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


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Traditionally it was used to mount a much bigger gun in a vehicle than could be afforded with that vehicles size...

    For instance the T-34 was designed with a 76.2mm gun in mind, it could fit an 85mm gun, but to get an even bigger gun like a 100mm gun it would need serious redesign... or a fixed gun in a fixed gun structure... where it actually gave up its turret and got a lower sillouette and became more a tank destroyer rather than a tank.

    What I am saying is that the fixed gun solution was to allow smaller vehicles to remain useful with guns too big to fit in turrets in them... that was in the past.

    For the Future you could use an auto loader with a rear mounted gun in a vehicle that is small... with two crew in the front with cameras for visibility and the new fancy engine transmissions that allow a tank to spin on the spot with one track going forward and one going backwards, and with active suspension to allow super elevation and super depression on a gun that can elevate and depress and move left and right a little already.
    I'm not sure why you would need an even bigger gun when the upgraded gun is more than enough. The 2A82-1M is sufficiently future-proofed: it should be able to shoot at least 1200 mm long projectiles, having inherited the autoloader from the Object 195, which is far more in excess of what you would need to defeat upgraded NATO MBTs.

    GarryB wrote:
    For a defensive vehicle then shooting from a near stationary position, and moving between shots, but being smaller than an average tank.

    The point of the fixed gun is to allow a very powerful gun to be used so using it in close quarters would not be the plan.
    If we're to go by actual numbers, most casemate designs were actually utilized in the close quarters infantry support roles with the larger gun packing a much larger HE shell for the task than otherwise is possible.

    GarryB wrote:
    Yes, I know a turret is useful on a tank.... this might be something they do to T-54s and T-55s as an upgrade or modification... perhaps turn them around with the engine moved to the front, crew in the middle (2 man crew), and gun mount with autoloader at the rear... 152mm guns for some as a tank destroyer and 160mm mortar for a new artillery support vehicle... though it would probably use a loading vehicle for most of its ammo...
    If push really came to shove I think you can still force the 152 mm gun on the T-54/55 turret. They managed it with a modified T-80, and the T-54/55 is actually much roomier compared to the T-64/72/80. Only problem is the paper thin armor.

    GarryB wrote:
    Ironically these days the problem would be body weight... 100 years ago poor people were skinny... these days they are fat...
    The push towards larger vehicles is driven in large part by much taller crewmembers.

    Hole wrote:
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 E6cbdp10
    I really like how thin the gun looks on the T-14. Its almost like its holding a lance instead of a massive tank gun.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29853
    Points : 30381
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:39 pm

    I'm not sure why you would need an even bigger gun when the upgraded gun is more than enough.

    It is already paid for... and imagine the volume increase the shift in calibre from 125mm to 152mm offers in terms of content for missiles and indeed UAVs launched from its main gun.

    Many of their current ATGMs are 152mm calibre like Kornet... take away the inefficient rocket propulsion and give it a tank propellent accelerator to get it up and moving and make it a glider that is lofted up into the air...

    The 2A82-1M is sufficiently future-proofed: it should be able to shoot at least 1200 mm long projectiles, having inherited the autoloader from the Object 195, which is far more in excess of what you would need to defeat upgraded NATO MBTs.

    The bigger gun is already paid for... in many ways it is like the 240mm mortar Tulip or 203mm Pion... there when you need them, and potential for further growth and development.

    A 152mm coastal gun based on Coalition would be rather superior to their current 130mm gun in the form of the Bereg, and with 70km range guided rounds it would be a very potent weapon, but imaging a further development of the 203mm calibre for coastal guns and for cruisers for shore bombardment, or delivery of nuclear armed anti swarm shells that will airburst in the midst of an enemy drone swarm on its way to attack a Russian surface fleet group.

    If we're to go by actual numbers, most casemate designs were actually utilized in the close quarters infantry support roles with the larger gun packing a much larger HE shell for the task than otherwise is possible.

    The success of the T-34 was because its HE round was pretty useful. I don't think it would have been as successful with a high velocity 57mm round as was proposed at the time... lack of ammo was another factor but I seem to remember the guy in charge of new guns was rather a conservative idiot...

    The T-34 with a longer barrel 76.2mm gun would have been better than what they started with, and KV-1s armed with 57mm guns to make them tank destroyers would have been much better.... this would have created a much bigger distinction between the types, so they could be used better in their intended roles where the KV would be an excellent tank killer with heavy armour, while the T-34 would be an infantry support tank....

    I would have taken the turrets off all those T-26s and made them into APCs and artillery tractors too...

    If push really came to shove I think you can still force the 152 mm gun on the T-54/55 turret. They managed it with a modified T-80, and the T-54/55 is actually much roomier compared to the T-64/72/80. Only problem is the paper thin armor.

    Getting rid of the turret should massively reduce weight... put a much bigger engine in it and thicker frontal armour with ERA... hell why not try massively spaced armour with an outer layer of say 50mm with ERA on its front and then a gap or cavity of 50cm+ and then another steeper angled layer of say 80mm armour but with ERA on its front and then anti spall liner and then two separate capsules for the two crew separated from each other and from the ammo and fuel. Fill the front gap with water or something... and of course have a modern APS system.... a simple chisel shaped hull front would suffice...

    Would be fun designing such a vehicle I think...

    I really like how thin the gun looks on the T-14. Its almost like its holding a lance instead of a massive tank gun.

    Interesting the 57mm grenade launcher and new turret is covered on the T-15...

    It is a very well thought out system and I look forward to seeing other model vehicles.

    So far there is the T-14 MBT, the T-15 BMP, the T-16 BREM armoured engineer vehicle, and of course the 2S35 Coalition 152mm artillery vehicle... but they have not released the T designation of the APC vehicle with the Kord turret.

    The T-15 went from the 30mm cannon Epoch turret to a similar turret with a 57mm grenade launcher/gun.

    I suspect for some roles it might retain that 30mm cannon for situations where it is more useful or practical.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    It is already paid for... and imagine the volume increase the shift in calibre from 125mm to 152mm offers in terms of content for missiles and indeed UAVs launched from its main gun.
    The 2A83 gun still had significant issues yet to be solved, like the poor barrel resource. You also would have to invest in an entirely new production line for 152 mm smoothbore ammo. There was hope that the smoothbore 152 mm might be able to use the rounds developed for the 152 mm rifled, but I doubt it could be done without much fuss as to be practical. For example the HE-fragmentation shells for the artillery would be all but useless without the spin stabilization, so you would have to make an entirely upsized or a saboted 125 mm HE-frag with its built in fins for anti-personnel use.

    GarryB wrote:
    Many of their current ATGMs are 152mm calibre like Kornet... take away the inefficient rocket propulsion and give it a tank propellent accelerator to get it up and moving and make it a glider that is lofted up into the air...
    Kornet and and in service GLATGMs are SACLOS guided - its impossible to fire them at full charge without damaging the rear of the missile where the receiver sits, hence they are rocket powered for the duration of the flight.

    GarryB wrote:
    The bigger gun is already paid for... in many ways it is like the 240mm mortar Tulip or 203mm Pion... there when you need them, and potential for further growth and development.

    A 152mm coastal gun based on Coalition would be rather superior to their current 130mm gun in the form of the Bereg, and with 70km range guided rounds it would be a very potent weapon, but imaging a further development of the 203mm calibre for coastal guns and for cruisers for shore bombardment, or delivery of nuclear armed anti swarm shells that will airburst in the midst of an enemy drone swarm on its way to attack a Russian surface fleet group.
    The catch with larger calibres is that the 6 in. shell is more than sufficient for most combination of targets. A bigger shell is not going to suddenly dramatically increase the amount of damage you can inflict. Their only real advantage is the increased range - but that comes at a price in accuracy and you actually have to have the capability to spot targets that far away and reliably to really lean on this capability.

    GarryB wrote:
    Getting rid of the turret should massively reduce weight... put a much bigger engine in it and thicker frontal armour with ERA... hell why not try massively spaced armour with an outer layer of say 50mm with ERA on its front and then a gap or cavity of 50cm+ and then another steeper angled layer of say 80mm armour but with ERA on its front and then anti spall liner and then two separate capsules for the two crew separated from each other and from the ammo and fuel. Fill the front gap with water or something... and of course have a modern APS system.... a simple chisel shaped hull front would suffice...

    Would be fun designing such a vehicle I think...
    And it would end up costing about as much as a turreted tank with all the bells and whistles, only its still disadvantaged since it lacks the flexibility of the turret.

    Casemates made sense because they were a fraction of the price of turreted tanks - back then metal working actually was a significant portion of the cost of a new build tank. Nowadays its trivial compared to the cost of the sophisticated electronics equipment.

    GarryB wrote:
    Interesting the 57mm grenade launcher and new turret is covered on the T-15...

    It is a very well thought out system and I look forward to seeing other model vehicles.

    So far there is the T-14 MBT, the T-15 BMP, the T-16 BREM armoured engineer vehicle, and of course the 2S35 Coalition 152mm artillery vehicle... but they have not released the T designation of the APC vehicle with the Kord turret.

    The T-15 went from the 30mm cannon Epoch turret to a similar turret with a 57mm grenade launcher/gun.

    I suspect for some roles it might retain that 30mm cannon for situations where it is more useful or practical.
    There's supposed to a missile armed tank destroyer, maybe using Hermes missiles. Then there's support like bridgelayers, minelayers, etc. possibly even an armored resupply vehicle.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29853
    Points : 30381
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:29 pm

    The 2A83 gun still had significant issues yet to be solved, like the poor barrel resource.

    I would think the Coalition gun is facing similar issues if it is launching rounds to 70km at the moment with talk of extending that to 180km in the future (presumably with a reduced weight payload and ramjet propulsion I suspect).

    You also would have to invest in an entirely new production line for 152 mm smoothbore ammo.

    Why?

    The 152mm gun of the Coalition  appears to be a smoothbore gun...  look at 1:38 to 1:40 in this video... it appears to me to be a smoothbore gun...



    Note at 30:46 to 34:44 of the above video where he is cleaning the barrel it is also a smoothbore, so I suspect there could be a unification of that barrel with the tank barrel... obviously with the tank barrel being shorter...

    This is important because the Coalition artillery gun and the MBT gun could use unified ammo... the Coalition is also going to be used on ships and by the navy for coastal defence guns so it will be mass produced and widely used.

    For example the HE-fragmentation shells for the artillery would be all but useless without the spin stabilization, so you would have to make an entirely upsized or a saboted 125 mm HE-frag with its built in fins for anti-personnel use.

    The rounds shown in the above video seem to be conventional HE shells with no flight control fins...

    The smart fuse they were supposed to use together with GLONASS guidance for a CEP of 10m at 70km range supposedly had the problem of rifled barrels degrading accuracy because of the rotational spin rate making guidance difficult...

    Kornet and and in service GLATGMs are SACLOS guided - its impossible to fire them at full charge without damaging the rear of the missile where the receiver sits, hence they are rocket powered for the duration of the flight.

    If this gun shares ammo with Coalition there is no reason why guided rounds couldn't be used to 30-40km range which means laser beam riding guidance makes little sense anyway.

    The catch with larger calibres is that the 6 in. shell is more than sufficient for most combination of targets. A bigger shell is not going to suddenly dramatically increase the amount of damage you can inflict.

    The difference between a 203mm shell and a 152mm shell is 110kg HE vs about 40kg HE, which is quite significant... and for use against ships more metal can be used for an APHE shell to penetrate deeply into a ship before exploding and spreading incendiary material, which would make it rather more effective against bigger vessels too.

    Their only real advantage is the increased range - but that comes at a price in accuracy and you actually have to have the capability to spot targets that far away and reliably to really lean on this capability.

    With the 152mm Coalition rounds being guided I would expect 203mm rounds would be guided too.

    And it would end up costing about as much as a turreted tank with all the bells and whistles, only its still disadvantaged since it lacks the flexibility of the turret.

    Why would you think that? Is a double layer of ERA that expensive?

    It could have a lid on top to open so you can replace the inner ERA tiles that are used up... in fact instead of a lid it could be open and things like smoke grenades or ARENA interception munitions could be stored in there with protection from most enemy autocannon and HMGs.


    Casemates made sense because they were a fraction of the price of turreted tanks - back then metal working actually was a significant portion of the cost of a new build tank. Nowadays its trivial compared to the cost of the sophisticated electronics equipment.

    They claimed with the Leopard II to have 2.5m effective frontal turret armour with empty space... having 1 metre space with two layers of ERA, and using that 1m space for smoke grenades and ARENA intercept munitions that could be stacked should be rather effective too, and being a two crew vehicle you could have a smaller two man capsule somewhere on the vehicle for them... with the gun mounted at the back to reduce gun barrel overhang... engine in the middle crew at the front under the heavy armour... what is not to like?

    RWS turret on the top with light cannon and grenade launcher for self defence....

    There's supposed to a missile armed tank destroyer, maybe using Hermes missiles. Then there's support like bridgelayers, minelayers, etc. possibly even an armored resupply vehicle.

    There was a post recently of a vertical launch 15km range anti armour missile with fire and forget capability that would be ideal as a missile armed tank destroyer to replace Khrisantema and Shturm/Ataka...

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Ewr5e411

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Objekt10

    So there looks like two vehicles, one with a turret and long arm sensor to look for targets and aircraft one presumes from the targets engaged picture which includes fighter aircraft and helicopters as well as armoured vehicles and bunkers and drones.

    The other vehicle seems to have large numbers of vertically launched missiles ready to fire with a machine gun RWS.

    Would likely be Kurganets and Armata and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT-30 twin chassis versions (the latter for arctic use).

    Hermes in the ground launched model is more likely to be part of a Grad or Smerch battery on a truck because of its 100km range being too big for Armata based vehicles to get target information for... or be outside their interests.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:39 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I would think the Coalition gun is facing similar issues if it is launching rounds to 70km at the moment with talk of extending that to 180km in the future (presumably with a reduced weight payload and ramjet propulsion I suspect).
    180 km range is deep well enough into the enemy's rear. Whatever target you spotted that far off would have to be pretty important militarily if its to be engaged, enough to risk whatever asset has acquired them in the first place. If its that important it would also warrant a much stronger strike option than a mere artillery shell just to make sure whatever you hit stays dead, so an Iskander perhaps.

    GarryB wrote:
    Why?

    The 152mm gun of the Coalition  appears to be a smoothbore gun...  look at 1:38 to 1:40 in this video... it appears to me to be a smoothbore gun...



    Note at 30:46 to 34:44 of the above video where he is cleaning the barrel it is also a smoothbore, so I suspect there could be a unification of that barrel with the tank barrel... obviously with the tank barrel being shorter...

    This is important because the Coalition artillery gun and the MBT gun could use unified ammo... the Coalition is also going to be used on ships and by the navy for coastal defence guns so it will be mass produced and widely used.
    That's clearly a 125 mm gun barrel. The extra inch might not be readily detectable but the lack of a muzzle device certainly is.

    GarryB wrote:
    The rounds shown in the above video seem to be conventional HE shells with no flight control fins...

    The smart fuse they were supposed to use together with GLONASS guidance for a CEP of 10m at 70km range supposedly had the problem of rifled barrels degrading accuracy because of the rotational spin rate making guidance difficult...

    If this gun shares ammo with Coalition there is no reason why guided rounds couldn't be used to 30-40km range which means laser beam riding guidance makes little sense anyway.
    The smart fuzes with the small paddles? Those only work if the projectile is spinning at several hundred rpms - if not they would provide asymmetric drag and send the projectile into an uncontrolled tumble.

    GarryB wrote:
    The difference between a 203mm shell and a 152mm shell is 110kg HE vs about 40kg HE, which is quite significant... and for use against ships more metal can be used for an APHE shell to penetrate deeply into a ship before exploding and spreading incendiary material, which would make it rather more effective against bigger vessels too.
    It has a slightly larger burst radius, but drastically slower rate of fire. When it comes to bathing a field with supersonic metal fragments the 6 in. still wins. And it can penetrate ships, great - only most ships have paper armor in the first place so, no real gain there. If you're engaging rather robust targets like a ship with not much armor to speak of its actually better to have a much higher rate of fire to rack up the hits and spread the damage over a wider area. And would you look at that, the smaller calibre 130 mm rifled gun for the Bereg is exactly what the doctor ordered.

    GarryB wrote:
    With the 152mm Coalition rounds being guided I would expect 203mm rounds would be guided too.
    The issue with heavy artillery is that missiles can take their place at the higher end of the fire mission spectrum while the 6 in artillery can manage most tactical fire missions just fine. They are being crowded out from both directions so I don't really think the heavy artillery would have a future beyond specialist roles.

    GarryB wrote:
    Why would you think that? Is a double layer of ERA that expensive?

    It could have a lid on top to open so you can replace the inner ERA tiles that are used up... in fact instead of a lid it could be open and things like smoke grenades or ARENA interception munitions could be stored in there with protection from most enemy autocannon and HMGs.
    Supposedly the Chinese use an integral ERA apart from their regular external ERA. But my point is if you are spending all that money anyway why even bother with handicapping yourself with a casemate design? If money is no concern and you are very much set on the course with no regards to possible disadvantages its very much possible to integrate a larger gun into a smaller hull - several cold war projects like the Object 292 revolve around this.

    Its acting penny wise and pound foolish - the turret gives you the supreme benefit of decoupling shooting from movement. In a fast paced armored brawl where engagements can start and end in literal seconds you'd want that capability with you than without.

    GarryB wrote:
    They claimed with the Leopard II to have 2.5m effective frontal turret armour with empty space... having 1 metre space with two layers of ERA, and using that 1m space for smoke grenades and ARENA intercept munitions that could be stacked should be rather effective too, and being a two crew vehicle you could have a smaller two man capsule somewhere on the vehicle for them... with the gun mounted at the back to reduce gun barrel overhang... engine in the middle crew at the front under the heavy armour... what is not to like?

    RWS turret on the top with light cannon and grenade launcher for self defence....
    I wouldn't bother with a heavily armored turret at tall, and save on the trouble of hauling an extra 10 tons of dead weight.

    GarryB wrote:
    There was a post recently of a vertical launch 15km range anti armour missile with fire and forget capability that would be ideal as a missile armed tank destroyer to replace Khrisantema and Shturm/Ataka...

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Ewr5e411

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Objekt10

    So there looks like two vehicles, one with a turret and long arm sensor to look for targets and aircraft one presumes from the targets engaged picture which includes fighter aircraft and helicopters as well as armoured vehicles and bunkers and drones.

    The other vehicle seems to have large numbers of vertically launched missiles ready to fire with a machine gun RWS.

    Would likely be Kurganets and Armata and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT-30 twin chassis versions (the latter for arctic use).

    Hermes in the ground launched model is more likely to be part of a Grad or Smerch battery on a truck because of its 100km range being too big for Armata based vehicles to get target information for... or be outside their interests.
    The Armata chassis is not just a good base for armored fighting vehicles. The high strength hull can also be used as a prime mover for heavy equipment like strategic SAMs, heavy rocket artillery etc. It would be ridiculously expensive to buy and operate, but then again these capabilities are already expensive on their own that a little more splurging wouldn't really hurt that much more. Against a near peer threat that would require you to bust out the big guns you really don't want to exercise restraint - throw the kitchen sink if you have to, just make sure you win.
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 423
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  RTN Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    With the 152mm Coalition rounds being guided I would expect 203mm rounds would be guided too.
    What's the need for 203mm rounds when Iskander already exists?

    In the U.S we use ATacMS.

    Effectively, 18 ATacMS equals the impact of 792 155mm artillery rounds. ATacMS’ launch can be as much as 30 degrees off axis, and the missile is steered aerodynamically by electrically-actuated control-fins during the descent phase, modifying the flight path from a ballistic parabola. Offsetting the launch angle and descending semi-ballistically complicates the enemy’s ability to trace trajectory back to the launch vehicle
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  ALAMO Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:41 pm

    RTN wrote:18 ATacMS equals the impact of 792 155mm artillery rounds. ATacMS’ launch can be as much as 30 degrees off axis, and the missile is steered aerodynamically by electrically-actuated control-fins during the descent phase, modifying the flight path from a ballistic parabola. Offsetting the launch angle and descending semi-ballistically complicates the enemy’s ability to trace trajectory back to the launch vehicle

    Copy&paste is another secret supa dupa skill I guess Laughing

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Zrzut_11

    Big_Gazza and x_54_u43 like this post

    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Mir Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:03 pm

    RTN wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    With the 152mm Coalition rounds being guided I would expect 203mm rounds would be guided too.
    What's the need for 203mm rounds when Iskander already exists?

    In the U.S we use ATacMS.

    Effectively, 18 ATacMS equals the impact of 792 155mm artillery rounds. ATacMS’ launch can be as much as 30 degrees off axis, and the missile is steered aerodynamically by electrically-actuated control-fins during the descent phase, modifying the flight path from a ballistic parabola. Offsetting the launch angle and descending semi-ballistically complicates the enemy’s ability to trace trajectory back to the launch vehicle

    Very good question but I would say the Iskander has a minimum range of around 50km - that is probably around the maximum range of the 203mm artillery piece.
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  ALAMO Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:10 pm

    Russia operates 203mm 2S7 for decades and is modernizing them right now.
    70km is its actual maximal range, and the guns have their niche in Russian operational plans.
    There is no point in discussing the need for having those.
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Mir Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:33 pm

    ALAMO wrote:Russia operates 203mm 2S7 for decades and is modernizing them right now.
    70km is its actual maximal range, and the guns have their niche in Russian operational plans.
    There is no point in discussing the need for having those.

    At least I thought it was a very reasonable question coming from RTN Smile
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  ALAMO Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:47 pm

    I guess "minimal range" is something he still doesn't get, focusing on supa dupa plastic at the moment.
    It may take a while. Laughing

    Sponsored content

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:50 pm