What do you think about Japanese 4th generation main battle mecha, the Type 10?
>>14263390
what does it transform into? a robot? two robots? a plane?
>>14263390
>two seater
It's powered by love, right?
Will the Type 10s be enough to fend off Chinese mass-produced, the Type 99 macha?
Does it have a psychoframe?
>>14263434
maybe there's a morvabul flame
>>14263414
>two seater
Actually, it 3 (commander, gunner and driver) So it's powered by friendship.
>>14263442
>not powered by polygamous love
It's shit.
>>14263451
>not powered by unresolved love triangles
Even more shit.
When are they gonna start making all those fantastic vehicles they show in the old Godzilla flicks?
And here's Republic of Korea mecha, the K2 Black Panther.
>>14263481
And what about the Korea that matters, best Korea?
It's a good thing I love the Abrams, or else I'd be pissed that the US hasn't tried to make a new MBT yet.
>>14263498
To be fair, I have no idea where we go with tank tech from here. It's nigh-indestructible, plenty of ammo choices, fast, has plenty of electronic gizmos for the crew, and looks nice. The only thing I can imagine is a more efficient engine and further protection from IEDs. But what would a next-gen tank entail? Railguns? Non-lethal weapons? Where will our next stage of combat take place, who will we fight, how do we fight them, and what do we do about it? I find it hard to imagine the next generation when we don't know what to aim for.
Anyway M1A3 when
>>14263497
Best Korea has this.
>>14263566
We still haven't seen any drone control/recovery-systems being deployed.
There are currently a number of 40mm smart munitions around that can loiter above the battlefield and drop on command, but we lack vehicles to deploy and recover them en mass close to the action yet.
>>14263580
That is the most communist thing I've ever seen.
And when they've done something like this?
>>14263580
>this is the country Fox News spent years telling you to be afraid of
>>14263429
The new ones have even thicker ERA
>>14263566
>I have no idea where we go with tank tech from here.
Bolos? According to "A Brief Design History of the Bolos," the first Bolo was a straight-up descendant of the Abrams.
When do we get to see these machines go at it?
>>14265034
yeah, but Bolo's got really retarded quick.
>>14263481
Very high tech, that thing.
>>14263390
>That short-ass barrel
>Rubber flaps
>Shot trap turret
It's shit.
>>14265160
>shot trap
Its not 1939, gramps.
>short-ass barrel
Have you never heard of perspective?
>rubber flaps
What is even bad about this?
So they finally got anotherreason for GuP S2
>>14263580
>literal artillery tractor
>>14263566
some hellfire missile would be nice and easy to add.
Man there sure are a lot of cute toys in this thread
>>14263390
Looks like a tank.
>>14263566
>Anyway M1A3 when
When President Trump makes America great again by starting WWIII.
>>14265160
Modern APFSDS shatters if it fails to penetrate.
>>14263481
Looks a bit german doesn't it? Very big and square.
>>14265679
>hellfire missile
Are you aware that those Air-to-Surface missiles and are only placed on aircraft because most cannot mount a 120mm cannon?
Though if you were trying to suggest the addition of surface-to-air missiles to defend against helicopters I can kinda get what you mean, but I don't think there are any missiles small enough currently.
>>14263566
>It's nigh-indestructible
From the front, that is.
>Abrams
>looks nice
>>14263390
it's just a copy of M1A
>>14266180
No point, they'll just nerf it in the next update after a few weeks of assblast on the forums.Vehicular SAMs are probably too big and well out of a tank's scope of engagement, but I do wonder if anyone's ever tried M1As with Stinger launchers or other smaller missiles used to engage low-flying craft like helicopters.
>>14266264
>M1A
It looks nothing like the M1A
>future tanks
>always some plodding gargantuan monstrosity with at least four treads
Why does no one ever envision tanks getting smaller and/or faster?
>>14266415
There's TWO shows about that.
>TANK POLICE!
>FEEL THE POWER THAT THEY GOT
>tfw no EFF tanks
>>14266453
>It's literally worse than just having one gun
>>14266472
It WAS worse than just having one gun
With the new advances in FCS and autoloading technology, I say it's worth a second chance.
It's like saying barrel-launched ATGMs aren't worth it because they were terrible with the M60A2. It was a concept before it's time and not given enough funding.
>>14266415
Hovertanks are the answer
GET YOUR CREDIT CARD 'CAUSE I NEED NO MONEY
ALL I NEED IS YOU BABY
>>14266487
I'm a complete noob when it comes to treadshit. Obviously autoloading is necessary with two barrels but what does that entail for how the rest of the tank is constructed? How heavy/space-consuming would two autoloaders and twice the ammo be?
How much money do I need for the military to Pimp My Tank into an M61A5?
>>14266564
turrets are already that bulky in order to be well protected, house certain systems, crew members, and not to mention one gun by itself
for starters, it'd mean a wider turret, and also a wider body to accommodate wider turret
>>14266540
you mean ALL I WANNA GET IS YOU BABY
Breddy gud attempt, Degumin Sodo Zabi
>>14266578
The cannons are also 155mm, kek. This thing looks pretty heug though.
>>14263580
>>14263807
ONCE THE RED TRACTOR OF IMPERIALIST DOOM IS MASS PRODUCED
THE US WILL BE DEFEATED IN NO TIME
>>14266613
it's supposed to be almost same length as an abrams though, counting the gun barrel (~9 metres)
if you look at it from the side, you can see the 155mm twin guns are impractically huge, there's pretty much no room for them to tilt up or down higher or lower firing angle
>>14263580
Oh shit! Waddup it's the Red Comet!!
>>14266564
>How heavy/space-consuming would two autoloaders and twice the ammo be?
Assuming we don't outright change the chasis and everything here(Might as well build a new tank at that point)
First, you need twice the amount of space and weight allocated for the gun, so you'll probably need to redesign the turret if you want it to comfortable for the crew.
Ammunition, the two guns could theoretically draw from the same supply so you don't necessarily need to double the amount of ammo on it(doubling the ammo increases weight as well), though the amount of shells in the tank might be reduced a bit.
More weight thanks to the extra gun and possibly the redesigned turret means you probably have to strip out some stuff to ease the load on the suspension if its too much, engine power should be okay.
>>14266636
It appears that the M61 is 11m w/ guns and 9m hull while the Abrams is 9m w/ guns and 7m hull. Width is (M61) 4.9m vs (Abrams) 3.6m
It's bigger, but not by a huge margin.
>>14266415
Because smaller means smaller canon and better armor trumps smaller canon. We dont have beam rifles anon we still need thick armor and bigger tanks
>>14266415
There's a reason why tank guns have been getting bigger and bigger, anon.
Bigger calibre shells means you can put more shit into those shells to fuck things up.
>>14266701
But tank guns have been staying around the 120mm mark for decades
>>14266678
>Because smaller means smaller canon
Unless you're a French design team.
>>14266701
what? but the best trend so far has been APFSDS which is a long thin dart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized_discarding-sabot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0giK-zqrAKI
>>14266715
And are currently growing
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/02/rheinmetall-to-develop-130-mm-gun-and.html
>>14266715
And they have stayed at 105mm previously.
Bigger caliber also means you can shove more shit into your propellant charges without making them stupidly long.
>>14263442
Powered by three gay men having threesome inside a tank.
>>14265823
well, the Germans know what they're doing don't they
>>14263566
>>14263498
>Abrams
>good
sorta?
anyway its not like we really need a new tank, right? warfare is weird now
>>14266861
That's what I'm saying. There's no "next battlefield" so there's no reason to do anything but make the Abamarama marginally better.
>>14266861
It is good.
There are far worse tanks out there.
>>14266887
>inb4 next battlefield is space/moon
the UN weapons-in-orbit treaty doesn't cover shit on the moon right?
>>14266898
Only nerds give a shit about the UN.
>>14266898
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
it covers everything beyond earth's atmosphere. orbit, the moon, other celestial bodies, and outer space.
however, it only covers WMDs though. nothing about "conventional" weapons.
>>14266898
If it does, we can change that. Who's up for space radiation, moon dust in EVERY FUCKING MOVING PART HOW DID IT GET IN HERE and overshooting your target by twelve thousand miles and counting?
Seriously though we should start space mining and building fun space stuffs. The faster the better.
>>14266920
Conventional weapons in space would be quite deadly if they weren't cleared out after the conflict.
It'll be like finding old bombs from the war in the ground, except worse.
>be flying along in a spacecraft
>suddenly explosion
>a shell from the war 20 years ago destroyed your engines and you're now drifting with no engine power
>>14266943
>If you pull the trigger on this you're ruining someone's day, somewhere, sometime.
>>14266943
>A fucking bolt from a spaceship from the last great war just put a hole through your window
>>14266964
>A new spaceship goes off for its maiden flight
>A few hours into its flight, a piece of debris from a destroyed spaceship from the previous war smashed into the ship and killed god knows how many of its crew
>>14266943
chance of a shell would be unlikely due to its initial velocity out of the chamber means its likely to go off into space instead of entering a steady orbit.
>>14267031
>not even as fast as the ISS
>escape velocity
The shell will stay around. If it somehow escaped Earth's sphere of influence, it'll hang around the sun.
And that's the problem.
Why do modern tanks even have guns? Why don't they just shoot ATGMs at each other?
>>14267109
Actually what even is more expensive? ATGMs or tank shells?
>>14267109
Anti-missile systems can't stop a tank round as far as I'm aware. But then again, reactive armor so I don't know.
>>14267109
tank guns are generally better if you're willing to pay the premium in cost and weight.
the main advantage of an atgm is really portability. You can slap a decent atgm on almost any motor vehicle.
>>14263470
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysRIwlEBjuw
Trailer for new one shows Type 10.
>>14267141
>Actually what even is more expensive? ATGMs or tank shells?
The cost point of a single Hellfire missile could feed and house you for three quarters to a whole year, granted that you don't live in London or LA.
>>14267198
Holy shit.
>>14266954
>SIR ISAAC NEWTON IS THE DEADLIEST SONUVABITCH IN SPACE!
>>14267109
Shells are way cheaper and get the job done.
>>14266720
Hon hon hon!
I think unmanned low-profile turrets are part of the future.
>>14267228
Not to mention missiles can be intercepted/misguided easier than shells.
>>14267210
welcome to the hell economy
>>14268329
>Missiles fired by guys who don't earn as much as the cost of the missile in a year at people who wouldn't earn the cost of the missile in a lifetime.
Why no armata love in this thread?
>>14267198
Which is why they're putting high powered lasers on jets instead of missiles now.
>>14268363
Because it looks ugly.
>>14268387
There are plans to place lasers for anti missile duties some time in the future.
Missiles are still numero uno.
>>14268363
Crippling engine problems
>>14268363
here you go anon
>>14263390
I see the Panzer, did they forget the "Girls und"?
>>14268516
>>14266453
lol why not just field a second tank instead?
>>14267772
>unmanned
>low-profile
If anything unmanned makes it the opposite since you have to fit more shit into the turret
Pic related is the Stryker's new 30mm unmanned turret
>>14268363
Literally sheet metal
>>14268896
>those weld marks
Gee Ivan, how come Komandir lets you have TWO vodka bottles?
>>14268887
>if you take shit out of the turret you have to fit more shit into the turret
>>14268963
An automated reloader takes up more space than a dude.
This might be a shit analogy, but just look at the difference between a semiauto rifle and a bolt action/break action/lever action rifle.
>>14266429
>TANK POLICE!
Pretty sure they're the only armed force in the history of mecha anime (or anything else) to fail a mission because of a giant dildo.
>>14269001
Excuse you sir, it was not just a giant dildo, it was over 100 giant dildos, thank you very much.
>>14266415
Metal Slug is an entire game series about awesome tanks, fast or otherwise. Hell, the mech Slug you can pilot in 5 actually goes faster in tank mode.
>>14265034
>land ship
No way anything that big and cumbersome could lose! Nope, none at all!
>>14268976
Look at the turret in >>14267772 that you responded to and tell me it isn't low-profile.
>>14269211
Its also a 105mm gun for an APC/IFV.
It would be a better idea to compare something like the T-14 to a conventional tank.
>>14269270
Oh yeah, low profile manned turret.
Yeah, no.
>>14269350
Fucking forgot image
>>14269350
Its the proportions playing tricks on your eyes.
Taking the gun's height relative to the ground as reference, the height of turret is only slightly higher than the gun in both cases.
The fact still remains that an autoloader is bulkier than a person.
>>14266861
>sorta?
Once the trophy system gets installed the M1A2 SEPv3 will be the best tank in the world. The Abrams uses superior ammunition to the Leopard 2 and the L/55 is a gimmick that is only useful in the fulda gap.
>>14263807
Considering a bunch of goat farmers have killed thousands of westerners I would say they have good reason to be afraid.
>>14266382
>he next update after a few weeks of assblast on the forums.
>Vehicular SAMs are probably too big and well out of a tank's scope of engagement, but I do wonder if anyone's ever tried M1As with Stinger launchers or other smaller missiles used to engage low-flying craft like helicopters.
You have M2s following the Abrams and their crews have stingers for that reason,
>>14266453
>>14266564
This is the closest your going to get I'm afraid.
>>14266725
You could make a 105mm APFSDS round as powerful as a 120mm APFSDS round, but to do so would make it too long for a human loader to load it. This would require the warhead to be separated from the charge. This would double the time it takes to reload the gun among all the other negatives associated with using ammo like that (the m551's gun was notorious for its failure rate).
>>14269865
>The fact still remains that an autoloader is bulkier than a person.
Moot point since an unmanned turret does not need to be so thoroughly armored as a manned turret does. The end result being that unmanned turrets are almost always smaller than manned turrets.
>>14269944
Its this meme again.
>>14268976
>just look at the difference between a semiauto rifle and a bolt action/break action/lever action rifle.
You are right it is a shit analogy. The bolt action rifle doesn't require a giant box around the wielder. Even if you only make the box around the persons arm from the elbow down it would still be a big box.
>>14270043
>something I don't like is a meme
I thought this meme died long ago.
>>14270066
I mean if you want to be retarded and compare North Korea's army to an irregular group of insurgents in the Middle East, that's your perogative, but its still retarded.
>>14270062
So how come semiautos are almost always bulkier than bolt actions?
>>14270091
They aren't.
>>14270042
Yeah, the unmanned turret doesn't need as much protection.
At least until the enemy learns to shoot the unmanned turret and destroy your main gun.
>>14263498
>It's a good thing I love the Abrams
Everyone loves their retarded relatives.
>or else I'd be pissed that the US hasn't tried to make a new MBT yet
I *am* pissed for that very reason, which is only half as pissed as I am that we accepted that overbloated lemon in the first place.
>>14263566
>I have no idea where we go with tank tech from here
Give the Leopard 2 Dorchester armor and you'll be set.
>It's nigh-indestructible
We're talking about the M1, not the Challenger 2.
>plenty of ammo choices
Mostly geared toward anti-tank utility.
>fast
When it's not broken down, or depleted its fuel after fifteen minutes, or swapping/cleaning out the filters, or...
>has plenty of electronic gizmos
That don't work.
>for the crew
Who are apparently retarded twelve-year-olds if they're really impressed by tacticool BS.
>and looks nice
I'll take a Challenger 2 or Leopard 2 any day over that pos.
>The only thing I can imagine is a more efficient engine
Whoever insisted on putting a goddamn gas turbine in a land vehicle should've been forced to huff its exhaust at less than two yards for five minutes.
>and further protection from IEDs
Limeys won't sell us Dorchester. Not that we'd use it even if they did.
>Anyway M1A3 when
Hopefully never; that FOV and its travesty of a legacy is long overdue to be disposed of like the rest of the nuclear waste and replaced with a tank that doesn't suck up more money than its engine does air.
>>14265034
>the first Bolo was a straight-up descendant of the Abrams
Dropped like an O'Neill cylinder. And with comparable results.
>>14265134
>Bolo's got really retarded quick
M1 derivative = retarded from conception.
>>14265160
Still better than the M1 series.
>>14266218
No, not even from the front.
>>14266264
You misspelled Leopard 2.
>>14266856
Damn straight. We don't.
>>14266861
No, not even sorta.
>>14266890
>It is good.
lol no
>There are far worse tanks out there.
Doesn't mean the M1 series is any good.
>>14270412
wow
>>14270412
Holy autism, batman.
>>14267772
Get that overbloated paperweight out of my sight and don't come back until you've swapped it out for the M8 AGS.
>unmanned low-profile turrets
Is that what they're calling UWSs these days?
>>14268887
>you have to fit more shit into the turret
The last thing that steaming pile needs is more shit on it.
>>14268976
>An automated reloader takes up more space than a dude.
And it STILL doesn't work!
>>14269211
Fine; that "low-profile turret" is neither low-profile nor a turret.
>>14269270
>Its also a 105mm gun for an APC/IFV.
And full recoil force at that! It's amazing what we'll let God Damn Lame Systems get away with just so they can offload any surplus crap they have laying around.
>>14269930
>Once the trophy system gets installed the M1A2 SEPv3 will be the best tank in the world
Polishing a turd, etc.
>The Abrams uses superior ammunition to the Leopard 2
So superior it diminishes the gun's tube life!
>the L/55 is a gimmick that is only useful in the fulda gap
Apparently physics are really selective about where they work.
>>14269976
>You have M2s
Having Badlys to back me up is hardly reassuring.
>>14270438
I'd rather have Bradleys back me up than T-72's.
>muh leopard/chally meme
>>14270412
>>14270438
what did he mean by this
>>14268963
The turret needs to hold all the ammo on its own instead of keeping it in the hull on that 30mm RWS
>>14266943
I remember the Planetes manga going into this. It had the cast in the 4th volume trying to put on enough public pressure to cease hostilities in a space conflict not out of any political orientation but because so much damn debris (which they then had to clean up) was being generated that they could've completely fucked humanity going forward.
>>14263390
>4th generation
I fucking swear it was a 3rd Gen the last time I saw it online. Dafuq?
>>14264986
>ZTZ99A2
>Swole as shit with all the ERA plates
China pls
>>14266943
Never mind the shells, what about all the pieces that the ship you hit with them turns into?
>>14263580
>it's red
HAIYAI
>>14270412
Woah, calm your jimmies there, laddie.
Whatever your beef with the jet turbine-powered tank is, at least be grateful that you aren't Indian.
Their tank carries Cumshot ammunition.
>New tank ammunition called 'Penetration-Cum Blast (PCB) and Thermobaric (TB) Ammunition' is specially designed for Arjun Tank and was recently tested by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)
>>14270906
Excellent.Armor, drivetrain and firepower are still shit though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_aEjIfcoUk
>>14268522
...Try explaining that to your insurance claims department...
>>14271570
Pretty sure that falls under "Act of God." Same thing like what would happen if a meteorite the size of a dime fell out of the sky and smashed your car.
>>14264986
T H I C K !
>>14263390
>What do you think about Japanese 4th generation main battle mecha, the Type 10?
Can't wait til they make a cute mostly naked 12 year old girl wearing only panties out of it.
>>14263390
10/10 would fuck
>>14271792
woops
>>14271804
There's a literal chink in that armor.
>>14270798
Don't mind that guy, I recognize him as the anti-american retard from the GuP general on /a/.
>>14273137
You sure that isn't just our resident Spreyposter?
>>14273166
Probably one and the same.
Speaking of le fighturr mafiya man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Utf5qHMaec
>>14270798
What does /m/ think of FUTURE tank?
I think its coolits french
>>14274000
Not as cool as America's FUTURE tank
>>14274024
we could have had the M1A3 by nowwe SHOULD have had the M1A3 by now
>>14274055
>>14274055
It's really pointless.
You think either Gulf War would have been different if we had had just the 105mm M1?
Tanks don't matter anymore. As long as you have the baseline standard, air power will make up the difference
>>14263442
>>14263451
>>14263462
You guys all got it wrong
It's powered by cuckoldry
>>14274065
You can't assume that complete air dominance can be assured in every armed conflict.
Of course against poor countries you will use planes because they minimize casualties but once you start getting air defenses and enemy fighters into the equation, ground troops have to do part of the work.
Plus, aircraft can't hold ground, they are just flying artillery and IRS platforms.
Tanks can matter, don't try to convince me otherwise.
>>14270442
That only shows how poorly you understand the T-72, dear friend.
Admittedly, it does make sense to have backup with whom you share a common language with, of course, but that aside, rogatkas would laugh Bradleys to death.
>>14273137
So pointing out that the Abrams is a rancid turd is now "anti-american"? Christ on a bike, you really do deserve Trump.
>>14266943
Are you saying this is somehow new and unexpected? Life in Europe 20 years after the war was just like that. Life currently is just like that in a whole gaggle of smashed African, South-American and South-East Asian countries. Even in London, new bombs are found semi-regularily as potentially lethal reminders of the previous generations' idiocies.
The only thing special about this is that it would probably be happening to more priviledged people than it is today.
>>14274917
But its not. All your arguments seem to boil down to "its bad because I say so".
>>14274896
Battle of 73 Easting.
Seeing people argue over fictional military hardware capability is one thing, but it comes off especially annoying to see retards who have never piloted a tank or plane in their life trying to argue about the capabilities of real world combat vehicles.
Also this
>>14274950
We aren't your dumping ground
>>14274895
>You can't assume that complete air dominance can be assured in every armed conflict.
You do when you the US, being the largest airforce in the world has its perks
>>14275954
dog bless
>>14274950
no one should ever go to /k/
it's an embarrassing place.
>>14278914
Brownies?
>>14278931
that was fake
>>14278914
yes
>>14275722
>Battle of 73 Easting.
laughing monkey model BMP-1s.jpg
>>14278914
/k/ is for manchildren even moreso than /m/
think about that
>>14283172
Elaborate.
>>14284682
Believing you have a right to self-defense with a deadly weapon is a more childish fantasy than wanting to be a giant robot pilot
>>14284922
>Europeans
>>14284922
But I do.
Its literally codified in the laws of the land.
>>14284922
>Liberals
>>14284927
Given that they ambushed him, would have a gun made a difference? They were already on him, and he probably wouldn't have had shot.
That said >>14284922
is stupid.
>>14286563
Zimmerman managed to get some shots off after being clubbed on the head by surprise, so probably.
Of course having a gun isn't a 100% guarantee of safety, you still have to have a vigilant mindset, to scan for danger.
Like, you'd have to be seriously out of it not to notice a pack of thugs running up on you.
>>14275722
You're right; it's even worse.
>All your arguments
What arguments has he made?
>seem to boil down to "its bad because I say so"
It's pretty well documented, actually. Nice straw man, by the way.
>>14288491
>It's pretty well documented, actually
Pentagon Wars is not a proper source.
>>14275722
>Battle of 73 Easting.
You do know that head to head with proper T-72s the Bradleys would have their ATGMs outranged by a kilometer or so by the T-72's GLATGMs?
And that their TOWS would be of dubious effectiveness against the T-72s composite and ERA armor, right?
I don't dislike the Bradley, but I doubt you know what you are talking about.
>>14291394
When last I checked that was about the Badly.
>>14291815
It's a sensationalized movie about the Bradley with Hollywood-tier accuracy
>>14291521
>muh monkey models
Typical.
>>14291815
>>14291394
There's nothing the Bradly can't do, brah. The Airforce is the single biggest opponent of the Bradley because they fully realize that it could replace each and every aircraft currently in service.
>>14293669
>movie
Not helping your position there.
>>14293741
Not sure if serious.
>>14293948
That Combat Reforms page is good times. It's how the net used to be before Google, Social Media and Wikipedia blasted it all to hell.
>>14293948
>Doesn't know about Mike "MUH GAVIN" Sparks
>>14291521
Sure, if not for the fact no eastern bloc tank has ever fired a GLATGM in anger.
And no, the TOW would have worked fine against T-72B glacis and turret cheeks. And Kontakt-1 wasn't all that great.
>inb4 the ENIGMA one-offs
>>14293964
>>14293965
Are those supposed to be non-sequiturs?
>>14293732
>T-72B and T-72M1 is the same thing.
Cast off!
>>14293948
>He thinks The Pentagon Wars is a documentary
>>14284926
it's not, at least not in that sense, but you idiots will believe that till the sun explodes
>>14284922
I wouldn't say its more childish, but its certainly goddamn stupid and up there
>>14295812
>straw manning
>missing the point
>>14293973
>no eastern bloc tank has ever fired a GLATGM in anger.
I'd like to see a source on that.
This isn't the Shillelagh we're talking about.
>TOW would have worked fine against T-72B glacis and turret cheeks.
Without ERA, sure.
With it, no.
>>14296222
>>14296232
Explain
>>14263481
Brought to you by Samsung
>>14298747
Well, actually by Hyundai, as you can see CLEARLY PRINTED ON THE TANK.
>>14298760
Shit, I didn't bother reading the text
