Jump to content


How Widespread was "Gold Ammo"


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #21 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 23:17

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14393 battles
  • 9,930
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 21:50, said:

 

Well, for starters, how about FM 18-5, Tactical Employment Tank Destroyer Unit, dated July 18, 1944?

https://archive.org/details/FM18-51944

 

Chapter 2. Fundamentals of Employment

6. MISSION. A. Primary Mission. The primary mission of tank destroyer units is the destruction of hostile tanks by direct gunfire.

 

 

 

Also, to quote General Mcnair: http://usacac.army.m...pubs/gabel2.pdf

 

The tank was introduced to protect against automatic small arms fire, which was developed so greatly during and since the [First] World War. Its answer is fire against which the tank does not protect-the antitank gun. That this answer failed [against the Germans in 1940] was due primarily to the pitifully inadequate number and power of French and British antitank guns, as well as their incorrect organization.

 

McNair emphatically believed that the antidote to the tank was not one’s own tanks: “Certainly it is poor economy to use a $35,000 medium tank to destroy another tank when the job can be done by a gun costing a fraction as much. Thus the friendly armored force is freed to attack a more proper target, the opposing force as a whole . . . . “

 

Therefore, the task confronting Bruce and the Tank Destroyer Tactical and Firing Center was not simply one of finding a way to stop tanks, but rather one of developing a mode of antitank combat that freed other friendly forces for offensive operations. To meet this challenge, the tank destroyer creators adopted mass, mobility, firepower, and aggressiveness as the qualities that would enable tank destroyer elements to fulfill their mission.  

 

 

From these accounts specifically, and many others on a more anecdotal note, early WW2 US tank doctrine was to allow anti-tank guns to engage and destroy enemy armor while friendly tanks were reserved for other "more appropriate" targets. '43-'44 saw them turn to more mobile anti tank gun platforms (37mm towed, 75mm self propelled half tracks, M10 Wolverine, M36 Jackson, and culminating with the M18, the first from the ground up designed purpose built TD) to seek and destroy enemy armor. 

 

And I'll freely admit that I'm biased on this subject, they used to make M18 Hellcats 15 miles from where I grew up (made in Buick City, Flint MI), so the local hearsay and history on the role of these vehicles is colored by the plants that made them...Heck, my dad's factory used to make M4 Shermans during the war...

 

/utestsacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdfacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf

 

The above does not preclude the concept of anti-tank operations being conducted by units of other branches. Tank destoyers do indeed, have as their primary mission the destruction of enemy armor. It does not mean that  they had exclusively the mission of the destruction of enemy armor and that nobody else was supposed to do it, The TD Branch was, as the paper says, designed to stop the attack of tanks. TD doctrine is much quieter when it talks about the role of the TD in the offence, where the TD battalion is held in reserve to deal with any enemy armored counter-attacks. The job of dealing with enemy armour encountered in the attack was primarily the responsibility of the tank corps. See Armored Force FMs. Example http://forum.worldof...02#entry8416302

 

See also the TD FM 18-5 of 1944, which stated "Since the armored division can meet strong armored attacks with effective organic weapons, tank destroyers may execute secondary missions on rare occasions, even when a hostile armored attack or counterattack is imminent."

 

No prizes for guessing what the organic weapons are of the armored division that the TD manual says can deal with an armored attack.



blackfalconjc #22 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 23:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7675 battles
  • 1,996
  • [GTO] GTO
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

View PostHermanBix, on Jan 28 2015 - 17:13, said:

 

Have you reviewed the information on this site? Some interesting information that supports what you are commenting on. Excellent paper on site providing additional coverage on US Army Tank Destroyer doctrine.

http://tankdestroyer.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=166:seek-strike-and-destroy-us-army-tank-destroyer-doctrine-in-world-war-ii&Itemid=86

 

 

I have previously/did in looking how to best respond, but I purposefully went with Archived copies of FM's from the Archives and/or a link to the same Leavenworth papers publication for my quote from General McNair from US Army sites, as they have a higher degree of provenance than a some random website/wikipedia article. 

HermanBix #23 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 23:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 25563 battles
  • 3,005
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 22:19, said:

 

I have previously/did in looking how to best respond, but I purposefully went with Archived copies of FM's from the Archives and/or a link to the same Leavenworth papers publication for my quote from General McNair from US Army sites, as they have a higher degree of provenance than a some random website/wikipedia article.

 

Agree, when possible the old Field Manuals are the way to go. It is interesting how chapter 2 in the Leavenworth papers covers the points you were making. It is also interesting how initially that tank destroyers as indicated in FM 18-5 were to be employed offensively, but to avoid "Slugging Matches".

blackfalconjc #24 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 23:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7675 battles
  • 1,996
  • [GTO] GTO
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 28 2015 - 17:17, said:

 

The above does not preclude the concept of anti-tank operations being conducted by units of other branches. Tank destoyers do indeed, have as their primary mission the destruction of enemy armor. It does not mean that  they had exclusively the mission of the destruction of enemy armor, The TD Branch was, as the paper says, designed to stop the attack of tanks. TD doctrine is much quieter when it talks about the role of the TD in the offence, where the TD battalion is held in reserve to deal with any enemy armored counter-attacks. The job of dealing with enemy armour encountered in the attack was primarily the responsibility of the tank corps. See Armored Force FMs.

 

And I agree with all that! :D

 

US tanks did/were used to destroy enemy tanks, but I fear it's a bit of a misnomer to say their primary role was to seek and engage enemy armor. US TD forces were a bit of an odd duck to say the least. Most accounts I've seen suggest that US military leadership was obsessed with finding a counter to German Blitzkrieg tactics and studied the battles in '41 France and '43 Africa to help inform the best response to this threat...

 

As such, US TD forces were designed to be held at the battalion or division level as support (to be committed to the fight as need arose) while yet being fast and mobile to support the doctrine of "defense in depth" with this was supposed to counter Blitzkrieg if it ever was used against US forces. This doctrine blanketed US forces equipment in many ways, Bazooka's providing basic anti-armor support at a squad level, battalions being assigned AT guns and/or TD forces, fighter bomber wings running anti-armor patrols. The best example I can find of this would be what occurred during the Battle of the Bulge. When the initial wave of German assaults hit the line, the US practice of defense was tested. They used their superior mobility to reposition forces and draw up reserves for defense of key locations, defenders were expected to hold as long as they could against the attack, and available TD units were used to "nip" along the flanks of the assault until it quite literally stalled out because of stiffening US defense and lack of fuel. To your point, Patton's 3rd army (and heavy armor) was then used to force the salient back and eventually press the attack forward to Germany, but the TD forces went with them to help engage and destroy tanks as they they popped up on the battlefield.

 

Heck, I seen this used in game. A turtle strategy almost always fails because you surrender 3/4 of the map and most of the maneuvering to the enemy. If you want to play defense, then great, post out 1/3 of the way in a fairly defensible position with good cover and visibility, see where the push is developing and then use local numerical superiority to quickly destroy/blunt the main assault. Don't overextend or they might draw you back into a trap...

 



The_Chieftain #25 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 00:00

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14393 battles
  • 9,930
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 22:47, said:

 

And I agree with all that! :D

 

US tanks did/were used to destroy enemy tanks, but I fear it's a bit of a misnomer to say their primary role was to seek and engage enemy armor. US TD forces were a bit of an odd duck to say the least. Most accounts I've seen suggest that US military leadership was obsessed with finding a counter to German Blitzkrieg tactics and studied the battles in '41 France and '43 Africa to help inform the best response to this threat...

 

As such, US TD forces were designed to be held at the battalion or division level as support (to be committed to the fight as need arose) while yet being fast and mobile to support the doctrine of "defense in depth" with this was supposed to counter Blitzkrieg if it ever was used against US forces. This doctrine blanketed US forces equipment in many ways, Bazooka's providing basic anti-armor support at a squad level, battalions being assigned AT guns and/or TD forces, fighter bomber wings running anti-armor patrols. The best example I can find of this would be what occurred during the Battle of the Bulge. When the initial wave of German assaults hit the line, the US practice of defense was tested. They used their superior mobility to reposition forces and draw up reserves for defense of key locations, defenders were expected to hold as long as they could against the attack, and available TD units were used to "nip" along the flanks of the assault until it quite literally stalled out because of stiffening US defense and lack of fuel. To your point, Patton's 3rd army (and heavy armor) was then used to force the salient back and eventually press the attack forward to Germany, but the TD forces went with them to help engage and destroy tanks as they they popped up on the battlefield.

 

Heck, I seen this used in game. A turtle strategy almost always fails because you surrender 3/4 of the map and most of the maneuvering to the enemy. If you want to play defense, then great, post out 1/3 of the way in a fairly defensible position with good cover and visibility, see where the push is developing and then use local numerical superiority to quickly destroy/blunt the main assault. Don't overextend or they might draw you back into a trap...

 

 

OK, we are on points in agreement. The problem is that in general discussion there is a focus on the use of assets on a type basis. "Tanks fight infantry, tanks fight tanks, TDs fight tanks, TDs act as artillery", when, as we all know on the battlefield, such a nice division of combat does not exist. Tanks were to be primarily used offensively, to break through enemy lines consisting of whatever defensive forces were present, be they tank, armor, AT guns, infantry, in conjunction with other friendly forces such as infantry, air, artillery. Nothing in the Armored Force manual talks about engagement exclusivity, but does mention target priority. (Priority #1: Tanks).

 

The reality is that tanks were supposed to be able to engage and defeat other tanks that they met, as evidenced both by doctrine, and by the equipment that they tried to give the tanks. (i.e.. High velocity cannon, before there was any evidence that the 75mm was insufficient)



blackfalconjc #26 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 02:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7675 battles
  • 1,996
  • [GTO] GTO
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

A problem best described as "rock, paper, scissors" and perpetuated through video games and movies. The "only" solution to a tank is a TD, or a bazooka... I suppose the best way to think about is, if you were a soldier during WW2, and you had an enemy tank rumbling towards you, I would personally use anything at my disposal to stop it, Bazooka, artillery, airstrike, AT gun, Tank, TD, mines, Explosives (heck, sticky bombs, Gammon Grenades). James Magellas in "All the Way to Berlin" wrote about knocking out a German Mark V Panther using a Gammon Grenade to disable/mobility kill it (then finished it off by dropping a frag grenade down a hatch). If you're a soldier trying to win against a well equipped and formidable foe, then you'll use whatever tool is available.

 

However, as a general rule, during WW2 US tanks were typically woefully unprepared or ill designed to effectively fight against German armor in a straight up slugging match. With armor that barely stood up against infantry weapons and guns that were typically virtual useless against the heavy frontal armor of German AFV's except at suicidally close range, it's a no wonder that the brave men that crewed these vehicles adopted names like "Ronson" "Tin Can" and "Zippo" (they "light up" on fire every single time they're hit) for their steel steeds. You have a really good point that tanks are typically designed to fight other tanks, especially considering the OP's question about special armor defeating ammunition and that they progressively up-gunned the main cannon with high velocity 76mm's. With the possible exception of the Pershing, US tanks suffered a lot of losses in that while they could engage and destroy enemy tanks to some degree, it was not a task they were particularly suited to, more "Jack of all trades, master of none". Especially when compared with the Kill/Death ratios of US TD's and the tanks of other nations like Germany or Russia. I've often heard the M4 Sherman described as "good enough" and there were enough of them running around field to make a big difference on the battlefield. (40,000 Shermans versus 1,347 Tigers)


Edited by blackfalconjc, Jan 29 2015 - 02:43.


Anlushac11 #27 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 02:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 39404 battles
  • 2,361
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
Does anyone even give a crap about answering the original question?

Meplat #28 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 03:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostAnlushac11, on Jan 28 2015 - 18:49, said:

Does anyone even give a crap about answering the original question?

 

they were a small percentage of the whole as Chieftain mentioned earlier.

Here-

 

"For the US side, HVAP was quite rare.

The figures are about half-way down this article, for 76mm/3". http://worldoftanks....n-armor-part-2/

 

The saving grace is that German targets requiring the use of HVAP ammo were so rare that the rare rounds tended not to be too ungodly short."



Anlushac11 #29 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 03:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 39404 battles
  • 2,361
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
Fair enough, skipped around the arguments a bit.

zloykrolik #30 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 04:12

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 37574 battles
  • 410
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 17:42, said:

 

 

However, as a general rule, during WW2 US tanks were typically woefully unprepared or ill designed to effectively fight against German armor in a straight up slugging match. .....

Bingo!

 

Drink!



Meplat #31 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 04:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 18:42, said:

A problem best described as "rock, paper, scissors" and perpetuated through video games and movies. The "only" solution to a tank is a TD, or a bazooka... I suppose the best way to think about is, if you were a soldier during WW2, and you had an enemy tank rumbling towards you, I would personally use anything at my disposal to stop it, Bazooka, artillery, airstrike, AT gun, Tank, TD, mines, Explosives (heck, sticky bombs, Gammon Grenades). James Magellas in "All the Way to Berlin" wrote about knocking out a German Mark V Panther using a Gammon Grenade to disable/mobility kill it (then finished it off by dropping a frag grenade down a hatch). If you're a soldier trying to win against a well equipped and formidable foe, then you'll use whatever tool is available.

 

However, as a general rule, during WW2 US tanks were typically woefully unprepared or ill designed to effectively fight against German armor in a straight up slugging match. With armor that barely stood up against infantry weapons and guns that were typically virtual useless against the heavy frontal armor of German AFV's except at suicidally close range, it's a no wonder that the brave men that crewed these vehicles adopted names like "Ronson" "Tin Can" and "Zippo" (they "light up" on fire every single time they're hit) for their steel steeds. You have a really good point that tanks are typically designed to fight other tanks, especially considering the OP's question about special armor defeating ammunition and that they progressively up-gunned the main cannon with high velocity 76mm's. With the possible exception of the Pershing, US tanks suffered a lot of losses in that while they could engage and destroy enemy tanks to some degree, it was not a task they were particularly suited to, more "Jack of all trades, master of none". Especially when compared with the Kill/Death ratios of US TD's and the tanks of other nations like Germany or Russia. I've often heard the M4 Sherman described as "good enough" and there were enough of them running around field to make a big difference on the battlefield. (40,000 Shermans versus 1,347 Tigers)

 

You about filled my wherabingo card in a single post.

*golf-clap*



dEsTurbed1 #32 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 06:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 31309 battles
  • 2,536
  • [AAOG] AAOG
  • Member since:
    01-26-2011

Irl, I believe the scarcity of apcr (and similar rounds) was more from a manufacturer stand point rather than doctrine. 

 

As far as this game is concerned,  the load out of APCR/HEAT vs regular rounds is gun dependant rather than skill dependant.

Unless, your in an Obj 261....then a full load of apcr is fine.



The_Chieftain #33 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 06:26

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14393 battles
  • 9,930
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 29 2015 - 01:42, said:

However, as a general rule, during WW2 US tanks were typically woefully unprepared or ill designed to effectively fight against German armor in a straight up slugging match.

 

Yes, but not because of any doctrinal or design flaw. They quite simply didn't think that the 75mm wasn't adequate for the job, and they honestly believed that if they did need to bring the high velocity gun along, the 76mm would be good enough. It was an intelligence and caution failure, not a doctrinal or design failure.



Lenzabi #34 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 07:55

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9911 battles
  • 783
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

I looked it up and found this

Armour-piercing, composite rigid

Armour-piercing, composite rigid (APCR) is a British term, the US term for the design is high velocity armor piercing (HVAP) and German, Hartkernmunition. The APCR projectile is a core of a high-density hard material such as tungsten carbide surrounded by a full-bore shell of a lighter material (e.g., an aluminium alloy). Most APCR projectiles are shaped like the standard APCBC shot (although some of the German Pzgr. 40 and some Soviet designs resemble a stubby arrow), but the projectile is lighter: up to half the weight of a standard AP shot of the same calibre. The lighter weight allows a higher velocity. The kinetic energy of the shot is concentrated in the core and hence on a smaller impact area, improving the penetration of the target armour. To prevent shattering on impact, a shock-buffering cap is placed between the core and the outer ballistic shell as with APC rounds. However, because the shot is lighter but still the same overall size it has poorer ballistic qualities, and loses velocity and accuracy at longer ranges. The APCR was superseded by the APDS which dispensed with the outer light alloy shell once the shot had left the barrel.

The concept of a heavy, small-diameter penetrator encased in light metal would be later employed in small-arms armor-piercing incendiary and HEIAP rounds.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia....composite_rigid

 

I do recall from history books that they were rare in Germany due to the cutting off of that Tungsten to make them. Imagine how rare they were for Japan ?



TheFishlord #35 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 08:39

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 35645 battles
  • 995
  • Member since:
    11-02-2010

APCR was rare for most combatants, Germany and the US had the industrial capabilities to produce a lot of the shells, but not the tungsten supplies. Interestingly, it was the opposite with Japan - had loads and loads of tungsten, but not the industry to make a lot of shells out of it.

 

HEAT was very common, especially at the end of the war for the Germans. A copper liner, a fuse, and some explosives is pretty cheap to make, even compared to a regular AP shell. IIRC tanks armed with the 75mm L/24 often ended up carrying more HEAT than HE or AP combined. Even as early as 1943 German tanks were carrying up to a quarter of their rounds as HEAT, as someone's already posted.



stalkervision #36 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 11:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 71923 battles
  • 9,825
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
IRL heat rounds weren't half as effective as in the game. This is due to the fact that imparting spin to any heat round disrupts the "jet" and defocuses it a bit when it comes into contact with homogenous armor.

Edited by stalkervision, Jan 29 2015 - 11:36.


SpiritDrinks #37 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 13:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22343 battles
  • 1,384
  • [UNA] UNA
  • Member since:
    07-27-2011

View Postshadowhazcookie, on Jan 28 2015 - 12:54, said:

 

Not as much as people think and not as much from uniscums as lower skills brackets. hell alot of higher tier clans don't even fire gold in sh

 

 

 

KV-85 vs KV-85 = gold not necessary. Hard to find a tier 6 tank that requires prem ammo.

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 14:19, said:

US tank doctrine during WW2 also was quite keen on avoiding head-to-head slugging matches with enemy armor. In fact, tanks like the M4 Sherman's most useful rounds were often considered HE as this was far more reliable in taking on soft skinned target (which were plentiful), versus armored targets, which by '45 were becoming increasingly rare. Tanks such as the M4 Sherman were expected to function as "Infantry support" vehicles, while the actual tank hunting was to be done by the Tank Destroyer forces which often were relegated to the role of infantry support as well. (although the M18 Hellcat is accounted as having up to a 5:1 kill/death ratio, mostly due to strongly employing speed and stealth to deliver flanking shots against enemy targets.)

 

Also, World of Tanks focuses pretty exclusively on Armor Vs. Armor combat, which actually happened quite rarely during the war, East Africa, Normandy, Holland, the Battle of the Bulge and Kursk being some of major exceptions... Things like artillery, dive bombers, mines, bazookas, heavy bombers, AT guns, and even mechanical breakdown all contributed to vehicle losses on the front, quite possibly far more than any enemy AFV. It's worth remembering this as we look at load out's in game versus real life, as infantry support vehicle's rounds counts would be WAY different than ones in game as the only thing you can encounter in this game that can kill you is an hostile enemy player, a slightly less hostile team member, or physics (jumping off a cliff or drowning).

 

More ideas for the PVE, or even random battles ... minefields! Splash damage only, maybe take off the track. Obviously lights would not be heavy enough to set them off.

Anlushac11 #38 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 15:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 39404 battles
  • 2,361
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

VK36.01H, you need gold to give the 88mm penetration comparable to its tier 6 heavy competitors.

 

If your running the 88 in top turret you have a gun that does 132mm pen while most of your heavy competitors have penetration in range of 160mm or better. Not saying to buff 88 L/56. It actually has slightly better pen than it did IRL.

 

88mm KwK36 has 132mm pen and 220dmg

 

100mm S-34 on KV-85 has 170 pen and 250 dmg

90mm M3 on M6 has 160mm pen and 240dmg

90mm DCA45 on ARL44 has 212mm pen and 240dmg

77mm OQF on Church VII has 148mm pen and 140 dmg but gets a much better rate of fire

 

There are no tier 6 Chinese or Japanese heavy tanks.

 

7.5cm/5.5cm 0725 Waffe aka Konisch gun has good pen at 157mm but only 135 dmg and its rate of fire is worse than Churchill's OQF 77mm.

 

If Im in a Clan match I use VK36.01H mounting top turret, and 88 with gold ammo. If Im in Pubs I usually use stock turret and Konisch and carry a few gold rounds (Usually about 10-12).

 

 

 


Edited by Anlushac11, Jan 29 2015 - 15:32.


Blackhorse_Six_ #39 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 16:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 53895 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 29 2015 - 05:35, said:

IRL heat rounds weren't half as effective as in the game. This is due to the fact that imparting spin to any heat round disrupts the "jet" and defocuses it a bit when it comes into contact with homogenous armor.

 

Yes, the spin rate was detrimental, but not so much as you imply, or no one would have continued to use it.

 

Folks simply don't walk away from a HEAT hit, even when they're under enhanced armor.

 

When HEAT hits you in the fighting compartment, you can expect to get hurt - it is not a low-probability event.

 

In the late 1950s and early 60s, the French developed a special rotating sleeve for their HEAT rounds which reduced the rate of imparted spin, but did not negate it altogether. Even when fired from a smoothbore gun, there is still a certain amount of spin imparted to the round.



GAJohnnie #40 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 16:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 10880 battles
  • 9,553
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    12-22-2012

View PostColeDragonKnight1, on Jan 28 2015 - 11:52, said:

Before I get any hate. Yes, I know.

 

But I was really wondering, APCR, APDS, and HEAT, They all seem pretty effective, HEAT Keeps it's pen at 1 yard or 1000, APCR is a much faster much harder shell (Albit SMaller) And APDS is just a mean round period. How often did the Germans and the Allies Sling that stuff at each other, and how effective were they as compared to APBC, and APBCHE?

 

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-13461.aspx#startofcomments

 

Post on this topic at link. Third answer. Personally I run no more then 10 gold rounds per vehicle. I feel that is a fairly accurate representation.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users