Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+75
Isos
Hole
limb
Mir
ALAMO
lyle6
thegopnik
Tolstoy
Gomig-21
Dr.Snufflebug
T-47
marcellogo
Kiko
Scorpius
Belisarius
sepheronx
ludovicense
diabetus
Azi
caveat emptor
Backman
Podlodka77
Krepost
pukovnik7
AlfaT8
Lennox
Broski
Arrow
Russian_Patriot_
galicije83
TMA1
Atmosphere
lancelot
Tingsay
PhSt
The_Observer
mnztr
LMFS
RTN
kvs
kopyo-21
Sujoy
Big_Gazza
AJ-47
Austin
Mindstorm
ahmedfire
hoom
nero
medo
ultimatewarrior
calripson
magnumcromagnon
DerWolf
Cyrus the great
Cyberspec
ult
0nillie0
Nibiru
flamming_python
william.boutros
Walther von Oldenburg
JohninMK
higurashihougi
miketheterrible
xeno
franco
George1
KomissarBojanchev
The-thing-next-door
Interlinked
GarryB
KoTeMoRe
Werewolf
PapaDragon
79 posters

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6868
    Points : 6960
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:44 pm

    They will have to line up those Leo1s in 2-3 packs, not to waste a good round to pierce only one ...

    GarryB, The-thing-next-door, Hole and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2784
    Points : 2776
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Arrow Sun Feb 12, 2023 8:33 am

    NATO need not worry; Russia has extra spicy DU arrows cooked just for them, if ever they grew the balls to fight overtly. Twisted Evil wrote:


    Of the latest, they have 3BM59 from Du. Penetration value over 700mm RHA. Slightly more has the M829A4 around 880mm? However, the Vacuum of Du is said to have over 1000mm of RHA? So generally DU prnetrators have a slightly better prnetrator than Tungsten?
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2209
    Points : 2203
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:13 am

    The subcaliber A4 is just the A3 projectile assembly with a new propellant. The A3 itself has a <700 mm DU penetrator and a 100 mm sacrificial steel tip. Ignore this moron who counts the steel tip and the tracer as penetrator:


    GarryB, kvs, ALAMO, Hole, Broski, Belisarius and Podlodka77 like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6868
    Points : 6960
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:18 am

    Leave Damian in peace Laughing
    I remember him loitering around the Polish forums seeking someone who will wipe his nose 20 years ago Laughing Laughing Laughing
    Now he is pretending to respected tank expert Laughing Laughing Laughing and his English is obviously much better Twisted Evil
    By the way if someone didn't notice yet, he is a M1 fanboy and his love is endless and single-sided.
    I suppose his jerk off folder contains crosscuts of M1 Laughing  Laughing

    Just in advance, DM63 is just DM53 with a new, more stable propellant. "Stable" means a constant impulse in a wider temperature range.

    Edit : and just for the records, the M1 Onan pretends to not knowing that M829 is being used with a 120/44 gun, while DM53 with 120/55 Laughing
    He obviously realizes that, but as that would put his beloved sexual fetish in a bad light, he will just keep quiet on that.

    GarryB, Werewolf, kvs and Belisarius like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2209
    Points : 2203
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Sun Feb 12, 2023 3:20 pm

    There's a chink in the armor: Razz

    ALAMO, zardof, Hole and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39213
    Points : 39711
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:06 am

    So generally DU prnetrators have a slightly better prnetrator than Tungsten?

    The biggest advantage of DU is that it is a waste material, while Tungsten is expensive... DU is a byproduct of nuclear energy production and would normally be a disposal issue.

    Of course if you give a shit about the territory you are fighting on then Tungsten makes sense.

    Of course with the better nuclear technology of Russia they will have rather less DU because with their new reactors they will be able to reprocess the DU to make it useful fuel again for generating energy.

    kvs and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2784
    Points : 2776
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Arrow Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:13 am

    The DU penetrators are said to be self-sharpening? Uranium is heavier than Tungsten. So it's a better penetrator material, apart from the health and environmental factor
    avatar
    T-47


    Posts : 260
    Points : 258
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  T-47 Mon Feb 13, 2023 9:15 pm

    Tungsten is denser than DU.

    GarryB, kvs and Belisarius like this post

    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 643
    Points : 649
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  marcellogo Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:46 pm

    Main advantage of DU as a material for AP rounds is that at the impact it tends to burn off leaving the impact point and going backward while tungsten carbide remain there slowing down the further advance of the shells itself.
    It seems however that there is a way to design penetrative element in a way to replicate such self sharpening behaviour also with tungsten carbide.

    GarryB, kvs, ALAMO and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39213
    Points : 39711
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:14 pm

    Heavy metals are all dangerous, but DU material is far worse than any other types except probably Plutonium.

    When DU is used as a projectile or as armour it generates a fine powder like talcum powder that gets everywhere... if you disturb it and breath it in or get some on your hands and eat it the body treats it like calcium and uses it in your bone structure where its mild levels of radiation that wont penetrate your skin can go to work on your bone marrow that is an integral part of your bodys natural defence against disease and infection.

    DU is genotoxic... it destroys genetic material at the DNA level, so kids with deformities and problems and health problems for you for the rest of your life.

    No known way to remove the heavy metals from your body...

    flamming_python, Regular, kvs, zardof, Hole, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 1550
    Points : 1576
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  limb Tue Feb 14, 2023 2:24 pm

    And yet these tanks were not instantly destroyed.

    It would take rather more than 40 seconds for an Excalibur or and other 155mm round to be used.

    What you don't seem to appreciate is that the magic 40km/h you pulled from your arse is about 11m/s which is nothing for a guided round to still hit.

    Do you think Kornets and Vikhrs fail when fired at targets moving more than 40km/h?

    If igla can hit helicopters moving 5 times faster why do you thing moving at 40km/h in any direction would save a tank?

    You do understand moving backwards at that speed is dangerous... Rolling a tank is no joke.

    The very idea that being able to drive forward means you can never be hit in the rear is funny... Does that mean being able to drive forwards at 60km/h means your tank will never be hit from the front?
    You seem to be strawmanning my argument in a childish way. I never said or meant that high reverse speed is needed to physically evade incoming projectiles like an aircraft or missile does. Higher reverse speed is needed to take cover and be exposed as little as possible. By your logic, an infantryman shouldnt care about how fast he takes cover after shooting, because nomatter how fast he moves, he cant evade a bullet.

    Why dont russian tanks have a forward speed of 4km/h too if they cant evade ATGMs anyway?
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2209
    Points : 2203
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Tue Feb 14, 2023 2:49 pm

    >He's still on the god-forsaken reverse gear...

    NATO tanks can't even utilize the vast majority of infrastructure in Easter Europe - no bridges, no tunnels, even the damn roads get torn to pieces whenever an overweight NATO hearse drives through. They go offroad the mud eats them and asks for seconds.

    What use are they if their tactical mobility is so limited? And you have the gall to think the reverse gear a flaw?

    GarryB, kvs, Hole, Mir, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 1550
    Points : 1576
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  limb Tue Feb 14, 2023 2:59 pm

    NATO tanks can't even utilize the vast majority of infrastructure in Easter Europe - no bridges, no tunnels, even the damn roads get torn to pieces whenever an overweight NATO hearse drives through. They go offroad the mud eats them and asks for seconds.
    Yet the ukraine has absolutely 0 problems driving and transporting pzh2000s, which weigh 55t, to the frontline. cope
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2209
    Points : 2203
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:35 pm

    It really is true what they say about morons and generalizations. But I digress...

    55t is the combat weight of a T-14. NATO MBTs are 10, to even 15t heavier. Not that the limits are so cut and dry but being 10 or 15t lighter the is definitely a huge advantage.

    GarryB, flamming_python, kvs, Hole, Mir, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6868
    Points : 6960
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:43 pm

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 P5xktk10

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Ztrhzd10

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 16109610


    lol1

    GarryB, George1, kvs, Hole, lyle6, Mir, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39213
    Points : 39711
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Feb 15, 2023 1:49 am

    You seem to be strawmanning my argument in a childish way.

    Strawman and childish because I don't agree with you, when you can't accept that anyone can have a different view there is no discussion, it descends into abuse and ridicule.

    I never said or meant that high reverse speed is needed to physically evade incoming projectiles like an aircraft or missile does.

    I know exactly what you are trying to say... keep your heaviest armour pointed at the greatest threat and remove yourself from the area as fast as you can.

    The problem is that when the threat is enemy armour with 125mm or 120mm smoothbores... how do you know the direction of greatest threat until they fire... a few RPGs or ATGMs from one direction will lead to your tank pointing its nose in a direction that will not help your vehicle when APFSDS rounds come in at over 1km per second from what is now a flanking direction... how fast do you think a driver can respond?

    What I am saying is that no level of reverse speed would make you safer... fire smoke and turn around within that smoke so if any enemy fired at where you were they would hit empty ground... turning without turning on the spot is a good thing and simply reversing directly back means anything directly in front of you firing at where you were before the smoke deployed is probably still going to hit you... whether you are reversing a 10km/h or 40km/h makes no difference at all.

    Higher reverse speed is needed to take cover and be exposed as little as possible. By your logic, an infantryman shouldnt care about how fast he takes cover after shooting, because nomatter how fast he moves, he cant evade a bullet.

    Human beings, just like tanks, move fastest in their forward direction... moving from cover to cover in a forward direction makes the most sense because it reduces your exposure time to enemy fire.

    Most guided anti tank weapons on the battlefield can't be outrun... no matter how fast you go... it mainly comes down to using cover effectively and you get to cover fastest by turning and driving forward... if there is a threat of enemy fire then use smoke.

    Why dont russian tanks have a forward speed of 4km/h too if they cant evade ATGMs anyway?

    Because they need to be able to move from cover to cover quickly and they can do that going forward.

    If your frontal armour protects you from all the weapons your enemy has... why do you want to go backwards?

    Tanks are used for all sorts of reasons and in all sorts of situations... many of the videos we have seen are likely individual tanks moving on enemy positions to see what opens fire on them... probing enemy defences... with drones looking for enemy positions and activity.

    In perhaps five years time such a role will be taken by robot T-72s... I would not be surprised if they weren't sending robots now to do that sort of job... for testing.

    Hole and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6868
    Points : 6960
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:05 am

    They hardly need to "test" remote-controlled tanks, as pioneered in that an AGE ago.
    Fully remote-controlled T-72 was operational in the 70s. Its systems transmitted the battlefield picture to the operator who could aim&fire as well.
    Concept was put on hold, because the quality of transmitted signal back in the 70s was on equal with the TV quality - go and find a tank at 1500 m in a tree line using that tech Laughing
    Who is leading in land drones?
    People are watching the fancy cards of Uran of other drones and consider them as toys.
    Well ... wrong. Russian are using armed drones for securing missile bases for almost two decades now. It was only a matter of responsibility&decision making that tides these solutions.

    Russian mines are operated with trucks that run on their own. One operator controls 15-20 pieces from his office just by watching the picture.
    Russian harvesters are operated by AI, and drive on their own - the operator sits inside only for security and formal reasons.

    Very, very soon we will see fully AI controlled weapon systems that will be used on a battlefield without operator at all.

    flamming_python, Hole, Mir and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6868
    Points : 6960
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:50 am

    Post lyle6 Yesterday at 3:35 pm
    It really is true what they say about morons and generalizations. But I digress...
    55t is the combat weight of a T-14. NATO MBTs are 10, to even 15t heavier. Not that the limits are so cut and dry but being 10 or 15t lighter the is definitely a huge advantage.


    That makes me realize again and again the fact, that those morons really don't understand what are we talking about.

    And it is not a coincidence that most of them are Muricans. Living in a country made of wood&cardboard, it is hard to realize what "infrastructure" means. If they are younger than 60, they hardly can remember any infrastructure being developed Laughing Laughing Laughing

    The heaviest and newest road infrastructure I have here is being made in 80T class.
    Bridges spinning the Odra, Varta or Vistula banks, the ones made in the last two decades. 4-6 lanes, being the elements of the newest highways system in building process.
    Which is irrelevant, because those are supported by tens of thousands of other bridges that were made in the 1945-1990 that are made in totally different classes.
    Those made in the 50s and 60s are <40t.

    Is it possible to operate that thing having a 65+t tanks?
    Well ... Sure. That is why you feed the military engineering corp.
    How it is being made? Well ... They are supporting the existing bridge by strengthening it. Put a construction under that will support it.
    Does it work? Usually, it does.
    But is a time consuming process and requires tons of supportive force to transfer one fukin tank brigade.
    It is not something you can do in a war conditions without hampering your tempo. Ends up with strength concentration that would just sit there and ask for a juicy Iskander to fall.

    In WarPac times, the thing was not much relevant - all the pact armies had very developed engineering structures. With tens and hundreds of bridges, barges ... The thing is already gone. There is not a single NATO army that can cross a river Dnepr size with a brigade strength, using improvised tools.
    If you are interested enough, take a Google Maps photo chart, and scroll along the river flow.
    You will spot predestined crossing points. Hard pierces in the middle of nowhere on the opposite banks. Tens of them. All that was constructed to make an improvised crossings.
    You will spot some roads leading to nowhere, ending on the river bank. Those are places, where the rivers can be crossed on the bottom by tanks, and swimmed through by the BMP/APC. That could swim.
    Good luck wading with M1 with this funny pipe sticking out of his butt Laughing Laughing Laughing

    GarryB, Hole, lyle6, Mir, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    JohninMK
    JohninMK


    Posts : 14868
    Points : 15007
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  JohninMK Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:35 pm

    Do we have any better production figures than those quoted in this long article?

    When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February the T-90M was the best but also rarest tank in the Russian operational fleet. Catastrophic tank losses – over 1,600 of all types – and limited assembly line capacity at Russia’s main tank manufacturer, the Nizhny Tagil-based Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), have forced radical measures. Just two tank types, T-72B3 and T-90M, are now being produced in three daily shifts and with convict labour. The numbers to date remain very small. The former tank is well-known in Western reporting, the newer T-90M less so. This article examines T-90M and the threat it poses.

    https://wavellroom.com/2023/03/10/t90m-are-appearing-on-the-eastern-front/
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6868
    Points : 6960
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:18 pm

    over 1,600 of all types

    Make it 16,000
    Because why not?
    The tame audience will handle, just after the next wave of shovels using human waves and cutting "z" on the noses of puppy dogs.
    All powered by the secret liquid extracted from a giant squid that Putin's orcs dug out using their teeth (as running out of shovels) in Arctica.
    Instructed by the evil Putin who already died in March last year, as had a cancer of several types, Parkinson, Alzheimer, and farts.

    Jesys fukin' Christ Shocked Shocked Shocked

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, LMFS, Hole, lyle6, lancelot, Mir and like this post

    franco
    franco


    Posts : 6736
    Points : 6762
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  franco Sat Mar 11, 2023 11:55 pm

    JohninMK Today at 4:35 pm
    Do we have any better production figures than those quoted in this long article?

    When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February the T-90M was the best but also rarest tank in the Russian operational fleet. Catastrophic tank losses – over 1,600 of all types – and limited assembly line capacity at Russia’s main tank manufacturer, the Nizhny Tagil-based Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), have forced radical measures. Just two tank types, T-72B3 and T-90M, are now being produced in three daily shifts and with convict labour. The numbers to date remain very small. The former tank is well-known in Western reporting, the newer T-90M less so. This article examines T-90M and the threat it poses.

    https://wavellroom.com/2023/03/10/t90m-are-appearing-on-the-eastern-front/


    No and we won't... state secret and all that. We do know that these plants are going to 3 shifts. However staff have to be recruited and trained, supply chains established, foreign parts replaced, etc. Hopefully when all is working they can increase production to 2.5 times pre-war. Don't believe we are there yet. The Nizhny Tagil production plant probably was 240-300 units annual of everything... T-72B3M, T-14, T-90M, BREM, BMPT, BRM's etc

    Omsk plant - T-80BVM, MSTA-S
    Arzamas - BTR-82A, Tigr, etc
    Volgograd - BMD-4M, etc
    Kurgan plant - BMP-3, BMP-2M

    Repair and upgrade plants - St Petersburg, Atamanovka, Rubtsovsk, Armavir, Kushchyovskaya

    ARV storage and repair plants - Pyshma, Kozulka, Topchiha, Bui, Khalgaso, Arseniev

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs, ALAMO, JohninMK, LMFS, Hole and like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4677
    Points : 4669
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:18 am

    JohninMK wrote:Do we have any better production figures than those quoted in this long article?

    Wavellroom?  Dafuq?  1,600 tanks lost... convict labour... low numbers... Razz Why not just quote the Ukies directly and cut out the middle man?   Razz

    We DEFINITELY need a facepalm emoji.

    sepheronx, GarryB, kvs, Hole, lyle6, limb, Mir and like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3241
    Points : 3243
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Mir Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:50 pm

    ...and meanwhile the Abrahams, the Challenger, the Leopard 2 and the Leclerc (as backup) are rolling off the production line like toothpicks for the poor 404's under evil Putin's hammer and anvil. Twisted Evil

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs and ALAMO like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6868
    Points : 6960
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:56 pm

    New post Mir Today at 7:50 pm

    ...and meanwhile the Abrahams, the Challenger, the Leopard 2 and the Leclerc (as backup) are rolling off the production line like toothpicks for the poor 404's under evil Putin's hammer and anvil. Twisted Evil


    Thank you for teleporting me back into mid 90s, I feel young again! Laughing

    GarryB, flamming_python, kvs and Mir like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2209
    Points : 2203
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:42 pm


    If you're wondering what happened to Ukraine's anti-tank teams - here's your answer.

    The LOS dynamic was bad enough. Russian tanks were just smoking hohol anti-armor squads left right and center from beyond their victim's vision through superior long range optics.Though of course sometimes the sightlines are limited to within engagement distance so they can try to get a shot in or two.

    But even that is mostly gone. Just one UAV overhead and any Russian tank and artillery in range can shell your shit from closed positions with impunity - with exception: The urban sprawl terrain filled with concrete blockhouses. Not only do they resist immense amounts of punishment, its also extremely hard and inefficient to watch over the many vantage points. Probably why the scenes of heviest Russian losses were occuring jn urban settlements.

    But regardless; this is a pretty huge development. The biggest problem Soviet armor faced in the Cold War was the persvasive AT threat posed by infantry in heavily fortified positions - a problem that was supposed to be addressed by chemical weapons. Now that shit's basic.

    kvs, Mir, Broski and Belisarius like this post


    Sponsored content


    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun May 26, 2024 11:25 am