Jump to content


Historical Sch-lol-arship: T-34


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

EnsignExpendable #1 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 00:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
This sorry excuse for a historical work has been making rounds for the past year (and probably more), so I'll just compile a thorough debunking here. Without further ado, let us begin!

Quote

 
The T-34 was supposed to be the first tank that employed sloped armor. This characteristic meant that the armor protection was significantly enhanced, compared to straight armor. However French tanks of that period like the SOMUA S35 and the Renault R35 also had sloped armor.
 
 
No it wasn't. The T-34 wasn't even the first Soviet tank with sloped armour. The first such tank was the BT-SV, whose creation documents make no attempt to mask the inspiration from the FCM 36.
 

Quote

Tanks are always crowded on the inside
 
Captain Obvious, reporting for duty!
 

Quote

The limited space not only affected crew performance but turned the T-34 into a deathtrap. A US study from the Korean War (based on the T-34/85 that was roomier than the T-34/76) concluded that due to the limited internal space a penetration by an A/T round usually led to the destruction of the tank and loss of 75% of the crew. In the Sherman the figure was only 18%.
 
Poor citation style, but hey, at least he tried. Or, I mean, he might have, seeing as how Soviet figures for actual tank crew losses are much lower than that. ~90% of Soviet tank division manpower losses came from tank riders, and 2/3rds of the "losses" were light wounds (Armour protection of T-34 tanks 1941-1945, Zeughaus, 2007). Oh yeah, did I mention the Soviets counted wounded men as losses? Because the author sure didn't.
 

Quote

German tanks like the Pz III and Pz IV had a conventional hull design but they also used slope in the middle part of their front hull armor. The new Panther tank was the first German tank to have a fully sloped hull front and sloped sides however the armor layout did not limit internal space like in the T-34.
 
Damn, the Germans used Ahnenerbe geometry to make sloping not limit space! Amazing! What the author again fails to mention is that the slope on the PzIII and PzIV tanks is not much different than the slope on the Vickers Mk. E tank from 1931. Revolutionary!
 

Quote

The turret also suffered from a lack of space. It was so cramped that it affected movement.
 
Apparently the Germans and Americans used magic steel walls that do not affect movement.
 

Quote

One was the lack of turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns) for the loader. This meant that the person loading the shells had to follow the movement of the gun and at the same time keep an eye on the floor so he doesn’t trip on the spent casings.
 
Wait, first the loader can't move at all, now he's running back and forth so much he can trip over shell casings? What? How? Not to mention the fact that spent shells were thrown out of hatches. But that's a fact, and our comrade here does not deal in facts. Let's read on.
 

Quote

The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets.
 
Hold on a second, did he actually make a factual statement?
 

Quote

A three-man turret was finally introduced with the T-34/85 in March ’44.
 
Well, that didn't last long. The T-34S had a 3-man turret much earlier, not to mention T-34-85 model 1943s.
 

Quote

A German test of tank pitching motion at the Kummersdorf testing facility (1km undulated track) showed that the T-34 had the worst stability compared to the Pz IV, Tiger, Sherman and Panther.
 
Except not really. The provided chart has the PzIV marked for highest instability, notably higher than the T-34.
 

Quote

The Christie suspension was a technological dead-end and the Aberdeen evaluation says: ‘The Christie's suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected’. It was replaced in postwar Soviet tanks with the torsion bar system, same as the T-34M and T43 prototypes intended to replace the T-34 during the war.
 
Now let's look at words written about the Christie suspension by an actual American: "Only the USSR exploited the genius of the American tank designer, Walther Christie, whose inventions underwrote World War II's best tank, the Soviet T-34" (CIA DTIC document 0001066239). Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose. Also, the Americans loved the Christie tanks, but couldn't get any funding to buy them. I guess after the Soviets had good luck, they got upset and pretended they didn't want Christie tanks anyway.
 

Quote

Initially the powerful V-2 engine (500hp) could not be used to the fullest due to the 4-speed gearbox. Changing gears required excessive force on behalf of the driver. The T-34 could use the 4th gear only on a paved road, thus the max speed over cross-country was theoretically 25 km/h but in practice it was only 15km/h because changing from 2nd gear to 3rd required superhuman strength.
 
Achtung! Sowjetische Ubermenschen! When off-road, they cannot shift gears, but on a road, they gain the power of a hundred men!
 

EnsignExpendable #2 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 00:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

Quote

The caliber numbers look impressive. After all the main German tank of 1941-43 Pz III had a 50 mm gun and that of 1943-45 Pz IV had 75mm. However Soviet tank guns suffered from low velocity leading to poor penetration and accuracy at long ranges.
 
I guess being as accurate as a Tiger and capable of penetrating any German tank at 2 kilometers is not enough? Such high standards!
 

Quote

Initially only the unit commander’s tank had a radio. In the course of the war radio was used more widely but even in 1944 many tanks lacked a radio set. The lack of radio meant that Soviet tank units operated with little coordination.
 
Every T-34 had a radio by Kursk, but let's gloss over that detail. It's still better than the guy that insisted Soviets didn't put radio transmitters into tanks.
 

Quote

German combat reports show that T-34 tanks had serious difficulties in navigating terrain and identifying targets. The problem was that the vision devices made it hard for the driver and the gunner to see what was happening.
 
I'd say a gunner having 180 degrees of view range made it pretty easy for him to see what was happening. As for drivers, the hatch opens for a reason. In combat, T-34s more often than not fought with driver vision devices covered, anyway, as it was the only way to protect them from shrapnel and bullets.
 

Quote

The T-34 ‘1943 version’ had a larger turret and a German style cupola.
The T-34/85, introduced in March ’44, had a new large turret and the German style cupola.
 
I don't know what's puzzling, the fact that the author pretends T-34-76es didn't have cupolas before 1943, that the T-34-85 didn't exist before 1944, or that anything about their cupolas was German in design. If he wanted a "German style cupola", he would have to look no further than a T-50, but that's too hard for a writer of this caliber.
 

Quote

The majority of vehicles in 1941 were lost due to equipment malfunction.
 
The equipment in question must be German troops, malfunctioning all over Soviet fuel depots.
 

Quote

The evacuation and relocation of industrial facilities combined with the loss of skilled workers could only lead to the fall of reliability.
 
Except T-34s were made on an assembly line, which even a child could work. Because, you know, they did. Also note the lack of source for this alleged fall of reliability.
 

Quote

There were constant problems with the gearbox and the engine filters. The Aberdeen evaluators noted:
 
What the Aberdeen evaluators didn't note is that you have to put oil into an oil bath filter.
 

Quote

Apparently the air filter problem was never fixed. A US study of a captured T-34/85 from the Korean War (built in 1945) noted ‘Wholly inadequate engine intake air cleaners could be expected to allow early engine failure due to dust intake and the resulting abrasive wear. Several hundred miles in very dusty operation would probably be accompanied by severe engine power loss.’
 
God damn, really, several hundred miles in dusty operation would be accompanied by engine power loss? YOU DON'T SAY. Thankfully, when properly maintained, T-34s could travel for 2000-2500 km on average.
 

Quote

The mental image of the T-34 travelling hundreds of kilometers without stopping is fantasy.
 
Unlike Soviet livers, Soviet bladders are not infinite, and pee breaks are required even by the most seasoned of tankers.
 

Quote

The V-2 engine had serious reliability problems. Depending on the source in 1941 it supposedly lasted for 100 hours on average. This figure went down in 1942 since some T-34’s could not travel more then 30-35 km.
 
In 1941 and 1942, the V-2 engine suffered frequent problems diagnosed as "shell-fragment-through-engine-itis". I don't know about the author, but I have yet to see an engine capable of combating this problem.
 

Quote

The T-34 tested at the Aberdeen centre was built at the best factory using materials of superior quality but its engine stopped working after 72.5 hours.
 
"Ye moye, Seryezha, the Americans want one of our best tanks by tomorrow!"
"Bozhe moy, Misha! All the best tanks are at the front! Quick, get me a hull from the scrap yard, I will paint it a fresh coat and tell them it is new!"
 
The T-34 received by the Americans was built in 1941, as evidenced by the old model of turret and air filters. The author conveniently ignores the fact that this was a heavily used vehicle. Let's hope he does not buy a used car.
 

EnsignExpendable #3 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 00:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

Quote

According to the head of the Armored Directorate of the Red Army N.Fedorenko, the average mileage of the T-34 to overhaul during the war, did not exceed 200 kilometers. This was considered adequate since the T-34’s service life at the front was considerably less. For example in 1942 only 66km.
 
Wait, but earlier you said it was 30 kilometers? What happened, does the tank continue moving without an engine?
 

Quote

Still there are examples of T-34’s breaking down during assaults even late in the war. For instance the 5th Guards Tank army in 1943 lost as much as 15% of its tanks during its march to Prokhorovka. In August ’43 the 1st Tank army lost 50% of its tanks due to malfunction.
 
"The technical losses field also includes vehicles stuck in mud, even for a short time, and tanks requiring repairs, where one tank could undergo several repairs, and count several times. Tanks needing medium or heavy repairs are also counted. As a result, the amount of losses is larger than the total amount of tanks."
 

Quote

As late as the second half of 1944 tank units tried to replace engines with more than 30 hours of operation before a major attack.
 
"Seryezha, shall we make sure our tanks are in good condition before we attack?"
"Of course not, Misha, the Americans might think they are bad! Come now, I think I had a T-26 somewhere we could use."
 

Quote

All WWII tanks had a hard time when travelling and they needed repairs and maintenance or they broke down.
 
Guards Captain Obvious, 53rd Guards Independent Obviousness Brigade, reporting for duty!
 

Quote

There is also the question of standardization. The T-34 was produced at several factories. Each factory produced a slightly different variant. Could spare parts from Nizhny Tagil be used on a T-34 from Gorky? Doubtful.
 
Mosin rifle parts were interchangeable between different factories, so standardization isn't some kind of magic that a Slavic wprker cannot comprehend. Meanwhile, German tanks that were assembled by craftsmen rather than assembly line workers could not boast such inter-changeability.
 

Quote

The concept of ‘cheap’ or ‘expensive’ has no meaning in a command economy. The reason being that the pricing mechanism is controlled by the government. If Moscow wanted a weapon to cost x amount of roubles it would cost x amount. Command decisions were made at the top and did not take into consideration free market concepts like return on investment, opportunity cost etc etc
 
Through sheer power of Marxist-Leninist though, glorious Soviet Commissars worked night and day to create raw materials, skilled workers, factories, transportation and soldiers out of thin air! No need for payment, cost is not a factor when you have Socialism at your back!
http://tankarchives....ts-at-lvov.html
http://tankarchives....actory-174.html
http://tankarchives....s-for-1941.html
Oh, oops. I guess not.
 

Quote

This makes it impossible to directly compare weapon systems by looking at the official prices. In general trying to compare the costs of weapon systems built in different countries under a command economy is very hard and prone to errors. Even using other indicators such as man-hours and input of raw materials can be misleading.
 
Obviously, the Soviet man-hour is different from the German man-hour. Somehow. I don't know how, though, and the author sure won't tell me.
 

Quote

Just to give an example the ‘cheap’ T-34 had an aluminum engine. The Germans with more industrial assets than the SU and significantly higher aluminum production reached the conclusion that they could not provide their own tanks with an aluminum engine. It was simply too costly for them. This shows the different capabilities and priorities that countries have.
 
Yes, that's true, different countries have different priorities. The Soviet defense industry prioritized winning a war, while the German defense industry prioritized fleecing the state as much as they could before it collapsed.
 

Quote

A better way is to compare prices of products in the same economy. This shows that the T-34 was much cheaper than the KV-1 and IS-2 tanks.
 
Guards Captain Obvious, Cavalier of the Order of Red Banner, reporting for duty!
 

Quote

The Germans also took advantage of gigantism when they built the Nibelungenwerk factory in Sankt Valentin, Austria. This greatly expanded Pz IV production.
They also built the ‘expensive’ Panther in huge numbers (for their standards) in the period 1943-45. It was not the ‘cost’ of the Panther that allowed them to do so but the industrial assets assigned to it.
 
The author uses the controversial "One, two, many" counting system in order to establish that making your tank simple to build does not help the war effort.
 

EnsignExpendable #4 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 00:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

Quote

The Americans built staggering numbers of M4 tanks in their tank arsenals, not because the M4 was intrinsically cheap but because gigantic facilities were provided for its construction.
 
It also helps that the M4 was, in fact, cheap.
 

Quote

When looking into whether a weapon system is cheap or expensive the price is only one factor. The other one and I think the more important one is its performance. Is it better to build 100 cheap tanks or 50 expensive ones? The price difference might be significant but that about the other costs?
100 cheap tanks will need twice the crews and twice the fuel as the 50 expensive ones. They will also need twice the spare parts. If 50 tanks require 25 supply trucks then the 100 will need 50. You get the idea.
 
Guards Captain Obvious, Cavalier of Order of Lenin First Class, reporting for duty!
 

Quote

Then there is the aspect of losses. A cheap but poorly designed tank system will suffer more losses than an expensive but well armed and armored one.
 
Hero of the Soviet Union, Guards Captain Obvious, reporting for duty!
 

Quote

Machines can be mass produced but what about trained crews? A tank force that has limited crew casualties will have many tank aces and even the rest will be able to perform well in combat. On the other hand a country that builds large numbers of inferior tanks will lose them quickly, together with their crews. This will create a downward spiral as inexperienced crews will make up the majority of crews and thus severely limit the capability of the armored force.
 
As evidenced by declining quality of German tank crews in 1945.
 

Quote

Another myth is that there were hordes of T-34’s attacking the German formations. A simple look at the Soviet tank strength at various points in the war shows that the T-34 was not the most important tank. The light tanks T-60 and T-70 and the tank-destroyer SU-76 made up the majority of AFV’s in 1941-42 and even in 1943-45 the T-34 comprised roughly half of the Soviet frontline AFV force. In summer 1941 there were only 967 T-34’s in the total strength of 22.000 tanks.
 
Oh hey, look at that, this guy knows something. What he doesn't know is that the amount of man-portable anti-tank weapons and AT guns eclipsed the production of any tank in the war, but that's another story.
 

Quote

Just a bit under 45.000 lost during the war! War-winning indeed…
 
We already covered how the Soviets classified anything stuck in the mud as "lost". That's a pretty good figure.
 

Quote

Total Soviet AFV losses in 1941-45 were 96.600. That’s not a typo. Almost one hundred thousand vehicles.
 
Either the author doesn't remember writing the previous paragraph, or he doesn't consider over 100,000 total armoured vehicles a horde.
 

Quote

For comparison’s sake a German document posted at AHF lists tank losses in the East from 1941-44 as 15.673 and total AFV losses (tanks, Stug, self-propeled guns etc) as 23.802.
 
As above, a German tank that was knocked out and then subsequently repaired does not count as a loss. A Soviet one does.
 

Quote

The German models Tiger and Panther were greatly superior to the T-34 in armor and firepower.
 
I wonder why they built so few of them, then. Perhaps armour and firepower aren't what make a tank great, food for thought.
 

Quote

Despite its theoretical inferiority the PzIII was able to fight against the T-34.
 
And despite its theoretical inferiority, the T-34 was able to fight against Tigers and Ferdinands. Life is not a video game, the tank with the most attack points doesn't win.
 

Quote

The upgraded PzIV was superior to the T-34 in internal layout, firepower, turret basket, optics, commander’s cupola, radio in every vehicle and its frontal hull armor could withstand the F-34 rounds. A Soviet study in 1943 admitted that the Pz IV was superior to their tank, assigning it a combat value of 1.27 to the T-34’s 1.16 (with the Pz III being the base 1.0).
 
I take it back, apparently life is a video game. Also this mysterious study uses an enemy vehicle for a baseline, which is kind of laughable.
 

Quote

This allowed the loader to use them quickly but it had the downside that a penetration of the turret led to the explosion of the shells and loss of the tank.
 
Penetration of the turret generally means loss of the tank, explosion of the shells or no. The author also conveniently ignores the fact that the Germans copied this feature on the King Tiger, and then swiftly disallowed the use of the ready rack due to the danger of detonation. Oopsie.
 

Quote

There are many similarities between the T-34 and the M-4 Sherman. Both tanks were built in huge numbers and they are comparable in weight and gun caliber. Even their updated version T-34/85 and M4 76mm are very close.
 
The author's poor memory rears its head again, as he does not remember stating that the Sherman was produced in large numbers due to the American manufacturing base, and not due to any similarity to the T-34.
 

Quote

If the T-34 was as good as propaganda made it out to be then it should have led to great Soviet victories in 1941-42.
 
I hear "Operation Barbarossa" has a twist at the end. Something to do with the Germans losing, I won't spoil it for you though.
 

Quote

The ‘best tank of WWII’ suffered horrific losses against those tanks and even the updated version T-34/85 could not bridge the gap.
 
I guess the Maus didn't suffer very horrific losses. I mean, two isn't very horrific.
 

Quote

On paper the Soviet types looked superior but on the field it was the US and British types that won the battles.
 
Yes, in all of those engagements between Soviet and Western tank forces during WWIII, the latter were definitely superior. The radioactive fallout may have affected my memory somewhat, though.
 

Quote

That battle was a repeat of WWII when the T-34’s charged the field only to be slaughtered by German tanks from a distance.
 
I don't know about your history textbooks, but mine have just a little bit more under "WWII".
 

Quote

The performance of the T-72 which was supposed to be the tank that would win a hot war for the Russians was similar. In the Gulf Wars Iraqi T-72’s were easily destroyed by modern M1 Abrams tanks from great distances.
 
Modern tank with well trained crew and a well backed army defeats an old export model tank with a poorly trained crew and a poor army? Marshall Obvious, what is your assessment of this situation?
 

Quote

The T-34 legacy led the Russians to invest in quantity over quality. A mistake that their Allies paid dearly.
 
Yes, the Western Allies had such a poor time with 80% of the Wehrmacht dying in the East.
 
 
This concludes the first edition of "Historical Sch-lol-arship", I will now take questions and suggestions for round 2.

Vollketten #5 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 00:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 35164 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Sep 17 2013 - 00:27, said:

Unlike Soviet livers, Soviet bladders are not infinite, and pee breaks are required even by the most seasoned of tankers.
Having been outdrunk by Russians a few times I can attest to the truth of this statement.

Dr_Hal_Otacon_Emmerich #6 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 00:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 5171 battles
  • 14,377
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
The last quote is simply laughable.

Western Front = Easy Mode.

Eastern Front = Hard Mode.

anonym_0CLLcV5vPvPb #7 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 00:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 20,678
  • Member since:
    09-17-2020
That blogger's attitude to the guys commenting on that article is disgusting. Anyway, good job putting that author in his place.

hiipanda #8 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 01:16

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 58047 battles
  • 825
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011
i wonder if the blogger will find this.
I want him to rage like so many that read EE articles

Dr_Hal_Otacon_Emmerich #9 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 01:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 5171 battles
  • 14,377
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011

View Posthiipanda, on Sep 17 2013 - 01:16, said:

i wonder if the blogger will find this.
I want him to rage like so many that read EE articles

Odds are low.

If he does, it is most likely because someone sent him the link of this thread.

EnsignExpendable #10 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 01:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Blogger provides references to people clicking your articles, so perhaps he will notice an uptick in traffic.

Brickfight #11 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 01:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14303 battles
  • 1,279
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012

View PostVollketten, on Sep 17 2013 - 00:37, said:

Having been outdrunk by Russians a few times I can attest to the truth of this statement.
My experience is that they're not "WOO IM DRUNK" drinkers. When the Russian/Ukrainian immigrants in my neighborhood get drunk, they typically either want to sing, sleep, sit in silence, or set me up with their cousins (Zhanna, maybe. Pavel, no).
Good read, as always. There's honestly a use for these kinds of writings . I credit a lot of good writers with knowing what kind of information should be put out there. The rest is usually made easy by putting out information in order to fight bullshit people just made up.

Edited by Brickfight, Sep 17 2013 - 01:44.


Walter_Sobchak #12 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 01:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
Hey EE, I was just curious what you thought of the book "T34 Mythical Weapon" by Robert Michulec.

Dominatus #13 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 01:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,790
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
Well, we lured Mike Sparks here once. That guy was bigger fish than this blogger.

EnsignExpendable #14 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 01:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 17 2013 - 01:41, said:

Hey EE, I was just curious what you thought of the book "T34 Mythical Weapon" by Robert Michulec.

Haven't read it.

Brickfight #15 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 01:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14303 battles
  • 1,279
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012
UUUUGH. Just read his comments. Not only is he a textbook Dunning-Kruger Wehraboo, he does that thing where he just goes ":smug: Read this book on superior German tanks :smug:" without any point made.

Edited by Brickfight, Sep 17 2013 - 01:49.


Meplat #16 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 01:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 6776 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012
Sorry, I barely made it through any of that before having to stop reading.

KrasnayaZvezda #17 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 02:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10239 battles
  • 2,629
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Sep 17 2013 - 00:26, said:

Captain Obvious, reporting for duty!

Guards Captain Obvious, 53rd Guards Independent Obviousness Brigade, reporting for duty!

Guards Captain Obvious, Cavalier of the Order of Red Banner, reporting for duty!

Guards Captain Obvious, Cavalier of Order of Lenin First Class, reporting for duty!

Marshall Obvious, what is your assessment of this situation?

What is this man? Leonid Brezhnev?  :popcorn:

Dr_Hal_Otacon_Emmerich #18 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 02:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 5171 battles
  • 14,377
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011

View PostKrasnayaZvezda, on Sep 17 2013 - 02:09, said:

What is this man? Leonid Brezhnev?  :popcorn:

We have got to admit it, he got promoted very fast.

Zinegata #19 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 03:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
Like I said before, Chris Intel is a pretty bad blog. He pretty much confirms why military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

EnsignExpendable #20 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 04:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostKrasnayaZvezda, on Sep 17 2013 - 02:09, said:

What is this man? Leonid Brezhnev?

Can't be, he only has one Gold Star.

View PostZinegata, on Sep 17 2013 - 03:27, said:

Like I said before, Chris Intel is a pretty bad blog. He pretty much confirms why military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

So what you're saying is...more material? Fantastic :)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users