Russian just introduced a new T-80BV modification dud the T-80BVM.

File: 4657300_original.jpg (303KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1600x1066px

>>35122718
the tank side skirt is identical to the T-72B3 2016 and T-90M

more ERA module can be add, provide protection again tandem shaped change

File: 4658931_original.jpg (2MB, 3658x2423px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3658x2423px

>>35122737
T-90M Proryv-3

the only note worthy different is the anti RPG netting in the turret ring

File: 4660439_original.jpg (666KB, 1944x1296px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1944x1296px

>>35122759
close up of the netting

Why not just upgrade the remaning BVs to Us?

>>35122925
Why not upgrade the BV's to something superior to U's like they are doing?

>>35122941
Why are they calling it BVM and not UM3?

>>35122946
there is no such thing UM3

>>35122946
It's an upgrade of BV, not U. And T-72B3 are called that because there is a B and B2.

>>35122992
you forgot the B1, which are downgraded B

>>35122718
I tought the russians were going to abondon their whole t-80 fleet after the grozny shitshow. What happened? Not enough money for more armstas and t-90s?

Does thermal sights build in belarus mean that this will be western thermals just with a build in belarus stamp due to sanctions for russia?

Most importantly,
Why don't they just get one or two MBT's, like a T-90 for a "budget" tank and a T-14 for their top of the line tank?
is it funding? or they just can't into good military equipment

>>35123115
Refurbished T-80s are going to the Arctic.

>>35123156
Why would you get 2 when you can have 5?

T-14 is limited edition and only for tank commanders with political connections
T-90AM is for tank commanders that are defending Moscow
T-80BM is for the Arctic
T-80U is for the Arctic
T-72B3 is for the tank commander that's easily replaced
T-72something something is for the tank commander that's something something

>>35123156
>is it funding?
This.

>a T-90 for a "budget" tank
They're no longer manufactured for Russian military, only export versions. Same story with BMP-3.

I can give you a peek on what's in the Russian military equipment right now (you don't get many Russians here, because MUH VATNIK boogeyman). T-80s are mostly left for two elite divisions, 2nd Guards MRD and 4th Guards TD. The rest of tank fleet is T-90s in tank divisions mostly and probably in some brigades, the rest is T-72s of different modifications, from old T-72As to T-72B3 mod 2016.
So, top tiers are considered T-80U/BVM and T-90, the rest is T-72s, and Internal Troops seem to have some T-62s still.

>>35123237
Is there a source on that?

>>35123115
>>35123156

in 2011, they planed to throw away all the T-80 in service and more then 10000 other Soviet AFV. Because Russian army was reducing it size


But Maidan happen, then Crimea and Donbass.

so suddenly the need for AFV rode up

so according to the new plan they will only throw away 4000 Soviet AFV.

6000 AFV that they don't throw away will be upgraded

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/578233

>Does thermal sights build in belarus mean that this will be western thermals just with a build in belarus stamp due to sanctions for russia?
the thermal sight is Belarus, the laser range finder will be French.

>>35123255
>They're no longer manufactured for Russian military, only export versions. Same story with BMP-3.
this is fault

Russian MOD just made contract to buy more T-90 and BMP-3 in ARMY 2017

>>35123280
Huh, that's pretty good. Thanks for the news, my man. The last contract was back in 2010 so I thought the thing is over, but now I have hope.

I've always found Russia's obsession with keeping and upgrading older gen tech to be somewhat modern, quite interesting.

Maybe it's just the western mindset of out with the old, in with the new. Opposed to a much more, save what you have, you won't know when you'll need it view. Or magical tactics, given current political situations it may not be far away.

>>35123296
Russia is a big but poor country, we need a lot of AFV to counter external threats, but we don't have the budget of US military. The distribution of budget also doesn't favor Ground Troops, since most of it is spent on Air Force, Fleet and C3/EW equipment.

File: file.png (521KB, 600x902px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 600x902px

>>35123293
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20170824/1501004506.html
actually i made a mistake

they buy more T-90 and a new 57mm for BMP-3 in ARMY 2017

the news about the BMP-3 contract was last year, not this year ARMY

>>35123325
>a new 57mm for BMP-3 in ARMY 2017
Noice. The 57's going to have armor piercing rounds for it, isn't it?

>>35123325
>MoD buys BMPT
I hope only as an experiment, they're pretty much useless.

File: file.png (864KB, 1200x715px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1200x715px

>>35123296
>I've always found Russia's obsession with keeping and upgrading older gen tech to be somewhat modern, quite interesting.
are you saying the west don't do the same with their tank and AFV?
http://gd.com/news/press-releases/2017/09/general-dynamics-receives-contracts-upgrade-abrams-main-battle-tanks

>>35123348
If you've taken a look at the kind of Mad Max combat going on in Syria, the BMPT would be a fucking king there.
Hell, even in modern combat it could give notable firepower to recon and cavalry units, something like how the MGS are deployed in the USMil.

File: file.png (678KB, 993x496px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 993x496px

>>35123342
this is the 57mm turret for AFV

there is another 57mm but it is a SPAAG dud the 2S38

>>35123348
https://www.menadefense.net/2017/09/09/bmpt-72-algerie-debut-2018/
Algeria is buying 300 BMPT-72 though

>>35122718
>>thermal sight made by Belarus

Can detect petrol bomb on tank or man at 200 meter. Is good. We like NATO now?

>>35122718
Hang on did the T14 break down again or did Putin spend the budget on hookers and blow?

>>35123399
The same way obongo spent all his money on hookers and blow, so US is stuck with M1, a shit tank that was penned by a Malyutka in Iraq.

>>35123399
they will only received 100 T-14 by 2020

the tank still have some development problem

and there is nothing wrong with upgrading old tank

a T-72B3 2016 only cost 78.9 million ruble per tank
about 1.4 million U.S. dollars

>>35123414
78.9 million rubles is really expensive for what's going to be a burning wreck.

>>35123414
compare the M1A2 SEPv3 which is 4.3 million dollars per tank

T-72B3 and T-80BVM are way to cheap

>>35123420
Cheap and notably inferior, save in logistics.

>>35123430
>notably inferior
>T-80BVM
in frontal armor only tbqh

>>35123255
>Is there a source on that?

https://vpk.name/news/182566_o_modernizacii_tankov_t80bv.html?new#new
>
An important feature is the work on the possibility of operating the T-80BV tank in northern latitudes. The task set before the engineering teams is to expand the range of operating temperatures and bring its lower bar to a level of "minus" 50 Celsius.

At the moment, that's the one I can find. Forgot where I saw the other sources, maybe gurkhan or something.

File: file.png (330KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 720x405px

>>35123418
still cheaper than a Leopard 2A7 Plus burining wreck
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4464.html

>>35123430
>notably inferior
you should start explain your point or this thread will boil down to a Vatnik vs Burger shit posting thread

combat experience in Middle east so that Abrams and Leopard can be just as shitty as Soviet tank

>>35123446
Thanks m8. Gonna look through the bmpt livejournal, maybe he posted something.

>>35123448
>will boil down to a Vatnik vs Burger shit posting thread
>ignoring all the shitposts already posted

>>35123456
>bmpt livejournal
Of course bmpd LJ

File: anon Armata.png (383KB, 742x772px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 742x772px

>>35123456
it still not as bad as T-14 thread on /k/

>>35123448
>you should start explain your point or this thread will boil down to a Vatnik vs Burger shit posting thread
In direct comparison, the modern Abrams models are far more advanced, have superior optics, sensors, integration to comms network. Better crew survivability, ergonomics, ammo stowage, superior armour, superior rounds. They are better in a direct, non-context comparison, though even with context, especially in combat and crewed by competent crews, the Abrams are superior.
Naturally if we're talking third world militaries with logistical and monetary difficulties, for THEM the upgraded export models are a better choice.

>>35123399
T-14 is still under Development. It's a prototype. What they're discussing is mass production of current available tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLfZuZR2Fc
The gun isn't even ready.

File: Kursk_wreck.jpg (84KB, 600x386px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x386px

Everything Russian chimps produce is inferior to Western tech because we actually care about lives of our soldiers
/thread

File: YktaiZeThbY.jpg (42KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x450px

>>35123486
If you cared about your soldiers' lives you wouldn't send them to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan :^)

>>35123322
using upgrades that will be part of new systems on older systems is something EVERYONE DOES IT
it doesnt have anything to do with them being poor or rich

File: 170616-uss-fitzgerald-collision-ac-804p_b6fd36b9183c6be82702d3de26edb3c2.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg (238KB, 1393x1000px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1393x1000px

>>35123486
i bet that superior technology must be good eh

>>35123496
While ventures of our politicians are sure scummy and full of shit, at least we don't cheap out in gear and creature comforts for our soldiers, and it shows, because we actually don't receive mountains of body bags with our guys, unlike you. And we don't hide our losses either. In Afghanistan, the coalition lost over 3k soldiers during 16 years of being here while you lost over 15k soldiers in 10 years. And don't get me started on Syrian debacle, where every Russian who died here, is apparently some random merc and not an actual soldier. You don't even honour the sacrifice of your guys, just shamefully hide them in the black box.
>>35123519
Yes actually. Superior technology ensured that ship wasn't a total loss after out huge fuckup and the majority of soldiers survived.

File: 14623910195620.jpg (102KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1280x720px

>>35123531
what about the dead ones?
are we to assume they are just technologically collateral casualties?

>>35123536
People die during accidents, what a novel concept.

>>35123541
imagine that!
russian soldier die because of accident
ITS A FUCK UP NAVY
american soldiers die because their officers are denser than a fucking reinforced concrete wall
shit happens

heh

>>35123255

Is the T-80 really worth keeping around compared to the top end T-90s? Or when they have Armata around the corner? I was under the assumption that T-90s were better on every functional level anyway and the only advantage a T-80 has is the gas turbine.

>>35123531
You forgot to mention that the reason you lost less soldiers there than the russians is only because unlike you back then the russians haven't armed the talibans with modern weapons, that's it.

>>35123554
Classic Russian who is butthurt because people don't treat you nicely. You deserve all of it. Maybe if you weren't a subhuman chimp with a corrupt regime that ruins everything around them, people actually would feel sorry for you and give you a benefit of doubt. But your actions speak loud, and everybody is tired of your bullshit.

>>35123567
so now im russian
why cause im styling on your shitty ass mentality?
no wonder why no big country takes you seriously anyways

File: atlas.jpg (78KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 612x612px

>people acting like tanks are still relevant
>realize that in the modern age, where all combat will be one regular force with absolute air supremacy battling guerrillas, tanks are absolutely essential

>>35123567

>act like a nigger to someone being civil
>WHY IS HE ACTING LIKE A NIGGER TO ME?
>MUST BE BECAUSE HE'S RUSSIAN

I wish we had an active moderator who would just hardware ban collectivist idiots who can't maintain a civil discussion on a topical board. Would solve most of /k/s issues.

File: dOo-Zs8E_l8.jpg (39KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 420x420px

>>35123567
>someone doesn't like shitposting
>it means he's a vatnik
baka love this logic

>>35123474
>have superior optics, sensors, integration to comms network
i agree
Russian comm is not as complex
>Better crew survivability, ergonomics, ammo stowage, superior armour
debatable. Abrams have thicker frontal armor but laughable side armor. T-80/72 crew compartment is also spacious enough for anyone but some giant.

>They are better in a direct, non-context comparison, though even with context, especially in combat and crewed by competent crews, the Abrams are superior.
in which you have to take more in consideration. Like artillery, SAM, ground force aviation

the T-80BVM is just as capable as a Abrams SEPV2

>>35123619
*SEPV3

>>35123531

>cheap out on gear

Every nation cheaps out on gear. The reason the US 'survives' on cheap gear is that the logistics and support chain is robust enough for whatever the US military is doing vs armies that can't be pinned down and hyper competent vs standing armies. It's why US/NATO doctrine has really been lucky that their opponents in most wars have either been powerless nations like Serbia or Arabs who won't stick to the fight and refuse to accept quality training and modern tactics.

Afghanistan for the Soviets was infinitely worse than the US because the US/NATO was feeding them logistics, supplies, weapons and generally doing EVERYTHING they could to mess with the USSR. Thats why the moment that the Russians realised that the Afghanistanis had MANPADs, they stopped air cavalry in known regions.

Meanwhile for the US, the closest thing Al Qaeda and Taliban had to a supply was buying chinese rifles through a Pakistani frontman for a Chinese general. They weren't getting ATGMs, MANPADs and whatever else while being supplied with vast imports of drug industry by a clandestine intelligence/manipulation organisation. China kept out of US Afghanistan and the closest thing to support they had was Pakistan just being indifferent to the drug runners for token amounts of opium money.

There's more to these wars than you think there is. Geo politics is currently a game of overstretching your opponent and then pressuring the weak links. The US has been competent in surviving this but Russia and China are playing the pressure game better by investing in stability first rather than Chaos, hence why Syria has played out better than Iraq did.

>>35123531
>And don't get me started on Syrian debacle, where every Russian who died here, is apparently some random merc and not an actual soldier.
Is being a burger an actual diagnosis like a Down syndrome? Literally a Russian state's media list of losses:
http://www.rbc.ru/politics/03/05/2017/58457c589a79473fa152c4a2

>In Afghanistan, the coalition lost over 3k soldiers during 16 years of being here while you lost over 15k soldiers in 10 years.
Oh, it's not like USSR fought the war in 80s with 80s tech and Coalition fought in 00s with 00s tech. And it's not like US and UK sent weapons and provided training to sandniggers. Yeah, totally comparable. The only mistake USSR made is not nuking US before collapsing.

>>35123254
>Why would you get 2 when you can have 5?
RIP logistics

There's a reason most armies only have 1 type of tank

>>35123654
>RIP logistics
they use the same ammo, the same track, the same fuel, even the same main gun sight

they are as a logistic problem as NATO have with all of their different tank

>>35123561
I guess its to keep more armoured vehicles functional. I'm betting the Russian economy suffered from those sanctions and the T-14 is facing delays.

Upgrading and refurbishing the older T-72B's have made them a lot more lethal against contemporary tanks to the point where I bet Russian officials are probably reconsidering the need for an expensive new tank (Armata) with a lot of gimmicks and flash for only a small increase in battlefield effectiveness.

I'm not sure how effective the upgrade to the T-80 is, but it will probably keep a lot of them functional and relevant in near future conflicts.

>>35123654

They all run off exactly the same shit. There's a reason they haven't scrapped them and thats because every tank since the T-72 has used the same round for a slightly different gun. It's no different from how every 120 smoothbore can use generic NATO round except for some special snowflake rounds that only work for domestic guns like Japan and Israel have.

There's obviously SOME rounds meant for specific guns like the new penetrator designed for the Armata but the shelved rounds are all cross vehicle. It's also why most upgrades can be shoved in EVERY vehicle in the army because Soviets were big into the 'modularity' scene.

They just aren't Soviets anymore and the majority of their vast arsenal is outdated and too expensive to maintain. It's why they are selling T-72s and variants en masse to anyone that wants to buy them so they can reallocate the budget.

>>35122718
Will gas turbines be replaced with diesel like what was done in T-84s?

>>35123684
the 1000 hp turbine is replaced with a 1250 hp turbine

the 1250hp one consume less fuel then the old 1000 hp

>>35123668

Well it's not that. The problem is that everything the T-80 had over the early T-90 has been made moot by putting the T-80 autoloader into the T-90M. Plus I thought they already installed the 1250HP engines back in the 90s.

File: 1383770877_40.-kontur-obmetaniya-az-2a46m-5-i-2a82.jpg (48KB, 800x515px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x515px

>>35123756
>putting the T-80 autoloader into the T-90M
i am pretty sure the T-90M don't use T-80 auto loader

>>35123766

It might not be the exact same but it's definitely a derivative of it. The old autoloader couldn't load the new penetrators because they were too long and they were based off the T-72. They used a new autoloader that's essentially from the T-80 because the T-80 autoloader could load the rounds and was generally better in every way. It might not be an exact copy but it's closer to the T-80 model than the old T-90 model.

>>35123779
the pic I post is the comparison between 2A82 auto loader and old T-90 autoloader

2A82 is the same gun on T-14

>>35123325
>>35123342
Its a 57mm grenade launcher, not a 57mm gun.

>>35123619
>the T-80BVM is just as capable as a Abrams SEPV2

Said no one knowledge on the subject.

>>35123779
The enlarged T-72 autoloader on the T-90A and T-72B3 is nothing like the T-80/T-64 autoloader.

>>35123414
There are already more than 50 T14

>>35123891
and its been how many years since announced?
are they even on track to get 100 by 2020

>>35123898

>2015
>already have more than 100

They aren't really in mass production but they are definitely doing shit. Still shocked they bothered tho since I can't see a massive operational benefit over a T-90M.

>>35123926
I agree about the T-90M, theres alot of room for modernization elsewhere before even thinking about using armata platform.

bmp-3 never reached its full potential for example

>>35123891
sauce on that

>>35123933

Since their plans were to produce 2300 of them before 2020, I imagine that they already have at least 50 before the plans changed.

Wikipedia claimed they have 100+ but I couldn't see a source but 100 in a year isn't remotely impressive.

>>35122770
that looks pretty poverty

>>35123954
>I imagine that
in ARMY 2017, they announced that by 2020 the Russian Army will received 100 T-14

https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20170824/1501006421.html

>>35123966
the same type of netting is use in IFV, APC and MRAP
it better than the Jew chain and steel ball

>>35122718
Russian procurement is such a cluster fuck.

>HURRRR LET'S HAVE 10,000 VARIANTS EACH OF ABOUT 100 VEHICLES.

>>35123984

Curse of having a resource based economy thats easy to fuck with. When oil was at a high,Russia could easily afford their new armour. Now it's at a low, they lost half their economy and it's backfired so they have to make cuts, primarily military, and it's cheaper to just maintain/upgrade T-90s with T-14 guns.

I don't understand WHY they are upgrading T-80s tho. Seems redundant and pointless when T-90's have been better for a long time now and T-90Ms are pretty fucking good.

>>35123976
it's 1st confirmed contract

>>35124000
>Seems redundant and pointless when T-90's have been better for a long time now and T-90Ms are pretty fucking good.
they only have like 500 T-90, puny number
while with cheaper T-72B3 and T-80BVM they can buy thousand of them

they already have 1000 of T-72B3

>>35124000
Can't even blame that. In the early mid cold war they had 3 mbts with a million varients each, and they were flush with cash.

>>35124000
>>35124031
they not only cheaper but also keep the T-80 factory alive

>>35124041

>Cheaper

Only because scale of production. If they'd replaced all the T-72s with T-90s as they planned to do, they'd cost less than the $2.2 million they were costed at. That'd mean the T-90M reproduction would cost fuck all and they could have scrapped their T-14 dreams while having an insanely lethal and high end tank they could export en masse. The T-80 only made sense to keep in production for the era where T-90s were a T-72 replacement but now there's just no reason. It'd be like keeping the M1A1 Abrams production lines open because they cost less than an A2 because they shared ammo.

>>35124055
no don't really get the point

they are upgrading old soviet tank, not reopen production line

so the Russian MOD only need to pay for the upgrade kit and man hours. So in paper a T-72B3 only cost 1.4 million dollars

as it is now, an T-90M cost more than 4 million dollars, even though the T-90S still selling like hot cake in international market

>>35123255
>Troops seem to have some T-62s still.
No, they have not, all T-62s are in storages.

>>35123296
Are there some differences against US or DE? Just same remanufacturing of old steel with the one difference - russians will get T-14 in future (2020 year - 100 tanks).

>>35123348
Algeria just bought 300 BMPT-72 on the chassis of T-90S

M1B when?

>>35123486
National security goes above everything elese. Any other nation would do the same.

>>35122718
>Russian just introduced
why do you type Russian instead of Russians or Russia?

>>35124883
Russian T-62's saw action as recently as Georgia.

File: 1493466448593.jpg (84KB, 907x661px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 907x661px

>>35122718
>thermal sight made by Belarus
ayy lmao
nothing says cream of the crop tech like "made in belarus"

>>35124041
>but also keep the T-80 factory alive
It is dead.

>>35125262
you obviously haven been there

>>35125262
Belarus were are able to outjew Russia and built french licensed thermals factory years ago. Russia failed to jump on the train before they went full retard with Crimea.

>>35122718
Buying parts born in a foreign country.

I don't care how friendly Belarus is, Ukraine was just as allied with russia until the maidan, crimea, donbass shitfest and now the t80s factory is in a hostile country.

>>35125281
>>35125300
Omsktransmash is Russian factory and they are the one that upgrade T-80BV to BVM

Omsktransmash is part of UVZ

>>35125300
You have the right idea but the example is poor, several projects ground to a halt after Crimea (those ships with no engines for example).

>>35125300
>Ukraine was just as allied with russia until the maidan
>I don't know shit about Eastern Europe: The Post

>>35125300
belaruse buys russian products, gas, energy resources etc etc. fucking marines now use Carl Gustav for fuck sake. Thats called trade and cooperation you dumbfuckistanian.

>>35125262
It's same optic as in t-90 and t-72bm3

>>35123349
wtf is that on the front slope of the turret? just several slabs of plate armor?

>>35125250
Thank you, K.O.
That was 9 years ago.

>>35125262
Sosna-U using Thales Catherine XP matrix.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/catherinexp_uk_071005.pdf

>>35125602
they are counter weight to simulate composite armor

>>35123296
Take a look at Israel too- they still have Centurion and T-55 derivatives in service.

>>35125602
Weight and moment of inertia simulators for the armor upgrade. The testbed is most probably an M1A1 from the boneyard.

>>35125671
also Israel upgraded Merkava several times

>>35123486
You don't /thread yourself faggot

>>35125696
Yep,the newest version is just a few months old.

>>35125461
>ukraine wasnt totally a russian satellite prior to the maidan.
Hurrrrr this retard.

>>35125495
Someone mad his country's a puppet. I thought you vatniks loved russia?

T-80 was a mistake.

File: There+is+a+futa+version+but+that+doesn+t+affiliate+with+_05f63edc09fdc3476bafe773dcce021a.jpg (13KB, 207x289px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 207x289px

>>35125294
annexing a failed country to make it a big field test

>>35125904
>t.uses euro guns while lambasting nato allies
hypocritical cuck.

>>35126013
Crimea is not a country.

>>35126079
it was a khanate tho. slavs think it belongs to them, dumb slavshits, it belongs to the golden horde.

>>35123567
>But your actions speak loud, and everybody is tired of your bullshit.
This i cannot name one friend that had browsed /k/ for longer then half a year, that hasnt already turned from "russians are (somewhat) cool underdogs" to" fuck russians, they ruin everything". The constant arrogance and insulting is astonishing and the second they get a bit of their own medicine back, they cry like a bunch of SJW on steroids err sex change hormones.

>>35125671
No they don't. Not as an MBT.

>>35125696
The Mk.4 has been in service since 2004. What the hell are you talking about

>>35126264
>The Mk.4 has been in service since 2004. What the hell are you talking about
Meant for >>35125811

>>35122927
Can somebody translate?

>>35126279
Tank T-80BVM

Mass 46 tons
Crew 3
dimension
Length( gun forward)
wide
height
Max speed
Range
weapon
Main gun
Machine gun: coaxial, anti aircraft
ATGM
Ammo: Main gun, 7.62 ammo, 12.7ammo
engine

>>35126279
46 tons
3 crew
something measured in mm
something measured in mm
something measured in mm
70 km/h top speed
500 km road range
125mm 2A46M1 gun
7.62 and 12.7mm machine guns
can shoot 9K119 (refleks) missiles
45 rounds of 125mm, 1250 rounds of 7.62, 300 rounds of 12.7mm
1250hp engine

>>35126279
>46 tons
>3 crew
>7012 3384 2215 (Armor protection in 1/10th of mm)
>70km/h
>500km fuel range
>main gun 2A46M1 125mm
>two machine guns, 1x7.62mm, 1x12.7mm
>ammuinition, 45 for main gun, 1250 for 7.62mm, 300 for 12,7mm
>1250hp engine

>>35126332
>>35126355
Thanks guys

>>35126384
Thanks to you too