Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Tank Layout


Collimatrix
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

@McRocket

You better town down your arrogant behavior or you will be ejected from this forum.

LOL...and that is a bad thing how exactly?

 

I will say what I want, when I want.

If that gets me banned?

So be it.

Again - wouldn't be the first time.

I cannot stand boards that cannot handle free speech.

 

 

And I am not being arrogant.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/arrogant

 

For you to say that accurately?

You would have to know my feelings on the subject.

You do not - so you cannot accurately determine if I am being arrogant.

 

I suggest you learn what words mean before you use them.

Just sayin'...

 

Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to be a pedant? Ok...

giphy.gif

 

1 hour ago, McRocket said:

If you have a link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF - not opinions or guesses - but FACTUAL PROOF about how horrible the Armata is?

 

Then please post it or stop wasting my time with your 'theories and opinions'.

 

If your next post to me does not include a link to HARD DATA from UNBIASED SOURCES to back up your position?

Then I will not stop wasting my time with you on this subject as you are offering me NOTHING of substance but the rambling's of a faceless, nameless nobody on a chat forum.

 

What, like you did? That forum you linked here didn't contain any factual sources or data, either; merely a bunch of pictures and people arguing what those pictures could mean / show. There was absolutely nothing you posted to support what you're spouting. YOU are the one who is lacking substance in your arguments, if I may even call them that: they have all the factual support of your typical Twitter post, complete with a rambling, imbecilic, sociopathic zealot who believes they know everything about what they're talking about, and attacks anyone who says otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, McRocket said:

And you are guessing why tanks are still built as they are. You just assume - clearly. You do not take into account inertia, pride, greed, profit, ignorance, etc.

 To assume anything about something you have no direct connection to, without facts to back it up, is, IMO, simplistic, ignorant and arrogant. 

And a waste of time.

 

Projecting, much? 

 

1 hour ago, McRocket said:

I said 'I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this.'

'This' meaning discussions about armor.

Not on everything.

 

If you are going to quote me...please use the entire quote...not just the parts you feel like.

 

 

Again...this is exactly my point.

All you are doing is spewing forth opinions. And you are not even posting links.

They mean NOTHING.

Just as my opinions should mean NOTHING to you on this.

 

What I quoted was synonymous with your original statement: the words I omitted did not affect the meaning or interpretation of your sentence. This is common practice, not that you would know. 

 

And again: If you don't care what we (people on chat forums) think about armor, why are you getting so heated and vehement about a particular ARMOR and it's effectiveness? Why are you so aggressive when someone doesn't agree with you, if you don't care? WHY DOES SOMETHING THAT, BY YOUR OWN WORDS YOU "DON'T EVEN BEGIN TO CARE" ABOUT, AFFECT YOUR EMOTIONS?

 

Now I'm no expert, but I know shit when I see it... and I cant help but see a whole lot of shit whenever you make a post. So how about you take your mouth off your moms tits, stop throwing a tantrum, and join us adults at the adult table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Korvette said:

Nobody said you can't say anything though...

 

LOL you don't understand! You're all oppressing me! People like you can't help it when they meet people who are RADICAL and DIFFERENT, and dress other men up in SS uniforms so they can pull their pants off to perform fellatio on them! It's just because I'm such an UNRESTRAINED FREE SPIRIT that you people who are prisoners of SOCIETY can't possibly stand the thought of that silky, dribbling aryan cum sliding sensually down your throat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McRocket said:

I like it in my butt butt butt and I'm like what what what 

you gonna say say say cuz I like what what what stick it in my

butt butt butt

No idea how this guy got hold of my profile?

What kind of security goes on around here?

 

This is NOT - for lack of a better term - me. I am a proud gay man, Nazi fellator, and sub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, McRocket said:

 

LOL you don't understand! You're all oppressing me! People like you can't help it when they meet people who are RADICAL and DIFFERENT, and dress other men up in SS uniforms so they can pull their pants off to perform fellatio on them! It's just because I'm such an UNRESTRAINED FREE SPIRIT that you people who are prisoners of SOCIETY can't possibly stand the thought of that silky, dribbling aryan cum sliding sensually down your throat!

Not McRocket.

AN imposter. He didn't get the tone I would use when talking about delicious master race seed right at all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, McRocket said:

 

every day is a good day when you CRAVE TASTY NAZI COCK!

 

you just don't understand free speech is the problem!

Not McRocket. I would never use the word "crave" to talk about my love of hot pale dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

You want to be a pedant? Ok...

giphy.gif

 

 

What, like you did? That forum you linked here didn't contain any factual sources or data, either; merely a bunch of pictures and people arguing what those pictures could mean / show. There was absolutely nothing you posted to support what you're spouting. YOU are the one who is lacking substance in your arguments, if I may even call them that: they have all the factual support of your typical Twitter post, complete with a rambling, imbecilic, sociopathic zealot who believes they know everything about what they're talking about, and attacks anyone who says otherwise.

 

 

Projecting, much? 

 

 

What I quoted was synonymous with your original statement: the words I omitted did not affect the meaning or interpretation of your sentence. This is common practice, not that you would know. 

 

And again: If you don't care what we (people on chat forums) think about armor, why are you getting so heated and vehement about a particular ARMOR and it's effectiveness? Why are you so aggressive when someone doesn't agree with you, if you don't care? WHY DOES SOMETHING THAT, BY YOUR OWN WORDS YOU "DON'T EVEN BEGIN TO CARE" ABOUT, AFFECT YOUR EMOTIONS?

 

Now I'm no expert, but I know shit when I see it... and I cant help but see a whole lot of shit whenever you make a post. So how about you take your mouth off your moms tits, stop throwing a tantrum, and join us adults at the adult table. 

Hey pal.

All I ever said - to start - was that I love big nazi cock.

Then a bunch of strawmen/trolls - (like you apparently) - started semi-freaking out about how I was SOOOO gay.

Why they/you care SO much?

I do not know.

 

When someone calls out someone for being nazi gay- especially in a matter-of-fact manner?

It is their responsibility to prove they are straight, and not a nazi.

That falls under the 'well duh' category.

 

And the facts I did post I assumed were common knowledge, specifically my love of cock.

But, okay...I will post links to all the facts I have stated so far today:

 

(since these should be common knowledge - I just grabbed my recent searches)

 

big white cocks

 

big white cocks gay asshole buttsex

 

gaping white asshole

 

 

Now, since you clearly are NOT going to post any links to backup your claims of straightness.

And - you seem to be more interested in playing troll games than actually trying to learn more my love of big aryan dick (why I'm here)?

 

We are done here.


Have a nice day.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, McRocket said:

 

 

That's fine...but I am just curious how you did it?

Seriously?

Is this common around here?

Common? No. Its mostly un needed. It might even stop if you can, maybe, just maybe, chill out a bit and stop being a lover of Nazi cock. Or... engage with people in a constructive manner. Le shrug. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you really want to understand tank design, and why some choices are made.... check out the tank design competition.  It will, if you read through it, along with a lot of the supporting documents in that and the other competition threads actually enlighten you a great deal about tank design and functionality.  Form follows function,  in general.  And if it doesn't match up with other forms to meet similar criteria it probably means there are compromises or hidden criteria. Take the time to learn, and maybe ask some deeper,  interesting and semi intelligent questions and you might be pleasantly surprised.  Or don't.  We dont really care

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By kvnovasco
      ...actually nevermind i found this amazing site https://www.cybermodeler.com/armor/t-72/t-72_all.shtml  and it has LOADS of pics and i'm happy...still how do you find high res images of tanks online ?
      i looked and looked but rarely found any,it can't be possible that people didn't take millions of 6000x4000 pics of tanks...right?
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only
      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII
      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California
      Anno Domini 2250
      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank
       
      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.
       
       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:
      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank
      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.
      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM
      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.
      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.
      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.
      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.
      F.      IEDs
      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.
      2.      General guidelines:
      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.
      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.
      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.
      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.
      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.
      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:
      a.      Vehicle recoverability.
      b.      Continued fightability.
      c.       Crew survival.
      E.      Permissible weights:
      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.
      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.
      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.
      F.      Overall dimensions:
      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.
      b.      Width- 4m transport width.
                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.
                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.
      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.
      G.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure
      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.
                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.
                                                                   v.     Fused silica
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.
                                                                  vi.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.82g/cm^3.
                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               viii.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  ix.     ERA-light
      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  xi.     NERA-light
      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)
                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited
      3.      Operational Requirements.
      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.
      4.      Submission protocols.
      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
      Addendum 1 - more armor details
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By N-L-M
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name

      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here)



      Table of basic statistics:

      Parameter

      Value

      Mass, combat


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      Estimated Speed


       
      Estimated range


       
      Crew, number (roles)


       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       

       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

      3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

      4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

      6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

      Survivability:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

      Firepower:

      A.    Weapons:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Main Weapon-

      a.      Type

      b.      Caliber

      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

      e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

      f.      Neat features.

      3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

      4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

      B.    Optics:

      1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

      C.    FCS:

      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

      2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

      Fightability:

      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

      Additonal Features:

      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

      Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...