Jump to content


US heavy tanks


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
25 replies to this topic

Hellspijker #1 Posted 21 November 2010 - 07:46 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 22051 battles
  • 63
  • [41NL] 41NL
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010
Our first heavy tank was the M6 series; which was developed in accordance with a requirement from the US Army's Chief of Infantry in 1940 that a 50 or 80 ton heavy tank be built, in light of the German success in France.

Funding was allocated for 1,000~ of them, but by 1942, the Army no longer wanted it, with the Commanding General of the Armored Force saying:

"Due to its tremendous weight and limited tactical use, there is no requirement in the Armored Force for the heavy tank. The increase in the power of the armament of the heavy tank does not compensate for the heavier armor".

And so the program was terminated after 40 units had been produced.

Drawing of the M6 Heavy Tank

Top Down View of the M6.

Statistics for the M6:

6 Man Crew
322" Long with Gun Forward
123" Wide over Track armor
118" High to turret roof
63 tons combat weight
22 MPH Top Speed
3 inch M7 L53 Main Gun (75 rounds)
37mm M6 Coaxial (202 Rounds)
2 x .50 MGs in a mount in hull front (6900 rounds)
1 x .30 BMG (5500 rounds of .30 cal total)
1 x .30 cal AAMG
Stablizer: Elevation Only

HULL
Upper Front: 96mm effective
Lower Front: 102 to 70mm @ 0 to 60 degrees
Upper Sides: 47mm effective
Lower Sides: 70mm effective
Rear: 43mm effective
Top: 25mm effective
Floor: 25mm effective

TURRET
Gun Shield: 102mm effective
Front: 84mm effective
Sides: 83mm effective
Rear: 83mm effective
Top: 25mm effective

-------------------------

Later the Army replaced the 3" gun on a M6 pilot with the 90mm gun later used on the Pershing, due to a feeling that the 3" gun was soon to be inadequate in the anti-tank role. Tests showed it to be a stable platform, but by the time the reports on the tests had been written, the M6 program had been cancelled.

-------------

After D-Day, a need was felt for a limited number of tanks with thick armor to act as breakthrough units. They proposed taking existing T1E1s left over from the M6 program and modifying them, installing additional frontal armor and installing a new turret carrying a high velocity 105mm gun, and designating the modified tanks as M6A2E1s.

It was expected to have the first one delivered by 15 November 1944; but in August of 1944, Eisenhower stated that he didn't want them. Which was probably good, because when tests were carried out on a T1E1 loaded to the expected 77 ton weight, the tank could not climb a 40% slope, effectively limiting it to operating on extremely favorable terrain.

Drawing of M6A2E1

Top View of M6A2E1

Statistics for the M6A2E1:

5 Man Crew
440" Long with Gun Forward
123" Wide over Track armor
137" High to turret roof
77 tons combat weight
18 MPH Top Speed
105mm T5E1 Gun (60 rounds)
.30 Caliber Coaxial (4000 rounds)
1 x .50 cal AAMG (600 rounds)

HULL
Front: 191mm effective
Upper Sides: 47mm effective
Lower Sides: 70mm effective
Rear: 44mm effective
Top: 25mm effective
Floor: 25mm effective

TURRET
Gun Shield: 191mm effective
Front: 191mm effective
Sides: 89mm effective
Rear: 208mm effective
Top: 25mm effective

-----------------------

Statistics of 105mm T5E1 Gun:
65 calibers
6 rounds/minute with two loaders

T32 APBC-T Shot:
135mm @ 30 degrees @ 914m
119mm @ 30 degrees @ 1829m

-------------------

On 14 September 1944, OCM 25117 recommended the development and manufacture of four pilots for a new heavy tank. Two of these were designated as the heavy tank T29 and were to be armed with the 105mm gun T5E1.

The remaining two were designated as the heavy tank T30 and were to be armed with the 155mm gun T7.

Procurement of 1200 T29 tanks was recommended by OCM 26825 on 1 March 1945.
Drawing of T29 Heavy Tank

T29

T29 Specs:

6 man crew
Combat Weight: 70.75 tons

HULL
Upper Front: 174mm effective
Lower Front: 132mm effective
Front Sides: 76mm effective
Rear Sides: 51mm effective
Upper Rear: 52mm effective
Lower Rear: 40mm effective
Top: 38mm effective
Front Floor: 25mm effective
Rear Floor: 13mm effective

TURRET
Gun Shield: 203-279mm effective
Front: 206mm effective
Sides: 127mm effective
Rear: 102mm effective
Top: 38mm effective

105mm Gun T5E2
Loading: Manual (6 rds/min with 2 loaders)
Stablizer: None

Vision:
T143E1 Telescope
M10E5 Periscope

1 x .50 Caliber M2 HB Flexible AA on commanders hatch
2 x .50 Caliber M2 HB Coaxial
1 x .30 Caliber M1919A4 Bow Mount

Ammo Load:
63 Rounds 105mm
2420 rounds .50 Caliber
2500 rounds .30 caliber

-----------------

The 8th T29 built was modified to provide for the installation of the range finder T31E1, and became the T29E3.
Drawing of T29E3 Heavy Tank

Top of T29E3 Heavy Tank

This tank probably has a significantly better rangefinder rating than anything except probably laser rangefinder equipped tanks in game terms, because of the shear size of the rangefinder; the wider the base of the rangefinder, the better and more accurate it is; the T29E3 had a 274.32 cm rangefinder ; while the Panther F had a 132 cm rangefinder, and the Tiger II a 160 cm one.

T29E3 Specs:

6 man crew
Combat Weight: 72 tons
Speed: 22 MPH

HULL
Upper Front: 174mm effective
Lower Front: 132mm effective
Front Sides: 76mm effective
Rear Sides: 51mm effective
Upper Rear: 52mm effective
Lower Rear: 40mm effective
Top: 38mm effective
Front Floor: 25mm effective
Rear Floor: 13mm effective

TURRET
Gun Shield: 203-279mm effective
Front: 206mm effective
Sides: 127mm effective
Rear: 102mm effective
Top: 38mm effective

105mm Gun T5E1
Loading: Manual (6 rds/min with 2 loaders)
Stablizer: None

Vision:
T31E1 Range Finder
T93E2 Telescope
M10E5 Periscope

1 x .50 Caliber M2 HB Flexible AA on commanders hatch
2 x .50 Caliber M2 HB Coaxial
1 x .30 Caliber M1919A4 Bow Mount

Ammo Load:
63 Rounds 105mm
2420 rounds .50 Caliber
2500 rounds .30 caliber

------------------------------------------------------------

The T30 hull was essentially the same as that of the T29 except for the changes to the engine compartment necessary to accommodate a different engine. The turret also was similar to that on the T29.

Drawing of T30 Heavy Tank

Top of T30 Tank

T30 Specs
6 man crew
Combat Weight: 71.3 tons
Speed: 22 MPH

HULL
Upper Front: 174mm effective
Lower Front: 132mm effective
Front Sides: 76mm effective
Rear Sides: 51mm effective
Upper Rear: 52mm effective
Lower Rear: 40mm effective
Top: 38mm effective
Front Floor: 25mm effective
Rear Floor: 13mm effective

TURRET
Gun Shield: 203-279mm effective
Front: 206mm effective
Sides: 127mm effective
Rear: 102mm effective
Top: 38mm effective

155mm Gun T7
Loading: Manual with hoist and spring rammer (2 rds/min with 2 loaders)
Stablizer: None

Vision:
T143E1 Telescope
M10E9 Periscope

1 x .50 Caliber M2 HB Flexible AA on commanders hatch
1 x .50 Caliber M2 HB Coaxial
1 x .30 Caliber M1919A4 Bow Mount

Ammo Load:
34 Rounds 155mm
2200 rounds .50 Caliber
2500 rounds .30 caliber

---------------

Statistics of 155mm T7 Gun:
40 calibers
2 rounds/minute with two loaders

It was never provided with an AP shot as far as I can tell; but I would imagine a 95 pound HE shell would mess up any tank's day; and given the calibre of the gun, a HEAT round from it would be truly terrifying.

-----------------------

Early in 1945, Ordnance undertook design studies to modify the 120mm antiaircraft gun for tank use.

On 17 May 1945, OCM 27662 recommended that two of the T30 pilot tanks be armed with the 120mm gun and redesignated as the heavy tank T34. This action was approved on 31 May.

The T34 pilots were similar in appearance to the T29 and T30 tanks except for the longer barrel of the 120mm gun.

Drawing of T34 Heavy Tank

Frontal view of T34

T34 Specs
6 man crew
Combat Weight: 71.8 tons
Speed: 22 MPH

HULL
Upper Front: 174mm effective
Lower Front: 132mm effective
Front Sides: 76mm effective
Rear Sides: 51mm effective
Upper Rear: 52mm effective
Lower Rear: 40mm effective
Top: 38mm effective
Front Floor: 25mm effective
Rear Floor: 13mm effective

TURRET
Gun Shield: 203 to 279mm effective
Front: 184mm effective
Sides: 127mm effective
Rear: 203mm effective
Top: 38mm effective

120mm Gun T53
Loading: Manual (5 RPM with 2 loaders)
Stablizer: None

1 x .50 Caliber M2 HB Flexible AA on commanders hatch
1 x .50 Caliber M2 HB Coaxial
1 x .30 Caliber M1919A4 Bow Mount

Vision:
T143E2 Telescope
M10E10 Periscope

Ammo Load:
34 Rounds 120mm
2090 rounds .50 Caliber
2500 rounds .30 caliber

----------------------

120mm Gun T53 Specs:
60 Calibers
5 RPM, two loaders

AP Shot:
198mm @ 30 degrees @ 914m
173mm @ 30 deg @ 1829m

HVAP Shot:
381mm @ 30 deg @ 914m
318mm @ 30 deg @ 1829 m

------------------------------

The successful employment of the heavily armored assault tank M4A3E2 in Europe during the Fall of 1944 emphasized the need for greater armor protection. On 7 December 1944, the Army Ground Forces recommended that the Ordnance Department develop a modification of the new Pershing tank with heavier armor and the Army Services Forces directed that immediate action be taken to comply with this request. Two approaches were followed to solve the problem. The first produced essentially a standard Pershing with thicker armor and a lower final drive gear ratio to maintain a reasonable level of mobility.

This vehicle was designated as the heavy (later medium) tank T26E5. A longer range solution was to develop a new tank utilizing as many Pershing components as possible.

OCM 26606, dated 8 February 1945, recommended the construction of four pilots of such a vehicle and designated it as the heavy tank T32. Formal approval of this project was recorded in March.

The design of the new tank proceeded on a high priority basis and by 10 April 1945, a mock-up was almost complete and approximately 80 per cent of the drawings for the first two pilots had been released.

Drawing of T32 Heavy Tank

Top of T32.

T32 Specs
5 man crew
Combat Weight: 60 tons
Speed: 22 MPH

HULL
Upper Front: 216mm effective
Lower Front: 184mm effective
Sides: 76mm effective
Rear: 52mm effective
Top: 38mm effective
Front Floor: 25mm effective
Rear Floor: 13mm effective

TURRET
Gun Shield: 298mm effective
Front: 309mm effective
Sides: 199 to 154mm effective
Rear: 152mm effective
Top: 25mm effective

90mm Gun T15E2
Loading: Manual (4 RPM)
Stablizer: None

1 x .50 Caliber M2 HB Flexible AA on commanders hatch
1 x .30 Caliber M1919A4 Coaxial
1 x .30 Caliber M1919A4 Bow Mount

Ammo Load:
54 Rounds 90mm
550 rounds .50 Caliber
4000 rounds .30 caliber

Vision:
M77E1 or M71E4 Telescope
M10E4 Periscope

--------------------------

90mm T15E1/2 Gun Data:
70 Calibers

Penetration:

T43 AP Shot (APBC-T; 3,200 ft/sec)
132mm @ 30 degree angle @ 500 yds
127mm @ 30 degree angle @ 1000 yds
124mm @ 30 degree angle @ 1500 yds
122mm @ 30 degree angle @ 2000 yds

T44 HVAP Shot (APCR-T; 3,750 ft/sec)
244mm @ 30 degree angle @ 500 yds
221mm @ 30 degree angle @ 1000 yds
196mm @ 30 degree angle @ 1500 yds
173mm @ 30 degree angle @ 2000 yds

------------------

Drawing of T28 Assault Gun

T28/T95 Assault Gun Top View

T28/T95 Assault Gun Top View

Superheavy Tank T28 (105mm GMC T95)
4 man crew
Speed: 4
Combat Weight: 95 tons

HULL
Gun Shield: 292mm effective
Upper Front: 305mm effective
Lower Front: 266mm effective
Upper Sides: 118mm effective
Lower Sides: 152mm effective
Rear: 52mm effective
Top: 38mm effective
Floor: 25mm effective

105mm Gun T5E1
1 x .50 Caliber in AA Mount

Loading: Manual (4 RPM)
Stablizer: None

Ammo Load:
62 Rounds 105mm
660 rounds .50 Caliber

------------------------------------

Posted Image

T26E4 "Super" Pershing
90mm T15E2 (54 rounds)
48 tons combat weight
20 MPH Top Speed

140mm Effective Hull Front
80mm Effective Hull Sides
50mm Effective Hull Rear

120mm Effective Turret Front
80mm Effective Turret Sides
80mm Effective Turret Rear
20mm Top Armor

--------------



T26E5 "Jumbo" Pershing
90mm M3 L52 (70 rounds)
51.15 tons combat weight
20 MPH Top Speed

210mm Effective Hull Front
80mm Effective Hull Sides
50mm Effective Hull Rear

280mm Effective Turret Front
90mm Effective Turret Sides
130mm Effective Turret Rear
30mm Top Armor

Info and foto's posted by MarkSheppard, on Shrapnelgames forum. I just coppied it and inserted links to the images to compress the post.

Valy #2 Posted 21 November 2010 - 08:12 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 5520 battles
  • 25
  • [CPT] CPT
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010
yeah i think too that US hightiers front hull armor is bit underrated

theta0123 #3 Posted 21 November 2010 - 10:52 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5605 battles
  • 6,110
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostValy, on 21 November 2010 - 08:12 AM, said:

yeah i think too that US hightiers front hull armor is bit underrated
Keep in mind that the hull armor is actuall thickness sloped back. As with most tanks in WOT with sloped armor. The KT has 150mm thick armour yet IRL it had a strength of 200-230 or so

thejoker91 #4 Posted 21 November 2010 - 11:22 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 395
  • Member since:
    09-23-2010
The fun thing about the T29 and so on heavys from the us is that the 5 cm Pak 38 gun would have been able to penetrate them in the sides and the rear at 500 m. This gun is in-game in vehicles such as the Leopard and the Panzerjager I.

My leopard today did 5% and 6% damage to a T29 in consecutive shots to the side and the rear haha.

Ambusher #5 Posted 21 November 2010 - 03:52 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 3183 battles
  • 312
  • Member since:
    10-16-2010
Honestly, I find it much harder to damage a KV, KV-3 or Tiger II than a heavy US tank.

On one occation I destroyed a T1 Heavy with three shots in the side armour, compared to five or six against the KV.

Ambusher

Hellspijker #6 Posted 21 November 2010 - 05:20 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 22051 battles
  • 63
  • [41NL] 41NL
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010
True, the Kv with 152 or 107 is murdring agains t1 m6 and t14s,
In T1 i went against and KV with 107 he killed me in 3 shots and i got him only down to 75% so no real contest there.

Tuccy #7 Posted 21 November 2010 - 09:17 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 12951 battles
  • 8,701
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View Postthejoker91, on 21 November 2010 - 11:22 AM, said:

My leopard today did 5% and 6% damage to a T29 in consecutive shots to the side and the rear haha.
That's the problem with hitpouints. My 75/48 on Hetzer does 10% on Tiger on a gfood day - from a penetrating hit just below the turret at pointblank range.

XSniper040 #8 Posted 07 December 2010 - 02:45 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    08-22-2010
So pretty much they said "F" you US tanks, and decided not to make them to the actual specs?

Grigori #9 Posted 07 December 2010 - 03:20 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 444
  • Member since:
    03-21-2010

View Postthejoker91, on 21 November 2010 - 11:22 AM, said:

The fun thing about the T29 and so on heavys from the us is that the 5 cm Pak 38 gun would have been able to penetrate them in the sides and the rear at 500 m. This gun is in-game in vehicles such as the Leopard and the Panzerjager I.

My leopard today did 5% and 6% damage to a T29 in consecutive shots to the side and the rear haha.

This is true for a lot of tanks.

theta0123 #10 Posted 07 December 2010 - 03:56 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5605 battles
  • 6,110
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
The US could have had proper heavy tanks from 1941. The thing is, the high brass dint liked them. Especialy patton.

If patton wassent in the picture, the americans could have had 500+ Pershing tanks at the start of D-day. Pattons claims of that Heavy tanks would strain the Supply lines where false, because the only thing the Pershing had more then the sherman, was 30% more fuel consumption

Grigori #11 Posted 07 December 2010 - 08:15 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 444
  • Member since:
    03-21-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 07 December 2010 - 03:56 PM, said:

The US could have had proper heavy tanks from 1941. The thing is, the high brass dint liked them. Especialy patton.

If patton wassent in the picture, the americans could have had 500+ Pershing tanks at the start of D-day. Pattons claims of that Heavy tanks would strain the Supply lines where false, because the only thing the Pershing had more then the sherman, was 30% more fuel consumption

Theta: the notion that Patton had any impact on U.S. tank development has been thoroughly debunked for as much as a decade if not more. He did not have a single thing to do with the M26 regardless of what Belton Y. Cooper, a man whose book has more fatal errors than truths, has to say.

Regardless, 30% greater fuel consumption is significant.

theta0123 #12 Posted 07 December 2010 - 09:48 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5605 battles
  • 6,110
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostGrigori, on 07 December 2010 - 08:15 PM, said:

Theta: the notion that Patton had any impact on U.S. tank development has been thoroughly debunked for as much as a decade if not more. He did not have a single thing to do with the M26 regardless of what Belton Y. Cooper, a man whose book has more fatal errors than truths, has to say.

Regardless, 30% greater fuel consumption is significant.
Compared with a tank with 3 times the armor of a sherman and a gun wich can penetrate all but the kingtiger at long ranges?

Thats worth the fuel consumption
Imagine the lives saved at the allied tankers side if they introduced the pershing

Grigori #13 Posted 08 December 2010 - 12:30 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 444
  • Member since:
    03-21-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 07 December 2010 - 09:48 PM, said:

Compared with a tank with 3 times the armor of a sherman and a gun wich can penetrate all but the kingtiger at long ranges?

Thats worth the fuel consumption
Imagine the lives saved at the allied tankers side if they introduced the pershing

Not many, considering the same things killing the overwhelming majority of M4s can and would kill the M26. Is this worth 30% fuel consumption, a shorter maintinence cycle, and the numerical defecite associated with transporting larger vehicles in transports with the same volume. All this just prior to an invasion, where a major change in ordnance and logistics can throw a wrench in the operation.

Claims that the M26 could have been ready for deployment by June 6th, 1944 are dubious to start with regardless.

theta0123 #14 Posted 08 December 2010 - 11:56 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5605 battles
  • 6,110
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostGrigori, on 08 December 2010 - 12:30 AM, said:

Not many, considering the same things killing the overwhelming majority of M4s can and would kill the M26. Is this worth 30% fuel consumption, a shorter maintinence cycle, and the numerical defecite associated with transporting larger vehicles in transports with the same volume. All this just prior to an invasion, where a major change in ordnance and logistics can throw a wrench in the operation.

Claims that the M26 could have been ready for deployment by June 6th, 1944 are dubious to start with regardless.
Pershings frontal armor well protected it from the most common german tank guns

It would still have had a big impact on the battlefield.

Grigori #15 Posted 08 December 2010 - 03:41 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 444
  • Member since:
    03-21-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 08 December 2010 - 11:56 AM, said:

Pershings frontal armor well protected it from the most common german tank guns

It would still have had a big impact on the battlefield.

I am currently at work, so I cannot post statistics with sources. But rest assured that German antitank gunners possitioned themselves to engage enemy armor from the most vulnurable sides possible, and waited until they were as close as possible. This was standard procedure accross the board for many nation's antitank gunners.

The overwhelming majority of M4 tanks that were penetrated by AP shot in Normandy and beyond were holed through the side. But this is only a small portion of the tanks knocked out. Most were knocked out by land mines and self propelled guns; the later likely including both direct fire solutions such as StuGs (presumably acting defensively which is their greatest strength in the antitank role) and Tank Destroyers, and indirect fire solutions.

In this situation, many of the same things that were killing M4s would have killed M26s. The M26 was by no means resistant to land mines, nor was it less prone to being shot in the side by an antitank gun like the common PaK 40. The only area where the M26 would have been clearly superior is, of course, tank fighting. But as we can see, encounters with enemy armor were not the big killers of Western Allied armor. I will post the statistics and the source when I get home, provided I remember.

Then, again, we visit the issue of the hypothetical introduction of a new machine that brings with it a host of complex logistic chain changes just prior to an invasion, where you especially cannot afford complications in the preparation immediately prior to the execution of the operation. Also note that retooling factories takes time - time wherein that factory cannot produce tanks. You're looking at a potential shortage of tanks at a critical time if that happens. Regardless of what some people on this forum would have you believe, typhoon rockets and the like were not reliable tank killers and CAS could not have in any way substituted for tracks on the ground.

Shoeshine #16 Posted 08 December 2010 - 04:49 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 10447 battles
  • 1,255
  • [TOHY] TOHY
  • Member since:
    10-05-2010

View PostGrigori, on 08 December 2010 - 03:41 PM, said:

Then, again, we visit the issue of the hypothetical introduction of a new machine that brings with it a host of complex logistic chain changes just prior to an invasion, where you especially cannot afford complications in the preparation immediately prior to the execution of the operation.

not to mention the amount of attention such a rapid influx of Heavy armour would bring  :Smile_honoring:

Tuccy #17 Posted 10 December 2010 - 11:33 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 12951 battles
  • 8,701
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
One M26 would take space of a full M4 platoon in LCT.
Meaning you'd need 5 times more LCTs to land them, or would land 5 times fewer tanks - even if you'd be able to produce enough for the D-day.

theta0123 #18 Posted 10 December 2010 - 11:56 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5605 battles
  • 6,110
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View Posttuccy, on 10 December 2010 - 11:33 AM, said:

One M26 would take space of a full M4 platoon in LCT.
Meaning you'd need 5 times more LCTs to land them, or would land 5 times fewer tanks - even if you'd be able to produce enough for the D-day.
Yet still you have a tank with good armor and firepower

Its funny how everyone is so fancy dandy over the tiger, and not the pershing in these matters

Grigori #19 Posted 10 December 2010 - 03:12 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 444
  • Member since:
    03-21-2010
As we've already established: The things killing off the majority of M4s could and would kill off M26s too. Such a huge subtraction in armor quantity for a tank which, while superior in terms of armor and firepower, wouldn't offer a substantial survivability increase means that the United States might very well have found itself wanting of vehicles at a critical time.

Not that it matters. As has been said before, saying that the M26 could have been in Normandy is a dubious claim regardless.

Hellspijker #20 Posted 21 October 2011 - 04:59 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 22051 battles
  • 63
  • [41NL] 41NL
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010
let's see if i can at the m103 and t110 soon.