+45

Atmosphere

marcellogo

PapaDragon

George1

william.boutros

runaway

GarryB

thegopnik

The-thing-next-door

BenVaserlan

lyle6

caveat emptor

Begome

Sprut-B

Walther von Oldenburg

xeno

mnztr

Backman

diabetus

Broski

RTN

lancelot

Swgman_BK

galicije83

AlfaT8

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E

limb

Mir

franco

JohninMK

ludovicense

flamming_python

Werewolf

Arrow

Arkanghelsk

Kiko

TMA1

ALAMO

DerWolf

sepheronx

Big_Gazza

Isos

sputnik

PhSt

Hole

49 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 10 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Mir

Mir: Posts : 3834
Points : 3832
Join date : 2021-06-10

Post n°401

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Mir Sat Apr 20, 2024 4:28 pm

marcellogo wrote:
Strv-105 design only deserves the higher of praises anyway.

Sorry that they haven't tried to come with a successor.

Yes I agree the Strv-103 was an excellent design, but not without it's drawbacks. However the basic design would still be valid on the modern battlefield.

They actually looked at a local successor for the Stridsvagn but was dropped in favour of a shootout between the M1 Abrahams, the Leclerc and the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 won as we know.

The Local design was known as MBT-2000 Smile

(Strv-2000) but only made it into a mock-up as far as I know. It was armed with a powerful 140mm gun and a 40mm canon.

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 17 Mbt20010

There was also a tank destroyer that made it into prototype form and was based on an articulate design - known as the Udes XX-20

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 17 Udes-x10

marcellogo

marcellogo: Posts : 680
Points : 686
Join date : 2012-08-02
Age : 55
Location : Italy

Post n°402

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

marcellogo Sat Apr 20, 2024 7:11 pm

Mir wrote:

marcellogo wrote:
Strv-105 design only deserves the higher of praises anyway.

Sorry that they haven't tried to come with a successor.

Yes I agree the Strv-103 was an excellent design, but not without it's drawbacks. However the basic design would still be valid on the modern battlefield.

They actually looked at a local successor for the Stridsvagn but was dropped in favour of a shootout between the M1 Abrahams, the Leclerc and the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 won as we know.

The Local design was known as MBT-2000 (Strv-2000) but only made it into a mock-up as far as I know. It was armed with a powerful 140mm gun and a 40mm canon.

There was also a tank destroyer that made it into prototype form and was based on an articulate design - known as the Udes XX-20

Yes, I was referring to the last one as the successor.
Now, I think the two hulled model is something the Russian are thinking about.

lyle6

lyle6: Posts : 2596
Points : 2590
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines

Post n°403

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

lyle6 Mon Apr 22, 2024 1:42 pm

It looks goofy, but a sentry gun powered by computer vision is probably going to be the definitive answer against the cheap drone threat. Imagine future MBTs bristling with sentry guns on their turret roof like old WW2 battleships, only orders of magnitude more accurate. You can launch massive swarms of FPV drones and it would end up just a big massive turkey shoot. As a nasty side effect, computer vision that is advanced enough to recognize very small drones will have comparatively less issues against infantry sized targets...

GarryB, JPJ, kvs, LMFS and Hole like this post

The-thing-next-door

The-thing-next-door: Posts : 1393
Points : 1449
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus

Post n°404

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

The-thing-next-door Mon Apr 22, 2024 8:37 pm

lyle6 wrote: As a nasty side effect, computer vision that is advanced enough to recognize very small drones will have comparatively less issues against infantry sized targets...

Anti "protest" system.

Hole likes this post

LMFS

LMFS: Posts : 5167
Points : 5163
Join date : 2018-03-03

Post n°405

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

LMFS Tue Apr 23, 2024 1:51 am

lyle6 wrote:
It looks goofy, but a sentry gun powered by computer vision is probably going to be the definitive answer against the cheap drone threat. Imagine future MBTs bristling with sentry guns on their turret roof like old WW2 battleships, only orders of magnitude more accurate. You can launch massive swarms of FPV drones and it would end up just a big massive turkey shoot. As a nasty side effect, computer vision that is advanced enough to recognize very small drones will have comparatively less issues against infantry sized targets...

Is that some kind of shotgun? Modern drones are slow and frail in order to be cheap and therefore able to be used massively. That is their advantage but also determines the kind of cheap countermeasure that can be taken against them, me thinks. Current RWS like those in the T-90M or Armata, coupled with a fast firing shotgun should be more than enough, even in the long run, though maybe a higher calibre gun with time fuze rounds is a longer ranged, more versatile and better solution overall. Targetting will prove a complex problem to solve I guess, since passive EM receivers to discover the threat before the terminal approach are needed, but soon enough fully autonomous drones will make that very complex, so dense, airborne radar coverage of the front plus a mix of other tools will be needed, acoustic and optical/IR. The kind of radar already present at the Armata would be ideal to direct fire, if engaged only in reaction to an already approaching threat.

BTW and sorry for the maybe uninformed question, but do you know or reasonably expect what the anti-drone countermeasures in Armata will be, for instance any chance Afganit can play any role? I guess this UAV threat is serious enough to keep the new system away from the battlefield for now, until new approaches and technologies are tried and tested...

kvs likes this post

kvs

kvs: Posts : 15858
Points : 15993
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada

Post n°406

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

kvs Tue Apr 23, 2024 2:23 am

I think the radar is key to these anti-drone turrets. Trying to train AI to pick out a drone from the background is an almost unsolvable
challenge since training automatically biases the functionality to the training database. AI is not actual AI put a fancy pattern regression system.
Spewing bullets at cloud features in the background is not an effective approach. "Radar" can involve acoustic devices like sonar for air.
Air is not water so sound waves are dissipated faster but over distances associated with drone attacks, this is not a show stopper.

Interference from battlefield noise is not a problem since time domain Fourier analysis filters out random noise. All sorts of sound pulses can be
configured for detection which simplify detection.

EM detectors can work as well on cheap plastic drones since there motors are metal and electrical. A drone is not going to be magically shielded
and if it was, then it would be a metal shrouded device that radar can work on.

LMFS and Hole like this post

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°407

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

GarryB Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:26 am

I still cannot believe these are new 1500hp engines, if they were, then they are the best gas turbine tank engines in the world, much better than those on M1.

I honestly think the solution is LIDAR for detection over relatively short ranges and fixed angled munitions like the ARENA APS system originally used to cover angles and directions that the threat would approach... obviously jamming and active defence like a dazzling laser that blinds or damages optical systems including visible and IR wavelengths would be important.

Make it multipurpose so it can intercept anything from a light drone to an APFSDS round and everything in between.

LIDAR would see up to a few hundred metres but could be designed just to detect within 100m or less for drones... drones are more difficult than ATGMs in the sense that they are flown and could shift target or approach at an unusual angle that initially might not appear to be an attack flight profile, so the system needs to detect and threat assess and decide to engage very swiftly, but like anything on the battle field you need good awareness and the right systems.

Some sort of airborne detection system like a Ka-31 or rigid airship with radar and IIR sensors and Lidar along with passive sensors that detect signals from drone controllers and from video streams from cameras on drones to locate the drones and the operators.

The blimp might operate at 5km altitude so above small arms fire and MANPADS range.

You would also expand IADS to include anti drone vehicles and units and systems that operate with pretty much everything else.

A Tigr with a gun and jammer turret with perhaps a 23mm cannon from the Shilka with air burst shells and maybe a belt fed shotgun round for close range engagement... perhaps using the 23mm calibre 8 gauge shotgun round used in the KS-23 riot shotgun used by Russian police... being turret mounted the extra recoil and extra weight is not a problem, but the extra reach and extra projectiles in the buckshot rounds would be useful to extend effective range.

Maybe a laser dazzler in the turret too to blind drones over rather long distances too.

Such a platform would benefit from LIDAR too.

Having light wheeled mobile vehicles would make them affordable, but of course the terminator is also supposed to be used against drones too so add a LIDAR... the LIDAR could incorporate a laser dazzler and a more powerful laser option for actually bringing down some more fragile drones like the Aussie ones made of cardboard.

I mean there is footage of them using lasers to cut down a stand of trees... so taking out drones should not be impossible.

By incorporating multiuse equipment you make things better... for instance with T-14... a LIDAR and laser dazzler... the latter can be used against IIR guided weapons like Spike and Javelin as well as drones, and it could also be used against semi active laser homing weapons like copperhead and its more modern replacements.

Modifiying the APS system to also engage drones just makes the APS system more useful and munitions to intercept drones might also be suitable to "intercept" enemy troops approaching the vehicle too.

kvs likes this post

Atmosphere

Atmosphere: Posts : 311
Points : 315
Join date : 2021-01-31

Post n°408

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Atmosphere Tue Apr 23, 2024 9:06 pm

lyle6 wrote:
It looks goofy, but a sentry gun powered by computer vision is probably going to be the definitive answer against the cheap drone threat. Imagine future MBTs bristling with sentry guns on their turret roof like old WW2 battleships, only orders of magnitude more accurate. You can launch massive swarms of FPV drones and it would end up just a big massive turkey shoot. As a nasty side effect, computer vision that is advanced enough to recognize very small drones will have comparatively less issues against infantry sized targets...

This channel is based

TMA1 likes this post

flamming_python

flamming_python: Posts : 9547
Points : 9605
Join date : 2012-01-30

Post n°409

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

flamming_python Mon Apr 29, 2024 10:05 pm

lyle6 wrote:
It looks goofy, but a sentry gun powered by computer vision is probably going to be the definitive answer against the cheap drone threat. Imagine future MBTs bristling with sentry guns on their turret roof like old WW2 battleships, only orders of magnitude more accurate. You can launch massive swarms of FPV drones and it would end up just a big massive turkey shoot. As a nasty side effect, computer vision that is advanced enough to recognize very small drones will have comparatively less issues against infantry sized targets...

It doesn't look like it has great range

Although I suppose an APS system to protect the vehicle would have a lot less range still, and be no cheaper for sure.

Really the best answer would be any sort of programmable shell, say the 57mm cartridge which is being development or has already finished development with the Derivatsiya-PVO being presented recently. One such cannon in a group and a decent radar will be able to neutralize the threat from far away.

Of course one has to take into account that a skilled FPV drone operator can pilot his drone through to the target at basically ground level and locating it might not be so easy or engaging it without risking friendly fire. EW means are in any case a must and an APS system for any mission critical vehicle certainly.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°410

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

GarryB Tue Apr 30, 2024 8:13 am

This is supposed to be a sentry gun that you place around things that drones might be used to attack like trench lines or perhaps parked vehicles.

It is a piece of the solution, but only a piece.

Having a short range with shotgun rounds is probably a good thing... imagine the friendly fire risk with a HMG mount blazing away at drone targets... drone operators could fly between defensive guns to get those defensive guns to fire at each other, or spray each weapons position with AA fire the way the Ukrainians are hitting civilian targets in their own cities with S-300s and other air defence missiles.

lyle6

lyle6: Posts : 2596
Points : 2590
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines

Post n°411

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

lyle6 Tue Apr 30, 2024 10:59 am

flamming_python wrote:
It doesn't look like it has great range

Although I suppose an APS system to protect the vehicle would have a lot less range still, and be no cheaper for sure.

Really the best answer would be any sort of programmable shell, say the 57mm cartridge which is being development or has already finished development with the Derivatsiya-PVO being presented recently. One such cannon in a group and a decent radar will be able to neutralize the threat from far away.

Of course one has to take into account that a skilled FPV drone operator can pilot his drone through to the target at basically ground level and locating it might not be so easy or engaging it without risking friendly fire. EW means are in any case a must and an APS system for any mission critical vehicle certainly.

Doesn't have to. Its basically a slower reacting APS, with a much deeper magazine for FPV saturation attacks. Longer ranged dedicated systems will take care of the more far off threats like the tactical recon UAVs.

GarryB and Hole like this post

Atmosphere

Atmosphere: Posts : 311
Points : 315
Join date : 2021-01-31

Post n°412

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Atmosphere Tue Apr 30, 2024 7:08 pm

Straight up, drones are not what they are cracked up to be.
The reason for their dangerous reputation is that they cought the current status quo of formations pants down, with no hard counter available since they are new.
Once militaries adapt to it it'll be like other weapons, good when used right, but can be countered.

GarryB, kvs, zardof, The-thing-next-door and Mir like this post

lyle6

lyle6: Posts : 2596
Points : 2590
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines

Post n°413

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

lyle6 Thu May 02, 2024 4:51 pm

Hole likes this post

lancelot

lancelot: Posts : 3175
Points : 3171
Join date : 2020-10-18

Post n°414

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

lancelot Thu May 02, 2024 5:18 pm

They should produce Armata at both tank factories. In a diesel and gas turbine version.
But right now it is better to exploit the available resource of existing Soviet era tank hulls.

The-thing-next-door likes this post

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°415

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

GarryB Fri May 03, 2024 11:58 am

I would say developing a gas turbine powered vehicle would be backward... what they should do is develop an electric drive T-14 that uses a gas turbine as an energy source to generate the power.

Should allow a more compact power supply and a lighter vehicle.

Having two gas turbines would be most efficient... one small GT for duties where the vehicle sits still and heats the crew compartment and operates its electronics and optics and other systems but does not drive around much, while the main GT could be used for normal operations where it drives around and operates normally.

Worst case scenario where you need more power... say with electric armour and an electric enhanced power main gun and perhaps also electric camouflage you could operate both GTs to meet the electrical needs of the vehicle.

JohninMK and jon_deluxe like this post

lyle6

lyle6: Posts : 2596
Points : 2590
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines

Post n°416

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

lyle6 Tue May 14, 2024 12:23 pm

Atmosphere wrote:
Straight up, drones are not what they are cracked up to be.
The reason for their dangerous reputation is that they cought the current status quo of formations pants down, with no hard counter available since they are new.
Once militaries adapt to it it'll be like other weapons, good when used right, but can be countered.

Wait until people figure out that drones are slow enough that they can't penetrate fabric of an outstretched umbrella. No need for heavy steel meshes...

Come to think of it if you can make some sort of an extendible fabric shell that covers the vehicle from all sides the greater coverage and incorporated air gap would do a far better job of blocking the vehicle's IR signature than simple camo covers draped on the bare metal surface...

You can also make a ghetto APS out of it. Get two layers, but place an air gap between them that is as long as the average threat projectile, so say 700mm. Both layers are wired to a battery. Projectile pierces both layers it completes the circuit which can be used to signal for an effector. No need for very expensive radars or high speed cameras...

I call it the vatnik. Because what else can you call a Russian cloth armor? Razz

GarryB, kvs and Atmosphere like this post

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°417

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

GarryB Wed May 15, 2024 9:20 am

Looks like the Swedes were onto something decades ago without even knowing it!

The US used such skirts on their Shermans in D Day... and they tried to use them for the increasingly heavy Bradley till they gave it up as a lost cause after losing them in the water.

Wait until people figure out that drones are slow enough that they can't penetrate fabric of an outstretched umbrella. No need for heavy steel meshes...

What drones do have is numbers so using light fabrics would be countered simply by attacking multiple times.

Meshes also offer the chance of allowing missiles and rockets to be stopped by the mesh without setting off the nose mounted fuse that is used to detonate the warhead of the projectile. Flexibility in the mesh could allow the warhead to be deflected to an extreme angle before the warhead detonates leading to its plasma penetrator beam being rendered useless.

Come to think of it if you can make some sort of an extendible fabric shell that covers the vehicle from all sides the greater coverage and incorporated air gap would do a far better job of blocking the vehicle's IR signature than simple camo covers draped on the bare metal surface...

Good point. Nakidka should be designed to be attached to the cage instead of the tanks outer surface... it would simplify the design and shaping and offer potential ideas like using fabrics that can change colour and effectively have images projected on them that depict non military platforms that the enemy might not be interested in targeting.

A Missile launcher could have a cage armour screen with a school bus or ambulance projected on it for instance.

Optical and thermal projections could be used... to fool thermal imagers too.

You can also make a ghetto APS out of it. Get two layers, but place an air gap between them that is as long as the average threat projectile, so say 700mm. Both layers are wired to a battery. Projectile pierces both layers it completes the circuit which can be used to signal for an effector. No need for very expensive radars or high speed cameras...

You could also make it a faraday cage to protect your vehicle and its electronics while using EMP rounds to destroy enemy vehicles and munitions with EMP pulses...

Design your actual APS system to have munitions mounted on the cage and sensors mounted on the cage so it can defend against incoming threats that are detected... the huge gap between the vehicle and the cage would allow large numbers of munitions to be mounted and stacked to defend the vehicle and even project a distance to defend other vehicles nearby too. Plus of course heat exchangers for jamming equipment and antenna as well....

lyle6 likes this post

Mir

Mir: Posts : 3834
Points : 3832
Join date : 2021-06-10

Post n°418

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Mir Wed May 15, 2024 7:01 pm

GarryB wrote:

Looks like the Swedes were onto something decades ago without even knowing it!

The US used such skirts on their Shermans in D Day... and they tried to use them for the increasingly heavy Bradley till they gave it up as a lost cause after losing them in the water.

It was meant as a joke...

ALAMO

ALAMO: Posts : 7517
Points : 7607
Join date : 2014-11-25

Post n°419

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

ALAMO Wed May 15, 2024 7:04 pm

A translated joke ceases to be funny Laughing

Atmosphere

Atmosphere: Posts : 311
Points : 315
Join date : 2021-01-31

Post n°420

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Atmosphere Wed May 15, 2024 7:16 pm

lyle6 wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:
Straight up, drones are not what they are cracked up to be.
The reason for their dangerous reputation is that they cought the current status quo of formations pants down, with no hard counter available since they are new.
Once militaries adapt to it it'll be like other weapons, good when used right, but can be countered.

Wait until people figure out that drones are slow enough that they can't penetrate fabric of an outstretched umbrella. No need for heavy steel meshes...

Come to think of it if you can make some sort of an extendible fabric shell that covers the vehicle from all sides the greater coverage and incorporated air gap would do a far better job of blocking the vehicle's IR signature than simple camo covers draped on the bare metal surface...

You can also make a ghetto APS out of it. Get two layers, but place an air gap between them that is as long as the average threat projectile, so say 700mm. Both layers are wired to a battery. Projectile pierces both layers it completes the circuit which can be used to signal for an effector. No need for very expensive radars or high speed cameras...

I call it the vatnik. Because what else can you call a Russian cloth armor?

Nice idea but in case of the T-14 the High speed radars and cameras double as sensor suites for situational awareness, the T-14 is essentially a very tough sensor point that happens to hit like a truck.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°421

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

GarryB Thu May 16, 2024 6:15 am

It was meant as a joke...

OK, and why did you think it was funny?

A photo of a T-34 riding through Berlin with bed springs attached to it would have been funny too?

A translated joke ceases to be funny

A joke without translation is not funny either.

To tell a joke you have to have an audience with similar experiences/knowledge to you.

Mir

Mir: Posts : 3834
Points : 3832
Join date : 2021-06-10

Post n°422

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Mir Thu May 16, 2024 8:44 am

GarryB wrote:

It was meant as a joke...

OK, and why did you think it was funny?

Comedy is all about timing. If you did not catch it the first time around - chances are that you never will.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°423

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

GarryB Thu May 16, 2024 9:46 am

That is bullshit... if I tell a joke that relies on specific knowledge and you don't get it, that does not mean if I explain a few key facts related to why the joke is funny you can still appreciate the joke.

It is not the case that if you don't get it that you can never get it.

I have a T Shirt and several people I see regularly have seen me wear it several times and only after seeing it a couple of times did they get the joke... now they think it is funny.

The T shirt is a rabbit contorting itself to make the shape of a human hand as a shadow on the T shirt.

The joke is that human beings contort their fingers to make shadows on the wall to look like various things including rabbits.

Instead of human fingers forming the shadow of a profile of a rabbit it is a rabbit forming the shadow of a human hand with its profile.

The other aspect is even after explaining a joke the joke really wasn't that funny in the first place and amusing or interesting could be substituted for the word funny.

Ironic really because funny doesn't have to mean laugh out loud funny, it can also mean strange or amusing or interesting.

Here is a joke to outline that funny can mean strange too.

Guy in a hospital says he smells something funny. Guy standing next to him with a literal view of the word funny immediately deduces it must be nitrous oxide.

Come on... that is hilarious...

And when I explain that nitrous oxide is also known as laughing gas then everyone can enjoy the joke...

I was going to be a comedian but everyone just laughed at me... Embarassed

Last edited by GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2024 5:02 am; edited 1 time in total

lyle6

lyle6: Posts : 2596
Points : 2590
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines

Post n°424

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

lyle6 Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:18 pm

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 17 GJI96D0aAAA3Vim?format=png&name=900x900

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 17 GJI-QwlaYAAJkHT?format=jpg&name=large

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 17 GJI-Z-mawAAyONF?format=png&name=medium

[from twitter user: gustiiz31]

Basically the rods on the driving band (labeled 15 on the figure) provide stiff anchorage to the sabot body preventing any micro-slippage or tearing. Once the driving band clears the muzzle, the immense pressures on the front cup transmitted to the driving band will finally erupt, and the rods will act as levers to pull away the sabot petal.

Result: Clean separation at significantly higher pressure withstand.

GarryB, kvs, LMFS, TMA1, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

lyle6

lyle6: Posts : 2596
Points : 2590
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines

Post n°425

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

lyle6 Tue Jun 11, 2024 12:01 pm

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 17 GPtwTqBW4AAcsJq?format=jpg&name=medium

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 17 GPtwTqZWsAACeaZ?format=jpg&name=large

GarryB, kvs, LMFS and Belisarius like this post

Russia Defence Forum

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Similar topics

Similar topics