The Future is SLOPES

Tanks are going to be obsolete in about 20 years

>tanks were obsolete 20 years ago
>tanks are obsolete
>tanks are going to be obsolete in 20 years
god, you faggots just don't learn.

Not that user, and forgive me if I am wrong but wouldn't a versatile platform like the Armata including a self-propelled gun platform similar to a tank, but not an actual tank per-se be more effective than a separate tank design itself, continually updated and trying to fulfil multiple roles as a MBT?

>but wouldn't a versatile platform like the Armata including a self-propelled gun platform similar to a tank, but not an actual tank per-se be more effective than a separate tank design itself, continually updated and trying to fulfil multiple roles as a MBT?
Can you rephraseificate this into english please?

I'm saying would a versatile platform with MANY SPECIFIC roles including a SPG that can be armoured, but not a tank at the same time, be better than a SINGLE design (i.e a tank) trying to do multiple roles? (because it is an MBT)

Current warfare does not see tanks as the most efficient option. Considering most major powers can operate air power unabated. Mobile strike platforms such as the Stryker MGS, or the AMX 10 and other similar MGS platforms fare better. HOWEVER, warfare is constantly changing and tanks could very well become a spear head again. Saying they're obsolete is ignorant. MBTs can still provide valuable protection and fire support for ground teams, as well as defending key positions on the battlefield. ATGMs always pose a threat, but could very well be defeated by vigilant crews, APS, and enhanced optics.

Also you should define the roles you think a tank already fulfills, and what it should fulfill.

I think you're confusing the purpose behind modularity.
The Armata is (as far as Russia tells us) a modular system, which is smart; Russia operates four different basic models of MBT (not including the T-14), each with a significant number of parts that are not interchangeable with each other, or other types of vehicles. The T-64 and T-80 can't share roadwheels. The T-72 and BMP-3 use different engines, etc... The Armata family allows you to have your MBT, IFV, and any other system developed off of it to share numerous components, thus simplifying logistical operations for a nation that, all things considered, could really benefit from keeping that sort of thing as basic as possible.
The point is that systems like the Armata are not designed to replace MBTs or really any other type of AFV with a vehicle that can "do it all". In fact, it's quite the opposite; it's to make it easier to field that full fleet of vehicles without needing to worry about your supply train having to carry twenty different types of the same component for each different vehicle.

Well tanks certainly did undergo evolution various times since its inception - a proof of the changing times, but the purpose wouldn't change much; a spearhead tool that leads the charge.

Perhaps that could be supplanted by heavily armoured APC's moving in with direct support from SPGs behind, as well as indirect artillery and air support? A tank costing an exorbitant amount of cash to have armour, speed, firepower combined can be redundant when you can have multiple vehicles of the same platform that can possess 1 or 2 of these criteria working in tandem.

So the Armata is more as a supplement than a supplant? also what parallels can you draw from this to the attempted Eintwicklung series that the Nazis attempted?

cont.
Make no mistake; tanks aren't perfect. There exist weapons on the modern battlefield that are arguably more effective against an enemy tank than a direct-fire tank gun. There are weapons that can put bigger holes in walls, engage infantry more efficiently, and move faster. However, the tank has two big things going for it; It can take a bigger punch than just about anything that isn't a ship, and it can do all of those things above at once.No other weapon can follow or lead infantry into battle, race to the front line, blow a hole in a bunker, take a shot from enemy soldiers, survive with just a scratch, then kill those soldiers and the tank that they brought onto the battlefield. Will every tank need to be able to do all of these things in every engagement? Of course not. There's half a chance that no tank manufactured in the US in the next few decades will ever have to fire on an enemy tank. But if the poor bloody infantry ever winds up facing down modern enemy armor, or a fortified position, a large group of infantry, or really anything else, there's a good chance that whatever they carried with them into battle won't be able to do the job, and waiting for air support won't be an option; it's good to know you have a big gun at your back to deal with those kinds of issues.
Tanks are, by virtue, multipurpose weapons. Their worth is not simply in the thickness of their armor or the size of their guns. The belief that a tank can be used with only one of these factors in mind is the reason why tanks are killed, hence the negative views on them.

That's more or less the idea. Again, because of really quite common Soviet bureaucratic bullshit, the Soviet Union collapsed while operating the T-64, T-72, and T-80, all of which are really quite different tanks when it comes to their individual components. The T-90 was supposed to remedy this, replacing at least the T-64 and T-72 in service, but the collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent financial woes meant that production could never meet the numbers required to totally replace so many tanks. By the time the money started flowing back into tank development, the T-90 was showing it's age, and the decision had to be made between further modernizing what was essentially a modernized T-72, or start something completely new. In classic Russian fashion, they decided to go with both, resulting in a new series of T-90 upgrades, and the Armata family. Ironically, further financial issues have basically resulted in the Armata, or at the very least the T-14, being in the same position as the T-90; ie, the Russian army will likely never be able to afford enough T-14s to wholly replace any one model of older tank. This means that either the Russian Army will be operating five different MBTs, or will be seeing a sizable cut in overall active MBT numbers.

>SPG that can be armoured, but not a tank at the same time
The role of an Indirect fire weapon is completely different from that of a tank, so no.
>be better than a SINGLE design (i.e a tank) trying to do multiple roles? (because it is an MBT)
What are these multiple roles that the MBT is trying to fill?

Attached: AFAS-C_1.jpg (952x566, 201K)

Not that user. Actually this user:
but MBTs are, by definition, multipurpose vehicles. While certain tanks may excel more at one thing or another, MBTs are useful for tasks such as killing enemy armor, infantry support, reconnaissance (or at least some early MBTs were), etc. Really anything a medium or heavy tank might traditionally be tasked with.

Some terrain like in south east asian countries with low infrastructures and high density in suburban area need tanks under 40 t like this one for better mobility and capable providing indirect fire role.

Attached: SfD_GDnw66snNWEJR1FUjxx2FKUcQ9yVpVPS-ib2S70.jpg (960x641, 129K)

This is true. Light tanks do still have a place on the modern battlefield, but they are more situational. The US Army is currently looking into them for (I believe) use as airlift capable fire support assets to supplament both the Abrams and Stryker MGS.
There is no such thing as a "best tank in the world", but there is a "best tank for X nation", and that tank might not always be some 70 ton indestructible death machine. The Merkava offers the IDF better overall survivability with the capability to replenish ammunition under fire, and evacuate fellow tank crews from combat areas if need be. The Type 10 allows the JGDF to make the most of Japan's mountainous terrain. So on and so on. By this virtue, the best tank for a nation may not be an MBT by the standard definition, although there is a good chance that said nation will be effectively employing them as MBTs.

Attached: General Dynamics Griffin.jpg (1280x720, 139K)

you know that tanks can and do participate in indirect fire, yes?

tank is inclusive of SPG

>tank is inclusive of SPG
This is objectively false. While, historically, tanks have been used to provide indirect fire, I'm reasonably sure that no nation, or at least no nation after World War II, has ever referred to one of their tanks as a self propelled gun, or vice versa.

You're right, I phrased that poorly. All (or virtually all) tanks can be used in the role of an SPG. Certain SPGs often assumed the role of ersatz tanks, as well.

>Ironically, further financial issues have basically resulted in the Armata, or at the very least the T-14, being in the same position as the T-90; ie, the Russian army will likely never be able to afford enough T-14s to wholly replace any one model of older tank. This means that either the Russian Army will be operating five different MBTs, or will be seeing a sizable cut in overall active MBT numbers.
They have somewhat cut the number of active MBTs to 2,300, but the reintroduction of new tank armies should bloat that even further (a tank guards army has more than a thousand tanks). They never plan for the Armatas to form the backbone of the army, as not every possible opponent warrants such a capability and for those there is the much cheaper Kurganets, and Bumerang. They are also apparently going for a brigade per year procurement which is pretty modest but does make it more manageable to update the technologies of the fleet.

Perhaps in the past, yes, and many modern artillery units do train to provide direct fire support. In practice, however, providing indirect fire support does not make you an spg, and providing direct fire support does not make you a tank. An M109 or 2S1 providing direct fire support would be more akin to an assault gun, and in fact would be functionally useless in the role of a proper tank. Likewise, while modern MBTs can fire munitions besides the standard line-of-sight rounds (such as LAHAT, XM1111 and KSTAM), these munitions are not designed for bombardment, and do not extend the tank's reach out to ranges comparable to modern artillery (with the exception of the MRM)
The thing to understand about modern tanks, and MBTs in general, is that their role is, first and foremost, direct fire support. Tanks have had all manner of different approaches and combinations of light and heavy armor, engines, suspension systems, etc. Every nation has it's own idea about what makes a good tank, because the reality of it is that there is no universal answer. However, we do see a standardization and constant improvement in the overall lethality of tanks across the board; with very, very few exceptions, militaries do not retrograde the firepower of their armor. Hard hitting, high velocity guns designed to fire rounds at a flat trajectory, yet at a size manageable enough to ensure a reasonable rate of fire and consistent accuracy. In terms of comparing modern tank guns to modern howitzers, these factors are simply not compatible. In short; one, or the other.

I don't want to get into a chauvinistic shit-slinging argument here. The T-14 is an impressive system on paper, but the fact is we've seen Russia do this before in terms of projected production numbers. Fair enough, the Russian Air Force doesn't get the same money that the army does, and thus the Su-57 failure was a foregone conclusion, but the Su-57 had the benefit of foreign backing for at least part of it's development. Russia cannot afford to procure any meaningful number of T-14s, let alone field them, without an export market, and an export market means putting a lot of very expensive technology into places where western powers will fairly easily be able to get their hands on one; something the Soviets were keen to avoid with the T-64, thus helping add to it's status as some sort of mystical super-tank for much of the Cold War.
Of course, I never meant to imply that the Russians really needed the T-14; it's an impressive showpiece to parade in front of a guy like Putin, but at the end of the day any conflict Russian tanks are involved in will be fought by T-80s and T-72/90s. It's incredible potential combat capability is a major propaganda device, and one that I honestly doubt it could live up to. I would predict it being used to defend "vulnerable", high visibility targets, like major cities; places where the population can see them guarding the city gates, but where the tanks will never see the enemy. Preserving this mystique is a major part of how both the US and Russia go about this sort of thing.

Why the fuck do manufacturer's insist on using a tall-as-fuck IFV hull as base for their light/medium tanks, with a front mounted engine even?

>This is true. Light tanks do still have a place on the modern battlefield, but they are more situational.
Light AFVs are the only way an airborne force can be possible. Instead of dropping airborne troopers right above enemy heads, after braving enemy air defences, you can just drop them 200-300 km away from prepared defences and drive to the enemy's rear.

>The Merkava offers the IDF better overall survivability with the capability to replenish ammunition under fire,
Regarding survivability the Merkava series is actually much worse off than equivalent designs from both sides of the cold war divide. Why? Simply because of the front mounted engine. It makes the front hull much larger than necessary, thus you need more armor, but it eats up much of the internal volume required by bulky composites as well. As a result it has the thinnest LFP of any modern tank (the glacis is another story), but if you're fighting hull down this isn't an issue. It also has a lot of "wasted" internal space (the crawl spaces to the driver and to the rear door for example). Something like close to double the internal space of the T-72/80/90 tanks, but it doesn't have nearly as much as double the actual armor weight which means cuts in protection in some places have to be made despite weighing as much as the uparmoured variants of modern Western MBTs for the base model.

Its simply a matter of priorities, and actual technology readiness. No matter how much money you can throw some things can't be speed up, and that goes for the development processes for much of the Russian next gen equipment. In truth its not money as much as development taking much longer than ever before (same pattern all around). The S-400 for example, took close to 15 years before serial orders were made. Its simply too early to say that systems would never be bought in numbers when development has not even been finished. Heck, there's a laundry list of crap they have to finish before the T-14 rolls out: the engine (derated to 1200 hp instead of the required 1500 or even 1800 hp because of materials), the gun (from 15 years ago) and ammo (Vacuum ammo is 2005 crap), and even the BMS doesn't work.

>but the Su-57 had the benefit of foreign backing for at least part of it's development.
It didn't. I've read of $100 million pledged by the Indians, but I've also never heard of that money being released to the Russians, nor would that amount be sufficient.

>Russia cannot afford to procure any meaningful number of T-14s, let alone field them, without an export market, and an export market means putting a lot of very expensive technology into places where western powers will fairly easily be able to get their hands on one; something the Soviets were keen to avoid with the T-64, thus helping add to it's status as some sort of mystical super-tank for much of the Cold War.
Development is fully funded without an export partner. Again, we just have to wait and see. If by 2025, both Su-57 and T-14 would have completed much of the development and they're still not ordered then we can say for certain the Russians can't afford them.

>Of course, I never meant to imply that the Russians really needed the T-14; it's an impressive showpiece to parade in front of a guy like Putin, but at the end of the day any conflict Russian tanks are involved in will be fought by T-80s and T-72/90s. It's incredible potential combat capability is a major propaganda device, and one that I honestly doubt it could live up to. I would predict it being used to defend "vulnerable", high visibility targets, like major cities; places where the population can see them guarding the city gates, but where the tanks will never see the enemy. Preserving this mystique is a major part of how both the US and Russia go about this sort of thing.
What would Putin know of the particulars of military equipment? The guy is a lawyer by education and a politician by trade. He doesn't have much of an opinion on military technological matters outside of those prepared for him by his advisors. No, the need to replenish the armor base is there: T-80s/90s would still be more than 40, and 30 years old respectively, and the backbone T-72 is more than 50 years old by now. Upgrades can only do so much and eventually the resources of these machines would run out. Someone has to order new machines to replace the old ones eventually.

Mounting the engine at the front of an IFV or APC is common, as it allows for the installation of a rear ramp. Most of these vehicles aren't that much taller than modern western MBTs, however their boxier dimensions makes them appear so. Keep in mind that the GDLS Griffin is 10 feet shorter (in length) than an M1, and only two feet taller. Taller, yes, but but I'd hardly say "tall as fuck"

>Light AFVs are the only way an airborne force can be possible. Instead of dropping airborne troopers right above enemy heads, after braving enemy air defences, you can just drop them 200-300 km away from prepared defences and drive to the enemy's rear.
I mean, this is true, but they're still situational. To have that requirement, you're looking at an army that has the capability to mount an armor airlift, but doesn't have the lift capability to just fly in proper MBTs; if the US has a secure airfield 200-300km away we'll just fly in some Abrams on C-17s; we're really good at that sort of thing. Airborne in the tank sense is now really a matter of "airdroppable" as opposed to simply "airtransportable". The US can transport any tank by aircraft, but we can't drop an Abrams out the back of a cargo plane. Well, at least not if you want it to be operable after landing.

Regarding the Merkava; remember that it is, by design, a defensive vehicle. Israel learned after fighting in the Sinai and Golan Heights they needed a tank that could not only take a hit better than the Centurion and M60 (M48? One of the two), but also better protect crews in the event that the armor is penetrated. Remember that Israel has very limited numbers of troops available by nature of being such a small nation; they would rather write a tank off and save the crew. This is why you have a tank which was, to begin with, heavier than it's western counterparts, but continues to receive armor upgrades. Also keep in mind that, during it's development, the "engine placement adding to effective armor" was being considered against shaped charge rounds, not necessarily KEPs. I don't think anyone would try to tell you that it will stop a 125mm long-rod penetrator from punching into the crew compartment, but it will certainly help stop a shot from and RPG-7 or heavier, crew-operated ATGM.

Some good point here. I was not actually aware that the Russians never received money from India on the Su-57.
I'm going to stick by my initial claim, as dogmatic as it may be; Russia has a history of jumping into massively complex arms development programs, only for them to either fail to materialize, or result in massive delays and cost overruns. I agree that a large part of this is a matter of putting the cart before the horse, technologically speaking; again, there are a lot of parallels to the T-64's development here; engine issues, gun issues, optics issues, armor issues, etc. The difference being that, unlike with the T-64, Russia lacks the money and resources to throw at new, competitive tank designs. There cannot possibly be a T-72 and T-80 to the Armata's T-64, and if there is, it would either be the demise of the T-14 as a whole, or another gigantic development and procurement clusterfuck; if there is one thing I can say with certainty, it's that Russia is simply not capable of supporting an army of multiple models of both Generation 3 and Generation 4 MBTs.

As for Putin, I only bring him up in a publicly political sense; yes, he has no real power to pick and choose which tanks he likes the best to go do Russian tank things. Hitler taught us all how really stupid that is. Still, it helps to have his approval; to have him smile proudly from his little seat as the tanks roll through Red Square for the Victory Day parade. It's entirely symbolic, yes, but the fact is that, as of right now, so is the Armata.

Going to be getting to bed now; hopefully this thread is still here tomorrow. I can't remember the last time I got to talk armor on this board without it degrading into infuriating chauvinistic name-calling. Regardless of views and opinions, I thank you all for the pleasant evening of discussion.

Attached: 1522775384866.jpg (400x250, 22K)

What could be.

Attached: anders.jpg (2876x2155, 3.47M)

>I'm going to stick by my initial claim, as dogmatic as it may be; Russia has a history of jumping into massively complex arms development programs, only for them to either fail to materialize, or result in massive delays and cost overruns.
That's the nature of modern military equipment development. Expect delays and overruns all around since products are a whole lot more complex.

> I agree that a large part of this is a matter of putting the cart before the horse, technologically speaking; again, there are a lot of parallels to the T-64's development here; engine issues, gun issues, optics issues, armor issues, etc. The difference being that, unlike with the T-64, Russia lacks the money and resources to throw at new, competitive tank designs.
That the Russians (as the Soviets) had to waste so much resources in procuring their tanks doesn't necessarily mean the Russians now would have to do so. For starters the Russian MIC is a much more lean, and subservient beast than the Soviet MIC ever was. The Soviets had 4 (UVZ,KMDB,LKZ,Omsk) with each possessing enough clout with geriatric defence ministers to buy their tanks in indefinite contracts. Said entities also were able to force their products on the customer like the original T-72 (was better than the T-64 in every way, still can't deviate from the fact that it was an original factory initiative). Now the situation can't be any more farther. You only have what, UVZ and the two other plants reduced to tank repair plants with some minor contractual work on UVZs projects. In fact UVZ was even consolidated by Rostec into a firm alongside the Kurganmashonvod, and whoever builds the BTR series. The result is a more rational allocation of resources and less on duplication and wastage and even better economies of scale and sharing of expertise. Means cheaper and yet better products as a whole. Something the Soviets would have been green with envy with despite having mountains of cash to dump on their military.

>There cannot possibly be a T-72 and T-80 to the Armata's T-64, and if there is, it would either be the demise of the T-14 as a whole, or another gigantic development and procurement clusterfuck; if there is one thing I can say with certainty, it's that Russia is simply not capable of supporting an army of multiple models of both Generation 3 and Generation 4 MBTs.
Why? 3rd gens MBTs are pretty much "paid for", and about the only cost is kapremont (capital repairs) and upgrades. They aren't buying any new 3rd gen builds with the exception of maybe the T-90AM and even then that remains to be seen. In fact, the entire reason why they are even buying the T-72B3 and T-80BVM, T-90AM upgrades for the fleet is to save money for the T-14's development and production while getting the tankers used to operating more or less modern tanks than antiquated Soviet ones. There's a huge gap with what they want to do with tanks versus what the old unupgraded tanks can only allow them to do. Things like night fighting or hunter-killer teams for example. The plan is, buy these cheap tanks, expand the armor fleet and get the tankers used to modern tankery, while cascading the next gen vehicles in. It might be delayed by a couple years, but at least they have a definite roadmap, instead of sabotaging their capabilities by not upgrading current equipment and waiting for a product to finish up.

>As for Putin, I only bring him up in a publicly political sense; yes, he has no real power to pick and choose which tanks he likes the best to go do Russian tank things. Hitler taught us all how really stupid that is. Still, it helps to have his approval; to have him smile proudly from his little seat as the tanks roll through Red Square for the Victory Day parade. It's entirely symbolic, yes, but the fact is that, as of right now, so is the Armata.
Isn't that just the botox?

>Mounting the engine at the front of an IFV or APC is common, as it allows for the installation of a rear ramp. Most of these vehicles aren't that much taller than modern western MBTs, however their boxier dimensions makes them appear so. Keep in mind that the GDLS Griffin is 10 feet shorter (in length) than an M1, and only two feet taller. Taller, yes, but but I'd hardly say "tall as fuck"
But a rear ramp is only necessary for carrying dismounts. A tank would better served by a more rational frontal hull armor and rear engine. How much more would it even cost to reshape the hull compared to development costs as a whole?

>I mean, this is true, but they're still situational. To have that requirement, you're looking at an army that has the capability to mount an armor airlift, but doesn't have the lift capability to just fly in proper MBTs; if the US has a secure airfield 200-300km away we'll just fly in some Abrams on C-17s; we're really good at that sort of thing. Airborne in the tank sense is now really a matter of "airdroppable" as opposed to simply "airtransportable". The US can transport any tank by aircraft, but we can't drop an Abrams out the back of a cargo plane. Well, at least not if you want it to be operable after landing.
Lots of armies have that gap. Not every one has an aircraft capable of lifting even the lighter Russian tanks, much less 60 ton beasts like the Abrams. Most however have something like the C-130 in numbers which is what these light AFVs are catering to.

>Regarding the Merkava; remember that it is, by design, a defensive vehicle.
Actually, while the Merkava is indeed designed as a primarily defensive vehicle; in fact its practically tailor-made for the Golan front, in actuality its used far more offensively than its designers would have originally envisioned. In which case its poor mobility is constraining the tank a lot. For example, for a conflict in Lebanon, which has roads carved into gulleys the higher than optimal COG of the Merkava is a massive issue. The inability of Merks to recover each other is also a vulnerability as its inability to use the crappy bridges in that part of the world.

>Israel learned after fighting in the Sinai and Golan Heights they needed a tank that could not only take a hit better than the Centurion and M60 (M48? One of the two), but also better protect crews in the event that the armor is penetrated.
The frontal engine is not their first choice. Gen. Tal was even inquiring about British Composite armour technology but the Brits refused.

>This is why you have a tank which was, to begin with, heavier than it's western counterparts, but continues to receive armor upgrades.
Its heavier, but it doesn't necessarily mean its better protected. A clue is in ERA. Heavy ERA in particular, requires a minimum armour thickness otherwise it would just destroy the armor where its attached to. Up to now there isn't an ERA package developed for the Merks, despite it being used on their other tanks. In fact the Israelis use NERA, but their implementation is much lighter and less robust than what the West and the Russians use. Instead of enclosing the armour package within a steel box, its exposed. Certainly makes it easier to repair, but also makes the whole package more susceptible to battle damage.

The one i posted get the engine on the back from modified Kaplan IFV, it has mine resistant protection, thats why the hull is so high furthermore

huh, it does have a rear engine. As for mine protection, I don't think raising the hull is going to be very effective versus just welding a belly plate underneath the hull. Its heavy, but it gets the job done against multi-hundred kilo buried IEDs, unless its a shaped charge.

>Light AFVs are the only way an airborne force can be possible. Instead of dropping airborne troopers right above enemy heads, after braving enemy air defences, you can just drop them 200-300 km away from prepared defences and drive to the enemy's rear.

You usually drop paras where there is no enemy or friendly units nearby in order to capture vital objects.

Attached: f4c2y65sn6c21.jpg (1024x683, 92K)

Attached: mb64tiegczb21.jpg (772x436, 253K)

>The Future is SLOPES
fucking racist. the term is orientals

I don't like the moder permutation of Leopard 2 that have that peculiar slope configurations that creates traps for the incoming shells between the turret and the manlet.

I believe the ideal design is either the Russian approach or the kind of design we see in Ariete or the Challenger 2(even if this one is not so extreme with the turret slope) where there is little to no gap between the slooping of the turret and the slooping of the manlet.

Attached: ariete5.jpg (620x342, 43K)

>that creates traps for the incoming shells between the turret and the manlet
Not how modern antiarmor munitions work
>we see in Ariete or the Challenger 2
These are the two worst western tanks.

The Ariete just never went through the process of upgrades and mass scale production, but I am quite sure it is far better than the base version of the Leopard 2 that went in production in 1979(but this is not the center of the discussion, so let's avoid it)

I don't see how having a bigger gap and a cone shaped turret, would be better than having a single slope with a smaller gap, feel free to explain this in detail.
I don't know why you dislike the Challenger 2, beside it being a bigger tank(still not the center of the discussion)

>The Future is SLOPES

Nope, FLAT is justice.

Attached: 22829217_232108093989091_3263206452109449820_o-min.jpg (2008x1127, 117K)

...

Is that a fucking m60?

>Why the fuck do manufacturer's insist on using a tall-as-fuck IFV hull as base for their light/medium tanks, with a front mounted engine even?
Cheap/Also helps with gun depression and gun elevation, the Swedes recently built a 105mm prototype of the CV90 chassis with 24 degrees of gun elevation/Its actually quie neat

Try to see what happened to the Centauro in Russia during the trial (spoiler it got stuck in the mud) tracks is the only solution beside a iraq like desert, a war in Europe(the idea of the centauro was to rush across the Italian road network in case of a Yugoslavian invasion).

I hope she wins MPF.

Attached: M8 AGS.jpg (752x423, 89K)

link to mudsticking?

>BAE's reheated leftovers from 20 years ago
No thanks, I'll take my quality GDLS products