224
225

Tank HistoryTiger II at Saumur tank museum (i.redd.it)

montaguw が 投稿

全 162 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]devirginatorrazormachine 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's the only Tiger II that can drive on it's own power in the whole world right?

[–]T3 T5 T5 T5 T1Bltzkrg 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

its this one right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dhPW_ksFcM

[–]Zargabraath 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

whoa whoa dude where's the trigger warning? you realize how many freeaboos have been traumatized by that thing?

[–]Anime makes me madTieblaster 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (157子コメント)

It's such an imposing tank, even if it was a piece of shit in real life.

EDIT: haha all the triggered Wehraboos below me

[–]montaguw[S] 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

look at the one behind it too ;)

[–]Radar when?ItsZorion 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why do you gotta start all this drama over a museum piece?

[–]JLebowsking -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Because this sub is filled with whiny people and has been since the beginning. First it was crying about russian bias even after the deserved sloped armor nerf, now its calling whoever dares bring up the fact that allied tanks had armor and reliability problems as a whereaboo.

Hell even the graveyard of the forums is better than this, this sub has more salt than cs go and lol subbreddits combined.

[–]Pattern_Is_Movement 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I just played my first match in the T-34, and without any upgrades and without trying (I was playing with the absurdity of the armor at its tier at the end)... got 8 kills and a ton of assists without dieing..... Don't get me wrong I did ok with the Germans before, but it was always "if you miss the first shot, you are dead". This T-34 not only has a fantastic gun, but the armor makes me feel dirty.

[–]You cheated on her? You probably play arcade.... :^)LordofTheFlyingz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Was this before or after the T-34 armor nerf?

[–]kubeldeath 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Tigers=shit IRL is a meme. All tanks have teething problems. Tiger IIs became pretty reliable after the first couple of months. A pretty acceptable number for readiness for tanks was about 60% in WW2, Tiger IIs were at 58%. This is the same rate at which Stugs and PIVs were ready to go.
Their losses came primarily from not being able to replace broken stuff on them close to the front lines because they are being pushed back. Replacement parts aren't available because the USAAF bombed all the factories. Other common reason for losing one was from running out of fuel because the USAAF blew up all the oil production facilities Germany was using.
If allied tankers broke something they could usually come back to the tank and fix it later, fuel wasn't a problem for them in the way it was for Germany.
The efficiency rates in terms of how much armor they knocked out to each unit lost of all these German tanks that get maligned were very high. Some anecdotes I've read about how effective they were when they were in their element:
There was a group of 11 Elefants at Kursk that killed something like 320 units of soviet armor.
A group of 4 KT outside Berlin in some industrial suburb (forget the name) took out over 80 T34s and SUs that were staging.
Another popular thing to say is something wrong with these is their fuel consumption, the Tiger IIs fuel consumption was not a whole lot more than the Pershing, despite weighing 20 tons more. (4.25l/km vs. 4.9l/km) Tiger IIs were actually 1.5km/hr faster than Pershings (40km/hr vs 41.5 km/hr) and they also had excellent cross country mobility.
All weapon systems are designed for a specific purpose, when in their element of what they were designed for, the German heavies were exceptional, its when they are forced into other roles due to the course of the war is when their disadvantages become apparent, this doesn't make them pieces of shit. It's also a misconception that Germany wanted hordes and hordes of these things and wanted to make these their one wonder weapon tank to do everything. They wanted 1500 (they produced a bit over 1300) to fill the role that they were designed for (long range combat against Soviet heavy tanks in open ground). The other roles were to be filled by other units.

[–]26 ton Heavy Breakthrough TankTruncatedSeries 45 ポイント46 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Tiger IIs were actually 1.5km/hr faster than Pershings (40km/hr vs 41.5 km/hr)

The Tiger II's absolute top speed was 35km/h, average was 15-20km/h. The Pershing's absolute was 30mph (~48km/h) with 25mph (~40km/h) sustained.

They wanted 1500 (they produced a bit over 1300)

Only 489 Tiger II's were built (50 with the early turret), I think you're getting the production of the Tiger I and II confused.

[–]kubeldeath -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yes, you are right about the production numbers (well off by 7, there were 492 made).

Your speeds are incorrect though. At least according to wiki which has 41.5 top speed KT, 38 km/hr sustained road with the Pershing top speed 40 km/hr and same sustained road speed. Tiger IIs cross country is listed at 2-3x the Pershing too with KT at 9-12mph and the Pershing at 5.8mph.

[–]26 ton Heavy Breakthrough TankTruncatedSeries 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes, you are right about the production numbers (well off by 7, there were 492 made).

Only 489 were built before Kassel was captured by the Allies in March '45, it's possible more were laid down before capture but not completed.

At least according to wiki which has 41.5 top speed KT, 38 km/hr sustained road with the Pershing top speed 40 km/hr and same sustained road speed.

Wikipedia should not be trusted in any way shape or form, the figures for the Tiger II are from "Panzer Tract's 6-1 Schwere-Panzerkampfwagen D.W. to E-100 including the Tigers" Jentz & Doyle Pg. 47 and the ones for the Pershing are from "Pershing A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series" Hunnciutt Pg. 217. Very noted authors on the subjects.

[–]kubeldeath 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wiki has that book as Hunnciutt as the most used source for the Pershing. Wikis most cited authors for the KT are Spielberger, Walter & Doyle.
Same sources.

[–]26 ton Heavy Breakthrough TankTruncatedSeries 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Back from work, here's the pages I listed;

Hunnicutt

Jentz & Doyle

[–]26 ton Heavy Breakthrough TankTruncatedSeries 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've actually got copies of the books, remind me tomorrow and I can post the relevant pages. Wikipedia is using the early pre-production spec/estimates from Wa Pruef 6 not the actual tested figures from Krupp for the Tiger II and I've no idea how they've managed to fuck the Pershing one up. Wikipedia should not be used as a source period, its good for a general overview and finding better sources but for exact figures... No...

[–]crblasty 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Be careful to avoid wiki as a source.

[–]LB-1 is loveBloodyFloody 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I get where you're coming from, in a direct combat practice the Tiger tanks were definitely imposing and effective.

Although you're probably sick of hearing it, combat effectiveness is not the only way a tank should be graded. To quote yourself;

Their losses came primarily from not being able to replace broken stuff on them close to the front lines because they are being pushed back.

This alone should provide ample evidence that the tank itself was a failure. If the Germans knew they were taking such damage to their infrastructure they absolutely should not have made tanks that were so resource heavy and difficult to repair and upkeep.

The strength of the many allied tanks came from their ease of operation and sheer logistical strength and upkeep. War is definitely not all about the biggest gun or best armour, but what you can produce for your army to remain combat effective at all times. See how easy it is to repair a Sherman over a Panther and King Tiger for example.

Likewise, the firepower of ten Stugs is worth more than the firepower of a couple of Tiger II's so to speak. Similarly to why the US army continued to use low velocity Sherman 105's and 76's with a higher HE charge for infantry support over the high velocity 76mm Shermans. Strictly speaking there's more application to tanks than just an anti-tank role.

There was a group of 11 Elefants at Kursk that killed something like 320 units of soviet armor. A group of 4 KT outside Berlin in some industrial suburb (forget the name) took out over 80 T34s and SUs that were staging.

I really don't like these for comparisons of a tank's combat effectiveness at all. There's many strawman stories that can be brought up or pulled out of some obscure history book to point at the effectiveness of a tank or vehicle in war. Likewise there's the story of a lone T-34-85 taking on three Tiger II's and succeeding. As well as the battle of Arracourt to name a very small few.

War is most definitely not a black and white area and is incredibly blurry. My personal rule is to take every story and even reports read about the effectiveness and combat roles of vehicles with a large grain of salt.

Tiger IIs were actually 1.5km/hr faster than Pershings.

To me it's a little funny you bring up the comparison to the Pershing with the Tiger II. The Pershing was met with incredible skepticism due to its un-combat tested nature and under-powered engine and gearbox as well as its heavy weight. The US army was most definitely not entirely keen on this design, the Pershing's only saving grace being the US army feared they might need a tank with such a powerful gun for the invasion of Berlin. The only difference being that unlike the Tiger II, the Pershing had more initial testing before deployment and actually received fixes and upgrades to its powerplant issues prior to deployment in combat, where it saw fuck all real combat before the war was over anyhow.

[–]Zargabraath 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

the numbers deployed argument is so pointless. even if Germany had produced nothing but panzer IVs and StuGs allied armor would STILL have outnumbered them massively on every front

attributing German industrial inferiority as a design flaw of their tanks is as moronic as claiming that late war German aircraft were garbage because the Luftwaffe had no gasoline to fill them with, or experienced pilots to fly them.

[–]LB-1 is loveBloodyFloody 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I absolutely do not think it's a moronic argument at all to claim that creating such resource and logistically heavy vehicles when your infrastructure and resources are stretched thin enough as is.

More tanks = more units get more fire support, can cover more ground and can evenly distribute firepower to your forces.

To me the biggest design flaw of their tanks was the sheer over-engineered complexity of their designs. The Americans did their best to ensure designs were almost universal and the majority of equipment and their infrastructure was already setup to build and maintain any vehicle. I'd even say it was overkill to a degree the level of care that was given in ensuring all factories and field equipment/tools were compatible with any new vehicles. Just look at the number of vehicles made using the M3 chassis.

if Germany had produced nothing but panzer IVs and StuGs allied armor would STILL have outnumbered them massively on every front

the Luftwaffe had no gasoline to fill them with, or experienced pilots to fly them.

If anything this would just makes me question further why they even bothered fighting such a losing battle.

[–]Zargabraath -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

the fact that they made idiotic strategic decisions and were fighting an unwinnable war does not somehow make all of their vehicle designs trash as a result

we don't say that the N1K2 is an awful plane because Japan never should have entered into war with the United States in the first place...this is the most bizarre non-logic I see on this sub

[–]LB-1 is loveBloodyFloody 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I never insinuated that the vehicles were bad because they were fighting an unwinnable war. Just something I tacked my thoughts on with your quotes. If anything I believe the Germans had the right idea for creating tanks with such thick armour and powerful guns in mind towards the end of the war, whether it was part of their plan to prolong ground war with the advancing allies.

I also don't believe that resource heavy vehicles or what might be a ground breaking but new design being pushed into mass production is a terrible idea.

My issue is that; which I'm sure I've already spouted too much, is that if they don't have the materials and resources for upkeep then what good is a "superior" design anyway? What's the point of creating such a design when you can only afford to field them in so little numbers that most units won't receive their support anyway? Likewise why spend so many resources and time on creating such vehicles when you forget about one of the single most important aspects such as ease of maintenance?

On a side note but not related, I am absolutely not bashing the Germans mindlessly at all. Their infantry doctrine in the war was absolutely masterful which is why modern armies still use it today. Likewise I also got an original German copy of "Tigers in the mud" signed by Otto Carius himself (my personal favourite war hero) before he passed away sadly only weeks later.

[–]Zargabraath 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair enough. I think the Germans realized early on that they wouldn't be able to match the Allies tank for tank and figured they would try to get a qualitative edge, since they were certainly not going to have the quantitative edge.

A lot of people in this subreddit don't seem to realize almost as many Panthers as Panzer IVs were produced, and the Panzer IV production figure includes many of the early war poorly armored infantry support variants which were obviously not effective against enemy tanks.

[–]American Planes, Canadian at heartDressedw1ngs 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you have a citation for that combat readiness? The closest I can found is the Nazi wank website tank-encyclopedia which pins it at 80% (a hilarious quite naive number).

As noted in "Tiger" by Thomas Anderson it says that sPzAbt 502 "Acquisition of spare parts is difficult due to the combat situation. For this reason combat readiness for 50 percent of the combat echelon is in doubt".

That of course is more than just mechanical reliability, but points to a situation that exacerbates every shit issue the German tank industry had.

Part of allied superiority came from the ability to maintain supply lines and ensure that their tanks had the parts to continue fighting.

source

[–]Zargabraath -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

it's almost like the allies had massive industrial superiority and would have outnumbered German armour regardless of what tanks the Germans focused on producing!

[–]Zargabraath 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

buh buh Panzer IV F, Sherman and other 1941 tanks were more reliable than tanks deployed in 1943-44 so clearly they were better in every way!

jk of course. but yeah the memes are getting pretty ridiculous. the smear job against the Panther is probably the most annoying given how the Panther was the most capable German tank and cost only marginally more than a PZ IV

[–]This ain't your pappy's T-34.FrostedPonies 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Once the G went into production most of the unintentional problems were more or less resolved, but that doesn't change the fact that the Panther still lacked basic instruments like a unity sight, by design.

[–]athaleos 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (38子コメント)

Expensive to build and maintain, vastly superior to most other tanks fielded in Europe.

[–]You cheated on her? You probably play arcade.... :^)LordofTheFlyingz 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (31子コメント)

If it's expensive to build and maintain, it's hardly "vastly superior" is it? Or do reliability and logistical sense not count anymore?

[–]Zargabraath 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (30子コメント)

pretty much anything "vastly superior" is going to be more expensive and less reliable due to being on the cutting edge of technology

the me 262 was vastly superior to Allied designs, it was also much more expensive and less reliable than German piston fighters. does that somehow make it less superior? of course not. is a Leopard or Challenger 2 not vastly superior to a T-72 because they cost much more?

[–]You cheated on her? You probably play arcade.... :^)LordofTheFlyingz 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (29子コメント)

the me262 was vastly superior to allied designs

by what measure? it was shot down by props often.

When it comes to weapons of war, you can consider three different qualities:

On paper superiority

Price

Reliability/Ease of repair

Now in general, you will always have 2 of these, but never all 3 at the same time.

The Tiger II had 1 of those things going for it.

Sherman's, T-34s, Pz 4s, Stugs had the bottom two down all day.

The top one is good only for wanking off in the future to thick armor slabs and big guns. The bottom two win wars

When it comes to defining the quality of a design, it's not about it having a big gun and lots of armor, if it simply isn't effective in combat or getting around in combat, it shouldn't be considered vastly superior.

If had a car with a 7.0L V8 making 750HP and 800 lb ft torque with cupholders and luxury accessories, but it had been designed with flat rear tires and no transmission, would you call it superior to a v6 making 275hp capable of doing what you needed it to do? Now add in the fact that the V8 costs 100s more to repair and you understand why paper stats mean nothing in a war.

[–]Zargabraath 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

oh and BTW please explain how 8000 Panzer IVs and 20000 StuGs were going to "win wars" vs 50 000 Shermans, 50 000 T-34s and many more Cromwells and other Allied tanks and TDs.

this logic of "oh yeah well if the Panther/Me 262/Tiger 2 was so great why did Germany lose the war" is beyond idiotic. It's like saying the Yamato was a shitty battleship because it didn't singlehandedly win the war for Japan.

[–]Zargabraath 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mig-17s shot down Phantoms in Vietnam.

Hell if I recall correctly there was at least one instance of an American piston fighter shooting down a Mig-15 in Korea. By your logic that means the Mig-15 was not vastly superior then?

The fact that massively outnumbered Me 262s were shot down by P-51s during takeoff or landing does not somehow make their design worse. That's like saying that if a Me 262 is bombed and blown up while in its hangar it is now not vastly superior because a B-17 was able to destroy it.

[–]Claybeaux68 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (26子コメント)

It was not shot down by props often. Less than 125 262's were shot down, mostly by props strafing airfields or loitering near their airfields where they were easy meat due to fuel starvation and low landing speeds where they couldn't just spool up and fly away. Actual air to air combat like we think of it was rare as props couldn't catch up to them. There were incidents where prop planes got the jump on them, but it was not the norm. The 262 was a leap ahead of anything the allies had flying at the time. It was too little too late to stop the fleets of bombers that dismantled Germany's industry, but had Hitler not fucked up and tried to make it a bomber it would have extended the war.

[–]You cheated on her? You probably play arcade.... :^)LordofTheFlyingz 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (25子コメント)

The 262 was a leap ahead of anything the allies had flying at the time

Meteor don't real

P-80 don't real.

Vampire don't real.

Again you haven't defined a metric for "leaps", is it top speed, armament, wing loading or just the sheer number of 12 year olds that wank to it 75 years later.

[–]Claybeaux68 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (24子コメント)

Meteor: Forbidden to fly over Germany. ME262 (on paper at least) is the better aircraft by far. Still, not really comparable as the meteor didn't come into its own until the Korean conflict.

P-80: Saw no combat in WWII. Not comparable.

Vampire: Post war. Not comparable.

[–]PM_ME_UR_THEOLOF 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Meteor: Forbidden to fly over Germany.

The meteor was banned from flying over Europe because the British were afraid that the Germans or Soviets would capture the technology for their own use, not because it was inferior to the 262.

[–]Claybeaux68 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

When ze Germans were already flying their own in combat. Right. Downvoting me won't change the fact that I'm right. The Allies had nothing to compete with the 262.

[–]You cheated on her? You probably play arcade.... :^)LordofTheFlyingz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

But they existed and were flown during ww2.

They simply weren't fielded because Allies didn't feel the need for wunderweapons

[–]Bringer of Hawker HunterCrag_r 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Try again, the meteor saw action over Germany in the in final few month of the war when the no fly over germany order was revoked.

In fact for the entire of 1945 616SQN were on standby in the Netherlands specifically to intercept 262's should they attempt to enter the British sectors.

So if the aircraft is specifically deployed to counter the 262, its comparable.

Given you discussed tech however. Seeing combat isn't a requirment; then US had several squadrons state side with the P-80.

[–]psh454 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (5子コメント)

-Thick crappy quality (due to material shortages) brittle frontal armor. Overweight and extremely prone to breakdowns. Cannot cross most bridges. Gas guzzler (when Germany had no oil).

-Vastly superior to most other tanks fielded in europe

Pick one

[–]Panther II can die in a transmission fireBadgerman42 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I choose the 152mm HE shell to the Upper Front Plate, with a side of spalling

[–]Zargabraath 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

speaking of memes IRL the KV-2 was an unreliable POS and was withdrawn/had production shut down very quickly after deployment

[–]Panther II can die in a transmission fireBadgerman42 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was thinking more on the lines of this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-152

But yeah I can see the KV-2 not doing so well during the war

[–]HelperBot_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-152

HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 43022

[–][4Pleb] Officer || THIS IS SPARTA! || More RB Air maps pleaseTelsion 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd take a 183 mm shell fired on a Tiger's UFP all day

I heard it's also good at kicking little mice

[–]Zargabraath 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

the people below you actually know what you're talking about, if you'd drop the circlejerk memes long enough to read up on the subject you might too

[–]Shitty sense of humorWildCAT356 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Call it a piece of shit if you will, but you need to give credit to the enemy that the Allies fought for almost 6 years, giving credit to Germany also gives credit to the extreme bravery that the Allies had going up against Germany

[–]steelrudd -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are the Social Justice Warriors of online Military History! Searching far and wide for posts that trigger them, then collecting them in one place for a good old public shaming.

[–]Muh climbrateBaconDragon69 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

piece of shit

Just because it was unreliable, those are technical difficulties not neccessarily design flaws per se

Not to defend triggered wehraboos but its kinda provoking or almost asking for drama when you say it was a piece of shit.

[–]You cheated on her? You probably play arcade.... :^)LordofTheFlyingz 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Just because it was unreliabe

not necessarily design flaws

that's literally a design flaw

[–]Muh climbrateBaconDragon69 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

If they had better raw materials and a little more time its obvious that the same engine and steel could have been refined...

[–]You cheated on her? You probably play arcade.... :^)LordofTheFlyingz 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

if

if

if

but they didn't.

[–]Muh climbrateBaconDragon69 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Neither did a rather sizeable chunk of vehicles we have ingame see combat -.-

You're not complaining about the Mk24 existing do you?

[–]You cheated on her? You probably play arcade.... :^)LordofTheFlyingz -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The Mk24 in game is, for our purposes, exactly the same as the Mk22, which is exactly the same as the Mk21, which flew in 1944.

Unless you think that fuel tanks and rocket hardpoints mean the plane is unfair to fight against.

Also, the mk24 is utterly irrelevant in this conversation, but somehow you've managed to bring it up and are attempting to perform mental gymnastics to equate it to the fact that late war German designs were not effective for Germany at the time.

[–]Muh climbrateBaconDragon69 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hahahaha yeah... no...

There isnt a single plane that is "exactly the same" as something like that monstrosity we have in game, no lock up, insane energy retention and the ability to do other bullshit maneouvers we are capable of in war thunder RB.

You cant pick and choose realism, either you admit the game is unrealistic for game purposes and thus admit vehicle tweaking for balance reasons is okay or you go full realism and dont even play this game because of how insanely unrealistic it is.

Im bringing it up because of the endless "muh realism" talk

German designs were not effective?

Not efficient certainly but you cant deny the superiority the Tiger II even if barely functional held over the allied tanks it faced except that APDS 17 pounder, just like I wont deny that the T34 85 blows pretty much every german medium tank out of the water.

[–]You cheated on her? You probably play arcade.... :^)LordofTheFlyingz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

like that monstrosity we have in game, no lock up, insane energy retention and the ability to do other bullshit maneouvers we are capable of in war thunder RB.

You've listed ingame problems. IRL the 24 is identical to those 3 airframes save fuel and hardpoints.

[–]Bringer of Hawker HunterCrag_r 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not quite. Even with decent materials, it still just came down to the core design of the tanks that cause the massive issues. A Panthers transmission for instance was only designed to handle around half the weight of the tank, or the sealed engine bay that gave way to a stupendous burn rate. These issues have little to do with material quality, they are simply design flaws.

[–]Muh climbrateBaconDragon69 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well yeah but I doubt these were intended

Wasnt that just a stop gap measure/initial issue kinda thing?

Are you really telling me no one noticed that and they would have kept producing underpowered transmissions and engines even if they could assemble better ones had they had time and resources?

[–]M60A2 WHENSuppliceVI 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't get too close OP. It's transmission can burst into flames at any moment!

[–]xNeo92x 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Germany went full retard with that thing...

[–]Ridin with the titties outComradeChernov 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Holy shit this whole fucking thread is /r/Shitwehraboossay material.