-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 19698)
Message
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 684 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here



No. 19698 ID: fd548d
  Praised as the greatest tank of all times in the US and northern parts of Saudi-Arabia, in reality the M1A2 SEP is nothing to write home about. A detailed comparison to an older French design revealed, once again, that more expensive does NOT = more effective. In fact, the M1A2 SEP is nowhere close to being the best MBT around.
11 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 19711 ID: d8acd0
File 145303196787.jpg - (822.63KB , 2592x1944 , French AMX-30B2 Main Battle Tank 1.jpg )
19711
THE FRENCH AMX-30B2 TANK

This up-grade package started development in 1973, transforming the vehicle from a 1st generation tank to a 2nd generation. Its upgrades were implemented from 1979 whilst the vehicle was still in production. New build vehicles were manufactured to this standard and a number of earlier production vehicles were also upgraded.

A great deal of effort had gone in to ironing out the problems with the vehicles mobility, namely the manual gearbox being replaced with the semi-automatic SESM ENC200. A new torsion bar suspension which increased the vertical deflection range of the road wheels was installed and gave a greater off road capability. A new diesel engine was added, the Hispano-Suiza HS-110-S2, which generated 780hp.

A key upgrade was the new integrated COTAC fire control system APX M581, which incorporated a laser rangefinder and thermal sights as well as a new M496 commander’s sight. The pressurised NBC system was also improved. The French army took first delivery of the B2 in 1982 and a total of 166 B2’s were new builds and 493 were upgraded B’s. Final assembly of the vehicle was completed in the heavy manufacturing factory “Atelier de Construction de Roanne” whilst other facilities manufactured the parts. A total of 1173 AMX-30 (including the new build B2’s) MBT’s (excluding other variants) had been built for the French Army by 1985 when final deliveries were completed.

During the Early 90’s after the Gulf War (which the AMX-30 fought in) the French Army started taking delivery of its new 3rd Generation MBT, the Leclerc. However the AMX-30 continued to play a key role in the French army and two further up-grades were implemented in limited numbers for their rapid reaction force which was made up of 2 Tank Regiments “1er/ 2e Chasseurs”. The first was an Explosive Reactive Armour package called BRENUS which was made up of 112 bricks fitted over the front of the vehicle and turret sides, increasing protection by the equivalent of 400mm of steel.

The final upgrade has been the purchase of 500 Renault RVI Mack E9 turbocharged diesel engines generating 750hp. http://tanknutdave.com/the-french-amx-30-series/
>> No. 19712 ID: d8acd0
  AMX-30B2 Main Battle Tank https://youtu.be/kOuv1urCRPA
>> No. 19718 ID: 254d85
Ignore the OP. "Blacktail Defense" is well known to be Mike Sparks' fursona.

Seriously.
>> No. 19719 ID: 794d7b
>>19718
Is that the guy who thinks the M113 should replace every other ground vehicle? I thought OP's post smacked of that sort of attitude.
>> No. 19720 ID: cfe73e
File 145320803479.jpg - (1.15MB , 4000x2666 , French Leclerc Bastille Day 2014 parade on the Cha.jpg )
19720
I was just wondering why the OP was comparing the modern M1A2 SEP with the old AMX-30B2 tank and not the more modern Leclerc.
- Leclerc tank in the Bastille Day 2014 military parade on the Champs-Élysées in Paris.
>> No. 19721 ID: cfe73e
File 145320821271.jpg - (758.46KB , 4000x2244 , French Leclerc MBT 2.jpg )
19721
Char Leclerc, stand de l'armée à la Foire de Châlons de 2012.
>> No. 19722 ID: 91b0ea
File 145321963350.jpg - (126.88KB , 900x557 , full.jpg )
19722
>>19718
>>19719
The problem is that the American military is unwilling to accept casualties and considers soldier safety as a higher priority than completing the mission. Considering this current political atmosphere of safety I don't see how we could win a war against anyone except highly undeveloped countries.

If we ever get back to fighting wars properly, we're going to get back to the light tank concept. It's just too much lethality per cost to pass up.

Sparks problem is that his idea of the light tank is based on M113, which was a shitty APC when it came out and is much worse now. I think it was in Vietnam when ancient RPG-2 systems and even rifle grenades were used to turn the passengers of M113s into burger meat.

Sprey suggested upgrading the M60 with composite armor and using that, something like the Sabra mark 3.
>> No. 19723 ID: 91b0ea
  .
>> No. 19724 ID: cfca7a
  >>19720
>> No. 19725 ID: cfe73e
File 145325171144.jpg - (4.55MB , 2736x2346 , Israeli Namer (leopard) APC based on a Merkava tan.jpg )
19725
>>19722
It was shown back in WW2 that the vehicle's crew is the most important asset and component. A well-trained and experienced crew was a significant force-multiplier as well as being expensive. Time to train, house and supply a crew really adds up after a while and losing trained crews really ruins your efficiency and effectiveness. When the Japanese lost their experienced aircraft crew at big battles like Midway, their effectiveness really went down. The new crews were rushed through training and proved nowhere near as effective as the experienced fliers they replaced even though they were flying newer aircraft. The US did not rush training, but expanded aircrew training and kept the training at around two years with lots more flying time before they were deployed. The factories could bash out aircraft fast, but having trained crew for them was the tough and expensive part. Making sure that their crew survived and any downed crew were rescued was very important.

This importance of crew survivability was learned in the tank corps where US Shermans proved inferior to heavy German armor like the Panthers and Tigers. If enemy tanks were encountered, standard procedure was to retreat if possible and call in artillery and airstrikes. Other allies sneered at this as cowardice but lavishing artillery or bombs is better than risking tank crew. When the Germans really started losing experienced tank crew in France and the Eastern Front in 1944 after Stalingrad, Kursk and the meat-grinder enveloping Soviet offensives, such as the destruction of Army Group Center (Operation Bagration), things really went bad for the Germans and the Soviets became more effective by actually retaining experienced crew in these victories.

- Israeli Namer (leopard) APC based on a Merkava Mk IV tank chassis. This 60-ton APC has a crew of 3 (commander, driver, RCWS operator) + 9 troops and is one of the most heavily armored APC in the world, having a composite matrix of laminated ceramic-steel-nickel alloy & underlaid reactive armor, sloped modular design. It is only armed with a remote-controlled (Samson RCWS) Browning M2 12.7x99mm (.50 cal) machine gun, or Mk 19 grenade launcher, and a 7.62mm FN MAG MG. The point is to protect the troops in a vehicle that is also fast enough to keep up with the tanks.
>> No. 19726 ID: cfe73e
File 145325359413.jpg - (1.26MB , 4288x2848 , Israeli Namer during operational assessment in US.jpg )
19726
I have heard that more M1 Abrams are being made than can be possibly crewed and these tanks are being placed in various forward deployment depots (like US Reforger bases in NATO) and US storage bases. Perhaps Abrams could likewise be turned into APCs? More difficult compared to the Israeli Namer that has the engine up front and the crew enters from the rear door. Plus, the Abrams has a voracious jet engine powering it and using these as APCs would require lots more fuel supplies, although the research into an M1A3 upgrade would probably have a 2000hp diesel engine for better fuel economy.

The US Army’s heavily armored IFV, the Ground Combat Vehicle, is likely to weigh as much as 84 tons, making it the heaviest armored vehicle on the battlefield. It's supposed to seat a 9-man squad, but cost 28 billion dollars. Critics suggest instead buying the Israeli Namer or the German Puma IFV or upgrading the Bradley. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Combat_Vehicle

The US Army conducted non-developmental vehicle operational assessments of current combat vehicles in 2012 to evaluate capabilities against requirements for purchase of a new IFV for the Ground Combat Vehicle program. One of the vehicles validated was the Namer. On 2 April 2013, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that advised purchasing current vehicles instead of developing a new vehicle for the GCV program. Buying the Namer would cost $9 billion less, and met the required nine-man carrying capacity. The army responded by saying that although the Namer and other vehicles assessed in 2012 met some GCV requirements, no currently fielded vehicle met enough without needing significant redesign.

- Soldiers from A Company, 1st Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment, maneuver around an Israeli Namer during the Maneuver Battle Lab's Ground Combat Vehicle assessment last month at Fort Bliss, Texas. Army leaders used the session to learn about eventual requirements for a new Infantry fighting vehicle. 21 May 2012
>> No. 19727 ID: cfe73e
File 145325512586.jpg - (645.14KB , 2052x1439 , German Puma IFV 1.jpg )
19727
German Puma IFV
Weight (level A/C): 31.4 / 43 t
Length: ca. 7.4 m
Width: ca. 3.7 m
Height (roof): ca. 3.1 m
Engine performance: 800 kW (1,088 hp)
Maximum speed: 70 km/h
Crew: 9 (3+6)
Armament: 30 mm (MK 30-2/ABM) / coaxial mounted MG 4 / guided missiles
http://www.kmweg.com/home/tracked-vehicles/infantry-fighting-vehicles/puma/product-information.html
>> No. 19728 ID: cfe73e
File 145325514648.jpg - (1.26MB , 2362x1575 , German Puma IFV 2.jpg )
19728
>> No. 19729 ID: cfe73e
File 145325518348.jpg - (758.17KB , 1772x1181 , German Puma IFV 3.jpg )
19729
>> No. 19730 ID: cfe73e
File 145325520635.jpg - (1.12MB , 2244x1535 , German Puma IFV 4.jpg )
19730
>> No. 19731 ID: cfe73e
File 145325645361.jpg - (369.25KB , 2032x1524 , German Puma IFV 5.jpg )
19731
>> No. 19732 ID: cfe73e
File 145325646256.jpg - (355.93KB , 2032x1524 , German Puma IFV 6.jpg )
19732
>> No. 19733 ID: cfe73e
File 145325648063.jpg - (155.61KB , 2032x1524 , German Puma IFV 7.jpg )
19733
>> No. 19734 ID: cfe73e
File 145325704894.jpg - (920.43KB , 1648x1267 , German Puma IFV first series production 1.jpg )
19734
German Puma IFV, first series production model.
>>19725
A further example of how important trained and experienced crew are to the war effort, I remember reading of US ground attack fighter pilots (P-47, P-38, etc.) were told to attack German locomotives but especially target the driving compartment where the locomotive engineer was. A new train could be built quickly, but it takes years to get a good, experienced engineer to drive it. Replace experienced ones with green ones and inefficiencies will increase and more accidents will occur. One pilot asked if they would be prosecuted as war criminals for specifically targeting civilian locomotive engineers but the reply was "Don't worry about that".
>> No. 19739 ID: 91b0ea
>>19725
Crews are the most essential part of the tank, but it's not like they can make an inferior tank function in a superior way. This is also a lesson from world war two, when Panzer III and IV crews met the T-34 they didn't beat themselves up over not being it's match.

An inferior machine is an inferior machine.

The modern tank isn't facing another tank so it's easy to think there's no such thing as an inferior machine, because nothing opposes it. But there can be an inferior machine for anti-insurgency missions, and no crew can make abrams need fewer filter changes.
>> No. 19740 ID: 254d85
>>19719
Yep.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/594460/
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/608-blacktaildefense-doesnt-know-shit-about-tank-design/?p=15029
>Part of this goes back to when BlacktailDefense' account on tanknet had an IP trace done, and, forget the exact details, but it placed him within the same neighborhood (possibly even the same house) as Sparks.
>> No. 19751 ID: de0bec
>>19702
I don't know how many times I've seen that pic before, but I just noticed the "99 problems" written on the fume extractor.
>> No. 19752 ID: cfe73e
File 14534768818.jpg - (872.38KB , 3008x2008 , US Abrams M1 main battle tank 7.jpg )
19752
>>19751
What would you write on your tank?
I'd go with "Happy Flower"
>> No. 19753 ID: 830e5d
>>19739
Depends on the mark of Pz.III/Pz.IV. When up gunned to the 50mm the service life was extended and the ability to take on T-34 was there, however the engagement range was lower than that preferred by German forces. Pz.IV was still relevant during the latter stages of WWII as it could be up gunned.

A superior crew with only slightly inferior machine will be able to overcome a certain amount of (Clausewitzian) friction created by their tank. Look at the experience of the Panthers, cracking tank (when it didn't break down) but consistently had inexperienced crews manning it meaning it never achieved the superiority it should have.
>> No. 19754 ID: 794d7b
File 145351736043.jpg - (79.62KB , 800x554 , 1392311738062.jpg )
19754
>>19753
I think the Pz IV might have been one of the most heavily-upgraded tanks of the WWII period. Would you believe that the first few versions only had like 15mm of hull armor? Big difference from the quite-formidable late war variants.
>> No. 19755 ID: cf0c5c
File 145356512889.jpg - (34.52KB , 471x478 , EBRC.jpg )
19755
The main problem is that OP like light cavalry.

And the French are obsessed with light cavalry too after the disastrous WWII tank engagement (french on average had "better tanks", IE on paper, than the germans, with bigger guns, thicker armor, they invented slopped armor too, etc... and were completely outmaneuvered by german lighter and more reliable designs.)

The AMX-30 replaced their main tank which was the AMX-13, which was a light tank, latter beefed up with ATGM (maybe the first widely deployed ATGM too, the SS-13).

Their main cavalry vehicle even today is the wheeled gun AMX-10 RC (which stand for Roue Cannon, wheeled gun AND NOT "recon" as so many people thinks).

The smaller ERC-90 Sagaie is exactly that, full high pressure 90mm gun (unlike the export versions which have a low pressure one and fire only HE and HEAT rounds) on something that barely stops 12.7mm and fit in a small cargo plane (C-160 Transall). With a good crew that thing can fuck up something from the T-55 family and anything lighter.

French designers essentially always try to make the lighter/smaller chassis possible and put the biggest bang they can on it, then they add the armor depending on what they're making.

Even the AMX-56 is like that.

The thing meant to replace the AMX-10RC, ERC-90 and VAB MEPHISTO, is something to behold too it's stupidly small, and has a 40mm CTA gun and 2x twin french javelin equivalent launchers (MMP Missile Moyenne Portée - Medium Range Missile, which is the MILAN successor starting to enter service next year).

And it's not a recon vehicle, they field entire cavalry regiments of those. The french army as Cuirassé regiments (tanks, on AMX-56) and then cavalry units: Hussard, Dragoons (RC, wheeled guns, on AMX-10 RCR... officially the ERC-90 aren't still in service, but we still saw them in Mali because those thing can be air transported anywhere with very little efforts and everyone is happy to have a big hitting thing in support, once they retire the C-160 for the bigger A-400m they will really leave the service).
>> No. 19756 ID: 91b0ea
>>19753
OK, thanks for the info.... kind of missing the point though.

>>19755
Don't forget the French experience in Africa, they did some really badass things against insurgents using those shitty four wheelers with 90mm cannons and mortars.

Turns out unarmored insurgents don't care if the FRAG shells are coming from a full size 120mm tank gun or a half sized 90mm cannon. The 90mm actually had more effect because more ammo could be carried and it reloaded faster.
>> No. 19758 ID: 91b0ea
  Armor is all around (including top) protection against artillery fragments and 7.62mm NATO. Crew compartment is actually an armored capsule with higher armor protection. Front of vehicle and turret can take 14.5mm. IED protection included in a double v hull and anti mine seats.
All around slat armor can be installed to protect against RPGs.

A light four wheel dune buggy with a full sized 25mm cannon.
The cannon is stabilized so it can fire fused ammo at a helicopters or APFSDS ammo at AFVs 2km away while at full speed over rough terrain. Secondary weapons are Thales lightweight multirole missiles, or laser guided rockets. It can paint a target for dropping bombs as well, all this with almost zero operator input.
Second armament option is a simple protected 12.7mm machine gun and 40mm grenade launcher for policing duty.
Third option is an infantry support cupola with a 60mm gun-mortar.
Fourth option is an anti aircraft turret, MBDA Mistral with short range air defense missiles and a 12.7mm machine gun.
Fifth option is a ground attack turret with NLOS missiles (mini land to land cruise missiles) or anti tank missiles.
Sixth option is a urban support turret, 12.7mm gatling gun with laser guided concrete penetrating rockets.

But the weapons are just the sideshow. Everything about this thing is focused on the driver, who is in a bubble of 360 degree day-night panoramic viewscreens and has amazing control over mobility. It has like 40-50 horsepower per ton depending on loadout, the heaviest variant with weakest engine overloaded is 37hp/t. It can move in reverse at full speed (cue french jokes) and the reason why it's called the crab is it can go nearly at full speed sideways. 800km rage on single tank.

They actually bothered to add radar control measures, which makes no sense to me.
>> No. 19760 ID: cf0c5c
File 145372616094.png - (447.97KB , 4322x1444 , France_Army_-_2016.png )
19760
>>19758
Yeah but those are meant to replace the VBL (a very cool design but aged fast) and the stopgap PVP (a basic armored jeep).

It's highly doubtful the 25mm version will see service except maybe replacing the VAB 20mm that the airforce riflemen uses as their main support vehicle for base perimeter patrol/defense.

One possibility was to replace the ERC 90 by those (which are typically for airborne and mountain troops).

I gave you a rough order of battle (it's a clusterfuck when it actually come down to who has what, between deployment of new gear and rotation of old one) for the french military...

As you can see the idea was 1 heavy brigade, 2 light, 1 specialized...

In truth they scrapped a light brigade, one is half german, etc...

It's becoming ridiculously small.

And France still is the biggest European land army and wares about it... Recently they somehow managed to reversed a 11 000 combat troops cut...

When Russian soldiers goes on vacations on Portuguese beach don't ask where they came from...
>> No. 19762 ID: 7ff211
>>19758
I was in forest and national resource and the most overpowered vehicle I know of had 27 horsepower per ton, and that was a truck which was designed to pull other trucks out of mud with a winch.

What the fuck could anyone use 30 or 40 horsepower per ton for? Is it going to be pulling tanks out of wells?
>> No. 19763 ID: cfe73e
File 145384012052.jpg - (506.31KB , 1280x750 , German Leopard 2 engine V-12 Twin-turbo diesel 1,4.jpg )
19763
>>19762
The US M1 Abrams gets just under 27 horsepower per ton as she has a Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine rated at 1,500 shp (1,120 kW) giving her a power/weight ratio from 26.9 hp/t (20.05 kW/t) to 23.8 hp/t (17.74 kW/t).

The German Leopard 2 has an MTU MB 873 Ka-501 liquid-cooled V-12 Twin-turbo diesel engine at 1,500 PS (1,479 hp, 1,103 kW) at 2,600 rpm for a power/weight of 24.1 PS/t (17.7 kW/t).

The British Challenger 2 has a Perkins CV-12 V12 diesel 26 litre 1,200 hp (890 kW) for a power/weight of 19.2 hp/t (14.3 kW/t).

The French AMX Leclerc has an 8-cylinder diesel SACM (Wärtsilä) at 1,100 kW (1,500 hp) for a power/weight of 27.52 hp/tonne. Their AMX-30 has a Hispano-Suiza HS-110 680 hp (510 kW)-720 hp (540 kW) engine. At 36 tonnes, she gets 20 hp/tonne.

The Russian T-90A has a V-92S2 12-cyl. diesel engine at 950 hp (736 kW) for a power/weight of 20.4 hp/tonne (15 kW/tonne).
>> No. 19764 ID: cfe73e
File 145384015555.jpg - (350.45KB , 1280x960 , German Leopard 2 engine V-12 Twin-turbo diesel 1,4.jpg )
19764
MTU-PowerPack für den Leopard 2 vom Typ MB 873 Ka-501 mit Ladeluftkühlung und zwei Turboladern auf der Basis eines V12-Viertakt-Dieselmotors mit einer Leistung von 1100 kW (1500 PS).
>> No. 19765 ID: cfe73e
File 145384053425.jpg - (171.03KB , 1280x853 , US Abrams M1A1 engine Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fue.jpg )
19765
Marines from 1st Tank Battalion, Twentynine Palms, California, load a Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine from an M1A1 Abrams tank engine back into the tank at Camp Coyote, Kuwait during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. Location: TA COYOTE
Date 2/8/2003
>> No. 19766 ID: cfe73e
File 145384064223.jpg - (1.38MB , 1000x1500 , US Abrams M1A1 engine Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fue.jpg )
19766
Cpl. Ryan J. Sharkey, 24, from Vista, Calif., who is a tank driver with Company A, 4th Tank Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 5, guides a turbine engine into a M1A1 Abrams main battle tank at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq, Sept. 23. The dust and heat of the Iraqi desert makes it necessary for the Marines with Company A to meticulously check their tanks to guarantee that they are combat ready.
Date 23 September 2008
>> No. 19767 ID: cfe73e
File 145384170040.jpg - (1.36MB , 2328x1658 , UK WW2 Vickers Mk VIA light tank purchased by Aust.jpg )
19767
>>19758
Panhard's Combat Reconnaissance Armoured Buggy (CRAB) was among the most popular vehicles on display at the International Armoured Vehicles Forum 2014 in Farnborough on Wednesday. The CRAB, already in use by the French Army, features a 25-mm turret and machine gun and is designed for a crew of three. The CRAB has ballistic and mine protection features, six peripheral cameras, day and night modes, and can run at a speed of 110 km/h (68 mph) due to its rather small size.

But 40 to 50 horsepower per ton is insanely powerful for an armored vehicle, even a light armored car like the CRAB.

- Vickers Mk VIA light tank in Royal Australian Armoured Corps Tank Museum, Puckapunyal, Victoria, Australia. This is one of the 10 vehicles purchased by Australia in 1936.
>> No. 19772 ID: ce6c0d
>>19767
The CRAB is nowhere near in use.

The entire Scorpion program (replacement of land vehicles, VBCI, EBRC, VBMR, CRAB... in that order of priority) is on ice with only somewhere between a third and half of the VBCI delivered.

VAB 20mm and VBL 20mm do exist in very low numbers.
>> No. 19774 ID: a4acc8
File 145395541538.jpg - (257.52KB , 1024x724 , maxresdefault.jpg )
19774
Those thieving boches!
>> No. 19775 ID: cfe73e
File 145399423510.jpg - (1.62MB , 2816x2112 , German Wiesel Armored Weapons Carrier (AWC) in Dre.jpg )
19775
>>19774
Indeed!
The UK Vickers Mk VIA light tank was produced in 1936.
The German Wiesel Armored Weapons Carrier (AWC) was produced in 1985.

- A Wiesel Armoured Weapons Carrier at the side of the Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr in Dresden, Germany, 2011.
>> No. 19776 ID: cfe73e
File 145399443482.jpg - (375.86KB , 1632x1224 , German Wiesel 1 (MK 20) air-transportable Armored .jpg )
19776
Now I have a tremendous desire to Wiesel up this thread.
- Wiesel 1 (MK 20) air-transportable armoured vehicle in the Bundeswehr Military History Museum Dresden.
>> No. 19777 ID: cfe73e
File 145399461710.jpg - (286.71KB , 1600x1059 , German Wiesel air-transportable by CH-53 helo 1.jpg )
19777
A Wiesel dropped off by what appears to be a CH-53 helicopter.
>> No. 19778 ID: cfe73e
File 14539947576.jpg - (330.28KB , 1280x791 , German Wiesel air-transportable by CH-53G helo 1.jpg )
19778
>> No. 19779 ID: cfe73e
File 145399505024.jpg - (255.88KB , 1108x900 , German Wiesel SYRANO French operational battlefiel.jpg )
19779
There's even a robot version of the Wiesel!
SYRANO (Système Robotisé d'Acquisition pour la Neutralisation d'Objectifs, "Robotic system for acquisition and neutralisation of targets") is the first operational battlefield robot of the French military.
>> No. 19780 ID: cfe73e
File 145399507462.jpg - (351.08KB , 1391x1085 , German Wiesel SYRANO French operational battlefiel.jpg )
19780
>> No. 19781 ID: cfe73e
File 145399687655.jpg - (933.84KB , 2496x1664 , German Wiesel 1 (Mk 20) Armored Weapons Carrier AW.jpg )
19781
http://www.primeportal.net/apc/dieter_krause/wiesel_1_mk/index.php?Page=1
>> No. 19782 ID: cfe73e
File 145399688564.jpg - (0.96MB , 2496x1664 , German Wiesel 1 (Mk 20) Armored Weapons Carrier AW.jpg )
19782
>> No. 19783 ID: cfe73e
File 145399689822.jpg - (1.23MB , 1664x1870 , German Wiesel 1 (Mk 20) Armored Weapons Carrier AW.jpg )
19783
>> No. 19784 ID: cfe73e
File 145399690698.jpg - (1.12MB , 2496x1664 , German Wiesel 1 (Mk 20) Armored Weapons Carrier AW.jpg )
19784
>> No. 19785 ID: cfe73e
File 145399691643.jpg - (856.62KB , 2496x1664 , German Wiesel 1 (Mk 20) Armored Weapons Carrier AW.jpg )
19785
>> No. 19786 ID: cfe73e
File 145399692411.jpg - (884.06KB , 2496x1664 , German Wiesel 1 (Mk 20) Armored Weapons Carrier AW.jpg )
19786
>> No. 19787 ID: cfe73e
File 14539969408.jpg - (1.09MB , 2496x1664 , German Wiesel 1 (Mk 20) Armored Weapons Carrier AW.jpg )
19787
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason