Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology
- Thread starter Rage
- Start date
shuvo@y2k10
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,653
- Likes
- 6,710
a very old article regarding german tank during ww2
The development of the Panther main battle tank
June 1941: The German invasion of the Soviet Union ("Operation Barbarossa"). The initial phase of the war was determined by significant military successes of the Wehrmacht. At that time the Red Army was poorly equipped and unorganized, which was not least due to the fact that large parts of the officer corps had fallen victims of the Stalinist purges of the previous years.
However, it turned out that the Germans had badly underestimated the Soviet resistance. Among other things, the Red Army had advanced heavier tanks (T-34, KV-I/-II), which were superior to the German armored fighting vehicles in every aspect. The operational success of the Wehrmacht was only possible because the new Soviet tanks were not available in large numbers and the lack of radio equipment and therefore coordination lead to limited control of the tanks in operation in comparison to the Wehrmacht.
The backbone of the German Panzertruppe was at that time the PzKpfw II, III and IV and the 38(t), which was taken over from the Czech army. These vehicles had the following armament:
P II with 20 mm KwK 30 L/55,
P III with 37mm KwK L/45,
P IV with 75mm KwK L/24,
P 38 (t) by 37 mm L/48 KwK A7.
These armaments only offered the possibility of achieving damaging hits on Soviet tanks of the latest design at very short ranges.
At that time the only German gun, which could be used on long distance with prospect of success was the 8.8cm anti-aircraft gun (the famous "Acht-Acht"). But at this time the gun was not available in a battle tank and not even in significant numbers as self-propelled guns.
As Operation Barbarossa progressed it became clear that all existing types of German Panzers were inferior in both armour and armaments to the latest soviet designs. Thus the need arose to design a competitve, massed produced tank.
Thus, among other things the development of the battle tank V "Panther" began.
proposal VK30.01 Daimler-Benz (note the similarity to the T-34!)
Already in November 1941, Generaloberst Guderian welcomed the " Panzerkommission " (Armored Commission) among other things with these demands and priorities of the new MBT:
1. Heavier weapons
2. Higher tactical speed
3. Enhanced Armor
Since the summer of 1937
vehicles in the 35-40 ton class powered by a 700hp engine had been in development. This was contrary to a prohibition put in place by Truppenamt (In 6), which was issued after the Polish campaign. It was this illicit development which made possible the short term construction of Tigers and Panthers in the summer of 42)²
December 1941:
Decision to drop earlier developments in the 20-ton class (UK 20.01), and to develop a battle tank in the 30-ton class.
December 1941:
the companies MAN and Daimler-Benz received the development contract
May 1942:
Following an recommendation from an commission appointed for this purpose Hitler decides for the design of MAN.
8.-14.11.1942
Vehicle demonstration in Berka near Eisenach headed by Speer, Fichtner and Holzhäuser.
Including a MAN panther and a Daimler-Benz Panther! )²
January 1943:
the first 4 Panther Ausführung D are produced by the company MAN
From August 1943:
Production of Ausführung A. A revised turret mounted on the chassis of the Ausführung D .
From March 1944:
Production of Ausführung G. Now the turret of Ausführung A was placed on a revised hull.
from March 1945 (planned):
production of Ausführung F. Revised hull of the Ausf G Panther with a newly constructed turret, "Schmalturm" (narrow turret)
1942 to 1943
Panther II (till April 1943 called Panther 2). The Panther II was completely different to the Panther Ausf F; It showed a clearer relationship to the Tiger 2. The development of the Panther II was hired in May / June 1943 (according to Spielberger 4.5.1943). A correlation Panther II and narrow turret is therefore purely fictitious, though in the Internet and among modelers rather popular.
The G-turret on the Panther II (the one at Fort Knox) was added as an afterthought at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. The original hull had no turret.
More about production volume.
Clearly, further alterations were carried out within the production series. E.g. the change from binocular gun sight called TZF 12 to the monocular version TZF 12a in November 1943.
Also tanks already in use were outfitted with modifications, such as a handle on the rear turret hatch and the debris guard over the gap behind the gun mantlet.
An overview of the changes is compiled here
A report, dated February 20 1945 identifies technical innovations which were located in the developments.
The times indicated in the first list show when the changes would have been fully developed. The introduction of these changes to the production line would certainly have taken much longer.
1. Automatic loading for the 7.5 cm KwK, April 1945
Stabilized optics, April 1945
BiWa Infrared Illuminators / optics and rangefinders, April 1945
Rubber saving road wheels (Stahllaufrollen), May 1945
Dreschflegelpanzer (deminers attachment), May 1945
Maybach HL 234 as a new engine, August 1945
The developments referred to in the second list were designed to last a long time perspective
Air cooled diesel engine by Simmering and water cooled diesel engine by Deutz
Stabilized main gun
Hydrostatic steering gear
Hydrodynamic steering gear
New turret with 8,8cm KwK L/71
The development of the Panther main battle tank
June 1941: The German invasion of the Soviet Union ("Operation Barbarossa"). The initial phase of the war was determined by significant military successes of the Wehrmacht. At that time the Red Army was poorly equipped and unorganized, which was not least due to the fact that large parts of the officer corps had fallen victims of the Stalinist purges of the previous years.
However, it turned out that the Germans had badly underestimated the Soviet resistance. Among other things, the Red Army had advanced heavier tanks (T-34, KV-I/-II), which were superior to the German armored fighting vehicles in every aspect. The operational success of the Wehrmacht was only possible because the new Soviet tanks were not available in large numbers and the lack of radio equipment and therefore coordination lead to limited control of the tanks in operation in comparison to the Wehrmacht.
The backbone of the German Panzertruppe was at that time the PzKpfw II, III and IV and the 38(t), which was taken over from the Czech army. These vehicles had the following armament:
P II with 20 mm KwK 30 L/55,
P III with 37mm KwK L/45,
P IV with 75mm KwK L/24,
P 38 (t) by 37 mm L/48 KwK A7.
These armaments only offered the possibility of achieving damaging hits on Soviet tanks of the latest design at very short ranges.
At that time the only German gun, which could be used on long distance with prospect of success was the 8.8cm anti-aircraft gun (the famous "Acht-Acht"). But at this time the gun was not available in a battle tank and not even in significant numbers as self-propelled guns.
As Operation Barbarossa progressed it became clear that all existing types of German Panzers were inferior in both armour and armaments to the latest soviet designs. Thus the need arose to design a competitve, massed produced tank.
Thus, among other things the development of the battle tank V "Panther" began.
proposal VK30.01 Daimler-Benz (note the similarity to the T-34!)
Already in November 1941, Generaloberst Guderian welcomed the " Panzerkommission " (Armored Commission) among other things with these demands and priorities of the new MBT:
1. Heavier weapons
2. Higher tactical speed
3. Enhanced Armor
Since the summer of 1937
vehicles in the 35-40 ton class powered by a 700hp engine had been in development. This was contrary to a prohibition put in place by Truppenamt (In 6), which was issued after the Polish campaign. It was this illicit development which made possible the short term construction of Tigers and Panthers in the summer of 42)²
December 1941:
Decision to drop earlier developments in the 20-ton class (UK 20.01), and to develop a battle tank in the 30-ton class.
December 1941:
the companies MAN and Daimler-Benz received the development contract
May 1942:
Following an recommendation from an commission appointed for this purpose Hitler decides for the design of MAN.
8.-14.11.1942
Vehicle demonstration in Berka near Eisenach headed by Speer, Fichtner and Holzhäuser.
Including a MAN panther and a Daimler-Benz Panther! )²
January 1943:
the first 4 Panther Ausführung D are produced by the company MAN
From August 1943:
Production of Ausführung A. A revised turret mounted on the chassis of the Ausführung D .
From March 1944:
Production of Ausführung G. Now the turret of Ausführung A was placed on a revised hull.
from March 1945 (planned):
production of Ausführung F. Revised hull of the Ausf G Panther with a newly constructed turret, "Schmalturm" (narrow turret)
1942 to 1943
Panther II (till April 1943 called Panther 2). The Panther II was completely different to the Panther Ausf F; It showed a clearer relationship to the Tiger 2. The development of the Panther II was hired in May / June 1943 (according to Spielberger 4.5.1943). A correlation Panther II and narrow turret is therefore purely fictitious, though in the Internet and among modelers rather popular.
The G-turret on the Panther II (the one at Fort Knox) was added as an afterthought at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. The original hull had no turret.
More about production volume.
Clearly, further alterations were carried out within the production series. E.g. the change from binocular gun sight called TZF 12 to the monocular version TZF 12a in November 1943.
Also tanks already in use were outfitted with modifications, such as a handle on the rear turret hatch and the debris guard over the gap behind the gun mantlet.
An overview of the changes is compiled here
A report, dated February 20 1945 identifies technical innovations which were located in the developments.
The times indicated in the first list show when the changes would have been fully developed. The introduction of these changes to the production line would certainly have taken much longer.
1. Automatic loading for the 7.5 cm KwK, April 1945
Stabilized optics, April 1945
BiWa Infrared Illuminators / optics and rangefinders, April 1945
Rubber saving road wheels (Stahllaufrollen), May 1945
Dreschflegelpanzer (deminers attachment), May 1945
Maybach HL 234 as a new engine, August 1945
The developments referred to in the second list were designed to last a long time perspective
Air cooled diesel engine by Simmering and water cooled diesel engine by Deutz
Stabilized main gun
Hydrostatic steering gear
Hydrodynamic steering gear
New turret with 8,8cm KwK L/71
Last edited:
shuvo@y2k10
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,653
- Likes
- 6,710
for people expressing doubts regarding russian armour technology:
Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"
By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz
Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was "effectively impenetrable" have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.
Speaking at a conference on "The Future of Armoured Warfare" in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.
In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.
"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour" – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.
Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, "Relikt", which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.
Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the "Lion of Babylon" (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military's best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."
UNQUOTE
Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"
By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz
Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was "effectively impenetrable" have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.
Speaking at a conference on "The Future of Armoured Warfare" in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.
In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.
"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour" – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.
Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, "Relikt", which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.
Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the "Lion of Babylon" (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military's best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."
UNQUOTE
average american
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 441
People seen in the Iraq war what happened to soviet tanks built during the cold war, american tanks went thru them like a can opener with a bad attitude. The USSR did not produce two types of tanks as far as armor was concerned,, one with good armor for the Russians and one with bad armor for export. There were lot of extras that could be bought that would drive the price up. The Story of One Armor Repair Plant | English Russia
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
Last edited:
Soviet and western combined armor used since 80-s and use similiar basis and design.
It is a fake joke - " Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads"
average american
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 441
Common sense tells me when I have seen Israel and USA go thru Russian tanks for 50 years like a can opener with a bad attitude that no matter what any one says or writes Russian and USSR tanks were inferior in a major way to western tanks.
M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[21]
Six other M1A1s were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.
In many cases the Iraqi tanks were dug in with only their turrents showing.
Now heres where some one will try to convince every one that the USSR and Russia sells its allies monkey inferior equipment and the Iraqis and Arabs were not motivated. Thats the same as telling me the USSR as actually selling their allies and customers inferior equipment and training so they would lose wars to the west. TRY SOME COMMON SENSE.
They say experience is the best teacher, that may be true but it seems to very hard on Russian allies. If the USSR and Russia have not got it right after 50 years, its really hard for me to believe any thing has suddenly changed.
M1A1 Abrams Tank Amazing Video - MilitaryPorn - YouTube
M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[21]
Six other M1A1s were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.
In many cases the Iraqi tanks were dug in with only their turrents showing.
Now heres where some one will try to convince every one that the USSR and Russia sells its allies monkey inferior equipment and the Iraqis and Arabs were not motivated. Thats the same as telling me the USSR as actually selling their allies and customers inferior equipment and training so they would lose wars to the west. TRY SOME COMMON SENSE.
They say experience is the best teacher, that may be true but it seems to very hard on Russian allies. If the USSR and Russia have not got it right after 50 years, its really hard for me to believe any thing has suddenly changed.
M1A1 Abrams Tank Amazing Video - MilitaryPorn - YouTube
militarysta
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
To european users:
do not feed the troll
do not feed the troll
militarysta
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
About engines again:
Data found in many sources:
engine-Horse Power - power lost due to cooling and others (%) - Horse Power avaible on transmission
MB873 1500HP - 218HP (13,5%) - 1282HP avaible on transmission
AGT-1500 1500HP - 379HP (25%) - 1105HP avaible on transmission
GDT-1250 -1250HP - 245HP (20%) -1005HP avaible on transmission
V84 - 840HP - 95HP (11%) - 745HP avaible on transmission
improved AGT-1500 - 1500HP - 131HP (~12%) - 1358HP avaible on transmission
power on drive sprockets for other engines looks that:
6ТД-1: 580HP
MB873 : 884HP
AGT1500 : 695-848KM
BTW: Values for MB873 where check whit TDV instructions. So they are correct.
Data found in many sources:
engine-Horse Power - power lost due to cooling and others (%) - Horse Power avaible on transmission
MB873 1500HP - 218HP (13,5%) - 1282HP avaible on transmission
AGT-1500 1500HP - 379HP (25%) - 1105HP avaible on transmission
GDT-1250 -1250HP - 245HP (20%) -1005HP avaible on transmission
V84 - 840HP - 95HP (11%) - 745HP avaible on transmission
improved AGT-1500 - 1500HP - 131HP (~12%) - 1358HP avaible on transmission
power on drive sprockets for other engines looks that:
6ТД-1: 580HP
MB873 : 884HP
AGT1500 : 695-848KM
BTW: Values for MB873 where check whit TDV instructions. So they are correct.
Last edited:
militarysta
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
Propably it's quite close to the MB873 in that scenario.
But HP it's not the most important factor, becouse how explain fact that 6TD-2 ukrainian engine (1200HP) fit in 48t. AK whit frencht SESM ESM500 give time 0-32km/h equal to 10s. In the same time 1500HP MTU MB873 whit renk fit in 55t. Leopard-2A4 give time 0-32km/h equal to 6s. Even 62t. Leopard-2A6 have better 0-32km/h time then lighter AK whit 6TD-2.
So HP is not all. Maybe 6TD-2 have diffrent (to low?) Nm value?
BTW: If we want compare 6TD family whit some anologe on west then compare whit MB873 is rather pointles - more or less simillar class engine (volumen/HP etc) is HPD series (used in SPz Puma) or "Euro PowerPack".
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
militarysta
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
Al-Chalid tank from Pakistan.
They don't use french SESM ESM50
militarysta
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
It was given by gyus from Pakistan.
EDIT, I found
typical transmision - two final drives integrated whit two gerabox?
But it doesn't change time 0-32km/h in 10s. It's lower value then for M1A2, Leo-2A4/A6 and Leclerc. What is the reson?
Maybe ultralight and small final drivers integrated whit gearbox can't do they work so good? Or maybe just 6TD engines have to low Nm value? More or less Nm is most important factor for axcelerate. Im just gessing what is the reson.
Acoding to You 6TD-2 shoud give the same power on drive sprockets as twice bigger and haevier MB873, but we have big difrennses in 0-32hm/s time for mucht ighter Al-Chalid, so the reson must be diffrent then avaible power on drive sprockets becouse it's shoud be the same -as You said.
EDIT, I found
typical transmision - two final drives integrated whit two gerabox?
But it doesn't change time 0-32km/h in 10s. It's lower value then for M1A2, Leo-2A4/A6 and Leclerc. What is the reson?
Maybe ultralight and small final drivers integrated whit gearbox can't do they work so good? Or maybe just 6TD engines have to low Nm value? More or less Nm is most important factor for axcelerate. Im just gessing what is the reson.
Acoding to You 6TD-2 shoud give the same power on drive sprockets as twice bigger and haevier MB873, but we have big difrennses in 0-32hm/s time for mucht ighter Al-Chalid, so the reson must be diffrent then avaible power on drive sprockets becouse it's shoud be the same -as You said.
Last edited:
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | Pakistan show interest in Ukraine Oplot main battle tank | Pakistan | 0 | |
|
T-80UD Main Battle Tank - A Pakistani Perspective | Defence Wiki | 0 | |
| W | Taiwan will purchase 108 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks from U.S. | Land Forces | 6 | |
| W | Pakistan Procuring 300 T-90 Main Battle Tanks from Russia. | Pakistan | 68 |
