Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing Tanks

    Share

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  cracker on Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:36 pm

    nemrod wrote:T-72 was certainly one of  the best tanks of the early 80's, if not the best. This tank demonstrates its effectiveness during the battle of Sultan Yaakub june 11, 1982 where he destroyed several dozens of Merkava -in that time the best western tanks beside Leopard A1-.
    See from 16.30' minute

    Moreover, during Iran-Iraq war between 1980-88, the iraqi's T-72 inflicted severe blows to western iranian's tanks, and it is noteworthy to say that US-iranian Tows were completly ineffective.
    Nevertheless, in 1991, many T-72 were destroyed, again, US, as usual with their propaganda's recital told us, M1 Abrams successfully destroyed a column of T-72 belonging to republican guards.
    If indeed, many T-72 were lost, I cannot see US column cheerfully advancing against well armed, and well trained Republican guards, chieflly knowing the impressive past of the T-72, and knowing they had redoutable AT-5. At first US army often advances cowardly, they could not attack if they could not rely on aerial coverture. It is possible that A-10, AH-64 were engaged, after, and only after F-15, F-18 managed to bomb, if not B-52 with its carpet of bombs. And only after the US army could attack a complete destroyed battailion. During Desert Storm, it is usefull to say that some T-72 inflicted several blows to US coalitions's armored vehicles, including US M1 Abrams.

    If a fair combat occured between T-72, and M1 Abrams, the victory of US tank is far to be obvious. Furthermore, the T-72 export version was not the same that were in service inside the red army.

    Conclusion: The T-72 was -as its glorious fathers like T-62, and T-34 - among the best tanks in the world during the 80's, maybe after the Leopard A1. It is normal that it was ranked as number 1. As we saw above, this tank prove its effectiveness in the battlefield. Sincerely, I doubt the ability of Russia to design and produce a such tank. Even the Armata will be far from T-72's effectiveness.


    much lol here Laughing

    in the 80s M1 abrams and Leopard 2 ring a bell maybe? And, the T-64B was far better than any T-72 before the T-72B, there is 10 years difference between them...
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 375
    Points : 390
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  runaway on Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:17 pm

    cracker wrote:
    much lol here Laughing

    in the 80s M1 abrams and Leopard 2 ring a bell maybe? And, the T-64B was far better than any T-72 before the T-72B, there is 10 years difference between them...

    The M1 and Leopard 2 were not superior to T-72B, they all have some advantages. For example the T-72B was equipped with the 9M119 Svir ATGM, and kontakt-1 ERA.
    In mobility the T-72B was much better than the heavy Leo-2 or M1, they could move through terrain the others couldnt.
    The Leo-2 havent been in combat yet so its untested, it does have strong front armour but is weak at the flanks. M1A1 in Iraq was blown up by RPG´s and havent really faced any other modern tank. Crap T-72M and Leion of Babylon is like T-90 facing M60´s.

    T-72B3 can stand up against Leo-2A5 and M1A2, and with the more favorable price and mobility.
    There can be no argue the T-72 was amongst the best tanks in the 80´s.
    T-64 and T-80 hasnt been as succesfully, as is proven by their withdrawal from service and the T-72 still soldering on. Also the T-90 is really a T-72 with another name and T-90 i would say is superior to both M1A2 and and Leo-2A6


    In the 1982 Lebanon War, Syrian T-72s engaged Israeli M60A1 and probably Merkava tanks in the south of Lebanon.[51] On 9 June 1982, the Syrian General HQ ordered a brigade of the 1st Armored Division, equipped with T-72 tanks, to move straight ahead, cross the border, and hit the right flank of the Israeli units advancing along the eastern side of Beka'a. The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in process while suffering only a few losses in exchange.[52] After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles. Syrian and Russian sources claim that the T-72 had success against the latest Israeli Merkava tanks and that no T-72s were lost. Others claim that the two tanks never met in combat and that 11-12 T-72s were lost mostly due to anti-tank ambushes and the usage of TOW missiles. 105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s. Only in one case the frontal hull armor was penetrated by a TOW missile. According to some unofficial sources, one Syrian T-72 was knocked out by Israeli tank fire. However, according to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire. After the war, Syrian president Hafez Al Assad called the T-72 "the best tank in the world."[51][53]...

    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 816
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:01 pm

    cracker wrote:
    In the 1982 Lebanon War, Syrian T-72s engaged Israeli M60A1 and probably Merkava tanks in the south of Lebanon.[51] On 9 June 1982, the Syrian General HQ ordered a brigade of the 1st Armored Division, equipped with T-72 tanks, to move straight ahead, cross the border, and hit the right flank of the Israeli units advancing along the eastern side of Beka'a. The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in process while suffering only a few losses in exchange.[52] After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles. Syrian and Russian sources claim that the T-72 had success against the latest Israeli Merkava tanks and that no T-72s were lost. Others claim that the two tanks never met in combat and that 11-12 T-72s were lost mostly due to anti-tank ambushes and the usage of TOW missiles. 105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s. Only in one case the frontal hull armor was penetrated by a TOW missile. According to some unofficial sources, one Syrian T-72 was knocked out by Israeli tank fire. However, according to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire. After the war, Syrian president Hafez Al Assad called the T-72 "the best tank in the world."[51][53]...

    ....According to wikipedia.

    The problem with this so-called encyclopaedia, they are not objectives. I had a friend that participated beside arabs in october 1973's war, and he tried to explain with its proofs how arabs were near the victory, how the western hardware were not superior to soviet hardware. and most of the time it was the contrary, either you talk fighters like Mig-21, either you talked about atgm, or you talk about tanks. My friend tried several times to post in wikipedia evidences of israeli and western disaster regarding hardwares, each time his post were simply wrote off, strong censurship was applied. Wikipedia has the main purpose to protect western view, and western products, western hardwares regarding history, adverstising, etc...In french one of famous case of censureship is Beljanski's case. Here you can see how the website is simply another CNN or Fox.

    Regarding Iraq Iran war results, it was an evidence that neither the  M-60 or Centurion could match the T-72. After several attempts with Tow, this anti tank missile revealed it was useless against T-72.
    The Merkava was developped because of these two tanks had low results during 1973's war against the T-62. The, what would be the result against T-72 ? Do you think that Israelis could dare any risks ?
    The Merkava was engaged in Sultan Yakkub against T-72, Israelis realized that their tank could not match too. During these 3 days of war, Israelis were unable to achieve their main objective, the Highway Beyruth-Damascus. You can notice, the battle of tanks that occured in Sultan Yakkub, was when Israelis claimed a total control of air above Lebanon. You can realize the mismatch between what said Israeli governement and their propagdantists -including Wikipedia- and the reality.
    They have neither the control of the Lebanon's sky, and neither the superiority in hardware regarding tanks.
    In 2006 simple anti tanks missiles like AT-5 Spandrel, or RPG-7-29 blew dozens of Merkava IV, and in Iraq russian hardware blew several hundreds of M1 Abrams, then,  what would be the result with a modern tank like T-72 against Merkava I ?
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2943
    Points : 2968
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:17 pm

    But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3340
    Points : 3424
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:32 pm

    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .

    Merkava IVs held up well - they took many hits and few penetrations but there were no catastrophic explosions, at most a crewmember was killed or injured.
    Fact is, nearly any tank would have fared worse in the same position as the Merkava IV's were in. The lesser Merkava IIIs and IIs took large casualties; which are still basically the same gen as the Leopard IIs and M1 Abrams.

    So their damage control was quite good. The real problem was the tactics employed and the foolish tank rush against entrenched uphill Hezbollah anti-tank positions and teams - a ridiculously dumb move by any standards but the Israeli commanders were arrogant enough to think they could pull it off, overconfident in their technology and training (which is good, but not invulnerable), and dismissive of the enemy's technology and training - thinking them to be the same Palestinian rock-throwers or demoralized Arab conscripts they faced in past wars.

    The Merkava series however is too limited to really be used by any other than the Israelis and similar nations with similar needs, and in the role of mobile bunkers basically.
    They are too heavy and demanding to be used in manuever-warfare; in Russia or Eastern Europe they would simply get stuck in the mud, outflanked, outrun, broken-down in the conditions, unable to ford rivers nor cross many bridges, etc...

    The Armata tank however should be able to combine the manueverability, flexibility and lower-profile of the Soviet tank designs, with a main-gun superior to that of the Leopard II's Rhinemetal barrel, and a level of protection considerably greater than any Merkava IV.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2943
    Points : 2968
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:41 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .

    Merkava IVs held up well - they took many hits and few penetrations but there were no catastrophic explosions, at most a crewmember was killed or injured.
    Fact is, nearly any tank would have fared worse in the same position as the Merkava IV's were in. The lesser Merkava IIIs and IIs took large casualties; which are still basically the same gen as the Leopard IIs and M1 Abrams.

    So their damage control was quite good. The real problem was the tactics employed and the foolish tank rush against entrenched uphill Hezbollah anti-tank positions and teams - a ridiculously dumb move by any standards but the Israeli commanders were arrogant enough to think they could pull it off, overconfident in their technology and training (which is good, but not invulnerable), and dismissive of the enemy's technology and training - thinking them to be the same Palestinian rock-throwers or demoralized Arab conscripts they faced in past wars.

    The Merkava series however is too limited to really be used by any other than the Israelis and similar nations with similar needs, and in the role of mobile bunkers basically.
    They are too heavy and demanding to be used in manuever-warfare; in Russia or Eastern Europe they would simply get stuck in the mud, outflanked, outrun, broken-down in the conditions, unable to ford rivers nor cross many bridges, etc...

    The Armata tank however should be able to combine the manueverability, flexibility and lower-profile of the Soviet tank designs, with a main-gun superior to that of the Leopard II's Rhinemetal barrel, and a level of protection considerably greater than any Merkava IV.



    I hope Russians might be having merkava 4 single shot busting anti-tank weapon by now ? Are you an Israeli ?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5567
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:11 pm

    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .
    Literally every tank ever that has seen serious combat has been busted.

    So what?

    Merkava-IV did fine in 2006.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5567
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:11 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .

    Merkava IVs held up well - they took many hits and few penetrations but there were no catastrophic explosions, at most a crewmember was killed or injured.
    Fact is, nearly any tank would have fared worse in the same position as the Merkava IV's were in. The lesser Merkava IIIs and IIs took large casualties; which are still basically the same gen as the Leopard IIs and M1 Abrams.

    So their damage control was quite good. The real problem was the tactics employed and the foolish tank rush against entrenched uphill Hezbollah anti-tank positions and teams - a ridiculously dumb move by any standards but the Israeli commanders were arrogant enough to think they could pull it off, overconfident in their technology and training (which is good, but not invulnerable), and dismissive of the enemy's technology and training - thinking them to be the same Palestinian rock-throwers or demoralized Arab conscripts they faced in past wars.

    The Merkava series however is too limited to really be used by any other than the Israelis and similar nations with similar needs, and in the role of mobile bunkers basically.
    They are too heavy and demanding to be used in manuever-warfare; in Russia or Eastern Europe they would simply get stuck in the mud, outflanked, outrun, broken-down in the conditions, unable to ford rivers nor cross many bridges, etc...

    The Armata tank however should be able to combine the manueverability, flexibility and lower-profile of the Soviet tank designs, with a main-gun superior to that of the Leopard II's Rhinemetal barrel, and a level of protection considerably greater than any Merkava IV.

    Merkakav 3 has a much cruder armor array than Leo-2 and M-1 contemporaries. It is just steel!

    Hmm, that misspelling was unintentional. But from now on I am calling it the Merkaka.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2943
    Points : 2968
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  max steel on Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:11 am

    TR1 wrote:
    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .
    Literally every tank ever that has seen serious combat has been busted.

    So what?

    Merkava-IV did fine in 2006.

    " Everyone should know it . Fine but still got busted."
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3340
    Points : 3424
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:28 pm

    max steel wrote:I hope Russians might be having merkava 4 single shot busting anti-tank weapon by now ? Are you an Israeli ?

    Sure, HEAT or APFSDS rounds shot from the 125mm 2A24M tank gun and Sprut AT guns ought to make a nice dent in it.
    Khrizantema missiles shot from Ka-52s will be completely devestating.

    Actually there are plenty of Russia weapons that will take out the Merkava IV in one shot - but few infantry-portable ones.

    The Metis-M and Kornet-E stand a decent chance of disabling it; however they may run into trouble from the new Israeli Trophy APS and other countermeasures.

    Compared with those AT missile systems, the RPG-30 has less of a chance of penetrating the Merkava IVs thick frontal armour albeit its still possible. However, it's a dumb rocket so it can't be spoofed by passive counter-measures, and its also designed to penetrate APSs by using a precursor rocket - albeit the Israeli Trophy was apparently developed to be able to defeat the RPG-30.

    And no I'm not Israeli I'm afraid.

    TR1 wrote:Merkakav 3 has a much cruder armor array than Leo-2 and M-1 contemporaries. It is just steel!

    Hmm, that misspelling was unintentional. But from now on I am calling it the Merkaka.

    Didn't know that, tnx for the info.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2943
    Points : 2968
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  max steel on Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:37 pm

    Trophy is built not just to counter RPG's and recoilless rifles, but also anti-tank missiles, such as those fired out of the cannons of Russian main battle tanks. It is rumored that Trophy can also work against air-launched anti-tank missiles, even those that fly a "top down" attack profile. So they can easily shoot Metis ans Kornet .
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1148
    Points : 1149
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:35 am

    um, rpg-30 is a thing you know...
    125mm 2a42m- more like 2a46, just to point it out
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:51 am

    If it works by setting it off a distance from the armour to reduce penetration then Kh-29T should still be effective enough...
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4472
    Points : 4631
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:23 am

    GarryB wrote:If it works by setting it off a distance from the armour to reduce penetration then Kh-29T should still be effective enough...

    Kh-29T's are you serious lol? 320 kg warhead against a MBT is the definition of overkill, you can reliably kill any MBT with a 10 kg HEAT warhead, literally 1/32nd the amount found in a Kh-29T.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5267
    Points : 5472
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:28 am

    Kh-25 is already far overkill with 90-140kg warhead, by so much explosive you can even use a back facing HEAT warhead and the explosion would still rip off the tank like a shrimp.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3364
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  medo on Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:44 pm

    In 2006 war Merkavas survive quite a lot of ATGM hits, but it is also true, than not all ATGM hits are with Kornets. Vast majority of ATGMs used in this war were still old Malyutkas and Fagots as well as Milan and TOW ATGMs. Kornet was there in small number, so they did small number of hits, but for sure have most destroyed tanks per hits from them all.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5267
    Points : 5472
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:54 pm

    medo wrote:In 2006 war Merkavas survive quite a lot of ATGM hits, but it is also true, than not all ATGM hits are with Kornets. Vast majority of ATGMs used in this war were still old Malyutkas and Fagots as well as Milan and TOW ATGMs. Kornet was there in small number, so they did small number of hits, but for sure have most destroyed tanks per hits from them all.

    The vast majority were real old Maylutkas with only 400mm RHAe penetration that is even for side turret penetration not really great against Merkawa 4.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:57 am

    The reality is that most western ATGMs are not that much better than Malyutka... I remember claims in the early 1980s that the Milan was some wonder missile that could penetrate 1,000mm of armour and other such nonsense...

    there is over kill and under kill and everything in between... it is important to keep in mind that a simple guidance package and steering kit as fitted to new Russian 152mm artillery shells could just as easily be fitted to FAB-50 or FAB-100 dumb bombs and result in weapons accurate enough to destroy any tank that are cheap enough to use rather widely... as a standard round.
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 977
    Points : 1034
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:27 am

    Newest TOW variants penetrate about 800mm RHA and that is enough for all but frontal armor of modern tanks. So ATGM teams may be kept in reserve until a good chance to hit enemy tanks from the side or rear appears. One may also use ATGMs against IFVs, APVs and other lightly armored targets and use tanks in head on clashes against other tanks.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5267
    Points : 5472
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:54 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Newest TOW variants penetrate about 800mm RHA and that is enough for all but frontal armor of modern tanks. So ATGM teams may be kept in reserve until a good chance to hit enemy tanks from the side or rear appears. One may also use ATGMs against IFVs, APVs and other lightly armored targets and use tanks in head on clashes against other tanks.

    That is actually not a good performance, at least from the various modifications. Currently the US like most NATO countries lack modern ATGM's that have enough penetration to kill tanks from the front, the only that would come to mind is Spike-LR with 1000mm RHAe which exist in very rare numbers.
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 977
    Points : 1034
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:18 pm

    Infantry AT weapons in their current form are nearing the end of possible development. There simply isn't much that can be done to improve their performance. Penetration of ~1500mm RHA is a limit of what we can get IMO.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5267
    Points : 5472
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:34 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Infantry AT weapons in their current form are nearing the end of possible development. There simply isn't much that can be done to improve their performance. Penetration of ~1500mm RHA is a limit of what we can get IMO.

    Actually they test already new alloys which have a significant higher capability to pierce through composite armor and ceramics than the current copper liners they use.

    Here is a little chart of factor penetration of different materials for penetrators.

    http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150404/jdb55gqv.jpg

    While copper maintains a good penetration overall length through homogenous materials like we use for tests RHA steel, they tend to decrease in penetration capabilities quicker when used in spaced armor against different materials. Some tests have shown Tantalum has better penetration against composite armor, but it costs more and one big factor is it needs more time form an optimal penetrator meaning needs a longer probe which has an effect on the total length.

    There is one russian tank round BK-31M which uses tripple shaped charges with an alloy for the main charge that significantly increased the armor penetration than its model it is based upon the BK-27 which has 660mm RHAe penetration at best while BK-31M has 800mm RHAe penetration. There is still grow potential and i've seen some studies on different shapes for the shaped charges that also have a direct effect on how fast the penetrator is forming and how thin it can get which would increase its penetration.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:47 am

    Newest TOW variants penetrate about 800mm RHA and that is enough for all but frontal armor of modern tanks. So ATGM teams may be kept in reserve until a good chance to hit enemy tanks from the side or rear appears. One may also use ATGMs against IFVs, APVs and other lightly armored targets and use tanks in head on clashes against other tanks.

    Upgraded Malyutka penetrates 800mm of RHA and unlike all variants of TOW it is actually man portable.

    1980s model TOW had performance not much different from AT-4 and AT-5, which were also rather more man portable, plus Shturm which had a much faster flying missile of greater range because it wasn't dragging a wire like TOW does.

    The easiest way to improve tank killing performance is to attack the thinnest armour... ie the roof and the hull.

    BILL has be doing that for quite some time...
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    T-72 was certainly one of the best tanks of the early 80's, if not the best.

    Post  Zivo on Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:58 am

    TOW-2B uses a similar flyover top-down EFP warhead to BILL.

    Kornet-E has ~1200mm RHA pen after ERA. Which was enough to gut Iraqi M1's front to back through the heaviest armor on the turret.

    Alex555

    Posts : 32
    Points : 34
    Join date : 2014-01-20

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Alex555 on Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:13 pm

    Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
    http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/
    Laughing

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:34 pm