[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Do you think laser rifles will be a practical...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons

Thread replies: 132
Thread images: 18
File: militarylaser.jpg (1 MB, 3692x2556) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
militarylaser.jpg
1 MB, 3692x2556
Do you think laser rifles will be a practical reality in the next 50 years?
>>
No.
>>
>>28449656
No.
>>
>>28449656
No. Neither will lasers.
>>
>>28449656
need to wait for ultracapacitors and super density batteries
>>
Just watched an unfocused flashlight beam set fire to some paper. So yeah I definitely do.
>>
>>28449656

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/12/31/china-deploying-handheld-laser-weapons/

pewpewpew
>>
>>28449699
Lasers nearly are already.
>>
>>28449799
Practical for burning plastic boats.
>>
Much like most of modern bogus revelations, it was developed, tested and proven ineffective compared to conventional technology long before the absolute majority of 4chan demographics has been even conceived. Kinetic projectiles, internal combustion engine and fertile human female will stay the best available means to serve their purposes for many decades to come.
>>
>>28449783
Coincidentially, they have announced that their super-capacitators achieved a breakthrough and that relatively small-sized laser-weapons could be possible.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1893973/china-moves-big-step-closer-star-wars-laser-weapons

>Now, a research team from Peking University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences led by professor Huang Fuqiang has reported a breakthrough in capacitor technology. In a paper published in the latest issue of the journal Science, they describe how the power density of their supercapacitor can reach 26 kilowatts per kilogram, or 130 times that of lithium-ion batteries.

>The Yal-1 laser cannon required a power output of one megawatt. A capacitor required to meet that power demand, using conventional technology, would weigh more than 10 tonnes. Huang’s team’s new supercapacitor, in theory, would weigh 40kg.

>“A significant weight loss in the power unit can reduce the overall mass of a laser system. It can extend the application of laser weapon to fighter jets or even spacecraft,” said professor Zhu Heyuan, an expert of laser technology at Fudan University in Shanghai, who was not involved in the research.

>“If the new technology really works and wins a nod from military, a Star Wars weapon may not be very far from us.”
>>
>>28450034
It doesn't mattet how strong or lightweight your capacitor is. Lasers are fucking terrible for penetration and are not thermally efficient at roughly 50% transfer and conservatively at 40%. They'll never be any more than Less-Lethal ranged tasers and interruptive weapons for detonating ordnance.

They have nothing over conventional ballistics, especially not the supposed inherent accuracy.
>>
>>28449656
To say nothing of power issues and energy loss to atmospheric conditions, keeping the beam on target at range is difficult from a purely biomechanical perspective.
>>
>>28449656
For blinding - yes. For killing - never.
>>
>>28450011
Russia and China has blinding lasers fielded in regular ground forces.
>>
>>28449656

>laser rifles

Killing rifles in the next 50 years? No. Theres no feasibility for it compared to what we have now.
>>
File: 1419031615193.jpg (61 KB, 600x448) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1419031615193.jpg
61 KB, 600x448
>>28450250
What about in 61 years?
>>
>>28450256

The only circumstance where I see handheld lasers being feasible in the next 100 years is if you need on board security on the space station, a future spaceship with Bruce Willis on it, or that proposed Mars colony that will play out like a reality TV show - with the only advantage being hypothetical future rechargeable batteries.
>>
>>28450298
How about handheld railguns?
>>
File: 1288568079739.jpg (26 KB, 430x430) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1288568079739.jpg
26 KB, 430x430
>>28450311

That is certainly more attractive.
>>
>>28450311
Too heavy and they still don't offer advantages over conventional ballistics, especially polymer cased rounds with high heat retension and laser/magnet guided "smart" rounds.
>>
>>28450298
Handheld binding systems could be very effective. There are already portable and vehicle mounted automated systems that scan for optic sights and suppress them with laser. With progress and miniaturisation of electronics its not difficult to image future system that can be mounted on soldiers gear (Predator canon style) and automatically blinds everyone who tries to look at him.
>>
>>28449656
chemical laser rifles are possible, but useless
for the same amount of highly-volatile chemicals, you can propel a bullet which will deliver way much more energy to the target
current lasers hover around 5% efficiency
a normal rifle can ~40%
>>
>>28450034
if this pans out, it will change everything, not just weaponry
>>
>>28450363

Mounted lasers is one thing that exists today. Handheld (killer) lasers like pistols and rifles however just don't have enough feasibility to replace ballistics in the near future unless you want someone disintegrated.
>>
File: tesla_fb_twit.png (5 KB, 400x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
tesla_fb_twit.png
5 KB, 400x400
>>28450011
you're right on all counts but internal combustion

give it 10 years.
>>
>>28449656
No
>>
>>28450364
Where are you getting this 5% figure?
The least efficient laser the military is currently developing, FELs, are still 10% efficient.
>>
>>28449656

A reality, yes. Practical, no.
>>
>>28450525
chemical lasers, doofus
you can't very well lug around capacitors, as the state of the art is about 6 Watts per gram
>>
>>28450525
oh, and are you forgetting atmospheric loss, doofus?
>>
File: confusion.webm (1 MB, 450x472) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
confusion.webm
1 MB, 450x472
What ever happened to the microwave weapon that was going to be used for crowd control?

Or did I just imagine that?
>>
>>28450581
turns out it can cook your eyes out and is illegal to use against civilians OR military, under the Geneva convention
expect to see it equipping your local police station's surplus MRAP sometime in the next five years.
>>
>>28449656

I'm more excited about the prospect that lasers could be replacing missiles for 6th Generation fighters. There are already plans to develop laser pods for the F-35 powered by the aircraft's internal power-plant.
>>
>>28450605
no they couldn't, not for BVR, lol
they might use them to shoot down incoming missiles tho
>>
>>28450605
Replacing missiles? Now? No, that's laughable. Maybe 7th generation fighters will forgo WVR A2A missiles. Maybe.
>>
>>28450572
The COIL used in the airborne laser program, when tested, showed efficiency above 20%.
I only mentioned FELs because I thought the 5% value looked awfully low compared to laser being developed.

>>28450580
Did you also apply atmospheric loss into your 40% rifle efficiency?
>>
>>28450748
> 20%
tall claim requiring tall proofs
> atmospheric losses
yes, yes I do. you can't hit shit beyond 2km with a handheld weapon anyway.
>>
>>28450775
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL-Analysis.html

Adding atmospheric losses into weapon efficiency is ridiculous. You might as well say all lasers are 0% efficient since, in a sandstorm, they can't transfer energy onto a target 2km away.
>>
well that have had man portable lasers for the last 50 years so they probably are
>>
>>28450841
> ausairpower
kek. what next, an article in Daily Mail?
> Adding atmospheric losses into weapon efficiency is ridiculous HURF DURF SANDSTORM
.50 BMG kills just fine in a sandstorm
sure, calculating windage might be a bit of a bitch...
>>
>>28450939
Here's different COIL. This time at 40%.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p012376.pdf

33%
http://optics.org/article/17660

23.4%
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=661444&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel3%2F3%2F14426%2F00661444.pdf%3Farnumber%3D661444

WHy can't you understand. It is not correct in adding external factors on weapon efficiency. If you applied atmospheric conditions to the efficiency of a gun, your "efficiency" won't remain at a constant 40%. It'll vary with distance.

And look at this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_firearms#Firearm_energy_efficiency
Where are the external factors?
>>
>>28449656
Fuck laser rifles, how close are to ships doing battle with lasers?
>>
>>28451109
Not until there's space mining to fight over.
>>
>>28450034
What's the difference between this and the graphene ultracapacitor made with a CD label burner that US scientists stumbled into several years ago?
>>
>>28452677
>2016
>Manufacturing useful amounts of high-quality graphene.

Choose one, friend.
>>
>>28452677
http://www.sciencemag.org/search?site_area=sciencejournals&y=0&fulltext=Huang%20Fuqiang&x=0&journalcode=sci&journalcode=sigtrans&journalcode=scitransmed&submit=yes

>Nitrogen-doped mesoporous carbon of extraordinary capacitance for electrochemical energy storage

could be the same, but I'm not sure.
>>
Several vendors have claimed to break the 100kw mark that was postulated by USAF to be the minimum needed for combat back in the late '90s. This is with deployable systems, not lab-only ones.

So, for laser cannons, we're close.

For handheld weapons, lasers just aren't worth the effort, and probably won't be for the rest of the century. Lasers require a "dwell" time that is best-served by a stabilized platform, not a pair of arms. Small arms are more about suppressing targets, hitting targets that are moving or taking cover, and delivering debilitating injuries in fractions of a second, all of which lasers are poor at compared to kinetic weapons. The miniaturization needed would be a few decades away at the very least, and it's not really worth it to invest in that in the first place.

That said, a laser cannon on every major combat vehicle is entirely possible in a generation or two of vehicles. It will start with dedicated air defense/CRAM vehicles, and evolve from there based on what the other side is doing.
>>
>>28452803
Lasers are still fucking worthless, they're at most only going to transfer 1/5th of their energy and the rest will dissipate as heat that you have to cool. On top of that they're easily defeated by any kind of hard protection like modern vehicle/personnel armor and unlike boolits they don't significantly damage the structure of armor enough to let them "crack" materiel.
On top of that you have the logistic nightmare of even conceptually replacing/servicing electronic weaponry for millions of soldiers, and that's assuming laser systems could even hold together in adverse conditions like deserts.

At most lasers are going to be deployed as preventative ordnance detonation systems.
>>
>>28452864
In what way was I unclear? I agreed that lasers make no sense for handheld weapons, and your arguments regarding heat dissipation and "millions of soldiers" make no sense in the context of vehicle-grade laser cannons.

I do see lasers having more of an anti-material role than perhaps you do; imagine a sub with a mast-mounted laser cannon for helo defense or making *really* sneaky holes in boats, or an aircraft or drone burning through the engine deck of a tank for a mobility kill.

But, yes, I'm in complete agreement that the biggest initial uses will be for CIWS/CRAM, including for use by aircraft against missiles.

Well, that, and burning through Hilux hoods to disable technicals in the GWoT.
>>
Kinda. As a squad heavy weapon, some kind of laser cannon might be a thing. But not as a main weapon, in 50 years we'll either be using caseless or telescopic polymer cased ammo.
Think of it as a long range focused flamethrower.

>burn sensors on heavy vehicles
>pop tires on wheeled ones
>melt barrels
>heat up cover to the point the enemy has to surrender or come into the open/retreat
>anti air role against low flying objects
and obviously
>set people on fire

All of this, 99% silent.
Why not, in 50 years if battery technology is advanced enough, and we can build a powerful laser gun small enough for infantry use, it'd be really versatile and cost effective.
>>
>>28450205
>blinding lasers=hand held laser rifles that could replace kinetic fire arms.
I'd rather blind you by shooting you in the face.
>>
>>28452803
>The miniaturization needed would be a few decades away at the very least
nah worst problem is the power supply, everything else would easily worked around.
energy density of batteries is just way too shit for energy or even magnetic weapons.
>>
>>28449884
It's a start. Give it a few more years.
>>
>>28453038
>Think of it as a long range focused flamethrower
Yes a flanethrower that loses about 80% of it's energy to heat output like one of those old giant industrial lights. Great.
>set people on fire
Holy shit I live in Alabama and this makes me say
>Anerican Education System at work
>>
>>28453013
>imagine a sub with a mast-mounted laser cannon for helo defense
If you've gone to periscope depth to ward of a helicopter, its already fropping depth charges/torpedoes on you.

>burning through the engine dech of a tank for a mobility kill
Hope it stands still long enough.
>>
File: 399.jpg (217 KB, 521x831) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
399.jpg
217 KB, 521x831
>>28452864
>>
>>28453145
>trying to compare the relative energy retention of ordnance meant to propel materiel to direct heat transfer
I just don't even know what to say to that
>>
>>28453120
Hey mr future man, how's life in 50 years from now?
I'm talking about lasers 50 years in the future you dipshit. If today a vehicle mounted laser can set fire to a mortar round and blow it up, I'd say that in 50 fucking years we could have something powerful enough to set people on fire quickly enough.

50 years from today was 1966, you understand how far away in the future is "50 years" at this rate of technological advancements, right?
>>
>>28453075
Blinding weapons as a form of EW is not replacement but supplement for lethal weapons.
>>
>>28453130
Wrong concept of operations.

Remember the research in the '80s into putting Stingers on masts? They weren't for going helo hunting, they were for self-defense when the sub was at periscope depth to ID ships immediately prior to an attack, and a helo spotted the periscope.

The Russians did eventually put some MANPADs on a mast or two, I believe, but never made them general issue.

The Silent Service stuff would be the real benefit to a laser cannon, though.
>>
>>28453013
>imagine a sub with a mast-mounted laser cannon for helo defense
Missiles pound for pound will have greater range and with radar guidance will work in bad weather (pretty common thing above sea you know). More funny things is underwater cannon able to shoot torpedoes in underwater or helicopters without surfacing (check DSG ammo).
>>
>>28453230
If a helo spots you, fucking submerge and go deep. That's about it. If you're spotted by a helo of a ship you're looking at, shooting it down isn't going to stop the ship from doing something about you.

The silent service side of it is useful though, I guess if you wanted to silently disable vehicles from a distance it would be a good idea.
>>
>>28449656
>telling targets that they will shoot to stand still in a clean dustless area for 20 min is the future because we laser rifle now
>>
>>28453268
Actually today AA misilles systems for subs are in the development everywhere. And active torpedo defence system.
>>
>>28453168
Say that .30-06 cartridge delivers only 29% of its energy to target at point blank range. And only 10% at 1000 yards.
>>
>>28453318
I'm sure you've got sources for those claims, right?
>>
>fudd season
>mcfudd grabs his pappy's Thermo Lance Starburst from the safe
>trecks into the woods with his trusty high density fusion battery backpack
>Spots his prey, a Designer Enginered Enhanced Ruminate on the lord Monsanto's game sanctuary.
>takes aim with the Nimrod 3000 aim assisted autoscope
>D.E.E.R.™ burst Into flames as the sun's fury vaporizes the air around the target and cauterizes the wound for a prime BBQ.

Yup lasers are the future. No need to waste manpower on kenetic weapons.
>>
>>28449656
No, Nope, Nada!
Not even Hundred (Even Thousand) Years.
>>
File: 1401864384022.jpg (291 KB, 500x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1401864384022.jpg
291 KB, 500x500
>>28453959
>Not even Hundred (Even Thousand) Years.

Are you one of those people that think the moon landing is fake?
>>
>>28449656
>Do you think laser rifles will be a practical reality in the next 50 years?
I don't understand how lasers or energy work...
So yes, without a doubt.
>>
Plasma rifles when?
>>
>>28454158
In the weapon, next 20 years, easy.

As the projectile, that could take a lot longer.
>>
File: LuIptot.jpg (1 MB, 3264x1836) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
LuIptot.jpg
1 MB, 3264x1836
>>28454158
Now.
>>
>>28450034
>>28450034

>China wages war with laser small arms

>'murrica invents man portable coil/rail/gauss weaponry.

What're tea-drinkers, russia and nips gonna come up with?
>>
>>28451998
I didn't mean in space. I meant regular water-borne vessels that we have today.
>>
>>28454305
Oh, lasers as an anti-ship weapon? Never. Maybe small boat swarms, but anything of real substance, fuck no.
>>
>>28454305
What the fuck is with your picture then?
>>
>>28454486
Small boat swarms and UAVs, as a test platform.

If it works out (and it should), then production models should add full CIWS capability.
>>
>>28454756
Sorry, I meant to reply to >>28454305
>>
>>28454305
Maybe 5-10 years then for anti-missile/drone lasers to be an actually working product.
>>
>>28450346
The advantage of handheld railguns is specifically *because* of weight.

They aren't viable as primary small arms, but they're a potentially superior solution for launching grenades. It essentially means that you can have a lighter grenade with the same payload than you could with standard 40mm loads.
>>
Handheld? Nah. good old kinetic force is going to be good for a while yet.

Active defence against drones and missiles? Mounted on a vehicle? Already proved to work and happening.
>>
>>28454896
>but they're a potentially superior solution for launching grenades.
In what way? Batteries will never have greater energy density than gunpowder/explosives.
Grenade launchers are only limited by weight/recoil anyways.
>>
>>28449656
no, why would you rifle a laser barrel.
why would you call an unrifled weapon a rifle?
>>
>>28455163
Because of historical context and as a way to differentiate it from laser pistols.

You fucking autist.
>>
>>28455226
It woukd just be a laser gun and laser handgun you immense autist. More likely a Laser Weapon System or Laser Weapon Platform (LaWS or LaWP)
>>
Using a focused light weapon is certainly attractive but the mobility of said weapon system is limited.

Armored vehicles would be very difficult to destroy with said weapons, because all you need is heat dispersing materials in the composite armor

but it would wreck unarmored infantry, even if it doesn't go straight through them the heat will cause steam to build up and for flesh to quite possibly explode, creating a human steam grenade disorienting enemy infantry units.
>>
>>28455249
>>28455226
>>28455163


seriously just read this post problems solved
>>28455316
>>
>>28455412
Just call it a FLW like it is
>>
>>28455412
Except it fucking doesn't. This fantasy of human flesh being seared in half instantaneously by lasers is fucking moronic.
Lasers are ineffective at heat transferral, can be easily avoided by sitting behind waist-high wall, and require focused aim unlike a conventional "fire and forget" ballistic weapon.

Outfitting a vehicle with a laser weapon that needs specialized maintenance, needs to survive and work innadesert, and is just gonna be blown up by I.E.D.s anyway is extra retarded
>>
>>28455467
FOCUSED LIGHT WEAPON
O
C
U
S
E
D

L
I
G
H
T

W
E
A
P
O
N
>>
>>28455506
>weapon dependent on lining up a fucking magnifying glass
Retarded, but so retarded it could almost work in an arid environment
>>
>>28449699
Raython delivers the first 100 kilowatt FEL in 2 years.

>Missiles are over.
>>
>>28455528
desu I just want to Pew pew lasers
>>
>>28455535
For us, maybe.

Every other shithole on the planet is just gonna have to get used to eating bombs with no hope of successful retaliation.
>>
>>28455556
>lasers
>making sounds
Fuck no
Magnetically guided plasma bolts are what you want nigga
>>
>>28455535
A few more years than that. Several hundred kW are needed for anti-missile work.
>>
>>28455535
Wasn't it Boeing that was selected for FEL development?
>>
>>28455604
No, not really. Maybe for large missile.
>>
>>28450605
>>
>>28455659
There are plenty of those. Also, generally the more capable ones.
>>
>>28455659
Ah, right. I was only thinking of ASCM's since FELs are only going to be on ships.
>>
>>28455571
>Implying someone won't jury rig a speaker to the trigger on a laser weapon to specifically make the pew pew sound every time its pulled.
>>
>>28450311
Fucking 0311's being morons as usual.
>>
>>28455604
>Several hundred kilowatt

Nope. A 100 kilowatt laser could destroy any exsistant aircraft or missile within 10 seconds. Most could survive less then one second.

>>28455647
Nope, Raython.. But Boeing is doing a bunch of development for their airborne systems.

>>28455564

More or less this. FEL are huge and complicated.
>>
>>28455753
Would you happen to have the source of that? If there's an accompanying article, I'd like to read it.

Also, who here expects NG to include a space (or a removable fuel tank like the F-35's) for a future ventral laser cannon in the B-3?
>>
>>28455693
Where's the megawatt reactor?
>>
>>28456257
>Also, who here expects NG to include a space (or a removable fuel tank like the F-35's) for a future ventral laser cannon in the B-3?
It will be like that. Rotary launchers swaping for another containerised load.
>>
>>28456258
F-35B engine has 20 megawatts shaft power output. Petrol fueled gas turbines are da kings baby. Reactors suck.
>>
>>28456257
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41526.pdf
>>
>>28456142
>Boeing and Raytheon competed for the contract to design the 100 kW FEL. In September 2010, ONR announced that it had selected Boeing. The award makes Boeing the Navy’s current primary contractor for FEL development.

If there was another contract, let me know.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41526.pdf#page=53&zoom=auto,-104,735
>>
>>28450298
the advantage would be not blowing a fucking hole in your station with projectiles. that would actually be really neat for a sci-fi.
>>
>>28450067

They're super effective against aircraft? I mean, even if they don't disintegrate the plane, they're going to blind the pilot.

>Muh Geneva Conventions

The US never signed them. Neither did China.
>>
>>28456462
>Written by BASED Ron O'Rourke
Thanks!
>>
>>28456690
No problem.
He writes a bunch of CRS reports on the navy that are also worth checking out.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/index.html
>>
>>28450067
>Lasers are fucking terrible for penetration and are not thermally efficient
This. Lasers are utter shit at turning energy input into actual destruction. Projectile weapons, as "crude" as they are, are actually extremely destructive and devastating by comparison.

The only applications where lasers will find favor over projectile weapons are situations where the simplified fire control/gunlaying is a top priority; i.e. missile defense.
>>
>>28450388
>>
>>28449783
>>28450034
Chinamen are the new storm turpers
>>
>>28450445
Hell, turbine engines blow the traditional ones out of the water and they were adapted for personal vehicles and such in the 70's. But the gov told Chrysler they were too good
>>
>>28449656
the technology already exists, you can build a rifle that'll light people on fire from 100 yards at home. I dont think it will ever see use in wartime since they have the potential to blind without killing, a big no no in most war conventions.
>>
>>28458524
it was more of a problem with it being impractical to spin up and down the turbines, say in city traffic. a modern hybrid implementation with a electric engine could address the problem very well.
>>
>>28454158
plasma won't stay together in atmosphere
even in space you would need a solid core or some space magic to provide a captivating magnetic field.

if one could make a proton beam where the protons all go in one direction with the same speed and don't collide it might work as a near light speed particle weapon in space.
>>
>>28460646
oh yeah almost forgot it would also be pretty useless against ships cause it's practically the only thing you can attack a ship with that magnetic shields can deflect. lasers missiles or even throwing rocks at a ship magnets will do little good against but plasma? hell...
>>
>>28450618
I agree with not for BVR, but they'll definitely be effective against other jets at WVR; have avionics automatically target the right place, like an air intake or the cockpit and you can cause a catastrophic failure, killing the pilot or sending molten debris through their engine.
>>
I'll never understand this fad with powder weaponry. Much like other bog modern "revelations" like the position of the earth, it has been developed and tested to be ineffective compared to the conventional technology of the pike and spear. It's an incredibly inefficient way to kill compared to the good old spear that has lasted us for hundreds of years despite how crude it may seem to you plebeians.

Spears, wind power and a good goat sanctioned by the divine will remain the best available means to serve their purposes for the next few centuries. Try and prove me wrong, pro tip: [spoiler]you can't[/spoiler]

""""""Holy""""" """""Roman""""" cucks need not apply.
>>
>>28460811
>be French
>get shot
>>
>>28454064
Okay then, what i tell you that when will US Military make bipedal in less than 10 years?
>>
>>28449656
Lazers don't even exist. Can you even see one?
>>
>>28453120
>help me Im stuck in the present
>>
>>28460811
>help me I'm stuck in the past
>>
File: ass pain.png (70 KB, 1892x342) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ass pain.png
70 KB, 1892x342
>>28460823
>be Italian
>get assassinated
Thread replies: 132
Thread images: 18
Thread DB ID: 371503



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.