.  Backed by more than 30 years experience and a world class support team, MTVL is an affordable, supportable solution for the light combat/tactical vehicle role.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Nov 2006)

super26 said:
			
		

> The M113A3 has gone through a while refit new powerpacks,drive train,driver systems,extra length and road wheel, as well some have had the turrets off of the grizzly placed on them from what I have heard they are pretty good here are the new variants
> 
> These are not stretched and still look like the A2's except for the turret and the trim vane is gone
> M113A3 Personnel carrier with Remote Weapon System (RWS)
> ...



And some FYI the T-LAVS and M113 A3's are not swimable.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2006)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> And some FYI the T-LAVS and M113 A3's are not swimable.



But they do have limited flight capability.


----------



## GAP (7 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> But they do have limited flight capability.



Yeah, the same aerodynamics as a stone  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2006)

Well, being "air droppaple" as a descriptor is not enough.  ANYTHING can be dropped.  I think a more useful term would be "air droppable - survivable" 

Now, where are those hover tanks?


----------



## GAP (7 Nov 2006)

We used them up in the water thread!!


----------



## ProPatria Mike (7 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> everyone. The media does NOT need to know this stuff, because Timmie doesn't need to know it. I don't care how Open Source it may be.
> 
> If Mike wants to wallow in his ignorance, and display it to the world, let him. The more detailed you get in shooting down his silly rant, the more details you give the carrion-feeders in the press, and the more details they will then send over the MSM, informing Timmie as to EXACTLY what's coming his way. That's bad.
> 
> ...




I think that was totally uncalled for. 

I asked Van Garvin a question about his response. He said three, I wanted to clarify, like any normal person would, I suggest, considering the diminshed number, of that was correct.. 

Sheeesh!


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2006)

ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> That was totally uncalled for.


I don't think totally uncalled for, PPM.  I mean, it's understandable that you are looking for info (info=power), but there are certain things that should not be said in the open.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (7 Nov 2006)

Please....  info equal power? Man, what is that? I only asked how many of the vehicles actually went through the process.... not how many we are sending or what they will be doing.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2006)

ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> Please....  info equal power? Man, what is that? I only asked how many of the vehicles actually went through the process.... not how many we are sending or what they will be doing.



I wasn't trying to be flippant.  Information IS power.  Anyway, you asked if anyone knew how manay went through the process.  I answered yes, short for "yes, someone knows".  How many?  I haven't a clue.  It might be on the dnd site.  If not, then it's probably not there for a reason.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (7 Nov 2006)

Well, VG, I'm not a mind reader and since you answered my question with ayes and no qualifier, I thought you knew what you were talking about.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Nov 2006)

Nope, he's just carrying on the whole theme of this thread.......

MOD NOTE
Lets keep this on topic, if that is salvagable.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Nov 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> MOD NOTE
> Lets keep this on topic, if that is salvagable.



I think we threw that track a while ago  ;D (sorry couldn't resist)


----------



## cplcaldwell (7 Nov 2006)

And with that...

From DND

"A total of 289 vehicles are being upgraded. The remaining M113s will be declared surplus..."


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> And with that...
> 
> From DND
> 
> "A total of 289 vehicles are being upgraded. The remaining M113s will be declared surplus..."


There you go.  From *THE * source.  Can we move on now?


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Nov 2006)

So it was more than 3?

Seems to be the case.

Have they been able to scrape off all of that white paint?

dileas

tess


----------



## ProPatria Mike (7 Nov 2006)

"A total of 289 vehicles are being upgraded. The remaining M113s will be declared surplus...

Thats not what I asked, mon ami. I asked how many have been completed, indeed, considering the date time frame of the blurb quoted, I think that is an all to valid question.


----------



## GAP (7 Nov 2006)

If DND wanted to advertise that, don't you think they would have put it on their site? hint hint


----------



## cplcaldwell (7 Nov 2006)

I don't want to be saucy, perhaps you know this perhaps not, but this text is a hyper link to the article, click on it....

In the article you will find in it another quote...

_"Delivery of the upgraded M113s started in 2001, and will continue in stages. Final delivery will be complete by 2006.."_

...so even by DND standards, I'd have to say, since this is Nov 2006, "Oh, about 140-some-odd..."

Again, I don't want to be saucy, perhaps you know how the hyperlink works perhaps not...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Nov 2006)

...and I'm tired of chasing my tail so.......*turns key*


...but of course if you have something RELEVENT to add, just PM a Moderator.


----------

