Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[Laywenrania]

Edit:

Also: T-64B has upgraded armour compared to T-64, Same for T-80.

T-64B got upgraded armour in 1985.
T-64B introduced in 1979 with armour scheme improved for production, but no protective increase.
Ergo, all T-64B in 1984 had same armour protection as T-64A.

T-64B in 1985 introduced added glacis armour and introduction of T-64BV with ERA.
Earlier T-64B already had the different turret which offered better protection.

[Dostanuot Loj]

I had no idea that DM-33 was a dart for both 105 and 120.

Generally speaking, they all are.
DM13 only flew 120mm.
DM23 flew both, as did DM33.
DM43 and DM53 only flew 120mm.
DM63 flies both now.

You can trace their introductions with fire control pretty nicely. No Leopard 1 had digital fire control with additional round compatibility when DM13 came out. So they were stuck with existing ballisticly programmed rounds.
Then the A4 and A5 come out, and you have digital Leopard 1s! They can now be programmed to take new rounds, so DM23 and then DM33 gets programmed in. DM43 too but it was not widespread much anyway. DM33 was an adequate penetrator until Kontakt-5 came along.

In 1985 when K5 showed up, it changed everything. Kinda.
Reality was K5 was rare until into the 1990s. And Germany knew it. The knew it especially in 1990. DM33 was still more then adequate until the late 1990s because there was no financial ability to bring it into widespread service. And by, say 1997 when the DM43 is widespread for the 120mm gun, Germany has more Leopard 2s then it knows what to do with.

The situation right now, in the 2010s is more interesting. K5 is more widespread, and not just in the former USSR. This is why 105mm DM63 exists now but no K5-sufficient 105mm ammo did in 1998. Now there is not just a need for the Germans, but their export market too has to deal with it.

T-64B in 1985 introduced added glacis armour and introduction of T-64BV with ERA.
Earlier T-64B already had the different turret which offered better protection.

Every source I have ever read on T-64 production speaks of the T-64B turret being a production-optimized turret to allow more T-64s to enter service with greater capabiluty in terms of fire control and lethality. No mentions ever of updated armour until 1985. All armour increases to the T-64B were either built in, or applique in 1985 after Soviet tests using captured Israeli M111 APFSDS, which they believed could frontally penetrate the T-64B and T-80B. Hence later T-64B, and the T-80U.

T-64B, T-80B, and T-72A share the same thickness and composition of filler. This has been confirmed a number of times (Including by the Russian producers themselves). They all use the same thickness high hardness steel, with corundum balls (T-64A and B) or plates (T-72A and T-80B, better plates with T-80U and T-90) and silicon dioxide filler. Only change to T-64 happens in 1985 when applique 20mm of high hardness steel is applied to the hull (No turret change).

T-64B turret had a redesigned filler cavity to allow easier access to both place the composite filler, and replace it if needed. T-64A turret was apparently a nightmare to do this on. Protection did not change.

[Laywenrania]

Every source I have ever read on T-64 production speaks of the T-64B turret being a production-optimized turret to allow more T-64s to enter service with greater capabiluty in terms of fire control and lethality. No mentions ever of updated armour until 1985. All armour increases to the T-64B were either built in, or applique in 1985 after Soviet tests using captured Israeli M111 APFSDS, which they believed could frontally penetrate the T-64B and T-80B. Hence later T-64B, and the T-80U.

T-64B, T-80B, and T-72A share the same thickness and composition of filler. This has been confirmed a number of times (Including by the Russian producers themselves). They all use the same thickness high hardness steel, with corundum balls (T-64A and B) or plates (T-72A and T-80B, better plates with T-80U and T-90) and silicon dioxide filler. Only change to T-64 happens in 1985 when applique 20mm of high hardness steel is applied to the hull (No turret change).

T-64B turret had a redesigned filler cavity to allow easier access to both place the composite filler, and replace it if needed. T-64A turret was apparently a nightmare to do this on. Protection did not change.

"17. According to a declassified CIA report from 1984, the US then assessed that the T-64A and T-64B had the same protection level of 370-440mm vs KE and 500-575mm vs CE. NII Stali and Chobitok report the T-64A glacis as 299mm KE/410mm HEAT and the turret as 364mm KE/450mm HEAT RHA equivalent protection (presumably for the 1973 model). BTVT estimates T-64A max as glacis 335mm vs KE/450mm vs CE, turret 410mm vs KE/450mm vs CE. GSPO estimates T-64B as 380-450mm versus KE and 500-560mm versus CE. BTVT estimates T-64B as 350-500mm versus KE and 450-600mm versus CE. From 1981 on, the T-64A and T64B produced were essentially unified in terms of armour protection."

http://defence.pk/threads/tank-protecti ... ls.171837/

[Dostanuot Loj]

Every source I have ever read on T-64 production speaks of the T-64B turret being a production-optimized turret to allow more T-64s to enter service with greater capabiluty in terms of fire control and lethality. No mentions ever of updated armour until 1985. All armour increases to the T-64B were either built in, or applique in 1985 after Soviet tests using captured Israeli M111 APFSDS, which they believed could frontally penetrate the T-64B and T-80B. Hence later T-64B, and the T-80U.

T-64B, T-80B, and T-72A share the same thickness and composition of filler. This has been confirmed a number of times (Including by the Russian producers themselves). They all use the same thickness high hardness steel, with corundum balls (T-64A and B) or plates (T-72A and T-80B, better plates with T-80U and T-90) and silicon dioxide filler. Only change to T-64 happens in 1985 when applique 20mm of high hardness steel is applied to the hull (No turret change).

T-64B turret had a redesigned filler cavity to allow easier access to both place the composite filler, and replace it if needed. T-64A turret was apparently a nightmare to do this on. Protection did not change.

"17. According to a declassified CIA report from 1984, the US then assessed that the T-64A and T-64B had the same protection level of 370-440mm vs KE and 500-575mm vs CE. NII Stali and Chobitok report the T-64A glacis as 299mm KE/410mm HEAT and the turret as 364mm KE/450mm HEAT RHA equivalent protection (presumably for the 1973 model). BTVT estimates T-64A max as glacis 335mm vs KE/450mm vs CE, turret 410mm vs KE/450mm vs CE. GSPO estimates T-64B as 380-450mm versus KE and 500-560mm versus CE. BTVT estimates T-64B as 350-500mm versus KE and 450-600mm versus CE. From 1981 on, the T-64A and T64B produced were essentially unified in terms of armour protection."

http://defence.pk/threads/tank-protecti ... ls.171837/

Your quote and link does three things which hamper you.
1: Prove that protection estimation in RHA is not only non-definitive, but pretty much useless. Hence I have referenced it as little as possible.
2: Points out multiple sources which state the T-64B and T-64A have equal protection. Which Is the opposite of what you were saying.
3: Invokes the pakistandefence forum, which is pretty much akin to invoking Godwin's law.

The short of this being, your post did nothing to help your case, but rather harmed it.

[Laywenrania]

"17. According to a declassified CIA report from 1984, the US then assessed that the T-64A and T-64B had the same protection level of 370-440mm vs KE and 500-575mm vs CE. NII Stali and Chobitok report the T-64A glacis as 299mm KE/410mm HEAT and the turret as 364mm KE/450mm HEAT RHA equivalent protection (presumably for the 1973 model). BTVT estimates T-64A max as glacis 335mm vs KE/450mm vs CE, turret 410mm vs KE/450mm vs CE. GSPO estimates T-64B as 380-450mm versus KE and 500-560mm versus CE. BTVT estimates T-64B as 350-500mm versus KE and 450-600mm versus CE. From 1981 on, the T-64A and T64B produced were essentially unified in terms of armour protection."

http://defence.pk/threads/tank-protecti ... ls.171837/

Your quote and link does three things which hamper you.
1: Prove that protection estimation in RHA is not only non-definitive, but pretty much useless. Hence I have referenced it as little as possible.
2: Points out multiple sources which state the T-64B and T-64A have equal protection. Which Is the opposite of what you were saying.
3: Invokes the pakistandefence forum, which is pretty much akin to invoking Godwin's law.

The short of this being, your post did nothing to help your case, but rather harmed it.

If for you 335/410 against KE/450mm against CE is the same as 350/500 against KE/600mm against CE, then yes...

FAS, Janes and Zaloga also state that the protection was increased.

Edit: To 1: How does it proves it and why is RHAe useless?

[Padnak]

[Heavy load hauling intensifies]

[Orussia]

Edit: To 1: How does it proves it and why is RHAe useless?

RHAe is useless for several reasons.
No nation's rolled armor steel is going to be the same as another nation's. There might be impurities, higher or lower hardness, higher or lower ductility, any number of variables. Thus, since there is no standard for of RHA, there can be no set RHAe conversion.
In addition, modern composites are hard to calculate an equivalent thickness for, since there are sometimes many different layers of different materials.

[Dostanuot Loj]

If for you 335/410 against KE/450mm against CE is the same as 350/500 against KE/600mm against CE, then yes...

Five different estimates for the same vehicle tells me that RHAe estimates (Which those are) are non-definitive.
Many years dealing with this stuff has long led me to understand that RHAe is not used in the military world.
Hence why we talk of armour layouts and penetrator capabilities, because they are not dependent on arbitrary numbers which are not based in reality.

FAS, Janes and Zaloga also state that the protection was increased.

FAS does not match reality on its technical outlines. They have long been known for that.
Zaloga is better then Clancy, but not perfect, check his source material. Or better yet, check all publications by him in relation to the T-64, he details armour increases not with the introduction, but later.
Which Janes? The journal? If so, you might want to start giving article names, because I just took a quick browse through a few of my Janes subscriptions and didn't find any such reference. If the tank recognition guide, that information is not listed.

Edit: To 1: How does it proves it and why is RHAe useless?[/quote]
Like I said, five different number sets about the same tank. The numbers have an margin of error of 200mm for KE and 190mm for CE.
That is a huge margin of error. And it's wholly irrelevant because RHAe is a non-definitive soft figure.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Edit: To 1: How does it proves it and why is RHAe useless?

RHAe is useless for several reasons.
No nation's rolled armor steel is going to be the same as another nation's. There might be impurities, higher or lower hardness, higher or lower ductility, any number of variables. Thus, since there is no standard for of RHA, there can be no set RHAe conversion.
In addition, modern composites are hard to calculate an equivalent thickness for, since there are sometimes many different layers of different materials.

There's more to it.
What is rolled homogenous armour equivalent?
The US produced 2-3 different RHA steels from the end of WW2 to the introduction of the M1 Abrams. They were all different ballisticly. Which one is used for RHAe? What about other countries, as you said?
How does this apply to the T-64, which used another type of high hardness steel? By basic metallurgy, a cast turret can not be composed of rolled homogenous steel, it can not be rolled.

And then, as you say, composites come into play. A 70mm diameter ball of corundum will have different effects on different rounds, and different impact angles and differing impact velocities. I just used that as an example, but the same applies to all composite armour arrays, they will act differently on different things. How then do we measure RHAe protection? Or penetration? If Penetrator-X can penetrate Armour-A but not Armour-B, but Penetrator-X can penetrate Armour-B but not Armour-A, which is better? Which has the higher RHAe? You can say this is a bad example, but it is an example that exists in real life.

As an aside, regarding T-64A and B turrets.
Both were cast high hardness steel.
T-64A was a cast outer shell. Composite inserts had to be placed from within the vehicle, and the backing plate welded over it. To change or replace composite inserts meant stripping the turret out and cutting out the weld. It also meant there was a chance of the backing plate separating when the armor was hit and scabbing around the inside.
T-64B turret was cast with the cavity access on the top of the turret, so the front and backing plates of the cavity were cast into the armour. Composite inserts would simply be dropped into the cavity and a plate welded over. T-80 had this, as did T-72A.
This is the only way I can see the T-64B turret being "better armoured" then the T-64A. And only because the chance of the backing plate separating from the turret is removed. But that does not mean penetrative protection is increased, it merely means the chance of a catastrophic weld failure being lethal is reduced.

[Laywenrania]

Five different estimates for the same vehicle tells me that RHAe estimates (Which those are) are non-definitive.
Many years dealing with this stuff has long led me to understand that RHAe is not used in the military world.
Hence why we talk of armour layouts and penetrator capabilities, because they are not dependent on arbitrary numbers which are not based in reality.

FAS does not match reality on its technical outlines. They have long been known for that.
Zaloga is better then Clancy, but not perfect, check his source material. Or better yet, check all publications by him in relation to the T-64, he details armour increases not with the introduction, but later.
Which Janes? The journal? If so, you might want to start giving article names, because I just took a quick browse through a few of my Janes subscriptions and didn't find any such reference. If the tank recognition guide, that information is not listed.

Edit: To 1: How does it proves it and why is RHAe useless?

Like I said, five different number sets about the same tank. The numbers have an margin of error of 200mm for KE and 190mm for CE.
That is a huge margin of error. And it's wholly irrelevant because RHAe is a non-definitive soft figure.

I misread Janes tbh, they just say "new armour package": http://www.janes.com/article/40139/ukra ... ar-donetsk
And for Zaloga: For me it's one of the only sources for now more or less about soviet tanks in book form I own, since I can't seen to find any other books selled here

Aren't the differences in RHAe estimates not largely attributable to different coefficients and guesses for composite materials etc?

I rather see RHAe as rough guesswork tbh and as rough indication, not an alldefinitve last word.

With talking about armour layouts and penetrator capabilities it also looks a lot like guessing to me, since both of it are for more modern tanks largely classified.

As an aside, regarding T-64A and B turrets.
Both were cast high hardness steel.
T-64A was a cast outer shell. Composite inserts had to be placed from within the vehicle, and the backing plate welded over it. To change or replace composite inserts meant stripping the turret out and cutting out the weld. It also meant there was a chance of the backing plate separating when the armor was hit and scabbing around the inside.
T-64B turret was cast with the cavity access on the top of the turret, so the front and backing plates of the cavity were cast into the armour. Composite inserts would simply be dropped into the cavity and a plate welded over. T-80 had this, as did T-72A.
This is the only way I can see the T-64B turret being "better armoured" then the T-64A. And only because the chance of the backing plate separating from the turret is removed. But that does not mean penetrative protection is increased, it merely means the chance of a catastrophic weld failure being lethal is reduced.

Hadn't the T-64A a mixture of borisilicate and quartz sand while the T-64B then introduced Kombination-K composite armour with Korundum balls?

[Orussia]

RHAe is useless for several reasons.
No nation's rolled armor steel is going to be the same as another nation's. There might be impurities, higher or lower hardness, higher or lower ductility, any number of variables. Thus, since there is no standard for of RHA, there can be no set RHAe conversion.
In addition, modern composites are hard to calculate an equivalent thickness for, since there are sometimes many different layers of different materials.

There's more to it.
What is rolled homogenous armour equivalent?
The US produced 2-3 different RHA steels from the end of WW2 to the introduction of the M1 Abrams. They were all different ballisticly. Which one is used for RHAe? What about other countries, as you said?
How does this apply to the T-64, which used another type of high hardness steel? By basic metallurgy, a cast turret can not be composed of rolled homogenous steel, it can not be rolled.

And then, as you say, composites come into play. A 70mm diameter ball of corundum will have different effects on different rounds, and different impact angles and differing impact velocities. I just used that as an example, but the same applies to all composite armour arrays, they will act differently on different things. How then do we measure RHAe protection? Or penetration? If Penetrator-X can penetrate Armour-A but not Armour-B, but Penetrator-X can penetrate Armour-B but not Armour-A, which is better? Which has the higher RHAe? You can say this is a bad example, but it is an example that exists in real life.

As an aside, regarding T-64A and B turrets.
Both were cast high hardness steel.
T-64A was a cast outer shell. Composite inserts had to be placed from within the vehicle, and the backing plate welded over it. To change or replace composite inserts meant stripping the turret out and cutting out the weld. It also meant there was a chance of the backing plate separating when the armor was hit and scabbing around the inside.
T-64B turret was cast with the cavity access on the top of the turret, so the front and backing plates of the cavity were cast into the armour. Composite inserts would simply be dropped into the cavity and a plate welded over. T-80 had this, as did T-72A.
This is the only way I can see the T-64B turret being "better armoured" then the T-64A. And only because the chance of the backing plate separating from the turret is removed. But that does not mean penetrative protection is increased, it merely means the chance of a catastrophic weld failure being lethal is reduced.

tl;dr too many variables for RHAe to be a definitive measurement.

[New Vihenia]

Another "RHAe" stuff... Been realized for a looong time ago. Problem is there seems to be no replacement for it.

I can't really tell how effective my armor would be...Will my combination work (at least in theory) to Erode long rods or else...I would like to try "critical velocity and force" Approach in some books but it's kinda difficult to do..since i have no way to simulate it.

[The Akasha Colony]

Aren't the differences in RHAe estimates not largely attributable to different coefficients and guesses for composite materials etc?

I rather see RHAe as rough guesswork tbh and as rough indication, not an alldefinitve last word.

With talking about armour layouts and penetrator capabilities it also looks a lot like guessing to me, since both of it are for more modern tanks largely classified.

The problem is that RHAe is meant to be a comparative figure, but it by nature can't really be used for comparisons. Modern composites work in ways that are very different from simple steel plates, which is why they perform differently when hit by penetrators of different design and composition. It also means each combination performs differently, so values can't be compared except maybe from different penetrators fired into the same uniform steel targets, but this isn't very useful information since a projectile optimized for punching through spaced plates, ceramics, and depleted uranium may not be performing very efficiently against simple steel.

[Laywenrania]

Aren't the differences in RHAe estimates not largely attributable to different coefficients and guesses for composite materials etc?

I rather see RHAe as rough guesswork tbh and as rough indication, not an alldefinitve last word.

With talking about armour layouts and penetrator capabilities it also looks a lot like guessing to me, since both of it are for more modern tanks largely classified.

The problem is that RHAe is meant to be a comparative figure, but it by nature can't really be used for comparisons. Modern composites work in ways that are very different from simple steel plates, which is why they perform differently when hit by penetrators of different design and composition. It also means each combination performs differently, so values can't be compared except maybe from different penetrators fired into the same uniform steel targets, but this isn't very useful information since a projectile optimized for punching through spaced plates, ceramics, and depleted uranium may not be performing very efficiently against simple steel.

Would there be a better way for a comparative figure? Or is making a huge table with "x can penetrate y at spot z" the only viable option?

[Dostanuot Loj]

I misread Janes tbh, they just say "new armour package": http://www.janes.com/article/40139/ukra ... ar-donetsk
And for Zaloga: For me it's one of the only sources for now more or less about soviet tanks in book form I own, since I can't seen to find any other books selled here

Aren't the differences in RHAe estimates not largely attributable to different coefficients and guesses for composite materials etc?

I rather see RHAe as rough guesswork tbh and as rough indication, not an alldefinitve last word.

With talking about armour layouts and penetrator capabilities it also looks a lot like guessing to me, since both of it are for more modern tanks largely classified.

Don't get me wrong, I like Zaloga. I have a few of his books, and reference him myself. But you need to know the sources.

RHAe differences are because its all guesswork. Educated guesswork or not, still guesswork. I could likely give a more "accurate" guess on an RHAe value of any given armour profile then pretty much anyone on this forum, because I have been rolling around this stuff for a very very long time at an academic level. But it's still guesswork, and still likely wrong.

Armour/penetrator capabilities are less guesswork. In the civilian world we rely on the classified military side to follow the basic principal of actually trying to do their job. Therefore a round which comes out after testing a captured enemy tank, should penetrate that tank, if it's fielded to fight it. And vice versa for rounds. Then we are looking at development/introduction cycles, and all that fun stuff.

Hadn't the T-64A a mixture of borisilicate and quartz sand while the T-64B then introduced Kombination-K composite armour with Korundum balls?

T-64A and T-64B both had sand with corundum balls. Combo-K was pretty universal across both.

[Dostanuot Loj]

The problem is that RHAe is meant to be a comparative figure, but it by nature can't really be used for comparisons. Modern composites work in ways that are very different from simple steel plates, which is why they perform differently when hit by penetrators of different design and composition. It also means each combination performs differently, so values can't be compared except maybe from different penetrators fired into the same uniform steel targets, but this isn't very useful information since a projectile optimized for punching through spaced plates, ceramics, and depleted uranium may not be performing very efficiently against simple steel.

Would there be a better way for a comparative figure? Or is making a huge table with "x can penetrate y at spot z" the only viable option?

Gaming uses RHAe because it's easy.
It's also wrong. But easy.
NATO uses a series of targets which are arbitrary but provide a simplistic comparative. Other countries have similar targets.

[Laywenrania]

So I can drop the numbers I calculated for my tank as RHAe numbers and should rather use something along "it's immune to 120mm M133 APDS"?

[The Akasha Colony]

The problem is that RHAe is meant to be a comparative figure, but it by nature can't really be used for comparisons. Modern composites work in ways that are very different from simple steel plates, which is why they perform differently when hit by penetrators of different design and composition. It also means each combination performs differently, so values can't be compared except maybe from different penetrators fired into the same uniform steel targets, but this isn't very useful information since a projectile optimized for punching through spaced plates, ceramics, and depleted uranium may not be performing very efficiently against simple steel.

Would there be a better way for a comparative figure? Or is making a huge table with "x can penetrate y at spot z" the only viable option?

Not really. Real militaries aren't usually concerned with this armchair stuff because their questions are a bit more focused. They only have to care whether their current crop of penetrators (and maybe whatever they have in reserve, but those reserves get commissioned pretty regularly) can defeat the current crop of threats (and conversely whether their armor can stop the enemy's penetrators). In fact, only a few people in the military will care about this stuff, the grunts on the ground don't really have a choice since even if their penetrators don't work, it's all they have. Just load another round and hope you can hit a less protected spot.

So I can drop the numbers I calculated for my tank as RHAe numbers and should rather use something along "it's immune to 120mm M133 APDS"?

That's probably a better idea. I dropped using RHAe and described the general layout and the general caliber it's designed to be resistant against (although that's more useful for HEAT and smaller calibers than larger APFSDS).

[Dostanuot Loj]

So I can drop the numbers I calculated for my tank as RHAe numbers and should rather use something along "it's immune to 120mm M133 APDS"?

I've been trying to get people to do that here for years.
"Immune from XXXSpecificRound 30 degrees across the frontal arc from 1km" is an applicable, realistic protection value. Provided all other things match, which is why it's good for people to review things like weight, internal layout, etc.

Protection is the hardest part of a tank to come up with realistically for a game like NS, because it is the most complex.

[Gallia-]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... rotect.png

[Laywenrania]

So what would be realistical for a modernised T-72 derivate, fielding a bustle autoloader, with an armour layout similar to latest russian tanks (projects) and modern ERA? Could it defeat 120mm rounds?

[GraySoap]

So what would be realistical for a modernised T-72 derivate, fielding a bustle autoloader, with an armour layout similar to latest russian tanks (projects) and modern ERA? Could it defeat 120mm rounds?

If it wore modern ERA, something akin to Relikt, I suspect it could protect against most 120mm shell in the frontal turret and glacis. Hit elsewhere and it's likely dead. Of course ERA doesn't last long and if the enemy has some advanced ERA-baiting tandem HEAT shell* then it may well be dead-weight.

* anyone here on NS make an advanced HEAT shell?

[Dostanuot Loj]

So what would be realistical for a modernised T-72 derivate, fielding a bustle autoloader, with an armour layout similar to latest russian tanks (projects) and modern ERA? Could it defeat 120mm rounds?

Slather it in ERA.
You'll never defeat the most modern rounds because they are designed to defeat anything you can get. Russian tech tends to sit behind Western tech, even if only a little bit, and even if only because of budgets.

So just slather it in ERA. You can never go wrong. Except after your ERA tiles are used up.

[Yukonastan]

Time for number 2. Anything wrong?

Type: Infantry fighting vehicle; family chassis
Place of origin: Yukonastan

In service: 1971-Present
Used by: Yukonastan Defense Force; Yukonastan Expeditionary Force

Designer: Northern Military Industries Land Vehicle Division
Designed: April 28, 1971
Manufacturer: Northern Military Industries Land Vehicle Division
Manufactured: 750+

Weight: 32.5 t
Length: 7.2 m
Width: 3.2 m
Height: 2.9 m (base IFV variant)
Crew: 2 (Base IFV variant, driver, commander/gunner)

Armor: 20mm point blank (25mm@200m)over frontal arc, 14.5mm (20mm@200m)point blank elsewhere. Steel, aluminium, and applique over the tracks
Main Armament: 32x142mm chain gun (current)
Secondary Armament: 10.4x64mm medium machine gun
Engine: 500 kW diesel (670 HP)
Power/weight: 20.6 HP/t
Suspension: Torsion bar
Ground clearance: 0.42 m
Fuel capacity: 640 L
Operational range: 580 km
Speed: 82 km/h on road without applique, 75 km/h on road with, 50 km/h off-road

R-r-r-r-retoast.

[Padnak]

I have intoed jeeps