Jump to content


Vk4502(P) Ausf B Vs Is-4


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
303 replies to this topic

Condemned #1 Posted Nov 01 2010 - 22:58

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 127
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

*
POPULAR

Ive had my VK4502 for a couple weeks now and its been its up and downs, first I hated it, I despised its very presence. I thought everything about the tank was just crap, junk really. Its by far the worst stock tank Ive played with and I suspect it rivals TigerI as the worst ingame (for its tier/value/etc). Without the upgraded engine it was painful getting around, without its main gun it was worse then the KT because it lacked the mobility of its lower tier cousin/brother. Now with the upgraded engines and Cannon its a decent tank, it has its flaws like the engine that breaks once every 3rd game and once it breaks its a moving brick, having an injured driver gives the same effect, combined its a nightmare but so long as its not being shot at by any heavy guns its fine.

This was not meant to be a whine thread, Im just giving you some of the details from my experience with it. Now lets take a look at the numbers by first comparing it to its lower tier the KT

Spoiler                     

first interesting thing that comes to mind for me is the weight, their the same basicly which is rather strange as the VK4502 seems heavier (got a bad engine though). Secondly armor values a mere +20 infront hull-wise but with a welcomed thicker turret to compensate for the petty increase. As for the side armor well on KT its sloped and on VK4502 its not, KT got 80 whilst the VK4502 got 100, an unsignificant increase also its not sloped pretty much any 6+ can get a piece of its hp (not to mention all the subsystems, engine, gastank, ammo rack).
Now cannon-wise, this is why we upgrade, not because of the speed, not because of the armor, but for the huge gun and its massive damage.

So to sum it up, the VK4502 is an upgrade of the KT, compared to the KT VK4502 is a much better tank, not for the hp nor armor but for a huge cannon with massive damage. Its a pure upgrade and now thats were the IS.4 comes in, after all its what this threads about not the KT vs 4502 but we need to understand why the tank is how it is before we can actually make any rational suggestions. The devs have simply smacked on an upgrade package of the KT without comparing it to its sovjet counterpart (at all/not enough.)

Here we have the IS-3 and the IS-4

Spoiler                     

Like the VK4502 and KT IS-4 has a lot more armor then its predecessor but unlike the VK4502 the IS-4 not only gets a lot of frontal turret armor it gets sides too but more about that later, further study shows you that they share the same engine altough the IS-4 is 10 tons heavier. But apart from it being heavier it excels over the IS-3 in most other ways, its cannon, hp and its armor, IS-3 is faster but the trade for armor seems like a real bargain.

Again we see a pure upgrade on its predecessor (although I must say I wasnt expected such a rift in power as it doesnt seem to lack anything that the IS-3 possessed apart from the obvious mobility and acceleration) not seeing to regarding the other tank tree.

Match up

Posted Image

.........................................................VK4502............................IS-4..........................Difference(%)
HP ......................................................1850..............................1590.............................+16%
Weight/engine power...............82t/740hp=10hp/a ton......58t/650hp=11hp/a ton...............-10%
Speed, top and traverse............ 30km/h / 17km/h.............. 35km/h / 25km/h.............-16%/-32%
Armor, Hull....................................170/100/100...................160/160/120................+6%/-60%/-20%
Armor, Turret.................................252/160/160...................250/200/170...............+0,8%/-25%/-6%
Turret traverse speed, view range......20/460..........................23/400.......................-15%/+15%
Cannon damage............................470/470/620....................490/490/640.................-4%/-4%/-3%
............ Penetration.......................246/311/65......................260/303/68..................-5%/+3%/-5%
............ Aiming/reload time..............2.5/13s...........................3/12,7s.......................+20%/-2%

+ next to the % marks VK4502 as the winner
- next to the % marks IS-4 as the winner


Conclusion

The IS-4 wins in almost all forms of statistics, especially of note is the armor which not only is thicker but is also sloped around the entire tank, the turret which is round makes it extremely hard to penetrate and its low profile combined with a greater mobility and a more powerful gun puts the VK4502 (in the current state) as nothing but a reminder of the second world war, as proven above its inferior in close to anyway and although a good VK4502 player may play with it successfully that doesn't mean its equally good as the opposite tank in the sovjet tech tree.

Solution

I will present a valid "fix" to this issue, Im sure the community can help and refine it or even come up with a better one. My foremost intention with creating this thread was to enlighten the issue and bring facts with me so that it wouldn't be just another whine thread.

Back to the matter at hand I suggest Giving VK4502 a more powerful cannon to compensate for its flaws (As Maus is currently using the same gun I suggest making an entire new one as otherwise it may cause balance issues with the next tier), I suggest increasing the front armor so that it actually could be useful, the IS-4 gets a total of 440(H)+620(T)=1060 whilst the VK4502 gets 370(H)+570(T)=942 as the VK4502 is supposed to be a long ranged tank its frontal armor should be increased, as shown above the IS-4 got 13% more armor, or 118 units if you like and armor is more then twice as important as the HP as bounces are more valuable then the extended life line. Now its VK4502 with its 16% more hp vs IS-4 with its 13% more armor and to make it perfectly clear. HP IS NOT AS GOOD/EQUAL TO ARMOR.

Lastly but not least important is the view range, as the T9 german tank is so much bigger it gets spotted at ranges were it cant see itself, even while enemies firing they remain invisible and for a sniper tank to have 15% longer view-range then a close combat unit and ontop of that being so massive, its a - -. It needs increased vision. so in short

*damage increase*
*view range extended*
*thicker frontal armor*


Garbad #2 Posted Nov 01 2010 - 23:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30665 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010
Nice post, +1

ComfortablyApathetic #3 Posted Nov 01 2010 - 23:10

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1524 battles
  • 224
  • [PWNY] PWNY
  • Member since:
    07-29-2010
Don't worry, the American Tier 9 Heavy is garbage. Unlike the IS-4 and VK4502 it doesn't get the Tier 10 gun, and hence has nothing to compensate for its weak armor.

Tanitha #4 Posted Nov 01 2010 - 23:11

    Major

  • WG Staff
  • 2405 battles
  • 4,723
  • Member since:
    08-20-2010
Wow very nice post. Thanks, And I agree.
And yes I have a vk4502 elite, lots of games, 100% crew, Lots of equipment, etc, etc. Its a nice tank, Its much better than a KT, I much prefer playing it to playing the tiger's. But yes, its a little weaker than the IS4. I believe there is a bigger difference between the tiger 2 and the IS3 though, but i didnt really play my T2 very much I just grinded to the vk4502 mainly.

And the top speed of 30 is rarely 30, the vk's engines are very week, turning or going up a slight hill, I'm pretty sure the mouse is quicker. i was passed by a mouse that I had a big head start on, going valley on lake-ville.

I like the vk4502 but that said, I've platooned with IS4's a lot, and obviously fought a lot of them 1v1. So have seen both sides well, and if nothing changes I'll swap to the IS's on release.

Anyway, wouldn't this be better in vehicle comparisons? would you like it moved there?

ComfortablyApathetic #5 Posted Nov 01 2010 - 23:20

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1524 battles
  • 224
  • [PWNY] PWNY
  • Member since:
    07-29-2010
Posted Image

Sturmtiger_304 #6 Posted Nov 01 2010 - 23:30

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 924
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010
Possible with a translation for the above?

ComfortablyApathetic #7 Posted Nov 01 2010 - 23:38

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1524 battles
  • 224
  • [PWNY] PWNY
  • Member since:
    07-29-2010
In order:

Health
Weight
Horsepower
Top Speed
Tank Traverse Speed
Armor (Front/Side/Rear)
Turret Armor (Front/Side/Rear)
Damage
Penetration
Rounds per Minute
Turret Traverse Speed
View Range
Radio Range


However, it is important to note that many of the stats in the tank window are changed by upgrades. For turret and gun stats, look at the other windows in the picture. For Turning speed, all tanks get about 5 degrees/sec faster suspension and a significantly better engine.

EDIT: Might as well add the translations for the gun/turret

Gun:
Bore Size
Rounds/Min
Penetration (AP/Premium/HE)
Average Damage (AP/Premium/HE)
Accuracy
Aim Time
Weight

Turret:
Armor (Front/Side/Rear)
Turning Speed
View Range
Weight

Baconnaise #8 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 02:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 17 battles
  • 424
  • Member since:
    09-08-2010
Ok so what we see from the screens here is there is no reason to go anything other than russian heavy at release I take it. This just disheartens me even further since there are no american td's this month and the rest of tanks seem average at best. Balance wise I have gripes with quite a few tanks regardless of nation.

ComfortablyApathetic #9 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 03:02

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1524 battles
  • 224
  • [PWNY] PWNY
  • Member since:
    07-29-2010
Well many American tanks are great like the Tier 7 American heavy tank, but IMO the T34 is just so amazingly bad compared to the competition it makes me wonder what the devs were thinking. This isn't a simulation, they need to value balance over realism. If it takes artificially giving it more armor or a better gun, then so be it. At least with the T30 even though many people think it sucks because of its bad armor, it has a good gun to (partly) make up for it.

__SNIPER__74 #10 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 03:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25383 battles
  • 6,275
  • [F--H] F--H
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010
It's rather simple.

The VK4502 was actually a competitor design to the Tiger B, it was the Porsche entry, and it was the loser.


http://www.achtungpa...-sd-kfz-182.htm

Quote

Planning for the Tiger II started as early as May 1941, a year before the Tiger I entered production. By the fall of 1942/January 1943, designers started work on a new heavy tank that would eventually replace the Tiger I. In January 1943, Hitler ordered the new Tiger to be armed with a long 88mm gun and have 150mm frontal armor and 80mm side armor. Front and side plates were to be sloped and interlocked, resulting in a design similar to the then-new PzKpfw V Panther (Sd.Kfz.171).

Once again, Henschel and Porsche were ordered to develop the new vehicle. Porsche provided two projects that were based on the previous VK 4501(P) design and were designated VK4502(P). The first one, Typ 180 (Turm Vorne) A/B, had its turret mounted centrally, while Typ 181 (Turm Hinten) A/B/C, had its turret mounted in the rear with a mid-mounted engine (similar in layout to the modern Israeli Merkava main battle tanks). Both designs shared the same chassis and hull, along with all the other components and gasoline-electric system of VK4501(P). Both designs were extremely similar, with the only difference being the location of the turret and some mechanical components. Only wooden mock-ups were produced.

Henschel’s design was developed at a much faster rate and was destined to enter production. It shared many components of the Panzer V Panther and Panther II (e.g. upper hull hatches) in order to standardize tank production, as ordered in February 1943. The VK4503(H) design was completely different from that of the Tiger I, with some resemblance to the enlarged Panther, and both had some common parts. On October 20, 1943, a wooden mock-up of Henschel’s Tiger II was presented to Adolf Hitler at Arys (Orzysz), in East Prussia. Preparations for production at Henschel’s plant in Kassel started in December 1943, with three prototypes produced. Tiger II production began in January 1944 and ended in March 1945. Only 489 production vehicles (and the three prototypes - V1, V2 and V3) were built in four production series (420500, 420530, 420590 and 420680), out of the original 1,500 ordered. Production was delayed by the overall war situation and bombing raids on the Henschel factory at Kassel, which left it in ruins.

To put it simply. The VK4502 lost to the VK4503 to become the "Tiger B", but in this game is the higher tier vehicle.  It's an inferior design  that in game is 'better' only because it has more Hit points and the ability to mount a larger weapon.

Ragor #11 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 05:59

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 80
  • Member since:
    08-11-2010
Great opening post. I only want to add/have to mention that the VK4502P had an electronic engine which was fed by the two Porsche engines via 2 generators. Thats the reason for the 'strange' shape of the chassis.

What is the benefit of an e-engine? Great torgue! From the first rpm of the engine you got full torgue/power where a conventional engine only has its max power output at a specific range of the rpm scale.

With its unique setup (which was way to complex for a combat vehicle those days) the conventinal the generator feeding engines could always work at their optimal rpm bandwith and the e-engine was providing extremely good acceleration and hill climbing abilities for the mass.

-> The game parameters for the VK4502P ingame handling (i suppose) rely only on the generator feeding engines which is quite odd.


-> GIVE THE VK4502P ITS TORQUE = GOOD ACCELARATION

Condemned #12 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 08:47

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 127
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View Posttanitha, on Nov 01 2010 - 23:11, said:

Wow very nice post. Thanks, And I agree.
And yes I have a vk4502 elite, lots of games, 100% crew, Lots of equipment, etc, etc. Its a nice tank, Its much better than a KT, I much prefer playing it to playing the tiger's. But yes, its a little weaker than the IS4. I believe there is a bigger difference between the tiger 2 and the IS3 though, but i didnt really play my T2 very much I just grinded to the vk4502 mainly.

And the top speed of 30 is rarely 30, the vk's engines are very week, turning or going up a slight hill, I'm pretty sure the mouse is quicker. i was passed by a mouse that I had a big head start on, going valley on lake-ville.

I like the vk4502 but that said, I've platooned with IS4's a lot, and obviously fought a lot of them 1v1. So have seen both sides well, and if nothing changes I'll swap to the IS's on release.

Anyway, wouldn't this be better in vehicle comparisons? would you like it moved there?

Thanks for the compliment and can only nod to the points your making about it being slow like the rest of the tigers its got subsystems made of glass. That and a slow engine... it never reaches 30 not even on "even ground". But its still a decent tank because of its gun. I would however say that the IS-3 is not as superior to the KT as the IS-4 is to the VK4502, if you for instance take a look at armor values on the KT/IS-3 youl quickly realize that their about the same whilst the next tier comparison is on a completely different level altogether. I counted the % above and it was 70% for the VK4502 and ~200 for the IS-4 so put together +130% so yeah.. just a little...  <_<

Although I intended this for a comparison thread its really used to point out the imperfections on the German T9. I want something to be done to alter the state its in, so to answer your question I want it to be seen by as many eyes as possible so that folks can drop in and let us know what they think, and what section on the forum its in.. well.. it doesn't matter much, at least not to me.


View PostComfortablyApathetic, on Nov 01 2010 - 23:20, said:

Spoiler                     

thanks for providing us some info on the american counterpart I must say its interesting that it seems to be a close combat tank yet its greatly inferior to the IS-4 as well.. or maybe its not I havent played one, nor played against one.

View PostComfortablyApathetic, on Nov 02 2010 - 03:02, said:

Well many American tanks are great like the Tier 7 American heavy tank, but IMO the T34 is just so amazingly bad compared to the competition it makes me wonder what the devs were thinking. This isn't a simulation, they need to value balance over realism. If it takes artificially giving it more armor or a better gun, then so be it. At least with the T30 even though many people think it sucks because of its bad armor, it has a good gun to (partly) make up for it.

I think you hit jackpot right here, its a game meant to be fun, not mirror the actual world. Only a very few people actually care about historical correctness, they should just disregard it entirely and build a game not built on history but by gameplay mechanics. After all I think thats why we have so many imbalance issues, they read wiki and find out that the tank X has 100/65/40 in hull armor whilst the comparing to a tank built a decade later, tank Z which got the following 120/80/60 so what they do to balance is simply bumping the hp. Thats the only thing they can alter without poking holes in history. Its whats makes this game so imbalanced at times.

Instead what they need to do is work out a system for creating a special role for each tank and tier which in the T9 instance would be, german sniper and the sovjet close combatant. Then work it from there.

NEMESIS #13 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 10:42

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 459
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010
Well that T34 is actually better then both the IS4 and the Vk45 if it wasn`t for that front armor at least so if they`d beef that up to say 150 that would be the best tank of the 3.

All this balancing is very difficult to make,i for one am not for the idea that they should all be equal as then can you imagine they`ll have to make some shitty french/japanse tier 9-10 tanks on par with the Maus/Is7.
Personally i think each tank should have its strong spot more or less historically accurate like for example in the maus vs is7 debate i believe the maus should have almost impenetrable front armor(say 300-350 mm front armor)while is7 should have better gun/speed(which already does) and so one, you just can`t make all tanks equal,for the sake of balancing as theres a thing you can`t balance and thats the shape which especially in the case of the VK45 and Maus can cause some very major disadvantages especially in close urban combat.

Arkhell #14 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 11:22

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,173
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010

View PostNEMESIS, on Nov 02 2010 - 10:42, said:

Well that T34 is actually better then both the IS4 and the Vk45 if it wasn`t for that front armor at least so if they`d beef that up to say 150 that would be the best tank of the 3.

All this balancing is very difficult to make,i for one am not for the idea that they should all be equal as then can you imagine they`ll have to make some shitty french/japanse tier 9-10 tanks on par with the Maus/Is7.
Personally i think each tank should have its strong spot more or less historically accurate like for example in the maus vs is7 debate i believe the maus should have almost impenetrable front armor(say 300-350 mm front armor)while is7 should have better gun/speed(which already does) and so one, you just can`t make all tanks equal,for the sake of balancing as theres a thing you can`t balance and thats the shape which especially in the case of the VK45 and Maus can cause some very major disadvantages especially in close urban combat.


the way i heard it is that the MAUS actually had better armor to begin with but they nerfed it (taking the rest of the german tanks down with it to) because it was to hard to penetrate... thats the whole point of a maus it's a big brick of metal that stops shells and shoot's back real big once.



back on topic though:
jep nice and clear post mate i hope they do something about this, eventhough i will still be total german on release i rather be able to compete then just be canon fodder after tier 7 :P

Varrakk #15 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 11:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11760 battles
  • 395
  • [ATLAS] ATLAS
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
I disagree with beefing up its cannon. Its fine the way it is.
What the tank needs to be playable, is more speed and better turning.
I would not say no to improved armor.

Just because it and is-4 is both Tier 9's, doesn't mean they have to be identical.
Make it go faster, let me turn my tank and turret faster and I'll be happy.

NEMESIS #16 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 12:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 459
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010

View Postvarrakk, on Nov 02 2010 - 11:50, said:

I disagree with beefing up its cannon. Its fine the way it is.
What the tank needs to be playable, is more speed and better turning.
I would not say no to improved armor.

Just because it and is-4 is both Tier 9's, doesn't mean they have to be identical.
Make it go faster, let me turn my tank and turret faster and I'll be happy.

Yeah i agree the gun is ok even if they have smaller stats then is4, what i don`t like about it its painfully slow even tough its just 1 hp/ton smaller then is4 its over 5 km/h slower,think it needs a small buff there its just too slow which is a real pain when your gun is in the back of the tank and perhaps a small buff to side armor as well maybe 10-20 mms.

FootballFan #17 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 12:18

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
The tank has so many disadvantages comparing to IS4 it needs more than just more hp engine. My suggestion is even more hp than planned 840 and improving the gun stats

Zoijar #18 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 13:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 288
  • Member since:
    08-25-2010
The "realistic" problem is that Russian tanks were build much smaller and hence got thicker armor at less weight. The drawback of this design -- very small interior, hardly any space for the loader to operate in, extremely uncomfortable working conditions -- is not present in the game. In fact, apparently the loader manages to reload this gun quicker in that cramped space. That, and the VK4502 lacking an entire engine, of course.

Game-wise I don't have so much trouble with the IS-4 anymore after all the upgrades to the VK. The 128mm helps a lot. The VK seems to be a much more specialized tank: your front is relatively strong and your sides weak, and you're very slow, so you have to think hard where to fight from. If enemies flank you, you're dead. The IS-4 doesn't seem to have these drawbacks; it's more of an all-round tank. Unfortunately, as you have shown, it is not weaker overall. I'd expect the VK to be neigh impenetrable from the front to make up for its drawbacks, and the IS-4 to be slightly easier to penetrate with the advantage that it's just about equally strong everywhere. The increased mobility of the IS-4 should also come at a price. It's simple game design: you can't have an object that has even one better stat and no other drawbacks. It removes the interesting choice. Why would any competitive clan player ever want to play the VK?

So, what I think I mean is that the roles of these two tanks should be reconsidered. VK4502 should be, well for lack of a better word, a tank as in the classic mmorpg sense: capable of taking a huge pounding from the front, but easy prey when flanked. The IS-4 can be its direct counterpart: mobile fighter that can flank a VK and take him down easily, but wouldn't stand a chance facing a VK one-on-one from the front. Things like these would make for a more interesting game. I can see a platoon with 2 VKs spearheading the assault and being protected on their flanks by two IS-4s. Right now there's no reason why a platoon should not consist of 4 IS-4s.

Condemned #19 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 19:11

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 127
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View PostZoijar, on Nov 02 2010 - 13:17, said:

The "realistic" problem is that Russian tanks were build much smaller and hence got thicker armor at less weight. The drawback of this design -- very small interior, hardly any space for the loader to operate in, extremely uncomfortable working conditions -- is not present in the game. In fact, apparently the loader manages to reload this gun quicker in that cramped space. That, and the VK4502 lacking an entire engine, of course.

The IS-4 reloads a bit slower but its only natural since its got a bigger gun, says nothing about interior, crew conditions etc. The VK4502 is slower, has less armor and has a less powerful gun, you draw your own conclusions from that


Game-wise I don't have so much trouble with the IS-4 anymore after all the upgrades to the VK. The 128mm helps a lot. The VK seems to be a much more specialized tank: your front is relatively strong and your sides weak, and you're very slow, so you have to think hard where to fight from. If enemies flank you, you're dead. The IS-4 doesn't seem to have these drawbacks; it's more of an all-round tank. Unfortunately, as you have shown, it is not weaker overall. I'd expect the VK to be neigh impenetrable from the front to make up for its drawbacks, and the IS-4 to be slightly easier to penetrate with the advantage that it's just about equally strong everywhere. The increased mobility of the IS-4 should also come at a price. It's simple game design: you can't have an object that has even one better stat and no other drawbacks. It removes the interesting choice. Why would any competitive clan player ever want to play the VK?

As I said in the OP just because you can play with the VK4502 successfully doesnt make it equal to its competitors. To add I agree about having a thicker frontal armor, but only to a certain degree.. I dont want it to be in the same class as the JT, Im suggesting a small bump (10-20) which could if need arised be taken from the back of the tank, after all its a long ranged unit. The IS-4 seems to excel at every area. No one really wants to play the VK4502 as it is now, its merely the tier standing between KT and Maus and its a bit disheartening.


So, what I think I mean is that the roles of these two tanks should be reconsidered. VK4502 should be, well for lack of a better word, a tank as in the classic mmorpg sense: capable of taking a huge pounding from the front, but easy prey when flanked. The IS-4 can be its direct counterpart: mobile fighter that can flank a VK and take him down easily, but wouldn't stand a chance facing a VK one-on-one from the front. Things like these would make for a more interesting game. I can see a platoon with 2 VKs spearheading the assault and being protected on their flanks by two IS-4s. Right now there's no reason why a platoon should not consist of 4 IS-4s.

I agree, the different tanks should be given certain roles that would be given to them, certain outstanding benefits and drawbacks. I dont mind the slow engine on the VK4502 but I do think its odd a close combat tank should have a more powerful gun then a sniper one. In general snipers carry more firepower but doesn't fire as frequently as regular" combatants.


Feldmarschall #20 Posted Nov 02 2010 - 21:11

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 1237 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
A proud driver of VK4502(P) and I approve this post.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users