Tips

Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 18, 2013

Worst tanks ever made

Panther. Tiger. T-34. Sherman. Everyone knows those tanks. Why? Because they were the results of successful development. Some were expertly made, others were produced in numbers noone could match, but they were all good tanks.
Sometimes however the development doesn't go as planned and the result is... not so good. Some tanks were plagued with too many problems, some were barely functional and some were simply a disaster. Those form the tank Hall of Shame and today we are going to have look at some of the worst tanks ever made.

Bob Semple


This one is a classic - perhaps the worst "tank" seriously made. In the past, there have been many improvised vehicles, made by groups without access to proper tank facilities, some have been very successful in their role (Kubus, the Odessa tanks etc.), but this is just plain bad.
Bob Semple was named after Robert "Bob" Semple, the minister of public works in New Zealand (who also acted as an ad hoc minister of defense), who decided it would be a great idea for New Zealand not to rely on British protection and make an "armored vehicle" instead. And because he was a very "humble" man, he ordered the vehicle to be named after him. Bob Semple tank was based on agricultural Catterpillar tractors, it was crude construction, "armored" with 12mm thick plates, that was to carry 8 crewmembers. It was slow, the overstressed suspension broke down all the time (they "upgraded" the weight of the original tractor to 25 tons), while powering it with the original 95hp engine, it was top-heavy so it tended to topple everytime it climbed a slope, the ergonomics were a nightmare (one of the gunners actually had to lie on the running engine with only a matress protecting him), the armor could be punched thru with a heavy machinegun and the armament (Bren HMG's) was obsolete. Only like 4 were made, they were used on "military parades" for morale purposes only and instead of inspiring, they became a laughing stock for the whole country. The army got rid of them soon after.

More on Bob Semple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank

Valiant


Another classic disaster from 1943, this time from the British themselves. It is still kept in the Bovington museum as a reminder how not to build a tank. The whole point of the tank was to make the frontal armor as thick as possible without having too much weight, which resulted in a terrible, terrible tank. The weight distribution overstrained the whole suspension too much, concerns about its fragility were never addressed. The tank was trialled in 1945 and for those who haven't watched the brilliant Operation Think Tank show, here's what was wrong with it, as told by D.Fletcher (a recently retired Bovington museum curator and British tank expert):

- if your foot slipped accidentally between pedals, the tank was so badly ergonomic the only way to get you out of there was to remove your foot
- the driver's hatch was so badly designed that the sharp rims did hit the driver in the back of the skull everytime the tank went over broken terrain
- if you pushed the gear lever too far back, the only way to get it back was with a crowbar

Either way, during the tests, the tank went only few miles before the commanding officer decided it's not worth it and had the whole project cancelled. The tank was kept then in a museum and occasionally, it was shown to a bunch of British officers in training for them to find as many mistakes as they could.

More on Valiant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant_tank

Asad Babil (Lion of Babylon)


Lion of Babylon was an Iraqii tank, designed during early 80's. Basically, it was a dowgraded cheap copy of an already downgraded T-72M export model, which in turn was a cheap copy of the regular early model Soviet T-72 tanks. The Iraqui "upgrades" consisted of cheaper armor, bolted on armor iron armor plates (completely useless), removed electronics and wrong shells being used (it is believed that the Russians cheated the Iraqi and sold them APDS shells with cores made of mild steel (!) instead of tungsten alloy. Ironically, this terrible tank performed not so badly in the Iran-Iraq war, but during the Gulf war, it got torn to pieces by the Americans.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asad_Babil

Panzer 68



Panzer 68 was a Swiss tank from the 60's. It isn't a bad design by itself, but when it was introduced, it was discovered that it has significant design flaws and bugs. These included:

- faulty non-functional NBC protection
- gearbox not allowing to properly shift to reverse when the tank is moving
- radios interfered with turret control, causing the turret twitch randomly when the radio operated at full power
- switching on the heating system could cause a gun to fire a round by itself (luckily, this was discovered before an accident could happen)

This led to a huge scandal in Swiss army, resulting in minister of defense's resignation. The newspapers at that time ironically stated that "the tank is more dangerous than it would seem". Eventually, these flaws were fixed during an upgrade program.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_68

Tančík vzor 1933


Tančík vzor 1933 (Tankette, 1933 pattern) was a copy of one of the Carden-Lloyd tankettes. It serves as an example how NOT to develop tanks. The copied tankette was originally bought in late 20's in order to serve as a lightly armored mobile machinegun nest, but it was decided to rename it to "tančík" and make it a "real fighting vehicle". The army trialed it hated it, citing low protection, insufficient armament, unreliability and bad ergonomics as the reasons they do NOT want it and that it's totally useless as a recon vehicle because when driving buttoned up, the crew can't see shit. The crews also had trouble in communicating, the machinegun had a narrow field of fire and the gunner couldn't fire it accurately if going faster than 10km/h. But politics intervened and in the end like 70 were made. They were actively used to suppress the nazi uprisings in the Czech border regions and later made their way to various places.

Naturally, there were many more terrible tanks developed. Honorable mentions: the M551 Sheridan that literally melted under fire, Russian early superheavy tanks (T-35, T-100, SMK) for being completelly useless and broke down all the time, naturally their French counterparts (Char 2C - equally as useless) or for example the Covenanter.

Contrary to popular belief however, Japanese tanks weren't that bad, they were perfectly adequate for the task they were designed to do (fighting the essentially medieval Chinese army). Of course, few could slug it out with the Sherman but at the end of the war, heavier designs started to emerge.

86 comments:

  1. A Swiss tank, army.. wait what?

    Interesting piece, thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're considered a very militarized country with a large force of conscripts, they have maintained fortresses in the Alps and their primary defence plan was to withdraw to these and wage a guerrilla war from there.

      -ccruler

      Delete
    2. Yes, thanks for the info. Because of the long history of neutrality, mainly during the world wars, it suprised me that they have tank designs of their own. I've never read about how they managed to keep their neutrality during the wars. In our school history books they just mentioned that Switzerland managed to stay neutral and not much else. I've read some books yesterday and today I'll go to library in search of some more reading.

      Delete
    3. To a large degree because it wouldn't have been worth the pain for anyone to challenge their neutrality, plus the place isn't exactly bursting at the seams with strategically vital natural resources. The Germans had enough manpower tied down at terribly unproductive occupation duties as it was. This is also one reason why they left Sweden alone so long they got their iron ore, in spite of the latter's thinly disguised spying for the Allies (they ran photorecon flights on Peenemünde for example, ironically enough with planes purchased from Italy) - invading the place would've required a few armies' worth of troops to occupy a virtual guerilla paradise.

      Delete
  2. "- switching on the heating system could cause a gun to fire a round by itself"

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So "Fire HEAT!" becomes some funny meanings. :-P

      Delete
  3. Asad Babil is the worst "modern" tank. It's the reason why the excellent T-72 has gotten such a bad reputation by so many people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent T-72 you’re having a laugh, no please stop before I burst a blood vessel!

      Seriously one only needs to watch some of the Videos coming out of Syria to see how prone the T72 is to busting into flames when hit! Talk about the Sherman being called the Ronson or ‘Tommy Cooker’ because it lights first time. One needs to think of an apt name for the T72 as it also lights first time!

      Delete
    2. Every tank is going to blow up when you hit it with an RPG from the roof. Recall that real T-72s, and not terrible export clones, have active protection systems designed to protect them from RPG fire. The Abrams, for example, does not.

      Delete
    3. One must remember that most countries with T-72s are armed with some variant of the T-72M (which the Soviets jokingly have referred to as the monkey model) which is quite inferior to the T-72 the Soviets were fielding. That being said, nowadays yes the T-72 is outdated, but it was a force to be reckoned with at the time it entered service, I believe only the British Chieftain would have had few issues with it at the time as it had the larger 120mm gun while all other tanks were still using the 105mm.

      -ccruler

      Delete
    4. Cram that much "bang for the buck" into a chassis that small and you'll have a hard time avoiding certain AMMORACKS, AMMORACKS EVERYWHERE (so to speak) issues should something get through the armour. It's a noted common trait of the super-compact Soviet designs.

      TRADEOFFS, TRADEOFFS EVERYWHERE.

      Delete
    5. It's so irritating every time, some nationalist American fanboy, puffs his chest out and points at the Abrams' performance against these to claim that the Abrams is the be all and end all of the MBT class.

      Delete
  4. IS-3, early T-62's(not sure if there was any versions that fixed the breech issue among other issues), Char 2C and ARL 44 is also on the list of terrible tanks

    ReplyDelete
  5. this article remind me the Failed Tanks! serie from youtube

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9CAC923C61C458BB

      This?(Not whole playlist, it's over 30 episodes in total)

      I'd advice people to have a look at it. Lots of interesting facts for sure, but take what the guy says with a pinch of salt. His sources are good, but he often downplays the importance of some aspects and focuses entirely on weaknesses to reinforce his own initial opinion.

      Delete
    2. I've seen some of it ages ago, but the horrible text colours and music turned me away. Still, thank you.

      Delete
    3. @Panzer_Fenris
      yup that one
      @Frank Davis
      yes the text and the music is a bit awkward but have a nice quantity of tanks

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. Ye, that one was terrible too, still - this sort of mismanagement is not exactly uncommon, just check out the Bradley IFV.

      Delete
    2. Funny, I watched the Pentagon Wars yesterday....Bradley scout/transport/tank/AT/amphibious FTW! :)

      Delete
    3. They worked out bugs last time i checked . They are putting it into production.

      Delete
    4. The Arjun MBT is not a failure. A saga of mismanagement, yes, but is not a failure. FYI, a report tabled in the Indian Parliament in 2007 categorically stated that the Arjun out-performed the T-90s in the Indian Army. Link to the contents of the report: http://livefist.blogspot.in/2007/05/arjuns-demons-to-rest.html

      The main reason why the IA is reluctant for the Arjun is that it has been using the T-series tanks for decades now, read organizational inertia.

      As for the history of the project, the following link is a good source: http://frontierindia.net/history-of-arjun-tank-development#axzz2QsGeukwl



      PS: The IA is planning to use T-90 tanks in Ladakh and Sikkim areas against the PLA. Further, two more of our Pakistan-centric regiments might be converted to the Arjun.

      I really doubt we will be ordering any more T-90s, as the IA has decided to go with Arjun iterations/upgrades in the future.

      Delete
  7. What no CVR(W) Vixen?
    No T-34? (Waits for the arguments to start)

    And finally I'm not sure one can hold the NBC Proofing issue against the Panzer 68. Its almost impossible to proof vehicles against NBC. You can stick an over pressure system on and pray, but that's about as much as you can do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As for T-34, nah, that would be trolling :) What was wrong with the Vixen? I have never been interested in wheeled vehicles much

      Delete
    2. I had a rant about the Vixen here:

      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/111696-richard-the-challenger-cutland-our-military-specialist/page__st__160__pid__1919272#entry1919272

      And describe why its such a bad design.

      Delete
  8. No Disston Tractor Tank? Possibly the worst American tank ever built!

    http://esotericarmour.blogspot.ca/2012/12/afghanistan-disston-tractor-tank.html

    Okinoshima

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. looks much better than the bob semple

      Delete
    2. The best part about it is that the tank only had 2 users, the Kingdom of Afghanistan and... the US Marines!

      Okinoshima

      Delete
  9. How about the North Korean Ch'ŏnma-ho? Its a really bad copy of a T-62. They were so terrible that Egypt bought/got 100 from the North Koreans and after they received them, they shipped them back to North Korea because they were so bad!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yes, that one is "great" too, as anything NK really... I might make part 2 eventually :)

      Delete
    2. Maybe Egypt thought they were buying museum quality T-34-85s for a collection.

      Delete
    3. North Korean P'okpung-Ho and Ch'onma-H, Iranian Zolfaqar and Romanian TR-85 are all admirable candidates, but they are the product of technology that the country possess and as such they are better than no tanks at all

      Delete
    4. Well, technically any 21st century T-55 updates could fall in this category, as the tank is simply too old. Last year, I participated in negotiations with Vietnam about the modernisation of their T-55's (they aren't too happy with the Israeli ones), even with latest tech the tank would be worthless against Chinese MBT's.

      Delete
    5. I agree, but P'okpung-Ho, Ch'onma-H and Zolfaqar are not really T-55 updates

      P'okpung-Ho and Zolfaqar are both very fascinating, always appreciate the ingenuity and resourcefulness shown by engineers

      "Sexy" P'okpung-Ho pic
      http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8342/8183015129_753820d2fd_b.jpg

      Delete
    6. That tank is so bad it would probably fit the World of Tanks, despite being 21st century and all that.

      Delete
    7. North Korean has a lot of technological limitations. the way they did composite armor is a perfect example of that

      they simply do the best they can with the available resources

      Delete
    8. Sux 2 B a Third World shithole whose leaders have had the terribly poor judgement of trying the autarky thing.

      Delete
  10. Please do new articles in this subject! It's very interesting! Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  11. good piece, want more.
    feed us.

    ReplyDelete
  12. SS,

    I was searching for 'Hellcat' in the blog search box, the chrome issued this statement:


    Danger: Malware Ahead!
    Google Chrome has blocked access to this page on ftr-wot.blogspot.co.il.
    Content from www.panzerweb.wz.cz, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this web page. Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware.
    Malware is malicious software that causes things like identity theft, financial loss, and permanent file deletion. Learn more

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Odd. I don't remember linking to that page at all. Will check.

      Delete
  13. Ho my pz68 ... need it in EU tree or the pz 61 !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might notice the hull strongly resembles the hull of the new Tier 8 german medium. I don't believe this is a coincidence

      -ccruler

      Delete
    2. It's not. The Indienpanzer heavily influenced the Swiss prototype tank (can't remember the name) that eventually led to Panzer 61.

      Delete
  14. 'Panther. Tiger. T-34. Sherman. Everyone knows those tanks. Why? Because they were the results of successful development.'

    Lol, SS did you forget that the M4 Sherman was nincknamed 'Tommy cooker' and 'Steel Coffin'? :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pz IVs and Panthers combusted just as readily and for the exact same reasons, except *they* never got changed over for wet storage in the floor and for a number of reasons (like now a totalitarian regime with a thing about "defeatist" talk and language barriers) their crews' gripes are rather less well known.

      Also the subjective opinion of G.I. Expendable doesn't matter a shit anyway, how the thing objectively performs as a weapon system does. And the Sherman did very well in that regard; somewhat too well really as it left the 'Murican brass a bit complacent.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, the Sherman was sooooo awful, that's why it was used for decades after the war. If you're looking for a terrible American tank, try the Lee (even though it was successful in Africa).

      A lot of the negative opinions of the Sherman are based on the work of Cooper, who was a mechanic, and was never even close to fighting in one.

      Delete
    3. Still wouldn't call the M4 terrible because some variants had a tendency to catch on fire - it was a capable, reliable tank and a a great base chassis - just look at the many, many specialised vehicles developed on the Sherman's base.

      Delete
    4. Just to make it clear: I'm not talking (writing) about the later modifications of M4, which really worked well, and those tanks 'used for decades after the war' were not the M4A1s.

      And I'm totally aware of the failures of the Wehrmacht tanks too: The first series of Panthers in Kursk simply caught fire just after starting the engines. The Pz IV was a totally outdated design and the later modifications stressed the chassis too much. Yup, I know these flaws (and the others too). But quite an interesting way none fo these tanks could 'achieve' such a notorious title, like the M4A1 did.

      And BTW germans complained a lot too, even the generals. Guderian was one of the best in complaining and he often went bananas too after such discussions.

      Delete
    5. And whose "popular opinion" do you think is more familiar to "general audience" in practice mostly meaning "English-speakers" - that of the Anglo-American veterans who could vent their views regardless of thier validity or lack thereof to all and sundry essentially without any real fear of repercussions, or that of the Axis soldiery who were not only behind some very real language barriers and had lived for a generation under totalitarian regimes that only grudgingly tolerated backtalk from individuals too valuable to be taken to the task for it? Nevermind now that by the North-East Europe campaign the armies of the Democracies at least were starting to have all kinds of morale problems (not in the least a certain amount of frustration at the Germans' stubbornly continuing and blatantly futile resistance) which as usual was channeled into complaints about just about anything in general but their gear in particular. (Conversely the assorted Free Whatever forces seem to have been rather more highly motivated - for obvious reasons - and far less dissatisfied with their equipement, even allowing for the language barriers.)
      Although it *is* factually correct that the 'Muricans had by that time dropped the ball a bit (partly due to the aforementioned complacency and partly due to lulzy doctrinal wrangling) and failed to keep their tank fleet properly upgraded with well-known results whenever it ran into the enemy's heavier stuff, so the complaints an sich weren't baseless. (Though in practice encounters apparently tended to be decided more by which side got the drop on the other than the hardware involved...)

      Conversely the troops of the totalitarian states were subjected to levels of propaganda, indoctrination and plain savage enforcement of discipline the Democracies point blank refused to even contemplate applying - and after the guns fell silent a whole lot of them would have rather forgotten about the whole ugly thing and get on with their lives.

      Delete
    6. until the implementation of water jackets for the ammunition (which I believe was introduced in the E8 variant), they did have an overwhelming tendency to catch fire the moment it was hit. It resulted in them being called Ronsons "Lights first time, every time".

      Delete
    7. Quick parsing of AFV Database says wet stowage was added into all production models starting January '44 - the Easy Eight was apparently introduced in August of the same year so eh.

      Also that was hits in the ammo bins in the sponsons over the tracks, not just anywhere. An early remedy was to weld an additional armour plate over them.

      Delete
    8. Interestingly enough, the Soviet soldiers that fought in Lend-Lease Shermans have largely positive opinion of them, especially of the wet ammo rack ones.

      Delete
    9. Did the soviet soldiers have any other chocie than praising the choice made by their leaders? :D

      Delete
    10. Considering their negative feedback on even domestic designs like the KV and T-34 actually got listened to...?

      Delete
  15. Bob semple should be the next end of the year gift tank.

    >:)

    really cool article

    ReplyDelete
  16. The SMK and T-100 didn't break down all the time (any more than the KV did, anyway). The KV was much better, and they decided to produce it instead. As for terrible Soviet tanks, look no further than the T-35 and early T-26es.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Is it just me or does the Semple kinda look like a (really) cheap Vickers Medium knock-off...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you make a tractor-tank, the result looks like that. A lot of early Soviet "tanks" are similarly boxy with machine guns sticking out everywhere.

      Delete
  18. Where is the M1 Abrams? 70ton failure that falls trough bridges and roads....

    It's own fire extinguisher is a health danger to it's own crew.
    It's ammo compartment is terrible and not sufficient enough for 120mm rounds, it can be penetrated on the side by RPG-7.

    2 Abrams actually fell victim to already terrible Asad Babil with shitty 125mm rounds.
    When caught on fire, an Abrams can't be rescued it has to burn until all the jet fuel is gone.
    It's own armor is not sufficient enough to protect itself from it's own rounds.
    Fires 4 different types of sabot rounds, has no HE shell. Is the largest mass produced tank in history.

    This tank is also one of the main reasons why US military couldn't topple Iraq in the first war so they had to start another a decade later....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty sure that the latest modifications have HE.

      Delete
    2. Asad Babil didn't kill any Abrams tanks as far as I know, some were damaged (destroyed) by friendly fire. That Asad Babil story is an urban legend. Also, Abrams pretty much won everywhere it went, so that doesn't qualify as a failure. Stop trolling please.

      Delete
    3. You peoples religious view on this tank is getting ridiculous and childish really.

      http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB8D732D4D74C9FCC
      Have a look at some real facts.
      But again, I bet you guys gonna dismiss this as rubbish just like any child would do when he's proven wrong.

      But you guys can prove me wrong by watching and be open minded about it.

      Delete
    4. Oh yes, spam us with some sandnigger propaganda and then call us close minded...

      Delete
    5. The Abrams can hardly be called a failure, but it's not a great tank either. I usually liken it to a Tiger B of the 21st century. Great tank-killer on wide open areas, but too big, too heavy, too thirsty, too expensive and too fragile.

      Delete
    6. Was there any incident when the whole crew of Abram were killed, like it happens all the time to T-series? Nope. Actually how many tank men ever killed in a Abram?

      "This tank is also one of the main reasons why US military couldn't topple Iraq in the first war so they had to start another a decade later...."

      This is one of the most clueless and stupid comment i ever read. Ever!

      Delete
  19. About the T-72 and Syria discussion, yes the T-72s in the videos from Syria instantly blow up most of the time, and guess what, every tank of their era would.

    Problem is that once more you see the exact difference of how to use tanks.
    Just like the Russians learned in the first wars in Chechnya once can not send a tank into a urban area with high houses and not have any infantry for recon or defensive fire.
    The result can be seen, small squads with some of the finest RPG types blow them up from high buildings usually firing at them from a high position in their rear.
    A hit like this and you also knock a Abrams, Leo or whatever out.

    Difference is that modern armys dont do such stupid stuff because of these reasons.

    Apart from that the export T-72 are mediocre yet they are definatly not as bad as some may think they are just used completely wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. not all tanks got blown up like T-72, or even T-80. Because not all tanks have the same stupid layout where the ammo put inside the turret.

      Delete
  20. I think that TOG deserves its mentioning... I would actually like yo read about failtanks that we can drive in WoT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The TOG was literally made by a bunch of old men that refused to change and cranked out WWI tanks 25 years after.

      Delete
  21. I got a question about Japanese tanks(yes i know it's not about this article, sorry): How much blueprints, pictures, mentions are there about Jap tanks? Cause if am not wrong, WG said they are late with Jap tech tree cause there is not enough documentation...

    It's not like they never made an imaginary tank in WoT...

    Uterujem_Dobro

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The tree is pretty much ready, now WG is trying to buy the last archive with superheavy Japanese tanks.

      Delete
    2. Pretty sure the actually mass-produced stuff is rather well documented. Problem is most of it sucks ass in WoT terms (their best late-war stuff was probably about a match for the Sherman, though maybe not the later improved versions thereof) so WG will have to go spelunking into rather more obscure archives to find paper projects to fill the higher tiers with.
      Or that's my impression of it anyway.

      Delete
  22. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-nSxFimoHg

    ReplyDelete
  23. The problem with the T-64 all the way up the T-90 (maybe not the MS model, but I need to double check on its ammo storage) is that due to the small size of the vehicles, there is no real protection for the ammo. Yes other vehicles like the M60 and Leopard 1 have the same issue, but for the most part, they are retired out of most major Western Armies by models that have compartmentalized ammo storage. The Russians are STILL building T-90s with this flaw (yes I know its relationship with the T-72) but even later models like the T-80 still have this problem.

    I know some of the newer models like the T-90MS or some the Ukrainian upgrades to the T-80 have tackled the ammo storage usage, but they are either tech demonstrators or are in very limited use.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Frank, Frank, Frank....so much wrong with the info on the Bob Semple...

    Bren Guns not Vickers HMG please bother to read the wiki link....

    1.2mm corrugated iron (soft) not 12mm.......meant for roofing....

    Link to the only footage of the Bob Semple....in colour...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-nSxFimoHg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The plates were 0,5in thick, that's 12,7mm, but sorry for the Bren, I'll fix that

      Delete
    2. WTH is a "Bren HMG" supposed to be... -.-;
      (For that matter the Vickers was an MMG, since it fired standard rifle-caliber ammo.)

      Delete
  25. You might like to, learn some facts, how to communicate using the english language etc etc.......... BTW the 'Bren' gun was NEVER a heavy machine gune, with a calibre of .303 it was a squad support weapon, something confirmed by the magazines with limited capacity and a lightweight bipod. Idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  26. What kind of idiot designed the Bob semple tank that is top heavy and is the laughingstock of the country. And what kind of "Humble" idiot would name the tank after himself?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.