PC gaming has been a hell of a ride. I say "has been" both in the sense that exciting and dynamic things have happened, but also in the sense that the most exciting and dynamic times are behind us. No other form of video gaming is as closely tied to the latest developments in personal computing hardware, and current trends do not suggest that anything dramatically new and exciting is immediately around the corner. Indeed, fundamental aspects of semiconductor physics suggest that chip technology is nearing, or perhaps already on a plateau where only slow, incremental improvement is possible. This, in turn, will limit the amount of improvement possible for game developers. Gaming certainly will not disappear, and PC gaming will also not disappear, although the PC gaming share of the market may contract in the future. But I think it is a reasonable expectation that future PC game titles will not be such dramatic technological improvements over older titles as was the case in the past in the near term. In the long term, current technology and hardware design will eventually be replaced with something entirely different and disruptive, but as always it is difficult, maybe impossible to predict what that replacement will be.
The Good Old Days
The start of the modern, hardware-driven PC gaming culture that we all know and love began with Id Software's early first person shooter titles, most importantly 1993's Doom.
PC gaming was around before Doom, of course, but Doom's combination of cutting edge graphics technology and massive, massive appeal is what really got the ball rolling.
Doom was phenomenally popular. There were, at one point, more installs of Doom than there were installs of the Windows operating system. I don't think there is any subsequent PC title that can claim that. Furthermore, it was Doom, and its spiritual successor Quake that really defined PC gaming as a genre that pushed the boundaries of what was possible with hardware.
Doom convincingly faked 3D graphics on computers that had approximately the same number-crunching might as a potato. It also demanded radically more computing power than Wolfenstein 3D, but in those days computing hardware was advancing at such a rate that this wasn't really unreasonable. This was followed by Quake, which was actually 3D, and demanded so much more of the hardware then available that it quickly became one of the first games to support hardware acceleration.
Id software disintegrated under the stress of the development of Quake, and while many of the original Id team have gone on to do noteworthy things in PC gaming technology, none of it has been earth-shaking the way their work at Id was. And so, the next important development occurred not with Id's games, but with their successors.
It had become clear, by that point, that there was a strong consumer demand for higher game framerates, but also for better-looking graphics. In addition to ever-more sophisticated game engines and higher poly-count game models, the next big advance in PC gaming technology was the addition of shaders to the graphics.
Shaders could be used to smooth out the low-poly models of the time, apply lighting effects, and generally make the games look less like spiky ass. But the important caveat about shaders, from a hardware development perspective, was that shader code ran extremely well in parallel while the rest of the game code ran well in series. The sort of chip that would quickly do the calculations for the main game, and the sort of chip that would do quickly do calculations for the graphics were therefore very different. Companies devoted exclusively to making graphics-crunching chips emerged (of these, only Nvidia is left standing), and the stage was set for the heyday of PC gaming hardware evolution from the mid 1990s to the early 2000s. Initially, there were a great number of hardware acceleration options, and getting everything to work was a bit of an inconsistent mess that only enthusiasts really bothered with, but things rapidly settled down to where we are today. The important rules of thumb which have, hitherto applied are:
-The IBM-compatible personal computer is the chosen mount of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race™.
-The two most important pieces of hardware on a gaming PC are the CPU and the GPU, and every year the top of the line CPUs and GPUs will be a little faster than before.
-Even though, as of the mid 2000s, both gaming consoles and Macs were made of predominantly IBM-compatible hardware, they are not suitable devices for the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race™. This is because they have artificially-imposed software restrictions that keep them from easily being used the same way as a proper gaming PC.
-Even though they did not suffer from the same compatibility issues as consoles or Macs, computers with integrated graphics processors are not suitable devices for the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race™.
-Intel CPUs are the best, and Nvidia GPUs are the best. AMD is a budget option in both categories.
The Victorious March of Moore's Law
Moore's Law, which is not an actual physical law, but rather an observation about the shrinkage of the physical size of transistors, has held so true for most of the 21st century that it seemed like it was an actual fundamental law of the universe.
The most visible and obvious indication of the continuous improvement in computer hardware was that every year the clock speeds on CPUs got higher.
Now, clock speed itself isn't actually particularly indicative of overall CPU performance, since that is a complex interplay of clock speed, instructions per cycle and pipe length. But at the time, CPU architecture was staying more or less the same, so the increase in CPU clock speeds was a reasonable enough, and very marketing-friendly indicator of how swimmingly things were going. In 2000, Intel was confident that 10 GHZ chips were about a decade away.
This reliable increase in computing power corresponded with a reliable improvement in game graphics and design year on year. You can usually look at a game from the 2000s and guess, to within a few years, when it came out because the graphical improvements were that consistent year after year.
The improvement was also rapid. Compare 2004's Far Cry to 2007's Crysis.
And so, for a time, game designers and hardware designers marched hand in hand towards ever greater performance.
The End of the Low-Hanging Fruit
But you know how this works, right? Everyone has seen VH1's Behind the Music. This next part is where it all comes apart after the explosive success and drugs and groupies, leaving just the drugs. This next part is where we are right now.
If you look again at the chart of CPU clock speeds, you see that improvement flatlines at about 2005. This is due to the end of Dennard Scaling. Until about 2006, reductions in the size of transistors allowed chip engineers to increase clock speeds without worrying about thermal issues, but that isn't the case anymore. Transistors have become so small that significant amounts of current leakage occur, meaning that clock speeds cannot improve without imposing unrealistic thermal loads on the chips.
Clock speed isn't everything. The actual muscle of a CPU is a function of several things; the pipeline, the instructions per clock cycle, clock speed, and, after 2005 with the introduction of the Athlon 64X2, the core count. And, even as clock speed remained the same, these other important metrics did continue to see improvement:
The catch is that the raw performance of a CPU is, roughly speaking, a multiplicative product of all of these things working together. If the chip designers can manage a 20% increase in IPC and a 20% increase in clock speed, and some enhancements to pipeline design that amount to a 5% improvement, then they're looking at a 51.2% overall improvement in chip performance. Roughly. But if they stop being able to improve one of these factors, then to achieve the same increases in performance, they need to cram in the improvements into just the remaining areas, which is a lot harder than making modest improvements across the board.
Multi-core CPUs arrived to market at around the same time that clock speed increases became impossible. Adding more cores to the CPU did initially allow for some multiplicative improvements in chip performance, which did buy time for the trend of ever-increasing performance. The theoretical FLOPS (floating point operations per second) of a chip is a function of its IPC, core count and clock speed. However, the real-world performance increase provided by multi-core processing is highly dependent on the degree to which the task can be paralleled, and is subject to Amdahl's Law:
Most games can be only poorly parallelized. The parallel portion is probably around the 50% mark for everything except graphics, which has can be parallelized excellently. This means that as soon as CPUs hit 16 cores, there was basically no additional improvement to be had in games from multi-core technology. That is, unless game designers start to code games specifically for better multi-core performance, but so far this has not happened. On top of this, adding more cores to a CPU usually imposes a small reduction to clock speed, so the actual point of diminishing returns may occur at a slightly lower core count.
On top of all that, designing new and smaller chip architecture has become harder and harder. Intel first announced 10nm chip architecture back in September 2017, and showed a timeline with it straddling 2017 and 2018. 2018 has come and gone, and still no 10nm. Currently Intel is hopeful that they can get 10nm chips to market by the end of 2019.
AMD have had a somewhat easier time of it, announcing a radically different mixed 14nm and 7nm "chiplet" architecture at the end of 2018, and actually brought a 7nm discrete graphics card to market at the beginning of 2019. However, this new graphics card merely matches NVIDIA's top-of-the-line cards, both in terms of performance and in terms of price. This is a significant development, since AMD's graphics cards have usually been second-best, or cost-effective mid-range models at best, so for them to have a competitive top-of-the-line model is noteworthy. But, while CPUs and GPUs are different, it certainly doesn't paint a picture of obvious and overwhelming superiority for the new 7nm process. The release of AMD's "chiplet" Zen 2 CPUs appears to have been delayed to the middle of 2019, so I suppose we'll find out then. Additionally, it appears that the next-generation of Playstation will use a version of AMD's upcoming "Navi" GPU, as well as a Zen CPU, and AMD hardware will power the next-generation XBOX as well.
So AMD is doing quite well servicing the console gaming peasant crowd, at least. Time will tell whether the unexpected delays faced by their rivals along with the unexpected boost from crypto miners buying literally every fucking GPU known to man will allow them to dominate the hardware market going forward. Investors seem optimistic, however:
With Intel, they seem less sanguine:
and with NVIDIA, well...
But the bottom line is don't expect miracles. While it would be enormously satisfying to see Intel and NVIDIA taken down a peg after years of anti-consumer bullshit, the reality is that hardware improvements have fundamentally become difficult. For the time being, nobody is going to be throwing out their old computers just because they've gotten slow. As the rate of improvements dwindles, people will start throwing out their old PCs and replacing them only because they've gotten broken.
OK, but What About GPUs?
GPU improvements took longer to slow down than CPU improvements, in large part because GPU workloads can be parallel processed well. But the slowdown has arrived.
This hasn't stopped the manufacturers of discrete GPUs from trying to innovate, of course. Not only that; the market is about to become more competitive with Intel announcing their plans for a discrete GPU in the near future. NVIDIA has pushed their new ray-tracing optimized graphics cards for the past few months as well. The cryptomining GPU boom has come and gone; GPUs turn out to be better than CPUs at cryptomining, but ASICs beat out GPUs but a lot, so that market is unlikely to be a factor again. GPUs are still relatively cost-competitive for a variety of machine learning tasks, although long-term these will probably be displaced by custom designed chips like the ones Google is mass-ordering.
Things really do not look rosy for GPU sales. Every time someone discovers some clever alternative use for GPUs like cryptomining or machine learning, they get displaced after a few years by custom hardware solutions even more fine-tuned to the task. Highly parallel chips are the future, but there's no reason to think that those highly parallel chips will be traditional GPUs, per se.
And speaking of which, aren't CPUs getting more parallel, with their ever-increasing core count? And doesn't AMD's "chiplet" architecture allow wildly differently optimized cores to be stitched together? So, the CPU of a computer could very easily be made to accommodate capable on-board graphics muscle. So... why do we even need GPUs in the future? After all, PCs used to have discrete sound cards and networking cards, and the CPU does all of that now. The GPU has really been the last hold-out, and will likely be swallowed by the CPU, at least on low and mid range machines in the next few years.
Where to Next?
At the end of 2018, popular YouTube tech channel LinusTechTips released a video about Shadow. Shadow is a company that is planning to use centrally-located servers to provide cloud-based games streaming. At the time, the video was received with (understandably) a lot of skepticism, and even Linus doesn't sound all that convinced by Shadow's claims.
The technical problems with such a system seem daunting, especially with respect to latency. This really did seem like an idea that would come and go. This is not its time; the technology simply isn't good enough.
And then, just ten days ago, Google announced that they had exactly the same idea:
The fact that tech colossus Google is interested changed a lot of people's minds about the idea of cloud gaming. Is this the way forward? I am unconvinced. The latency problems do seem legitimately difficult to overcome, even for Google. Also, almost everything that Google tries to do that isn't search on Android fails miserably. Remember Google Glass? Google Plus?
But I do think that games that are partially cloud-based will have some market share. Actually, they already do. I spent a hell of a lot of time playing World of Tanks, and that game calculates all line-of-sight checks and all gunfire server-side. Most online games do have some things that are calculated server-side, but WoT was an extreme example for the time. I could easily see future games offloading a greater amount of the computational load to centralized servers vis a vis the player's own PC.
But there are two far greater harbingers of doom for PC gaming than cloud computing. The first is smart phones and the second is shitty American corporate culture. Smart phones are set to saturate the world in a way desktop PCs never did. American games publishers are currently more interested in the profits from gambling-esque game monetization schemes than they are in making games. Obviously, I don't mean that in a generic anti-capitalist, corporation-bashing hippie way. I hate hippies. I fuck hippies for breakfast. But if you look at even mainstream news outlets on Electronic Arts, it's pretty obvious that the AAA games industry, which had hitherto been part of the engine driving the games/hardware train forward, is badly sick right now. The only thing that may stop their current sleaziness is government intervention.
So, that brings us to the least important, but most discussion-sparking part of the article; my predictions. In the next few years, I predict that the most popular game titles will be things like Fortnite or Apex Legends. They will be monetized on some sort of games-as-service model, and will lean heavily if not entirely on multiplayer modes. They may incorporate some use of server-side calculation to offload the player PC, but in general they will work on modest PCs because they will only aspire to have decent, readable graphics rather than really pretty ones. The typical "gaming rig" for this type of game will be a modest and inexpensive desktop or laptop running built-in graphics with no discrete graphics card. There will continue to be an enthusiast market for games that push the limits, but this market will no longer drive the majority of gaming hardware sales. If these predictions sound suspiciously similar to those espoused by the Coreteks tech channel, that's because I watched a hell of a lot of his stuff when researching this post, and I find his views generally convincing.
Intel's Foveros 3D chip architecture could bring a surge in CPU performance, but I predict that it will be a one-time surge, followed by the return to relatively slow improvement. The reason why is that the Foveros architecture allows for truly massive CPU caches, and these could be used to create enormous IPC gains. But after the initial boon caused by the change in architecture, the same problems that are currently slowing down improvement would be back, the same as before. It definitely wouldn't be a return to the good old days of Moore's Law. Even further down the road, a switch to a different semiconducting material such as Gallium Nitride (which is already used in some wireless devices and military electronics) could allow further miniaturization and speed ups where silicon has stalled out. But those sort of predictions stretch my limited prescience and knowledge of semiconductor physics too far.
If you are interested in this stuff, I recommend diving into Coretek's channel (linked above) as well as Adored TV.
The RFI is a formality. AGM on Boxer is the plan. It was one of the reasons why Boxer was selected for MIV. Get as many drive modules as possible then order required mission modules when the money is available.
KMW is working on a remote re-supply module.
The program for a new SPG has been going for a while and had numerous names, at one point it specifically had 'Wheeled' in the title.The Regiments selected are 2 x AS90 and 2 x 105mm in the Armoured and Strike Brigades.
Boxer acquisition is being done through OCCAR so Artec is the prime contractor. KMW already have a manufacturing base in the UK with their ownership of WFEL, hence why Rheinmetall created Joint-Venture with BAE.
Drive module fabrication - WFEL-KMW
Mission module fabrication - Pearson
Final assembly - BAE-Rheinmetall
The requested numbers aren't enough to entirely replace AS90 and a recent BAE bulletin had an article on improving the range of the L15A4 round when used with a 52 calibre barrel as part of a AS90 capability upgrade: https://t.co/LpopfR4d2H
I wonder if this is an upgrade of the original L31 gun or an entirely new one (like the cancelled Braveheart upgrade)?
BAE owns the M777, it was designed and is manufactured in the UK, a L52 version has been worked on. However Rheinmetall's 155mm L52 is fitted in the Polish Krab SPG that uses the AS90 turret.
Interesting to see if AGM and AS90 will end up with the same gun.
Maybe, but unlikely. Rheinmetall has pushed this concept for a while, but there are other options as well. For example, a Caesar or ATMOS on a MAN HX truck. I also heard a version of the Archer was offered, although I am not particularly fond of the Archer concept to say the least, as I believe a manual backup is a crucial aspect.
The AGM is also an option, and here I would like to mention that it's called AGM, not Donar. The Donar is a version mounted on a Bradley platform.
There are 2 main reasons why the option of a Boxer-mounted AGM are less likely:
The real power holder in the UK is Rheinmetall. The AGM is a KMW product. What it stood to profit from the Boxer+AGM idea is an additional sale of boxer drive modules. It could profit just as much from any of the other abovementioned options.
A truck-based solution, for example the MAN HX, allows for more optimized pressure distribution, and provides more flexibility to install various platform stabilizers. They're also not limited in payload, when compared with a Boxer. They have a few turreted, and a few un-turreted options, for example the Caesar or Brutus not using a turret, or the ATMOS, Archer, and AGM using a turret, with the ATMOS being offered in both configurations actually.
Correct, there is storage for 24 rounds in the hull in addition to the 21 rounds held by the autoloader. In an Afghanistan scenario the hull racks would likely be left empty.
Question of crew survivability after penetration and how to improve it was there at least ever since late 60s, or early 70s, based - among other things - on experience of Yom Kippur war of 1973 as it was percieved, because it was expected that WW3 would resemble something like that in intensity of fire and losses.
One could also look at M1 Abrams with its ammunition compartment and blow-off panels, - and some people did that IRL in late 80s during Bradley's survivability upgrade (A2) development. Infamous Col. Burton was involved in that, and also he - and Hunnicat , as well as some US Senate hearings and some reports - they do mention "Advanced Survivability Test Bed", a Bradley with compartmentalized ammunition and most of its fuel on the outside, and Burton said that there was s question of whether it was possible to put TOW in some compartment away from the crew too.
Another thing about Bradley, and another one reason for ASTB mentioned by Burton was that in US Army' own studies on what to expect on the battlefield agains Soviets, infantry carriers like Bradleys and M113 were expected to suffer from enemy fire of all sorts - including tank 115/125mm KE rounds, including tank CE rounds, and also all ATGMs - completelly different from an idea that tank is №1 target for another tank and in battle IFV should not worry about being targeted by enemy tanks untill enemy tanks have destroyed all friendly tanks.
So one of the reasonable questions about ERA armor for A2 Bradley (providing protection against RPGs only, IIRC) was - that it is not nearly enough against all other treats expected on battlefield of war that could be called "pece-keeping" only in very special sense. Thus one needs measures to increase crew survivability after penetration.
/added another screenshot about ASTB - from Hearings of 1987/
Zuk, I agree with you that one has to distinguish between increments in capabilities and revolutions. However you are mixing capabilties of components with vehicles; there are also increments of vehicle designs/concepts and there are new revolutionary designs/concepts, that warrants a new generation. This is why your examples are incorrect in this discussion. Yes, when comparing an APS to passive armor, it is a revolutionary advantage - just as comparing a 360° vision system to a backup sight. But these are only components that can be integrated in any IFV, regardless of generation. As a matter of fact both the Bradley and the CV9035NL (CV90 Mk III) are older models in which the Iron Fist APS will be integrated. BAE Systems also tested 360° vision systems on the CV90, simply by taping a few cameras to the outside of the vehicle, wiring them up to a computer system and then giving the driver a VR headset.
That's why you are looking at the wrong aspects, you are naming prime examples of solutions for retro-fit, i.e. suited for vehicle increments (upgraded versions of the existing design), rather than a new generation of vehicles (new design taking into account new/more concepts). Any vendor that currently is manufacturing/marketing APS is currently offering them as retro-fit options, just like there are multiple 360° vision systems (something that the Puma S1 btw. has, it is just not with a fancy AR/VR headset). In theory APS and 360° might at some point become relevant to vehicle generations, if they in any shape or form are integrated into the vehicle design to such an extend, that they cannot simply be replicated by upgrades to older designs. Current APS are not like that.
For a new generation of vehicles, you need to separate components from the vehicle to some extend; you need to look at the basic concept and also wether it is possible to replicate the solutions to the same degree in form of a retro-fit to older generation of vehicles with reasonable levels of effort. Sure the Puma has a lot of additional capabilities that could be retro-fitted (and in some cases are being retro-fitted) to legacy vehicles like third generation thermal imagers or newer armor packages, but there are the reasons why the Puma is a newer generation of IFV, which cannot necessarily be replicated on the ASCOD or CV90 designs without going back completely to the drawing board.
The Puma is the first IFV to take the advent of composite armor into account, separating structural and ballistic parts more or less completely, not just using a ballistic steel hull and adding composite modules as an afterthought. This advantage means lower weight for a given level of protection, replicating it would require to go back to making new blueprints in case of pretty much any of the other IFV currently available. A complete restart of the design. It has a decoupled running gear, all fuel tanks are placed outside of the vehicle. The ammunition is completely separated from the crew and dismount compartment, stored in separate compartments with blow-out functionality (no fragments or pressure endangers the soldiers in case of an ammo detonation). The other IFVs lack some or all of these features, which would require extensive redesigns. Another example is signature management and stealth characteristics, which played absolutely no major role when the ASCOD and CV90 were designed. Sure, some of this can be mitigated by using an external camouflage system like SAAB Barracuda MCS, but the Australian army has noted that this doesn't actually work in their enivornments, while the US Army - potentially for similar reasons - uses the Barracuda MCS only in Europe. I could go on and list other features, that I'd consider beneficial regarding placing the Puma a generation ahead of some of its competitors, but I hope the point is clear already. On the other hand, only the Lynx with its modularity seems to distinguish itself from the competition feature-wise.
Increasing/incrementing the technology and amounts of armor, optics, engine & transmission performance and firepower is also a common feature of new generations of vehicles, but of a secondary importance.
Also note that incrementing on an existing vehicle designs always leads to compromises (like the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams still using powerpacks with an output of 1,500 hp despite roughly 10 tonnes of weight growth from earliest to latest variant). When trying to upgrade an existing design, there are always numerous factors that needs to be taken into account, which limit the growth potential or the gain in performance, which is why at some time new clean sheet designs are required. How easy is it to upgrade the armor without adding ballistic holes? Does reaching the desired level of blast/IED protecting require massive drawbacks in regards to mobility? How much will the weight increase, given that most effective weight-saving measures would require going back to the drawing board.
In the end a vehicle is not defined by single parts, but by the sum of its features. That some of the new features that were first investigated or introduced with the Puma's prototypes into IFV design have been incorporated into older designs form other vendors doesn't lead to parity. Take the Leopard 1A6 for example: it has got a 120 mm smoothbore gun, a digitial FCS with thermal imager and laser rangefinder, aswell as thick composite armor. Is the Leopard 1A6 a tank from the same generation as the Leopard 2? No. It is an increment of the Leopard 1 design, even though it added new features, that were seen as revolutionary advantages of third generation MBTs, it remained an upgraded (or an increment of) a second generation MBT. Even despite all the upgrades - and even with further upgrades - the Leopard 1A6 never could reach the same level of performance.
He didn't invent these "almost official list of generations", they were already a topic in academic circles (mostly military historian) before; he just was the first to publish a book on them. If you read the book, you'd see that your analogy actually favors the Puma, as the other IFVs would be considered as belonging to an intermediate generation (being based on increments of existing vehicle designs rather than being new vehicle designs). That the Puma also incorporates most of your technical leaps in one way or the other also speaks for it.
The US likely could reuse the old concept offered as part of the GCV program with a lengthened hull, raised roof and GVW of up to 50 metric tons. I'd love to see Germany also picking up this variant for the next batch (250 vehicles planned), as there certainly isn't a need for every Puma to be air-deployable.
I disagree with your opinions; while the Puma still has some teething issues (that apparently are rather common with modern equipment) and didn't turn out to be perfect due to mismanaged (mainly on the government's side of things - instead of paying more than billion for external consultants, the money could have been used to fix some of the Puma's current issues), it still is the only true next generation IFV design in the Western world. It has the highest protection level among Western IFVs - aside of the twenty metric tons heavier Namer -, it is made using more efficient manufacturing techniques, has been designed with new design aspects and technologies in mind and still serves as benchmark compared to more modern IFV (upgraded old generation vehicles).
While I líke the CV90 and Lynx, their ancestry in the last generation of vehicles is undeniable, specifically in case of the Lynx KF31. Even the CV90 Mk IV and Lynx KF41 still retain more old design concepts than they introduce new ones. The US Army can choose to buy one of them (or the Ajax), they'd still get a very capable vehicle. But pretending that the Puma offers no advantages over the current versions of them isn't really true. The high costs of the Puma are its Achilles' heel, but if the Czech Republic and Hungary really opt for it (even though it is questionable), it could become a lot cheaper.
German and U.S. military officials had planned, then canceled, a demonstration this week of the Bundeswehr’s Puma infantry fighting vehicle, as the U.S. Army surveys candidates for its Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program. A German Army spokesman confirmed that an event had been scheduled at the Munster tank-training area for Jeffrey White, a deputy to U.S. Army acquisition chief Bruce Jette. White ended up canceling because of a scheduling conflict, the spokesman told Defense News.
The Carmel program seeks to create a family of vehicles by 2027.
Much like the NGCV, the star of the program is an IFV, because it is the most prone to doctrinal changes and thus required to be the most adaptive combat vehicle type.
And again similar to the NGCV, a tank development program is included there.
And I should clarify again that Carmel is a program for technology demonstration and cockpit concept design. It ends in 2019.
The full program is named Kaliyah (bullet). It stands for Future Ground Combat Group.
The ATK 50mm gun as shown in the Griffin demonstrator would be a more promising fit for the Carmel even if it means slightly lenghting the turret to accomodate the bigger ammos. The Carmel deserves a next-gen gun.
Clan_Ghost_Bear reacted to Collimatrix in The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
Clan_Ghost_Bear got a reaction from skylancer-3441 in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
Clan_Ghost_Bear got a reaction from Xlucine in The UK Brave Space For Shitposting and Other Opinions Thread
