Why does Russia need such a heavily Armored IFV?

>>32070922
>what kind of conflict short of fucking WW3 warrants this much protection?
Parking at street corners without mutual support from other IFV's, or having an infantry screen.

Which is bad tactics, but bad tactics the Russians seem quite fond of, considering it was pretty much the only thing they did with armored vehicles during the entirety of the Afghan, Chechen, and Ukrainian conflicts.

And when they (quite naturally) got their shit pushed in by RPG's and recoilless rifles sitting out in the open quite helpless, they incorrectly assumed that heavier armor was the solution instead of not sitting out in the open being helpless.

>>32070938
>RPGs
It's reportedly armored to defeat Javelins. Ahmed with his RPG-29 isn't even going to scratch the paint

There's these things called missiles

Look up what they do to vehicles these days

>>32070986
There's no fucking way it's armored against Javelins, since Javelins are top-attack and capable of penetrating 800mm RHA.
>b-but muh claims!
Inflated, like everything else Russia's ever put out.
>b-but muh ERA!
Only works once, and while it's speculation, Russia's had a really crappy track record with ERA working at all due to abysmal maintenance and corrupt senior officers selling off the explosives.

Probably due to the wide proliferation of ATGMs.

When shit like vid related happens 30mm protection just doesn't cut it anymore

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kJMCqNuA4Mk

>>32071022
Oh, also:
>T-15 weighs 48 tons with all applique armor
>significantly larger, heavier MBT's in the 65 ton range aren't Javelin-proof
>the T-15's composite armor is literally late-70's tech, and is unspaced

RPG-29 will go straight through it after the ERA blows, or if it hits somewhere without ERA coverage. Kornet will go right through it. TOW2 will go right through it. Javelin will go right through it. Hellfire will go right through it. AT4/CG will probably go through it provided hit in the right spot.

>>32071035
>when shit like vid related happens
You do know that that's a montage of either captured/uncrewed tanks being blown from the inside with set charges, or non-Abrams tanks, right?

Also literally not a single one of those is an M1A2.

>>32071054
They're downgraded m1s without DU, don't reply to autists that post them.

>>32071022
>Javelins are top attack
That's the tagline but they actually approach at around 50 degrees. The Afghanit APS protects a 60 degree arc.

>800mm penetration
The Armata is rated for 1200-1400mm

It's nice to see you watering at the mouth but it's all there in the data. The Armata has a multilayered ECM, soft and hard APS, ERA and composite armor system for defeating missiles.

>>32071107
>the Afghanit APS protects a 60 degree arc
The Afghanit APS only works once on hard-kill, and the soft-kill still requires crew to leave the vehicle to reload between uses
>the Armata is rated for 1200-1400mm
Bullshit. Not across anywhere but the frontal glacis from a horizontal strike anyway. Not in a 48 ton vehicle, it's literally impossible.
>but it's all there in the data
Russia lies, this has been proven time and time again
>the Armata has a multilayered ECM, soft and hard APS, ERA and composite armor system for defeating missiles
Will only ever stop one top-attack missile seeing how the only thing in that that's reusable is the smoke launchers (soft-kill APS). Sure is a good thing that literally anybody it will ever fight couldn't possibly field more than one man-portable ATGM at a time, right? Not like the US has either an AT4 or CG in every squad, 3 Javs per platoon, and anywhere from 4-16 TOW2's per company, right? And that's just an infantry company, US armor and mechanized companies are far far heavier armed with antitank munitions.

>>32071154
>Not like the US has either an AT4 or CG in every squad
Just one?

>>32071166
On average, yeah.

Marine Weapons squads will have 2-3 CG's, but a rifle squad (either Army or Marines) will have just 1 as a standard loadout.

Then again, if we were actually fighting Russia odds are they'd give literally every swinging dick an AT4 on top of all the CG's, since Russia's main claim to fame is their propensity to armor everything.

>>32071166
Part of the Stryker upgrades include sticking a Javelin on them.

File: namer.jpg (1MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2848px

This is strange. Looks like they're doing like the Israelis with the Namer and building a fuckhuge vehicle with lots of armor. For the israelis who use their vehicles in either large open areas or against insurgents in urban environments i guess it works but does this really fit with the russian doctrine?

They usually focus on mobility and being able to maneuver in difficult terrain. This doesn't look like it would be that useful for that.

Or are the russians expecting to be fighting more battles like they did in Chechnya and Afghanistan in the middle east in the near future?

File: merkava_mk4_8.jpg (377KB, 1000x518px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1000x518px

>>32071505
The head room in that thing looks shitty. It would look right at home next to a merkava though.

>>32071576
Iirc the namer is built on the Merkava chassis, hence the parallel between the Namer-Merkava and the russian ones.

>>32070922
>Are they planning on invading hell?
That would make a great vidya.

>>32071593
They're both pretty sexy.

>>32070922
Because they sell their gear to Arabs, the kind of armies which send in the tanks without infantry support and then cry when they get slaughtered by ATGMs in the open.

So therefore lots of spaced armor, cages, kontakt and hard kill APS.

It's literally retard proof.

>>32071626
But they don't export their modern vehicles. Just like us americans the export variants of the Abrams are crap because we don't want to give them our modern armor. So almost all of the knocked out abrams you see online are the shitty export tanks that suck.

It'll probably be years before they make an export variant of these things.

>>32071663
The old "monke model" argument, back in the day the Russians used to deliver aircraft with iron sights for the pilot to aim with.

That's not working today any more, you have to deliver 90% of the capabilities otherwise the customer just goes to China and gets 80 % capabilities for 60 % of the price.

That's exactly the reason why the Iraqis are flying knock-off Reaper drones.

>>32071680
Are you saying that the export abrams we sold to Iraq and other middle eastern countries have the same armor as the ones the US use?

File: BMP-72_Termintaor-2_fire_tank_support_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_Uralvagonzavod_Russia_Russian_defense_industry_details_002.jpg (43KB, 640x339px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x339px

>>32070922
>Literally built on a fucking tank chassis

Thought it was because they also wanted a common chassis for the sake of logistical reasons, kinda in the same vein of the Marines' Viper and Venom.

That being said, the Armata IFV is growing on me in terms of aesthetics, but the BMPT-72 and BMP-3 Bumerang take the cake.

>>32071697
No, but it's good enough armor for anything the tank may face (older ATGMs, T-55 to T-80 etc) as opposed to the old "tin plate over paper filling" armor.

>>32071838
I never said it was "tin plate over paper filling" you moron.

I'm saying that USA, Russia and China all keep their most modern vehicles to themselves and don't export them unless it's a severely inferior model. No one is stupid enough to export tech we can't easily defeat if they turn it against us.

So sure they'll resist whatever your average middle eastern goat fucker can throw against you. But there's still a significant gap between the export vehicles and the ones they keep for themselves. We all still intentionally keep the export variants at least one generation behind though.

>>32071838
>>32071697
>>32071680
Its a shame watching quality russian, american and european gear get mis-used in the most retarded ways ever by fucking sand-Orcs

>>32071697
I haven't seen any authoritative source claiming export Abrams tanks don't have DU installed, just like ours. It's a bunch of hobbyist military sites making the claim without backing.
Pretty sure the "we don't sell DU to Arabs" is unsourced. It might be true, but it's classified. And just because, say, the M1A2M doesn't have it, the M1A2S might.

>>32071913
the only allies that would have been allowed to buy DU equipped M1A2's would have been the Australians, but their hippies bitched and moaned about muh radiations and muh chilluns so they went with a single step above monkey model instead...

>>32071867
The tin over paper was an exageration - previous export models were just that shitty.

Arms supply is a buyers market, look at the crap the French endured to sell 36 shitty Rafales to India, everyone's desperate and yes they will sell modern gear. The Indian Su-30s are more advanced than the Russian ones and China is very openly selling their modern equipment because they know they'll have more advanced toys for themselves in a short while - VT-4 tanks and type 54 frigates for Thailand, Type 56 corvettes for Nigeria and C28A frigattes for Algeria. Hell look at the Submarine deal Australia got, Germany, Japan, South Korea and France bent over like cheap whores.

>>32071928
>the only allies that would have been allowed to buy DU equipped M1A2's would have been the Australians
Why do you say that?
People treat this information like gospel, and clutch pearls whenever people express doubt. I'm not saying it's not true, but if it is, it's probably classified since I've never seen a source in all of the discussions. And if it's classified, we have no way of knowing, and shouldn't express certainty, which many people seem to do.

>>32071945
its their policy, you dont sell your absolute best shit to allies in general, let alone unstable barely installed democracies

>>32071945
>we have no way of knowing
I am pretty sure i read an article were it was mentoined how blown up american M1 where a problem through their depleted uranium and had to be treated differently, while the iraq army ones where just treated like "metal scrap".

>>32071981
>its their policy
That policy may or may not extend to DU armor on M1s. We don't know.
>>32071985
I'd be curious to see it, if you could find it.
That would at least tell us something about the M1A2M

File: t-14.jpg (442KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 2048x1536px

Basically the idea is that every combat vehicle in a brigade shares the same chassis base, i.e. in an Armata brigade you have Armata-based MBTs, IFVs, SPHs, SAMs, engineering & recovery vehicles, command vehicles, etc. This way they all maintain the same level of mobility across terrain, similar levels of protection and since the chassis are just rear, middle and forward engine variants they share all parts and a huge pool of spares plus the know-how to repair them is vastly simplified; in every brigade you only have trucks and the particular chassis to tailor your maintenance around.

This way its also much easier and efficient in allocating forces to each threat around the world. For COIN and peacekeeping you send light units based on Kurganets; for quick deployment over long distances you send rapid reaction battalions made up of Boomerang vehicles. For mechanized war against high-end opponent like NATO or China you send heavy brigades based on Armata.

>>32071985
Makes a bit sense, as DU-dust is bad for you, just like any other heavy metal.

>>32072065
> We don't know.

Janes and Deagel says otherwise.

>>32072131
Oh, and before you ask...

http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/M1A2-Abrams-SEP_a000516004.aspx

>Export Abrams are not provided with the depleted uranium armor.

And

http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed

>While they have new equipment to improve situational awareness, they do not have the depleted uranium amour package that increases protection over the tank's frontal arc.

Its not an arguement. It never was.

>>32072131
Just waiting for someone to come screaming about how Jane's is worse than wiki or something

File: tank armor.png (30KB, 636x453px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 636x453px

>>32071154
>Not in a 48 ton vehicle, it's literally impossible.
Typical fatnik delusion.

>>32072131
>http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed
I trust Janes if it says the M1A1M doesn't have DU (It doesn't say M1A1M, but I'm pretty sure they don't have any other kind).
But that's Iraq. The M1A2S is a different question.

>>32072065
>I'd be curious to see it, if you could find it.
Sorry, but i simply cant find it, at least not with the search words i could think of. Only thing that i found, what was somewhat related, is that iraq is looking for a world wide ban on depleted uranium ammunition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#cite_ref-66
>Iraq had called for a global treaty ban on depleted uranium weapons.
Would be a bit doublethink if they call for a ban on depleted uranium weapons, but on the other hand use depleted uranium in their tanks. Still would be possible that are fine with both things coexisting, it is a mad world.

File: 1473253428854.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

>>32072208
>fatnik

>>32072235
..hence the deagel link that specifically meantions saudi and iraqi tanks.

>>32071042
>>T-15 weighs 48 tons
>believing official report on weight
T-14 and T-15 has larger track footprint area than Abrams. Let it sink in for whileю

>>32072245
Its the middle east. They will stone you if you are gay, but fucking a 12 year old boy in the ass is all nice and dandy. Its a strange place.

>>32072235
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Saudi-Arabian-M1-Abrams-have-the-same-depleted-uranium-armor-as-the-US-Army-Abrams-tanks

The question you have to ask yourself is how much evidence will it take to convince you, because the internet is chocked full of it and i can do it all day.

>>32071042
Armata ERA is new generation developed after 2000 and it work using new physical principles.

>>32072265
I don't know what Deagel is, and having looked at it a bit, it seems not entirely reliable.
The first page on google has it predicting the collapse of the US in the next 10 years, all reposts coming from the fever swamps.
>>32072292
That's quora. Anyone can answer, and even the comments have people arguing and nothing hard to back it up.
I'd trust Janes, not this weird site and what amounts to a wikipedia page without a source.

>>32071663
>implying DU armor from 1985 is better than modern composites

>>32072316
>I don't know what Deagel is

Wew laddy

>The first page on google has it predicting the collapse of the US in the next 10 years, all reposts coming from the fever swamps.

Conspiracy sites say something, must be true, right?

This should give you an idea of the credibility of the source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=Deagel.com&searchToken=8tdokpkoipwwag49jo4ckb3o2

>That's quora. Anyone can answer

But fruads are actually banned, and there is a verification process you can go though (blue titles)

>>32072275
>Let it sink in for while
>ю
Пидopaшкa зaкyкapeкaлa зaмecтo aypopы. B oтличиe oт Aбpaмca, Apмaтa - этo нe ypaнoвый capaй, тaк чтo ничeгo yдивитeльнoгo в мeньшeм вece нeт.

>>32072390
So upset

>>32072435
So ignorant. Probably a hohol.
>The density of steel usually ranges between 7.75 and 8.05 g/cm3
>Uses of DU take advantage of its very high density of 19.1 g/cm3

>>32072382
>This should give you an idea of the credibility of the source.
I don't think "It's used as a source for wikipedia" is good enough. I've seen some pretty shoddy sources used there, and so have you. As for the batshit claim, here it is. It's unhinged, and I wouldn't trust anyone who writes this with the time of day.
http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx?pag=7&sort=GDP&ord=DESC
>But fruads are actually banned
There were no frauds in that thread to ban. Nobody could provide a source for M1A2S tanks having/not having DU armor.

I appreciate your source for the M1A1M tanks, but I don't accept "Deagel" or unsourced Quora for the M1A2S. Maybe they don't have it, but if not, we don't know.

>>32072472
>using steel armor

>>32072472
>So ignorant
>Probably a hohol
Not that guy, but holy shit. That amount of doublethink.

>>32072479
>It's used as a source for wikipedia

Its used over 250 times. Once or twice, sure. But on heavy traffic pages? Nah.

>There were no frauds in that thread to ban.

If the guy says he works at GDLS, and he doesn't (i just checked his history, hundreds of answers), its ban hammer time.

But hey, believe what you want. Not a shred of evidence exists to the contrary.

>still putting deagel in quotes

Oh my sweet precious newfag. There is no better source for current numbers of various military equipement.

>>32071663
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90#Current_operators
Looks like some people are getting top of the line shit just fine.

>>32072707
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90#Current_operators
>Not one nation beside russia using T-90A
>Try to disprove other person, disprove yourself instead

>>32072967
Now go and read the actual article, dumbass. All T-90 variants are essentially the same with some minor differences including a more powerful engine or IR jammers component of Shtora-1 installation on demand. Welded turret of T-90A was delivered for export even before getting adopted in Russia. His point is invalid.

>>32073087
>top of the line shit just fine.
So not top of the line.

>>32073115
At that time it was.

>>32070922
>Are they planning on invading hell? What kind of conflict short of fucking WW3 warrants this much protection for what is effectively just a troop transport?
Any conflict with urban warfare.

>>32070922
they fought in grozny and learned a few lessons

>>32073140
Is this the typical vatnik way of wasting other peoples time, since you know it is bullshit?

>>32073087
>new production line of T-90MS's
>Algeria already getting them
>Totally not modern guys

>>32073177
The fuck are you talking about? They exported advanced Su-30 variants in the same manner, only later adopting them for internal service. This is how their MIC survived the collapse of the USSR. It is history and anyone at least somewhat interested in the question knows this.

File: 1351931515900.jpg (127KB, 800x566px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x566px

Are they planning on invading hell?

Yes!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheSalvationWar

>>32073300
Are you drunk or something? I'm saying that the "But they don't export their modern vehicles" point is invalid.

MUST BE STROOOONNNNKKKKKKKKKKKKK

>>32071505
>Namer
>lots of armor
I bet you're a Gavin fag who thinks M113s are tanks too

IFVs becoming heavier has been a trend for some time.
T-15 is nothing special, it will probably have comparable armor to the German Puma.

> What kind of conflict short of fucking WW3 warrants this much protection
RPGs and ATGMs are common even in asymmetric conflicts.

>just a troop transport?
APC is not the same as IFV.

>>32071166
>>32071178

no, its 2 per squad. 1 per fire team

marines are 3, but that just because they have 3 fire teams

>>32072293
armata's era is just macalite from the 80's dude

>>32073721
Well it has more armor than the tank which the chassis is based on, so i'd say it has a lot of it

>>32072208
First off those numbers are bullshit. That post is comparing only a direct horizontal shot to the thickest part of the front armor, and the post is further taking the soviet ERA as total protection, when in fact a simple two stage charge makes a minor 450mm penetrating warhead capable of penetrating armor which supposedly has 1300mm protection.

>>32072293
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is on you and all other vatniks to show proof that Russia has discovered a new type of armor capable of significantly increased protection, just as it is on your and your fellows to produce evidence that the "Iranian space technology" is capable of shutting down the USS Donald Cook, an all other electronic systems. It is also on vatniks to show that the Afghanit actually functions against incoming ordinance, not against theoretical ordinance. It is on you to show that anti stealth technology works, and that weather radars can function as effective fire control radars even in perfect weather much less when there is a storm front. etc. etc.

Simply put show proof of your claims or shut up.

>>32070922
Its just for on paper. Turrets are easily swappable to T-12 autoloaders or their tankbuster/artillery turrets

>>32075357
Sweet baby Jesus, the denial is real.
>First off those numbers are bullshit
First off, they are not.
>That post is comparing only a direct horizontal shot to the thickest part of the front armor
No, it does not, hence the numbers vary depending on armor thickness and estimation.
>and the post is further taking the soviet ERA as total protection
Which does count towards total protection, being a type of armor with known RHA equivalent estimations. What would be inappropriate is to count APS towards armor.
>when in fact a simple two stage charge makes a minor 450mm penetrating warhead capable of penetrating armor which supposedly has 1300mm protection
Only in your wet fatnik dreams. In real life fatburgers had to spend 8 years to develop an APFSDS that can at least scratch the armor behind Kontakt-5, and the best HEAT-FS nowadays is triple charge 3VBK-27 that has around 800mm penetration, reduced to 680-660mm penetration behind ERA.

>>32074996
Nice proofs

File: t-72BM kontakt 5 failed miserably.jpg (245KB, 1200x847px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1200x847px

>>32076288
Good to know that none of the T-72's with kontakt 5 got knocked out in Ukraine by soviet made ammunition. I'll make sure to tell the 2000 plus dead russian soldiers to walk it off as their tank wasn't penetrated.

If ukraines piss poor ammo can penetrate the mighty kontakt 5 then any western ammo can.

>>32078464
But soviet ammunition is made from pure stalinium and infinitely superior to any western ones ))))

>>32072070
Militaries have been trying to do this since armored vehicles first showed up. It has literally, genuinely, unironically never worked. Nobody has managed to integrate a universal chassis. Fuck, I think the Brits got the closest with the CVRT but those were still just a small selection of the fighting vehicles they operated.

>>32078464
I will never understand how people manage to tell the different T-72 types apart. They all look the same to me.

>>32078464
we're supposed to assume Kontakt-5 was defeated even though we can't see where the tank was hit?

>>32078464
>Larger gunner's sight for AT missiles
That's not a sight, it's a small searchlight.

File: chechnya.jpg (146KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1200x900px

>>32070922
>Are they planning on invading hell?
Didin't they invade Chechnya twice already

>>32079136

They look quite different if you know what to look for.

>>32070922
why does america need such a powerful airforce
why does anyone need such dangerous guns
why do we need nukes
why do we have high speed assault cars?

Because its earth nigga. We do because we fucking can.

>>32078464
Well, I don't want to sound like an ass, but this thing doesn't look like it was frontally penetrated.

So, if we go for a side/rear shot, well, yeah, an Ukrainian T-64B can perfectly kill the +/- 350-400mm of RHA equivalent there.

And you know what? It can kill any Leclerc, Leo 2A6, M1A2, K2 or whatever, because side/real armor is much lower than the frontal one. Every time someone says "hurr look there were losses so these RHA equivalence values are horseshit", first, check whether the losses are due to frontal penetration or something else.

If I say "lel the M1A2 armor values are horseshit because an IED detonated under it killed it", it is a shitty argument.

So, it works as well for any other tank. The T-72B with Kontakt 5 armor does have high frontal protection that allows it to resist shots from T-64Bs or, I don't know, Metys and Konkurs missiles, but if shot by a RPG-7 with the PG7V warhead, a TOW missile or a Soviet legacy APFSDS on the sides or rear, it will get penetrated.

>>32079439
Nyet Georgia is fine

File: zz3xmu6.jpg (92KB, 2140x1605px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 2140x1605px

>>32070922
>IFV
yeah, whatever

>>32079136
Mostly - ERA shape, gunner's sight and lack \ presence of IR illuminator.

Blocky ERA boxes + IR illuminator = T-72B mod. 89

Blocky ERA boxes - IR illuminator + big gunners sight = T-72B3

And so on.

>>32070922
>Are they planning on invading hell?
You mean Gaza? Because this stuff works great for Israel

File: 1444919163004.png (82KB, 376x328px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 376x328px

>>32075357
>It is on you and all other vatniks to show proof
FUCKING THIS
I mean on one side we have to prove that the export version of the M1 doesnt have depleted armor and on the other side its again the job of the "fatniks" to prove that the exported T-90 is a cut back model and much more. Vatniks are simple dishonest in every discussion, while they question everything they feel like, they dont have to hassle with the crap of proving every crap from the other side, since they arent questioning resonable stuff to begin with.

>>32080641
>prove that the export version of the M1 doesnt have depleted armor
You say this like it matters at all. Of the 10,000 Abrams only the 1,174 US Army M1A2s have DU. Not even the marines have DU in their M1A1s. Non-DU Abrams are overwhelmingly more likely to see action so the M1 is judged from them, not the US army M1A2s sitting in Michigan warehouses doing nothing.

>>32080935
>missing the point so obvious
You got anything on topic?

>>32080935
How fucking dare you try to trash my state you subhuman vodkanigger. Get the fuck off my board

>>32080952
Just showing that the "It didn't have DU it's not a REAL Abrams!" Prattle is a logical fallacy and nothing more. Non DU Abrams comprise the vast majority of Abrams in service. Case closed.

>>32080966
>missing the point so obvious
You got anything on topic?

>>32080935
>>32080966
That obvious vatnik try to change the topic because the post said something you didnt like. This is the shit why everyone thinks vatnik are a disgrace to talk to.

>>32080954
Mad with a capital M

>>32080966
> Non DU Abrams comprise the vast majority of Abrams in service.

That's blatantly false though unless you wish to provide a source that says that the majority are M1A1 or earlier models.

>>32078948
This time the Americans are trying to do this. And actually may succeed.

The only missing piece is a shorad.

>>32081254
We don't actually know if the Russians have failed or succeeded yet.

They've done fuck all but parade them around so far. IFAIK they haven't even done any military drills with them so far.

As someone trying to be as objective and unbiased as possible (unless I'm wrong about the Russians actually drilling them so far and actual data being produced) we can't judge the effectiveness of the chassis as a universal chassis yet.

Think of it like the F-35 back in 2014 where all the data being produced was essentially interm or preproductrion development data. It was meaningless in an argument for either side. We will just have to wait and see.

File: object 299 ifv trials.jpg (33KB, 522x285px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 522x285px

>>32078948
>What the fuck is Object 299?
Bitch, please. It only wasn't implemented by the SU because the country collapsed.

>>32071107
>The Armata is rated for 1200-1400mm

>he believes that the top of an 48 ton IFV is rated for 1200

gtfo.

>>32079136
T-64 - T-90 all rook same

>>32084544
That is racist....wait mechanist??? Technist?

>>32084569
All of the above?

File: kztm0urQbzI.jpg (182KB, 1280x522px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1280x522px

>>32079136