Jump to content


Introducing "The Chieftain's Hatch"


  • Please log in to reply
217 replies to this topic

W3r3Wu1F #41 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 05:37

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32302 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostGhost_24601, on Sep 09 2011 - 04:15, said:

Chieftain,

I wanted to ask about the "slat" or "cage" armor theory, where vitalstarted to develop "c parts of vehicles or tanks have a "cage over them". I know what it does and i've seen it before, but i wanted to know some history about it. I know the germans age" armor in the late 1930's by Hilter's order, but was it ever further developed it or whether it was use in WWII?

thanks,
~Ghost_24601


Yes, the Germans devevoped slat armour which the Germans called - Drahtgeflecht Schürzen (wire mesh skirts), plate armour(ie: spaced armour was easier and cheaper to produce),Drahtgeflecht Schürzen, i haven't seen many photo's of it actually used operationally, only the plate armour Schürzen...

your statement: "in the late 1930's by Hilter's order", i would say is incorrect.

"In Mar-1943 Hitler issued a directive to outfit all new Sturmgeschütz, Panzer III, IV and Panthers with side skirts." Maybe that's what you meant?

See: http://www.stugiii.com/schurzen.html

The_Chieftain #42 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 06:05

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14007 battles
  • 9,919
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Post_Ruffles_, on Sep 08 2011 - 22:16, said:

@OT Lol, you says you're not a "developer" but it clearly says you are.

Yeah, I've asked them to fix that.

View PostElepole, on Sep 08 2011 - 23:46, said:

I just need to know one thing: B1 bis or not B1 bis ?

Excellent question. I personally didn't do all that well with it in Beta but recently it seems to be matched better. That said, there are other Premiums I'd personally recommend over it, but that's just me.

View PostChiyeko, on Sep 08 2011 - 23:56, said:

As for the love of tanks, no idea I never cared much for them, of course I could be in awe when I saw them, but that was about it and I went back to Star Trek, in the end science fiction is my name and game, but still there is something about tanks that made me crash in here, (also thank CCP for screwing up so badly, without that I doubt I ever would have given this game a look) I think in the end the feeling of might these machines have makes them attractive for me.

Go find the "Hammer's Slammers" series of books. SF and tanks all rolled into one quite nicely.

Quote

O and any advice, grind for the IS-4 or change targets and go USA heavies? (I am so torn atm)

I hate IS-4s. Mainly because I keep trying to kill them with my US heavies, and they don't seem to die easily. That said, I don't regret working the American tree.

View PostDucesettutamen, on Sep 09 2011 - 00:01, said:

your still a lazy tanker.

Love, PBI

We prefer to refer to your type as 'Crunchies', PBI is, well, a little old-fashioned.

View PostRagnokak, on Sep 09 2011 - 00:50, said:

Simple answer:
If you have to ask, an explanation won't do you any good.

I like.

View Postmikel1967, on Sep 09 2011 - 01:32, said:

sorry,think the job should have went to a german tanker past or present,as they embody the true tankers spirit,no arty support no air support,close your eyes and go

I personally believe in "fight smart, not hard". If I can use my highly trained wireless telephone skills to call in an airstrike so that the pilot does the hard work while I sit back and brew coffee, I'm not going to stand upon principle and try to do it myself.

View PostBillT, on Sep 09 2011 - 01:37, said:

"So why tanks?"

Easy.  You can get further with a kind word and a tank than you can with a kind word alone.

This, I like too. Must remember it.

View Postduff48, on Sep 08 2011 - 23:31, said:

Awesome... Finally, something more reliable than Wikipedia. Tank you!

Where do you think I get all my information?!

View PostAs1anBeasTagE, on Sep 09 2011 - 02:30, said:

what do you know?

I know many things. Most importantly, I know what I do not know. The trick is trying to hide what I don't know.

View Postweveran, on Sep 09 2011 - 03:45, said:

M1AI M1A2 or 1A3 Nick?

A1.

Quote

Had a chance to look over 64's and 72's while 'over there'?

Only blown-up ones. (Only seen 64s from the outside, and not in the Mid-East). The ones in the US are in much better condition. I fit very happily in the turret of a T-72. The driver's hole is another matter entirely.

Quote

This has parallels back to WW2 as the germans had the nous to identify that crew comfort led to better tank performance and while not largely attributal to the size of german tanks did play a part.

That is the topic of a future rant I have in mind.

View PostGhost_24601, on Sep 09 2011 - 04:15, said:

I wanted to ask about the "slat" or "cage" armor theory, where vital parts of vehicles or tanks have a "cage over them". I know what it does and i've seen it before, but i wanted to know some history about it. I know the germans started to develop "cage" armor in the late 1930's by Hilter's order, but was it ever further developed it or whether it was use in WWII?

By the way, other people can chime in and answer as well, if you want. If you get the answer right, I won't have to spend time typing the response! (Smart, not hard, remember?)

The slat armor found on today's vehicle works off a different principle to the stand-off armour of WWII vintage, even the 'bedspring' armor the Soviets used in WWII. Today's slat armour functions by defusing an RPG round to prevent it from detonating. (If the outer skin and inner shell of a standard RPG-7 projectile touch each other, it creates a short circuit which basically defeats the fuze).
Posted Image

[Edit: Beaten to this one by UWS_W3r3Wu1F] The only armor I'm offhand familiar with which might qualify as cage armor in WWII was Drahtgeflecht Schurzen. (Yes, I know there's an umlaut in there somewhere, but couldn't be arsed to find the key combo)
http://stugiii.com/i...z_IV_-_mesh.jpg
This was developed mainly to counter AT rifles and HE shells, not shaped charges, so is a different issue. However, it must be said, I've never gone looking specifically for the existance or not of bar armour as opposed to the mesh, so don't take this as a definitive answer to your question. I am separated from reference materials right now, I'll try to remember to have a look in the future.

View Posttyphoonxii, on Sep 09 2011 - 04:59, said:

There is a certain romance and nostalgia that goes with playing a game set in the golden age of tanks. No laser range finders. No depleated uranium penetrators. No anti-tank missiles fired from helicopters hovering in the tree tops miles away. Just steel beast versus steel beast with no frills, no lace doilies and no complications.

Also makes it much easier to play tabletop wargames at a reasonable scale. With the modern stuff, 'max range' is about as far as the tape measure will go, if you see it, you can kill it. Do a battle set in 1940, however, and it's a different matter entirely. You can actually maneuver within sight of the enemy on a 4x8. But that's a matter for another day.

W3r3Wu1F #43 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 06:06

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32302 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostBigWaveSurfer, on Sep 09 2011 - 03:31, said:

maybe he might fill them in on why u slop armour. they seem to think it is just to deflect shot. my poor Hetzer (60mm armour at 60degrees =120mm for flat shot to go though, last time i checked) was holed 3 times in a row by an 'M3'
oh, and welcome by the way :)

Relative Amour Thickness(RAT)
http://www.panzerwor.../relativearmour

RAT, calculator
http://www.panzerwor...rmourcalculator

So, using your 60mm @ 60 deg you get an Effective Armour Thickness(EAT) of 69.2820323027551mm

Also you may also be interested in a ballistics theory called Caliber Over Match(COM), a good overview on several related topics, but from the German's Tiger1's(also they look into the Tiger2) point of view.
http://www.fprado.co...site/tiger1.htm

""Armor obliquity effects decrease as the shot diameter overmatches plate thickness in part because there is a smaller cylindrical surface area of the displaced slug of armor which can cling to the surrounding plate. If the volume which the shot displaces has lots of area to cling to the parent plate, it resists penetration better than if that same volume is spread out into a disc with relatively small area where it joins the undisturbed armor. Plate greatly overmatching shot involves the projectile digging its own tunnel, as it were, through the thick interior of the plate. It was found experimentally that the regions in the center of the plate produced the bulk of the resistance to penetration, while the outer regions, near front and rear surfaces, presented minimal resistance because they are unsupported. Thus, an overmatched plate will be forced to rely on tensile stresses within the displaced disc, and will tend to break out in front of the attacking projectile, regardless of whether the edges cling to the parent material or not. Plate obliquity works in defeating projectiles partly because it turns and deflects the projectile before it begins digging in. If there is insufficient material where the side of the nose contacts the plate, stresses will travel all the way through the plate and break out the unsupported back surface. The plate will fail instantaneously rather than gradually".

"You can angle the armor any way you want, and beyond a certain point of shot overmatching plate, the obliquity will cease to be relevant. In fact, at certain conditions of shot overmatching plate, the cosine rule is broken and the plate resists less well than the simple cosine relationship would predict (LOS thickness is greater than effective thickness). The above only applies to WWII era AP and APC/APCBC, and WWII sub caliber ammunition. The long rod penetrators of today are greatly overmatched but they bring so much energy to the plate that they penetrate by "ablation" - in which both projectile and armor behave like fluids. Hollow charge also enters the field of fluid dynamics, with a very thin jet penetrating overmatching armor with ease, regardless of obliquity" (Robert Livingston; excerpts of a response to a question posted on the old "Tanker's Forum (Heavy Metal Website)", back in 1998)."

also, "Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affected allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.

Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect."

If you will notice the Shatter Gap Effect(SGE) is/was above 70mm, the EAT of the Hetzer wasn't quiet there, at an EAT of 69.2820323027551mm, but i think it may have SOME affect...

The_Chieftain #44 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 06:13

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14007 battles
  • 9,919
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostUWS_W3r3Wu1F, on Sep 09 2011 - 06:06, said:

RAT, calculator
http://www.panzerwor...rmourcalculator

So, using your 60mm @ 60 deg you get an Effective Armour Thickness(EAT) of 69.2820323027551mm

Mmm... Using that calculator, I believe you should put in 30 degrees. Different countries use different standards, some measure the angle from vertical, others the angle from horizontal. You need to verify which convention your source document uses. The calculator uses 'from the horizontal', Hetzer's armor is closer to horizontal than vertical.

W3r3Wu1F #45 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 06:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32302 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 09 2011 - 06:13, said:

Mmm... Using that calculator, I believe you should put in 30 degrees. Different countries use different standards, some measure the angle from vertical, others the angle from horizontal. You need to verify which convention your source document uses. The calculator uses 'from the horizontal', Hetzer's armor is closer to horizontal than vertical.

The 60deg, is from the horizontal plane, errrm like side-slope, ie: vehicle able to climb 45deg hill, So the armour is sloped at 60deg "/" from ground to roof... ; Germany calculated a 30deg offset, target vehicle angled 30 deg to firing gun(if that makes sense lol), i know of what you speak, but from my limited knowledge of the vagaries of knowledge, its mostly a misunderstanding of the actually standard way to achieve the correct calculation... (BTW, i never assume that i know everything nor am 100% accurate, there is just to much disagreement even among "Professionals" in even the tank field to even come close to being "certain"

The_Chieftain #46 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 06:53

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14007 battles
  • 9,919
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostUWS_W3r3Wu1F, on Sep 09 2011 - 06:35, said:

The 60deg, is from the horizontal plane, errrm like side-slope, ie: vehicle able to climb 45deg hill, So the armour is sloped at 60deg "/" from ground to roof... ; Germany calculated a 30deg offset, target vehicle angled 30 deg to firing gun(if that makes sense lol), i know of what you speak, but from my limited knowledge of the vagaries of knowledge, its mostly a misunderstanding of the actually standard way to achieve the correct calculation...

The German manuals may have rated armor as from the horizontal but that does not mean that the source document quoted which states 60 degrees was a German manual.

In any case...
http://www.steeldrag..._schematics.jpg

You don't need a protractor to determine that if there's a 60-30 split in the angle of the front slope, the 60 is from the vertical and the 30 from the horizontal.

W3r3Wu1F #47 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 07:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32302 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011
BTW The_Chieftain that is an awesome pic of Drahtgeflecht Schurzen well done

http://www.lonesentr...ts-schurzen.jpg






as soon as i did a search i found a picture, makes me laugh...

Anyway,there is a specific word for the plate armour Schurzen(i cant remember the name though, be years...), the spaced armored plate was for: Schürzen were conceived and designed to provide protection primarily against Russian anti-tank rifles and low velocity high explosive rounds.  Test firings on Schürzen (both wire mesh & steel plates) were performed prior to 20 Feb 1943.  The tests were conducted using the Russian 14.5mm anti-tank rifle from 100m (90°) and a 7.5cm high explosive charge fried from a field gun.  In all cases (mesh & steel plates) there was no damage or penetration to the test vehicle's side armor.  The Schürzen were penetrated or torn off by the impacts, but remain serviceable.

source:http://stugiii.com/schurzen.html

also check: In December 1943, the U.S. War Department issued a report on the German practice of mounting armor skirts (Schürzen) on panzers in WWII (Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 40, December 16, 1943).
is probably incorrect, as it states that, "...and is said to give protection against hollow-charge shells,...

I have read the the Drahtgeflecht Schurzen , did actually provide protection from Hollow/shaped/HEAT charges, but i no longer have the book/source, so that is unconfirmed, so therefore of little value...

newgunner #48 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 07:02

    Private

  • Players
  • 3561 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011
Chieftain,
   Thank-you for your service to our nation and our world (not to mention this game and blog!).

   (apologies if I post this twice by accident).

   I am wondering if, in some future column, you might address the question of whether, in some future variant, it might be desirable/possible to add infantry to this unique World that we are playing in.  From what I have read about WWII, in some ways tankers were most afraid of infantry under certain circumstances.  It appears that many times, suitably equipped infantry were the best way to take out some tanks (Ferdinand comes to mind).
   Why add infantry?  (At Ft Benning, they say that infantry is queen of battle of course!).  Perhaps that's not the point of this game - and that's fine - because the point is to see a really cool theoretical world of just tank vs tank.  Something that hardly ever happened with the exception of the most epic tank engagements like Prokhorovka.  So why not, I love it as it is.  But, would people want the infantry?   Is it even possible?  I'm guessing that the upcoming World of Battleships may similarly be a world where the Bismarck doesn't have to worry about those pesky biplanes that jammed her rudder either?

  At any rate, hope you can comment on this in the future.

Thanks for being here!

Zergling #49 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 07:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 8,471
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011
Welcome The_Chieftain!


View PostUWS_W3r3Wu1F, on Sep 09 2011 - 06:35, said:

The 60deg, is from the horizontal plane, errrm like side-slope, ie: vehicle able to climb 45deg hill, So the armour is sloped at 60deg "/" from ground to roof... ; Germany calculated a 30deg offset, target vehicle angled 30 deg to firing gun(if that makes sense lol), i know of what you speak, but from my limited knowledge of the vagaries of knowledge, its mostly a misunderstanding of the actually standard way to achieve the correct calculation... (BTW, i never assume that i know everything nor am 100% accurate, there is just to much disagreement even among "Professionals" in even the tank field to even come close to being "certain"

Germany calculated armor slope from the vertical plane.

The Hetzer's armor is 60 degrees slope from vertical, and the calculation for armor thickness is: base thickness x (1 / cos angle)

= 60 x (1 / cos 60)
= 60 x (1 / 0.5)
= 120mm


World of Tanks has a normalisation function that 'nerfs' armor effectiveness though, reducing all angles by 8 degrees for normal AP ammo, 12 degrees for premium APCR/APDS, and no normalisation for HE and HEAT.

So that calculation becomes: base thickness x ((1 / cos (angle -8))

60 x (1 / cos (60 - 8))
= 60 x (1 / cos 52)
= 60 x (1 / 0.616)
= 60 x 1.624
= 97.5mm

Depending on relative position of shooter and target, the armor slope may increase or decrease further.

If the shot is at a downwards angle (say, shooter is on a hill firing at a tank on level ground below), part or all of the armor slope will be negated.

If the shot is at an upwards angle (target is on a hill and the shooter is firing upwards at him), the armor slope will increase.
Normally in this situation the weaker lower hull plate will be exposed though, usually nullifying any advantage.


If the shot is at an angle to the side of the target, then compound angles come into play, further increasing slope. These are calculated independently, in a sort of 'X and then Y' fashion.

Base thickness x ((1 / cos (angle1 - normalisation)) x ((1/ cos (angle2 - normalisation))

A couple tank designs (IS-3, IS-4 and IS-7 most notably) have armor that is significantly sloped on both planes, which results in maximum effectiveness when the tank is directly facing its attackers, and reduced if angled away.

W3r3Wu1F #50 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 07:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32302 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 09 2011 - 06:53, said:

The German manuals may have rated armor as from the horizontal but that does not mean that the source document quoted which states 60 degrees was a German manual.

In any case...
http://www.steeldrag..._schematics.jpg

You don't need a protractor to determine that if there's a 60-30 split in the angle of the front slope, the 60 is from the vertical and the 30 from the horizontal.

I think I/We may have had a mis-understanding, via me making a hasty interpretation of the sentence: "Mmm... Using that calculator, I believe you should put in 30 degrees. Different countries use different standards, some measure the angle from vertical, others the angle from horizontal. You need to verify which convention your source document uses. The calculator uses 'from the horizontal', Hetzer's armor is closer to horizontal than vertical."

Apologies...

I wasn't aware that the U.S didn't calculate from the Horizontal...
Usually the Vertical calculation i thought was reserved for deflection...

johncage #51 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 07:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4015 battles
  • 841
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
make the game more realistic with ballistics and better accuracy. thanks.

W3r3Wu1F #52 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 07:44

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32302 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011
Wow, i can't believe i said "horizontal", server me right for watching a Doco on the French revolution while posting...

Zergling, did you check the link i posted? http://www.panzerwor.../relativearmour and thanks for showing the long version of the cosine rule, cheers

Here's the short version:-

    T_L=\frac{T_N}{cos(\theta)}

where

    TL: Line of sight thickness
    TN: Normal thickness
    θ: Angle of the sloped armour plate from the vertical

Yes, i know i messed up, really sorry for that,to be frank i do have dyslexia, vertical, horizontal, what ever ;)

pontiacbubba #53 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 09:26

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 7075 battles
  • 41
  • [BABA] BABA
  • Member since:
    09-21-2010
Nice Nick. Haven't been anywhere that tanks were running but plan on going to Ft Knox one year for the 4th of July parade. I too have a hard time explaining to someone my "facination" if you will of all things armored. I remember pulling into my dads house when he lived next to the rr tracks, and the gates were down I didn't see anything ( it was a dark cloudy night ) but the wife insisted there was. I got out of the car and walked to the tracks and there on the flat bed rail cars were M1's  ( not the later marks the early M1 with the 105 and no extra armor ) ! I was able to check out the clear grease caps on the road wheels and knock on the side skirt armor ( and thinking it was a lot thicker than I would've imagined).

Keep up the great work !

YEEEEEHAAAAAAW #54 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 13:57

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4635 battles
  • 13
  • [-TA-] -TA-
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011
Well written Chief

I don't read the forums at all let alone post on any, but I was so impressed with your grammar and then especially your sentiment regarding tanks that I just had to say:

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  RIGHT ON BUDDY  YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!

I have 51 tanks, tds, and spgs now ('tho im not big on the arty and havent even played some of them) and it still blows my mind when I think about it that there hasnt been more than a few tank games in all the years that I have been gaming, barely mediocre games at that; and I have been gaming a looong time.

I'm not promising to keep up on the forums now, but if I visit them, buddy I doubt it will be for any reason other than to read you wax eloquent about the subject at hand.

In response to the first questions I expect you might pose:
My favorite tank is the M2 light for the speed and armor and small profile and the 2 accurate tier 2 guns to choose from.
I just recently bought the Tiger, Tiger II, M4A3E8, and the Panther
I love tanks because of everything you said (mostly the cool factor), and if I could I would own all the tanks I have in game, in real life.

Way to be cool chief

SgtFtKnox #55 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 14:30

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 50233 battles
  • 321
  • [FATED] FATED
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011
As a former "real world tanker" (MOS 19Zulu)I have found this game to be GREAT and much like the sims we ran. The graphic are better then the sims we had. The "feeling" of being hit is close to real. If there was just someway to get the smells and heat of being in a tank, the game would be perfect.

jdtherocker #56 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 14:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14009 battles
  • 11,291
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011
Welcome cheiftan nice to meet you. Since this is your hatch I'll be sure you'll be commander. :P

Cosemo #57 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 15:41

    Private

  • Players
  • 5961 battles
  • 6
  • [RE8EL] RE8EL
  • Member since:
    07-13-2011
Welcome. would be interesting if you shared some zipper-head strategies with us. I'm an ex- sniper and like my feet on the ground. but I always loved whatching the Leopard II tanks roll by.

steve283 #58 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 15:48

    Private

  • Players
  • 10497 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    03-22-2011
I guess my love for tanks comes from my dad.was a gunner with pattons force in Europe.ah,the tales he would spin.welcome,looking forward to the input.

Seraph702 #59 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 16:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5694 battles
  • 79
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
im not a tanker, but i was an anti-armor specialist when i first got to my unit, its kinda like that commercial about staying at that hotel lol, with that said its awesome to meet a fellow Vet. 15 years and only a troop cmdr? oh wait thats equivalent to battalion in the Infantry. cool beans.

shank117 #60 Posted Sep 09 2011 - 17:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6724 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
finally someone else like me i went to basic training this past year between my junior and senior year in hight school and my recruiter told me when i come back i had to show up in my tree suit and boots on my first day back in school. but before this i was always seen as the weird kid i always had my nose in a world war 2 history book im a artist so all i ever drew where tanks and planes so everyone kinda backed away its always a pain trying to explain it to someone why you have an intrest with something quote(that happend a hundred years ago) i gues i was always different i grew up watching black sheep squadron with my grandpa instead of barney so i was destined for the military and i all came true when the army sent me to fort lostinthewoods(fort leonardwood) missori but any way good to hear from a fellow battle buddy who is as big of a tank nerd as me hooooaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users