Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
EnsignExpendable

StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

Czech Republic:

- Knock, knock

- who's there?

- definetly not SPz Puma!

 

Is it true that Czechs requirments turns in to manned turret so SPz Puma was rejected in this country?

 

 


https://www.czdjournal.com/defence/czech-ifv-tender-new-requirements-and-controversies-168.html
 

Quote

When we look at these basic requirements presented to the media, there is but one major specification which has been added to the requirements presented on 18th June 2018: the manned turret requirement. Controversies arise, especially because the German PUMA IFV by PSM is fitted with an unmanned turret only. Several experts have already expressed doubts over the new requirement given the Army’s asserted priority was the protection for the crew: the unmanned turrets certainly provide for a better protection for the commander and the gunner seated in the hull rather than directly in the turret.

According to Security Magazín, the PSM has already submitted a protest against the last variant of requirements on 5th April.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Is it true that Czechs requirments turns in to manned turret so SPz Puma was rejected in this country?

 

 

It is quite a mess:

  • The requirements of the Czech army aren't finished yet. They are still working on them, adding new ones and increasing the overall length of the documents containing the requirments - it has reached more than one hundred pages (DIN A4). Only four pages of requirements were given to the defence industry (BAE Systems, General Dynamics, PSM and Rheinmetall) before they started bidding/show-casing their offers.  
  • Only European companies (and trans-European such as Turkey and Israel) were asked and allowed to bid. South Korea, despite being a large industrial partner, was ignored.
  • The requirements didn't specify a manned or unmanned turret until recently - that's why three our of five IFVs tested in Libava had unmanned turrets. The new requirement for a manned turret was added - according to Czech journalists who asked a spokesperson of the Czech MoD - because Australia demands a manned turret for LAND 400 and the United States have showncased optionally manned turrets on the Stryker. This new requirement invalidates test results and eliminates the Puma, the ASCOD 35 and the CV90 CZr from the competition.
  • All IFVs tested in Libava were configured for nine men (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts) as originally required - but the requriement for crew capacity was changed to eleven men (crew of 3 + 8 dismounts). None of the vehicles tested in Libava is capable of transporting 11 men with a manned turret.
  • The bidding companies have time until some point of time in May to submitt their offers, the rather short time between the changes of requirements and the deadline is a huge problem.
  • The Czech army doesn't want to be the first user of a new infantry fighting vehicle, they want to buy a vehicle that is already in service with at least one user. This effectively eliminates the Lynx KF31, Lynx KF41, ASCOD 35 and Ajax/ASCOD 42. In combination with the manned turret and the dismount requirements, there is no IFV meeting all requirements oof the Czech army. 
  • The Czech government demands that the state-owned company VOP CZ will act as system integrator, manufacturer of components and provider of maintenance services. The army dislikes this, because it will increase the costs of the new IFVs.
  • Side note: while it has been previously reported that the Puma hit 37 out of 40 shots at targets at Libava, the results of the other contenders have been rather unknown. According to the article, the next best result was 19 out of 40 shots hit.
  • A lot of people are really pissed, because quite a lot of money was invested into the development, search for industrial partners and marketing of vehicles that are now eliminated from the tender. The ASCOD 35 with Samson Mk. 2 RWS and the CV90 CZr with Kongsbergt MCT 30 turret were more or less specifcally developed for the Czech tender (well, CV90 CZr already existed earlier, but as unfinished variant), while PSM held multiple expensive conferences to find industrial partners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

None of the vehicles tested in Libava is capable of transporting 11 men with a manned turret.

Was a KF41 tested?  If so that definitely can carry 3 crew, manned turret and 8 dismounts - that was in the design brief for the vehicle and is a key discriminator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 2:44 AM, David Moyes said:

the unmanned turrets certainly provide for a better protection for the commander and the gunner seated in the hull rather than directly in the turret.

Not as simple as that.  Protection levels are protection levels.  So if a vehicle meets Level 6, manned or unmanned turret, the crew have the same protection - by definition.  What is true is that an unmanned turret is lighter (say 4 tonne) which means that in theory, a vehicle with an unmanned turret can be lighter for the same level of protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DIADES said:

Was a KF41 tested?  If so that definitely can carry 3 crew, manned turret and 8 dismounts - that was in the design brief for the vehicle and is a key discriminator.

 

I thought only the KF31 was tested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DIADES said:

Was a KF41 tested?  If so that definitely can carry 3 crew, manned turret and 8 dismounts - that was in the design brief for the vehicle and is a key discriminator.

 

The tests were conducted in 2017, the Lynx KF41 and the CV90 Mk. IV didn't exist at that time (or rather: they were in early stages of development).

 

All IFVs tested in Libava fail to meet at least one of three of the latest requirements:

  • Puma: is in service, but can only transport six dismounts and has an unmanned turret
  • CV9030 M.k IIIb: is in service and has a manned turret, but cannot transport eight dismounts
  • CV9030 CZr: can transport eight dismounts, but is not in service and has an unmanned turret
  • ASCOD 35: can transport eight dismounts, but is not in service and has an unmanned turret
  • Lynx KF31: has a manned turret, but is not in service and cannoot transport eight dismounts

Officially the tests in Libava were made as a market overview, so the Czech army would learn what is possible with current technology and base its requirements on the test results. Apparently they did fail at doing so.

 

Ajax IFV for LAND 400, Lynx KF41 and AS21 Redback all could in theory meet the 3 + 8 crew configuration and manned turret requirements, but all fail at being in service (at least as IFV) with another operator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

CV9030 M.k IIIb: is in service and has a manned turret, but cannot transport eight dismounts

 

Is there some special version being offered or something? Because it does carry eight dismounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Voodoo said:

 

Is there some special version being offered or something? Because it does carry eight dismounts.


iUFwGxG.jpg
TBDgabK.jpg

IY5HJxo.jpg

8th seat got replaced by Storage + Equipment on most. Pretty sure that Sweden and Estonia's are down to 6.

I wonder if the Czechs would require 95th percentile seating. As far as I know the only IFVs to do this with 8 dismounts and a turret are the KF41 and AS21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, David Moyes said:

8th seat got replaced by Storage + Equipment on most. Pretty sure that Sweden and Estonia's are down to 6.
I wonder if the Czechs would require 95th percentile seating. As far as I know the only IFVs to do this with 8 dismounts and a turret are the KF41 and AS21.

using this screenshot
ZZ3jeDe.jpg
from video about Armadillo vehicle,
and this drawing of "high roof" version of CV-90 from some master thiesis, one of several available on http://www.diva-portal.org while googling about CV-90

FeF6G2A.jpg
it seems like Armadillo has about 55 cm of width per dismount (seats themselves are narrower)
Which -  technically - allowes to fit US 95th percentile soldier - considering shoulder width of 54 cm, which SAIC mentioned in leaflet about Terrex-2 for MPC contest:
.uazpLYL.jpg

 

 

Kinda.


The thing is - it seems like actually it's not nearly enough. When measured from upper arm to upper arm or from forearm to forearm, people are usually several inches wider - even when nude, but especially when wearing gear and/or wearing winter uniform.

Sc32cVG.jpg
And btw as i previously concluded

it seems like US Army now wants to do something about that problem in NGCV, providing some ~67 cm per person.


In order to provide same 67cm of width per dismount in CV-90, one needs to spend more space on dismounts - more hull length to be precise, additional ~48 cm of it. Which leaves about 129-130 cm - measured from turret ring to first pair of dismounts:

y6Q6wtX.jpg
Are there any modern 2-man turrets with turret basket diameter of 129 cm or less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's better to use some other term that vague "Europe". At least because it does not include Germany.

 

I would like to remind about that article on Puma https://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/start/aktuell/nachrichten/jahr2018/august2018/!ut/p/z1/hY5fC4IwFMW_kXf-m_Y4kURCCy3LvcRwwwzbZCzpoQ_fIvBNug8H7j2_ezhA4QJUsnnomRmUZKPdW4qveBPkmVejIvNOBJGmOu6aonSzfQANnP8h1NpoZQiCmgtobUa0nuFDDRTonc3s5UxKm1EYh3XfjtDemOSjOKiO_A4W5MLplLSMVSOkGaz2mhmll-_uqbV1nIFDi9w0QeHSyX0nfkwiHAQ4zZMKpsc2Lsuw_wCvRfxg/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/#Z7_694IG2S0MG2UA0AVRTKVMN1GO3
it was 97th percentile male for crew, and - as a compromise - 75th percentile male for dismounts.

 

And apparently they paid attention to female soldiers too.
This article https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article180519422/Schuetzenpanzer-Puma-Soldaten-duerfen-nicht-groesser-als-1-84-Meter-sein.html mentions that there is also another restriction - to be at least 161 cm high (without helmet). Which is smaller than (~168cm high)  3rd percentile male in diagram from deutschesheer.de article (which covers man from Infants to 18 year olds, so I presume it gives height without helmet). 

 

Btw, during hearings in Bundestag on Puma - transcript available here http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/067/1906770.pdf - there was a response that "[google translate] Of the serving today in the Bundeswehr Panzergrenadieren are - 86 percent unrestricted use in the armored infantry fighting vehicle PUMA". I do not see any other way to get that 86 precent figure except including female soldiers into consideration.

 

...
altough Zetor Engineering's Wolfdog IFV proposal seems to be nothing but KF-41-alike wishful thinking, - at least it is capable of providing informantion about wishes themselves. It's brouchure mentions that "interior space transports crew up to 190 cm in height in a 3+8 (3+9) configuration", which is obviously male 90+ percentile, and also renders inside that brochure allow to measure space available for dismounts - and about 70 cm is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Voodoo said:

Is there some special version being offered or something? Because it does carry eight dismounts.

 

Do they still carry eight dismounts after the upgrade? I was under the impression that the mine protection system, blast attenuating seats and blast-proof safe storage for ammunition and equipment would reduce the available interior volume.

 

The Czech Republic tested the CV90 at two different times: at first a CV9030 Mk. IIIb from the Norwegian upgrade program was tested (with Kongsberg Protector RWS instead of indepdent commander's sight), then a further improved model with the new modular turret and the CV9030 CZr with Kongsberg MCT-30 turret were tested. My understanding is that the latter two vehicles weren't real CV90 Mk. IVs, as they apparently lacked some of the advertised features of the CV90 MK. IV (such as the 1,000 hp engine; at least the CV9030 CZr seems to be based on a slightly older version).

 

3rFyHXG.jpgdvPEMqk.jpg

 

The Norwegian armed forces seem to not care to the same extend as other militaries about providing the dismounts with enough space. The Swiss military for example demanded that its version of the CV9030 had a raised roof (+100 mm) and a lengthened hull (+200 mm) in order to allow the Schützenpanzer 2000 (CV90 Mk. II) to carry eight dismounts. The Norwegian CV9030N (CV90 Mk. I) didn't feature the raised roof and lengthened hull, yet it also carried eight dismounts.

 

Part of the upgrade to the new CV9030NF1 (CV90 Mk. IIIb) configuration is raising the roof (and probably also streching the hull) in order to increase the interior volume to CV90 Mk. III levels. The other CV90 Mk. III models all can carry only 7 dismounts...

 

According to the Czech news article I linked to earlier, the CV9030 CZ was offered only with seating for 7 dismounts according to documents provided by BAE Systems to the Czech military. The article specifically mentions that "other sources" (probably the internet) claim the CV90 could seat eight dismounts, but these couldn't be confirmed and might be incorrect.

 

9 hours ago, DIADES said:

Europe is using 70th% not the full 95 to 5%, male and female.So 8 euro seats equals 6 US/AU seats.

 

There is no general rule for "Europe". The Puma for example has enough space for 75th percentile of the male population of Germany, as a compromise between space, air transportability and armor protection. Other IFVs like the ASCOD 35 have been offered with more internal space, just like the Lynx IFV.

 

The Bradley in its current form also fails to offer space for 5 to 95 percentile of the US males, which is why BAE Systems has prestned the Bradley Next Gen based on the AMPV hull at AUSA 2016. To allow 95th percentile of the male population to fit into the Bradley Next Gen, the roof had to be raised by seven inches (178 mm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Do they still carry eight dismounts after the upgrade? I was under the impression that the mine protection system, blast attenuating seats and blast-proof safe storage for ammunition and equipment would reduce the available interior volume.

 

The Czech Republic tested the CV90 at two different times: at first a CV9030 Mk. IIIb from the Norwegian upgrade program was tested (with Kongsberg Protector RWS instead of indepdent commander's sight), then a further improved model with the new modular turret and the CV9030 CZr with Kongsberg MCT-30 turret were tested. My understanding is that the latter two vehicles weren't real CV90 Mk. IVs, as they apparently lacked some of the advertised features of the CV90 MK. IV (such as the 1,000 hp engine; at least the CV9030 CZr seems to be based on a slightly older version).

 

3rFyHXG.jpgdvPEMqk.jpg

 

The Norwegian armed forces seem to not care to the same extend as other militaries about providing the dismounts with enough space. The Swiss military for example demanded that its version of the CV9030 had a raised roof (+100 mm) and a lengthened hull (+200 mm) in order to allow the Schützenpanzer 2000 (CV90 Mk. II) to carry eight dismounts. The Norwegian CV9030N (CV90 Mk. I) didn't feature the raised roof and lengthened hull, yet it also carried eight dismounts.

 

Part of the upgrade to the new CV9030NF1 (CV90 Mk. IIIb) configuration is raising the roof (and probably also streching the hull) in order to increase the interior volume to CV90 Mk. III levels. The other CV90 Mk. III models all can carry only 7 dismounts...

 

According to the Czech news article I linked to earlier, the CV9030 CZ was offered only with seating for 7 dismounts according to documents provided by BAE Systems to the Czech military. The article specifically mentions that "other sources" (probably the internet) claim the CV90 could seat eight dismounts, but these couldn't be confirmed and might be incorrect.

 

 

 

Weird. I can not find any specific info on this, other than some general specs from news articles which states that it carries 8 dismounts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Do they still carry eight dismounts after the upgrade? I was under the impression that the mine protection system, blast attenuating seats and blast-proof safe storage for ammunition and equipment would reduce the available interior volume.

 

From UD2-1, the Norwegian Armed Forces' safety regulations for military land activity:

QDICplx.jpg

SPV = IFV variant

STRILED = Command & Control variant

Høyde = Height

 

Source: https://forsvaret.no/hv/ForsvaretDocuments/UD 2-1 (norsk, rev 01).pdf (page 212)

 

If we compare this layout with the image posted by @David Moyes, we can see that the Norwegian Army has not been willing to sacrifice the eighth seat for more internal storage space. Norwegian CV90s also have some extra storage capacity on the hull to compensate for this (not seen on the hull of Dutch or Danish CV90s):

 

JnKHw4c.jpg

 

1G9Tbsz.jpg

 

Quote

Part of the upgrade to the new CV9030NF1 (CV90 Mk. IIIb) configuration is raising the roof (and probably also streching the hull) in order to increase the interior volume to CV90 Mk. III levels. 

 

CV9030NF1 is not a designation for the new CV90 Mk IIIb but for the CV90 Mk I that were upgraded for service in Afghanistan.

 

boR8l6t.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

From UD2-1, the Norwegian Armed Forces' safety regulations for military land activity:

 

So only three four seats within the Norwegian CV9030 accept 95th percentile of the male popluation, while two seats even fall below the 75th percentile requirement set for the Puma - wow... That shows again how the German media makes a mountain out of a molehill, creating drama and bad PR.

 
51 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

CV9030NF1 is not a designation for the new CV90 Mk IIIb but for the CV90 Mk I that were upgraded for service in Afghanistan.

 

Thanks for the correction. What is the correct designation? CV9030N1?

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

So only three four seats within the Norwegian CV9030 accept 95th percentile of the male popluation, while two seats even fall below the 75th percentile requirement set for the Puma - wow... That shows again how the German media makes a mountain out of a molehill, creating drama and bad PR.

 
 

 

That's typical of media everywhere. lol

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Thanks for the correction. What is the correct designation? CV9030N1?

 

Sadly, I don’t know of a better designation than BAE’s CV90 MkIIIb. In the UD2-1 documents, which tend to be pretty thorough when it comes military designations, the new turreted CV90 variants are simply known as CV9030 SPV and CV9030 STRILED (the CV9030 OPV is not listed yet because it’s delayed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Bundeswehr Weasel and British Light tank Mark IV
       

×
×
  • Create New...