# A6M2 Zero Vs. ME 109



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 14, 2006)

I have read about these axis planes and heard they were good. Now the question is who will come out the victor in a dogfight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2006)

Under 300 mph - the zero, and this depends on pilot skill...


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 14, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I have read about these axis planes and heard they were good. Now the question is who will come out the victor in a dogfight.



In a dogfight ? I would think that no smart pilot (from and nation in any WW2 plane) would ever "dogfight" a Zero. Most often a dogfight is at lower speeds (under 300mph) and this is where the Zero excelled. Not sure if and mono-wing plane could match the Zero's maneuverability in a "dogfight". But that USA pilots learned that and never tried to dogfight it. They used that and waive tactics and hit and run. Dogfighting a Zero under 300mph (where most dogfights happen) was suicide. SO to answer you, mostly the Zero under 300 mph and above 300 the 109, but like Joe says the pilot skills play a huge part also. Also depends on who gets the first attack, in a head on attack the 109 stands a better chance of winning.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 14, 2006)

About the only monoplanes that cold match the Zero were certain other Japanese types (Ki-43-I, A5M and Ki-27), the Soviet I-16 and possibly the Polish Pz.11. None of these planes had the speed, climb, range or heavy armament of the Zero though, so the Zero wins out overall.

The earliest Zeros would be faced with 109Fs, which had a 60mph advantage in speed and better than 500 feet/minute advantage in climb and superior engine power at altitude. The Zero would have to sucker the 109s into low level, horizontal turn fight. Above about 310 mph the Zero suffered from EXTREEMLY heavy alierons and quite heavy elevators. All that low speed manouverability came from very large alierons and elevators, which hamper high speed manouvers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2006)

You also have to think about fighting in the vertical - again I think the 109 will come out ahead...


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 14, 2006)

I agree Joe, the hit and run vertical attack that Germans used would prove decisive.


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 15, 2006)

> The earliest Zeros would be faced with 109Fs, which had a 60mph advantage in speed and better than 500 feet/minute advantage in climb and superior engine power at altitude. The Zero would have to sucker the 109s into low level, horizontal turn fight. Above about 310 mph the Zero suffered from EXTREEMLY heavy alierons and quite heavy elevators. All that low speed manouverability came from very large alierons and elevators, which hamper high speed manouvers.



I fully agree. We should also remember that the advantage of the Bf-109F will increase as height increases. This wan't a problem in the Pacific or Eastern Front, where combats took place below 15000 ft, but in Western Europe...

The Bf-109F is also better protected and has self-sealing fuel tanks, and is superior in diving.

Regards.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 15, 2006)

Thanks for your opinions guys.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 15, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> About the only monoplanes that cold match the Zero were certain other Japanese types (Ki-43-I, A5M and Ki-27), the Soviet I-16 and possibly the Polish Pz.11. None of these planes had the speed, climb, range or heavy armament of the Zero though, so the Zero wins out overall.



Dont forget the Reggiane Re.2000, which would give it a good run for its money...the poor armament may let it down, but on a Zero at least the 2x 12.7mm will still do enough damage.
The range is far inferior, but in a pure dogfight, range wouldnt count for so much...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 17, 2006)

I wonder how the Yak's, Macchi's and Spit/Hurri's fit in?

I know later Itaian fighters had MG 151/20's, changing the armament from crap to great.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 17, 2006)

3 MG151s to be precise
werent the British dudes uing Hurricanes when they got slaughtered by Zeros?


----------



## R988 (Mar 17, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> 3 MG151s to be precise
> werent the British dudes uing Hurricanes when they got slaughtered by Zeros?



Yeah in Ceylon, with MkII(b, i think) Hurricanes, the whole thing was a shambles though as they never had much chance. 
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/ceylon2.html

They also operated in Burma and later with the AVG I think.


BF109 has massive armament though, imagine what those Mk108s or 103s would do to a Zero, even one shell


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 17, 2006)

the british in Singapore were also using F2A buffalo fighters against the zero, I don't think the buffalos had much of a a chance against the Zekes, it can down to the pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2006)

The Brits didn't fare well against the Zero because of tactics - and many of the aircraft they encountered over Burma were actually Oscars...


----------



## plan_D (Mar 19, 2006)

True. Even the first Spitfires to enter the CBI in 1943 had to get used to the Japanese turners. But quickly overcame, and left the CBI with an 8:1 kill ratio. 

The RAF in the early years were using everything they could get their hands on. And if you look closely it still wasn't as bad as it's made out. Sure, the RAF had to retreat but the Japanese suffered some heavy loss at their hands.


----------



## Dogwalker (Mar 19, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I wonder how the Yak's, Macchi's and Spit/Hurri's fit in?


The difficult thing is to find the real figures of the A6M2, since the currently reported ones seems to be underrated (if they are real, every early series italian fighter was a better climber and a far better diver).
My impression is that, in 1940, a Zero could outeverything a Macchi C-200, with the only possible exceptions of high speed turn and dive speed.
In early 1941, the advent of C-202 changed the things. It's prestations were far superior to that of any Zero, apart for the turn rate at slow speed (and certanly the range), it was rugged and well armoured, and the armament was sufficient counter an unarmoured fighter.
The "5 series" fighters were another thing.
A close dogfight between a Re-2000 and a Zero could be very interesting.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 19, 2006)

like how much range does the Re.2000 GA (grande autonomia = extended range) have


----------



## Dogwalker (Mar 19, 2006)

With internal fuel only, 1935 km (1201 miles) at 430 Km/h (267 ml/h) at 6000m (20.000 ft) with the maximum takeoff weight.
The maximum speed was reduced of 10 Km/h, to 520 Km/h.
The catapultabile version had a maximum range, in the same conditions of speed and quote, of 1290 km (801 ml).


----------



## Twitch (Mar 20, 2006)

Moving away from the hardware fixation for a moment we must realize that from 1940-mid-1942 there were no better airmen than those of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This was the time that Sakai, Sasai, Nishizawa and the rest of the best ran wild in the Zero with instances of skilled opposition as rare.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Moving away from the hardware fixation for a moment we must realize that from 1940-mid-1942 there were no better airmen than those of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This was the time that Sakai, Sasai, Nishizawa and the rest of the best ran wild in the Zero with instances of skilled opposition as rare.



Very True - it seems starting at Midway (June 42) and into the summer months, the USN and USAAF figured out how to effectively challenge the Zero (and other Japanese aircraft), this is apparent in the kills that were starting to mount by the summers' end.

Many of Japan's best were lost at Midway...


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Twitch said:
> 
> 
> > Moving away from the hardware fixation for a moment we must realize that from 1940-mid-1942 there were no better airmen than those of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This was the time that Sakai, Sasai, Nishizawa and the rest of the best ran wild in the Zero with instances of skilled opposition as rare.
> ...



Just to add to these comments. I don't think the early years that the Japanese pilots were "better" or USA planes were bad. As you said many times Joe the Wildcat was a decent plane, able to take on the Zero or 109E if flown right. True the USA pilots were green compared to Japanese pilots who had experience over China but there is more to this than that. What allowed the Zero and the Japanese pilots to do as well as they did was the following IMHO. Japanese used WW1 style flying tatics and the Zero was suited for this. USA pilots started out using the same tatics (ie the term they used was "never ever dogfight a Zero") in planes not suited to a turning dogfight. Once the USA pilots started using the correct tatics then they started taking it to the Japanese pilots and Zeros. All of this is just IMHO. Thanks


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Twitch said:
> 
> 
> > Moving away from the hardware fixation for a moment we must realize that from 1940-mid-1942 there were no better airmen than those of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This was the time that Sakai, Sasai, Nishizawa and the rest of the best ran wild in the Zero with instances of skilled opposition as rare.
> ...



The problems with the Japanese wasn't their planes or their pilots - most fighter pilots that fought in both the ETO and the Pacific thought the Pacific was the harder of the two. The problem of the Japanese was their attitude!

1. They thought they were the best possible fighter pilots.
2. They looked on their fighters like swords, a light fast personal wepon, and secondary to the pilot who would weild it.

This led to a small but very good cadre of fighter pilots with excellent aircraft at the start of the war. The Allies learned quickly that their deficiencies in both aircraft and fighter quality were mitigated with team work, then set out to increase both. The Japanese attitude of single combat and the plane as a personal wepon froze tactics, even though they had proven ineffective. Worse, the assumption that the aircraft was no more than a sword waiting for its master to weild precluded quick or radical upgrades to their aircraft, ie a sword is a sword.

Another thing that affected things was the placement of the very best pilots on carriers. First we changed tactics to minimize their effectiveness, then overwelmed them from both a tactical and an equipment standpoint, then at midway, and other places their carriers were sunk and the pilots drowned.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

Well here is my take on the subject.

The Zero above 300 mph was not the all great dog fighter and that was proven by the US Navy. The Bf-109 would turn better than a Zero above 300mph. It can outclimb a Zero. It has better armour protection than a zero and it has better armament than the Zero.

Bf-109 hands down.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 20, 2006)

> then at midway, and other places their carriers were sunk and the pilots drowned.


Agreed 100%.....


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well here is my take on the subject.
> 
> The Zero above 300 mph was not the all great dog fighter and that was proven by the US Navy. The Bf-109 would turn better than a Zero above 300mph. It can outclimb a Zero. It has better armour protection than a zero and it has better armament than the Zero.
> 
> Bf-109 hands down.




100% agree


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 21, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Well here is my take on the subject.
> ...


So do I, unless the BF-109 was suckered into a low speed dogfight where teh Zero excelled then it stand a very good chance. However it is all down to the pilots...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2006)

I will agree with you, but I think that below 300 it would come down to the pilots.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 21, 2006)

From 1940 when the Zero entered service to around mid-1942 the IJN pilots with the Zeke WERE the best in the world. Doesn't matter that they were a small group like the Luftwaffe and that the American "good to very good" pilots produced in greater numbers would do the job.

Continually fixating on hardware is a mistake. This over and under 300MPH makes no sense either because no IJN pilot would be continually fighting above 300 where his plane was at a disadvantage due to aileron stiffness. If you take the pilot out of the equation you have nothing. The ubiquitous "pilots of equal skill" factor is bogus too since we're creating a fantasy in a vacuum.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2006)

While considering hardware and pilot skill I take in consideration the actual combat numbers - For the entire 1942 combat year the FEAF lost 148 fighter aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 fighter aircraft = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the IJN or JAAF. That's history!!!

And also consider the USN had a similar record after Midway while flying the F4F...

P-38s were entering the scene in late December 1942 so these numbers mainly come from P-39s, P-400s and P-40. We could throw in the fact that the best of the Japanese pilots were on scene during this period but the bottom line the IJN and JAAF did not do as well against US forces as history leads us to believe despite touting the Nishizawas, Iwamotos and Sakais (nothing against them). The US were beating back the IJN and JAAF with P-40s P-39s and P-400s (F4Fs for the USN) and the numbers prove it. Now one could challenge the accuracy of FEAF kill confirmation processes and try to compare them with Japanese losses, but I guess that's for another thread....

Consider the aircraft, pilot skill and the way history actually played out....


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2006)

If you want to discuss pilot skill then that is one item, if you want to talk planes that is another. If you want to cover both then that is a third.

Assuming that you want to talk about 109 vs Zero then its the 109 all the way. It had speed, armour, weapons, dive speed and above all, that gives it, the initiative. The plane without the initiative (Zero) will spend most of its time on the defensive and in the long run will lose.

If you want to include the pilots in the 109 and the Zero, then again its the Germans who will come out on top. They had been at war for two years against the RAF and that experience would have been vital.

German tactics were better than the Japenese (and initially the British) with the finger 4 formation and better communications (better radios). The Germans were also used to not dogfighting, using their speed to initiate combat and to evade a more agile foe. 

So however you look at it, the 109 is better than the Zero.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 21, 2006)

> then again its the Germans who will come out on top. They had been at war for two years against the RAF and that experience would have been vital.


Dont forget the Japanese had been flying combat in China and Russia waaayyy before 1942... There were several Japanese Aces when WWII/American involvement started...


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2006)

True but the sort of combat they met over China doesn't compare to the German airforce's experience against the RAF. Totally different ball game.

Also the Japs lost to the Russians and still didn't change their tactics on land or in the air, never could work that one out.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 21, 2006)

> but the sort of combat they met over China doesn't compare to the German airforce's experience against the RAF.


I will agree with that, but dont count out the combat experience that they did gain.... Many Americans went into combat with little or no gunnery practice...


> never could work that one out.


Neither could I actually...


----------



## Twitch (Mar 22, 2006)

There's simply too many variables to realistically compare hardware tit for tat. Who is flying? Where? What altitude? What terrain is below? What's the weather like? Who has the advantage at the start of this ficticious combat?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2006)

Twitch said:


> There's simply too many variables to realistically compare hardware tit for tat. Who is flying? Where? What altitude? What terrain is below? What's the weather like? Who has the advantage at the start of this ficticious combat?



Agree - "Consider the aircraft, pilot skill and the way history actually played out."

Need to throw luck in there as well.......


----------



## Sal Monella (Mar 22, 2006)

What if the Japs had Mc-202's instead of Zeros?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> What if the Japs had Mc-202's instead of Zeros?


From an earlier quote by wmaxt...

"The Japanese attitude of single combat and the plane as a personal wepon froze tactics, even though they had proven ineffective. Worse, the assumption that the aircraft was no more than a sword waiting for its master to weild precluded quick or radical upgrades to their aircraft, ie a sword is a sword."

I think they still would of got smoked....


----------



## Dogwalker (Mar 22, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> What if the Japs had Mc-202's instead of Zeros?


They couldn't launch an aeronaval operation.  
The C-202 was a good fighter for ETO, but it didn't fit PTO's needs, it's range was too short, and even if it could be launched by a carrier, with it's fixed wings it would have taken a lot of space over it.

Regarding at the prestations only, the C-202 could have been a big surprise for P-40 and wildcats' pilots, especially if the japanese managed to solve it's only flaw, replacing the two 7,7 mm wing-mounted machineguns with a 20mm gun firing through the spinner.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2006)

Glider said:


> If you want to discuss pilot skill then that is one item, if you want to talk planes that is another. If you want to cover both then that is a third.
> 
> Assuming that you want to talk about 109 vs Zero then its the 109 all the way. It had speed, armour, weapons, dive speed and above all, that gives it, the initiative. The plane without the initiative (Zero) will spend most of its time on the defensive and in the long run will lose.
> 
> ...



Agreed, said very well.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 22, 2006)

the 109 had better armament? the 109 had the russian style armament, 2 lmg/hmgs and a 20mm/30mm cannon


----------



## book1182 (Mar 22, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sal Monella said:
> 
> 
> > What if the Japs had Mc-202's instead of Zeros?
> ...



I agree. The Japanese still didn't use group tactics at the end of the war. They believed in self honor in the fact that dieing in battle was better than winning the battle. Read Flyboys and you will see what I mean. I couldn't believe that they stopped supplying troops after they took over an island!!! They told their soldiers to live off the land. How are you going to live off of the land when it is nothing more than a sandy atoll?!?!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2006)

book1182 said:


> I agree. The Japanese still didn't use group tactics at the end of the war. They believed in self honor in the fact that dieing in battle was better than winning the battle.



I dont know if I necessarilly agree with that. I think it was more they would rather win the battle, but if you are going to lose the battle it is more honorable to die in the battle.

I do however agree that there samurai stuff and the attitude of the plane as there personal weapon was a downfall because they did not develop better tactics.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 22, 2006)

they got too carried away with tradition


----------



## Twitch (Mar 23, 2006)

The Japanese supplied garrisons on islands in several innovative ways from their huge transport submarines. Read-

Orita, Zenji
I-Boat Captain
Major Books, Canoga Park CA, 1976


----------



## evangilder (Mar 23, 2006)

They called living off the land "local provisions". It was a hoorible situation and on some islands, the soldiers resorted to cannabalism, even of each other.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

To be honest though can you blame the soldiers. Soldiers allways will find ways to survive.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 23, 2006)

Obviously, all these Japanese were HORRIBLE fishermen, being stranded on an island and forced to eat human flesh..... 

I mean, seriously, I'd eat whatever I could find in the tidal pools, or eat worms bugs and larve before resorting to cannibalism....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

You and me both.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 24, 2006)

I totally agree, Dan. The last thing I want to eat is another human being. Geez, it's not kosher!


----------



## Twitch (Mar 24, 2006)

But still abandoning the troops was NOT planned. They were cut off due to enemy actions. Even then supplying was well planned to the point of constructing supply subs beforehand.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 24, 2006)

Actually, in some locations, local provisions was the order.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 24, 2006)

New Guinea was one, but they found that supplies were not as easy or plentiful as in China and so the troops ended up finding other ways of feeding themselves one of which was cannibalism...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

Give them a bag of rice and tell them to catch fish and eat fruit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Give them a bag of rice and tell them to catch fish and eat fruit.


don't forget the rats! Yummie!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

Yeah but some of the rats on those places could probably eat them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah but some of the rats on those places could probably eat them.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 24, 2006)

Twitch said:


> But still abandoning the troops was NOT planned. They were cut off due to enemy actions. Even then supplying was well planned to the point of constructing supply subs beforehand.



Some were cut off, but the contingent on Wake Island were ordered to, and did, execute 600+ Morrison Knudsen construction workers so they wouldn't have to feed them. 

Start with the attitude that the Japanese are the ordained race add the code of Bushido which is very unforgiving, together with training practices that included severe beatings of anyone of lessor rank or status, for ANY offense, made harsh treatment the normal situation. Add to that the assumption that many of these Islands were self sufficent before the Japanese came, made such decisions easy. Lastly if Japanese soldiers were there that island couldn't be completely ignored by the Allies. That there were 10 times as many Japanese on the islands than there ever were natives, or that you have to go several miles out to sea to fish effectively were easy to gloss over. Or to put it bluntly if its ok to rape and kill 400,000 in Nanking or 250,00 for the Doolittle raid, whats 100 noncoms? In most cases the officers above Lutenant were taken to other comands. 

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Or to put it bluntly if its ok to rape and kill 400,000 in Nanking or 250,00 for the Doolittle raid, whats 100 noncoms? wmaxt


 BINGO!!!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 25, 2006)

book1182 said:


> They believed in self honor in the fact that dieing in battle was better than winning the battle



What a great tactic to win a war! erm...  Lemmings!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 25, 2006)

book1182 said:


> They believed in self honor in the fact that dieing in battle was better than winning the battle



Thats not correct. For the common solider, who had been force fed a nationalised and bastardized version of the samurai Bushido code of honour, it was considered that instead of suffering the disgrace of defeat and capture by your enemies, it was preferable to die in battle.

This however, is HIGHLY simplified. It has often been interpreted that the Japanese would rather commit suicide charges than face defeat on the battlefield and the ignoimity of surrender, withdrawl, or defeat. Generally speaking though, that wasn't the case. It was only in cases of officers and men with an extreemly skewed view of bushido, or absolute fervent nationalism, that suicide charges were carried out. The first 'Banzi' (which is actually a blessing meaning 'ten thousand years' or 'long live') charges weren't until mid 1943, concieved as a last ditch chance for victory after running out of ammunition, and even after this they were a relative rarity, the main charges being at Saipan, Tarawa and Attu.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 25, 2006)

Rats??? Yum....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

That just looks wrong.


----------



## Henk (Mar 27, 2006)

Dam, that is a large sun of a bitch. I had a pet rat and I must say they are the best pets you can get, hamsters suck, the fuckers bite you and they do not like to be near you. A dog sucks, a cat is allright. A parrot is also great.

That pics does look bad. 

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

The only rats that come into my house get fed to my snake.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 28, 2006)

Dogs do not suck, best pets you can have...

Best thing about rats is they make good target practice...


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 28, 2006)

Agreed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

My best pet ever was a half lab and half rotweiller mix. Damn dog was awesome.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 28, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> Dogs do not suck, best pets you can have...
> 
> Best thing about rats is they make good target practice...


 agree completely


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My best pet ever was a half lab and half rotweiller mix. Damn dog was awesome.



Nice! My uncle has 2 Rottweiler - Doberman cross. Theyre totally awesome...

My dog is probably the most inbred thing ever, Collie, Whippet, and some Labrador


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 29, 2006)

That pic that les posted back there takes me back. I saw a rat about that size down by the harbour side here many years ago. It was dark, and I only caught the movement out of my peripheral vision at first. I thought it was a cat! Nope! Rat!  

Damn thing almost made me shit my pants!...Almost.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2006)

I saw some pretty big rats in my travels with the military and some of them scared the living shit out of me. I thought they were like radioactive killer clones or something.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 29, 2006)

My grandfather had a Dachsund, it was fat but cant grow any bigger than an arm's length... if u walk with it and don't notice it, u will trip on the dog


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2006)

Yeap a Wiener dog.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 30, 2006)

or a Hotdog... thats what i call it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2006)

we call them sausage dogs, wiener has very different meaning over here, we've got a small collie for the farm, whn i say small she's about 2 an a half years old and she's about 18 inches high!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 31, 2006)

I had a wiener dog which was 28 human yrs old, and hes like 2 1/2 ft long and like less than 6in tall


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 31, 2006)

They are kicking dogs they get in the way and you kick them


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 31, 2006)

or tripping dogs to trip yer neighbor


----------

