Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3516
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 12 Nov 2009 16:54

rohitvats wrote:That increase in BMP-II production is likely to be in line with news of raising of new Mechanized Regiment Units and conversion of more Infantry Divisions to RAPID modification.


Rohit are these fresh raising or conversion of Infantry Bns to mechanized role? AFAIK the only new raising are the two new mountain divisions?

Btw here's a pic of new build BMP-II at OFB Medak. Ambulance version behind it:

Image

SARATH, a combat vehicle is displayed during an exhibition to mark the 25th anniversary celebrations of the Indian Ordnance Factory (IOF) at Medak 50 kilometers (31 miles) from Hyderabad, India, Sunday, July 19, 2009. The IOF run by the government of India produces battle field equipments for the Indian military. (AP Photo/Mahesh Kumar A.)

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Brando » 12 Nov 2009 17:28

Aditya G wrote:
SARATH, a combat vehicle is displayed during an exhibition to mark the 25th anniversary celebrations of the Indian Ordnance Factory (IOF) at Medak 50 kilometers (31 miles) from Hyderabad, India, Sunday, July 19, 2009. The IOF run by the government of India produces battle field equipments for the Indian military. (AP Photo/Mahesh Kumar A.)


Compared to the latest generation of APC's around the world, the BMP-2 is a poor substitute at best. It's quite sad that the Indian Army still sees any potential use in having that relic in their ranks while the rest of the world has moved on to safer, more versatile and more modern network-centric systems. The advantages of domestic production shouldn't cloud the basic fact that in today's RPG and IED infested conflict zones the BMP-2's or its variants have little scope of dominance as APC's. Any future confrontation with conventional forces along India's borders will also pretty much ensure the same fate to the BMP-2s. India should seriously think about replacing its entire BMP fleet with something more current, logistically optimal and less maintenance intensive with the option for both track and wheeled configurations. The present tender for 100 new APC's is a good first step but rather than investing in a fixed number of APC's the Indian Army would be better served investing in a particular system of vehicles that would cater to a wide variety of needs.

IMHO, the Swedish SEP seems the most innovative and promising system that DRDO and BAE Land Systems and Hagglunds could co-develop. But there are Lots of other promising new systems that are equally impressive.

An impressive report on the SEP (even if you cannot understand Swedish).

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3516
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 12 Nov 2009 20:55

Brando, fact is that Sarath is a capability we have today - and is still being mass produced in India. Looking at a replacement for it at this juncture is not very practical imho. Yes it is an old design but perhaps our interest will be served better by seeking upgrades to it?

jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby jai » 12 Nov 2009 21:13

Even Saudi Arabia makes, uses and exports its own IFV...in use with our neighbours...and Indian Army is still running shy of Abhay, tank Ex, Arjun etc etc.

The defence ministry needs to ban any imports in IFV's/Light tanks/MBT's - everything should be based on the platforms DRDO has created - if these are not good enough, Army should be forced to work with them to fix the issues...

Army's import fetish seems to be getting out of hand....I wonder what's next on the list - Aloo, Pyaz, sabun...?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7741
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 12 Nov 2009 21:42

Aditya G wrote:Rohit are these fresh raising or conversion of Infantry Bns to mechanized role? AFAIK the only new raising are the two new mountain divisions?


I have posted some explanation in Indian Army thread.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 14 Nov 2009 17:47

rahulm, been reading your postsin different threads. Since you've been in touch with IA officers, can you tell us if the comparision trials between T-90 and Arjun scheduled for Oct have been held or not and also possibly the outcome along with the army's stand.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby krishnan » 14 Nov 2009 18:21

aditp wrote:rahulm, been reading your postsin different threads. Since you've been in touch with IA officers, can you tell us if the comparision trials between T-90 and Arjun scheduled for Oct have been held or not and also possibly the outcome along with the army's stand.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5096&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=360#p770901

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 14 Nov 2009 19:09

krishnan wrote:
aditp wrote:rahulm, been reading your postsin different threads. Since you've been in touch with IA officers, can you tell us if the comparision trials between T-90 and Arjun scheduled for Oct have been held or not and also possibly the outcome along with the army's stand.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5096&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=360#p770901


:roll: Yes I read that post. However it is not clear if the officers spoken to were speaking post trials or were involved with the Arjun for some other reasons. My question is a bit more specific than the information posted earlier.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 14 Nov 2009 19:49

Aditya G wrote:
rohitvats wrote:That increase in BMP-II production is likely to be in line with news of raising of new Mechanized Regiment Units and conversion of more Infantry Divisions to RAPID modification.


Rohit are these fresh raising or conversion of Infantry Bns to mechanized role? AFAIK the only new raising are the two new mountain divisions?


AFAIK, these are for coversion units... Since most of the Guards battalions are being converted to mech inf roles...

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7741
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 14 Nov 2009 20:56

Bala Vignesh wrote: AFAIK, these are for coversion units... Since most of the Guards battalions are being converted to mech inf roles...


Brigade of Gaurds were Mechanized donkey years ago. Except for two (17th and 19th) which were (are?) ATGM Battalions, rest were into Mechanized Role.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1166
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby A Sharma » 15 Nov 2009 05:45

DRDO Tech Focus for Aug 09

DRDO has developed a light tank based on BMP-II chassis with 105 mm turret (GIAT industries, France). This vehicle is aimed to carry high caliber weapons without sacrificing the strategic or tactical mobility. Mechanical integration of turret with chassis, stability during firing, and compatibility of 105 mm Indian Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) ammunition with turret have been established during the trials.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Igorr » 17 Nov 2009 20:49

A video with fragments of T-90S tests in India.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3516
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 19 Nov 2009 20:40

ID which variant of BMP-2?:

Image

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7741
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 19 Nov 2009 22:57

^^^ Mortar-Carrier.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21227
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 23 Nov 2009 14:29

British problems with it tanks.A lesson for us too reg. IEDs,the favoured weapon of the underdog.

MoD spent £149m on tanks unfit for service

(Lewis Whyld/PA)
Members of the 15 Squadron RAF Regiment in Iraq in April, 2009: the armoured vehicles will be used in Canada and Britain because they offer insufficient protection against mines in Afghanistan
David Robertson and Michael Evans

The Ministry of Defence has been criticised for spending £149 million on an “urgent” upgrade to 900 tanks that can still only be used for training.

The armoured vehicles will be used in Canada and Britain because they offer insufficient protection against mines in Afghanistan.

A defence source described the procurement, at a time when equipment shortages for troops have caused public anger, as a waste of money. “We certainly don’t need 900 of these things for training. It seems crazy to do this upgrade work on vehicles that are more than 40 years old and then put them into storage, which is what will happen to most of them,” he said.

Commanders in Afghanistan have frequently criticised the shortage of suitable armoured vehicles in the country, where 98 British soldiers have been killed this year alone.

Related Links
Army lacks bite needed to take on the Taleban

The upgrade, which came to light in freedom of information requests submitted by The Times, is the latest procurement controversy to hit the MoD. Last month an independent report disclosed that more than £2 billion was being wasted every year on equipment programmes. The author, Bernard Gray, a former special adviser at the ministry, said that procurement methods were harming Britain’s “ability to conduct difficult current operations”.

Under the £149 million refit programme, ordered as an Urgent Operational Requirement three years ago, 900 FV430 variant vehicles were given new engines, drive trains and driver controls and reclassified as Bulldogs.

The MoD said that the tanks, which first entered service in the 1960s, had originally been refitted for deployment in Iraq.

But another defence insider said yesterday that the ministry had been “caught between two stools” — spending money that was justified for Iraq but now leaving the Government with a legacy of expensive vehicles that were only good for general training. Mines are one of the main threats in Afghanistan and the Bulldog is said to be too low to the ground to allow deployment.

The lack of protection on the Army’s existing fleet of vehicles, such as the Land Rover Snatch, has been blamed for the high number of casualties caused by roadside bombs and mines in Helmand.

The Government has responded by spending £1 billion on new armoured vehicles such as the Mastiff and Ridgback. Although these are being deployed in Afghanistan, commanders have admitted that there are still shortages.

It was revealed in August that nine Ridgback armoured vehicles had been stranded in Dubai for weeks because the RAF had insufficient planes to transport them to Afghanistan.

The upgraded Bulldogs are capable of carrying ten soldiers and two crew. The 15-tonne vehicle is armed with a turret-mounted machinegun and has a top speed of 32mph (52kph).

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said: “We are increasingly concerned that the procurement programme is out of tandem with our military needs. This needs to be done on a detailed and thoughtful basis which can only come as part of major acquisition reform.”

A spokesman for the MoD defended the spending programme, which costs the equivalent of 2,980 Snatch vehicles. He said: “We provide our Armed Forces with the vehicles that best meet their operational need. The Bulldog was specifically upgraded for use in Iraq where it played a key role in providing armoured protection for many personnel.

“In Afghanistan, where the terrain and threats are different, this role is performed by the Mastiff and Ridgback. The Bulldogs continue to have a role in training exercises in the UK.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 927719.ece

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 05 Dec 2009 21:36

Hi guys... Anyone know what equipment does the 3rd cavalry operate??? My friend has just been posted there after his tenure in IMA... so just wanted to check out what tank he would operate...

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 05 Dec 2009 22:31

Bala Vignesh wrote:Hi guys... Anyone know what equipment does the 3rd cavalry operate??? My friend has just been posted there after his tenure in IMA... so just wanted to check out what tank he would operate...


T-72M1 (CIA)

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 965
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ParGha » 06 Dec 2009 02:23

Bala Vignesh wrote:My friend has just been posted there after his tenure in IMA... so just wanted to check out what tank he would operate...

Nice. 3 Cav, that is a nice berth...

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Igorr » 10 Dec 2009 04:25

The export variant of T-90M was demonstrated today in Russia. Can be a part for next batches of T90, to be supplied for India.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Dmurphy » 15 Dec 2009 22:54

X-posted from the Nepal thread.

Nepal Seeks Weapons From India
After a hiatus of five years, India and Nepal have revived their defence ties and will shortly initiate various projects involving procurement of defence and military equipment.

The visiting Chief of the Nepal Army, General Chhattraman Singh Gurung, has made inquiries regarding supply of tanks as well as artillery guns, INSAS rifles, ammunition, troop carriers, bullet-proof jackets and sighting equipment from India.

Defence Ministry officials revealed that Nepal has requested for 100 tanks in two phases at concessional rates. Nepal also enquired about Ajeya (T-72) tanks of Russian origin.

During the recent three-day joint-secretary level meeting in Nepal, India has agreed in principle to resume non-lethal military supplies to Nepal. Nepal and India also agreed to share intelligence and to cooperate on constructing an airbase for the Nepalese army in the western part of the country. India also agreed to provide training to Nepalese security personnel to upgrade their capabilities and to share intelligence for improving security.

Possible sale of Arjuns?

RameshVarma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 06:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RameshVarma » 16 Dec 2009 00:53

Dmurphy wrote:X-posted from the Nepal thread.

Nepal Seeks Weapons From India
After a hiatus of five years, India and Nepal have revived their defence ties and will shortly initiate various projects involving procurement of defence and military equipment.

The visiting Chief of the Nepal Army, General Chhattraman Singh Gurung, has made inquiries regarding supply of tanks as well as artillery guns, INSAS rifles, ammunition, troop carriers, bullet-proof jackets and sighting equipment from India.

Defence Ministry officials revealed that Nepal has requested for 100 tanks in two phases at concessional rates. Nepal also enquired about Ajeya (T-72) tanks of Russian origin.

During the recent three-day joint-secretary level meeting in Nepal, India has agreed in principle to resume non-lethal military supplies to Nepal. Nepal and India also agreed to share intelligence and to cooperate on constructing an airbase for the Nepalese army in the western part of the country. India also agreed to provide training to Nepalese security personnel to upgrade their capabilities and to share intelligence for improving security.

Possible sale of Arjuns?


OT alert.....

I think it would be bad idea selling Arjun (Which I believe is our top of the line Tank) as there is always a possibility of Chinese getting there hands on the Vehicle. So it better to sell them T-72's. I am also not sure against whom they are going to use the tanks

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 836
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Raveen » 16 Dec 2009 01:21

RameshVarma wrote:OT alert.....

I think it would be bad idea selling Arjun (Which I believe is our top of the line Tank) as there is always a possibility of Chinese getting there hands on the Vehicle. So it better to sell them T-72's. I am also not sure against whom they are going to use the tanks


I am so certain that I can almost assure you -- the Chinese already know what they want/need to know about the Arjun.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Katare » 16 Dec 2009 02:02

Arjun's too big for Nepal's needs.

It'll be excess T55 or T71s at best, they need them to deter maoists.

Nepal should actually get these weapons from China to fight Maoists. :twisted:

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 836
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Raveen » 16 Dec 2009 02:09

Katare wrote:
Nepal should actually get these weapons from China to fight Maoists. :twisted:


:rotfl:

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3516
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 16 Dec 2009 09:42

Katare wrote:Nepal should actually get these weapons from China to fight Maoists. :twisted:


Erm, the Maoists have already won! Why are these weapons required - possibly to arm the ex-Maoist Army which is currently housed in barracks?

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 18 Dec 2009 19:01

True... But not giving these weapons could push them more towards their chinese "buddies"... sorry for going OT...

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby karan_mc » 02 Jan 2010 10:50

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1261914103

i donot know if this picture was ever posted here

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7741
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 Jan 2010 15:04

^^^ 24 RAPID Division- Bikaner....should be 43rd Armored Regiment :)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 02 Jan 2010 15:25

looking at the size of the fuel tanks lashed to its back, the regiment will get to Kashgar before refueling :twisted:

btw I saw some pics of Se La pass road taken a week ago by a tourist. the width of the road makes me
think it will be unable to take XL vehicles like the smerch and brahmos TELs...but again it can be deceptive...the kargil road didnt look too good either for bofors.

the lakes near tawang and se la seem to be frozen solid now.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9942
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 02 Jan 2010 16:45

No news on Arjun testing vis sa vis T90 what happend to that.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 02 Jan 2010 17:19

The Arjun WON :twisted:

Thats why there is a news blackout from the DGMF. Someone trying to save his face. :mrgreen:

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Dmurphy » 02 Jan 2010 18:03

aditp wrote:The Arjun WON :twisted:

Thats why there is a news blackout from the DGMF. Someone trying to save his face. :mrgreen:
Are you just guessing or Arjun really won?

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 02 Jan 2010 21:08

Dmurphy wrote:
aditp wrote:The Arjun WON :twisted:

Thats why there is a news blackout from the DGMF. Someone trying to save his face. :mrgreen:
Are you just guessing or Arjun really won?


SDRE guess onree :cry:

soumik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby soumik » 02 Jan 2010 23:07

That tank carrier looks like the standard one used for the T series , well there goes the entire argument on the arjun needing new logistics.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 03 Jan 2010 03:44

Dmurphy, If the Arjun had lost you can be sure that every General would be yelling about it's loss from the rooftops. Or they may trying to find a way to rig the competition to beat the Arjun.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Igorr » 03 Jan 2010 16:35

New higher resolution pics and specs of T-90M were appeared. Since it can be relevant to India too, I put the link here.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 03 Jan 2010 17:27

Wow that's a substantial Upgrade over the vanilla T-90 , so Igorr if I get this right to sum up.

1. The new larger turret houses a larger auto loader (I think by additional you meant a newer/larger ? )
2. A new MG to fire new generation of long rod penetrators ( 3BM-44M ? ) . I presume this too is a two piece round like older Ru APFSDS rounds.
3. Relict and separate ammo storage in the aft .

What about ARENA or Shtora active protection system , is it going to be a standard fit ?
Also any idea about the gross weight of this tank specially , I presume currently the tank is still powered by 1000hp V-92S2 engine.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 03 Jan 2010 17:40

does the t90 and t90m feature independent thermal imagers for commander and gunner?

I know arjun doesnt feature it for cost reasons.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Igorr » 03 Jan 2010 19:31

negi wrote:
1. The new larger turret houses a larger auto loader (I think by additional you meant a newer/larger ? )


- The new auto-loader is able to use both from the old storage in the hull (remained in its place but doesn't obligately be fulfilled), and the new aft auto-loaded storage. Only the aft storage could include longer-rod APFSDSs.
2. A new MG to fire new generation of long rod penetrators ( 3BM-44M ? ) . I presume this too is a two piece round like older Ru APFSDS rounds.

- It's totally new APFSDSs which are not used with standard T-72/T-90 auto-loading.

What about ARENA or Shtora active protection system , is it going to be a standard fit ?

- The elements of Shtora-2 (without the IR lamps) are seen on the pics. As about a 'hard kill' system, there is not clear what is the preference of Ru Army now. No hard kill system was chosen at the moment.
Also any idea about the gross weight of this tank specially , I presume currently the tank is still powered by 1000hp V-92S2 engine.

- Yes, right now they are demonstrating it on the standard T-90 chassis to underline the fact that it can be used for T-72/T-90 upgrade as well. The modernized chassis is a bit different, tracks rolls, suspension are strengthened and have better serviceability. The estimated grow in weight is 1-2 tons so it hardly be heavier than 48t.
Singha wrote:does the t90 and t90m feature independent thermal imagers for commander and gunner? I know arjun doesnt feature it for cost reasons.

- True only for T-90M. It has independent 3-wave panoramic IR/optic commander sight.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 03 Jan 2010 19:55

thanks Igorr, any idea what is the capacity of the aft storage for apfsds rounds?

the old storage below the floor is said to be 39 rounds. I would imagine the new storage
cannot store that many rounds so some part of the old storage still needs to be used to
carry around 45 rounds.

in a "high risk" config, I suspect it could be 39 + new rounds....the Merkava does have some
storage bins inside the hull for 81 max rounds and a 15 round electrical loader iirc.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests