Military Review

UK may abandon tanks

59

MBT Challenger 2 during the Iraqi operation, March 2003. Photo by the UK Department of Defense


The UK Department of Defense continues to develop plans for the development of the armed forces in the short and medium term. At the end of August, it became known about a proposal to drastically reduce the fleet of armored vehicles and completely abandon the main combat tanks... It is assumed that such measures will optimize the organizational structure of the army and increase its potential, taking into account current threats.

Fresh plans


New plans of the British military department on August 25 were disclosed by The Times. With reference to its sources, it writes about the preparation of a new plan to change and modernize the structure of the armed forces, incl. ground forces and armored units.

The combat units of the Royal Tank Corps now have 227 MBT Challenger 2; the army also has 388 Warrior infantry fighting vehicles. The authors of the new plan call this technique obsolete and unusable in the future. It is noted that tanks and infantry fighting vehicles no longer fully correspond to the specifics of modern and future conflicts. In addition, their maintenance and upgrades are prohibitively expensive.

Refusal of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles will allow to reduce costs for the armed forces, as well as free up some funds. The money saved is proposed to be directed to the development of promising areas such as cybersecurity, space, new technologies, etc.

According to The Times, the new plan still involves the use of the tank. In case of an urgent need, it is possible to urgently return to service the reserve “Challengers-2” with simultaneous modernization. Also, the purchase of German Leopard 2 tanks is not excluded.

UK may abandon tanks

Upgraded Challenger 2 from BAE Systems. Photo Janes.com

At the moment, such plans are at the stage of formation. Their final version will be prepared by the end of 2020. At the beginning of next year, the plan will be presented to the Prime Minister. If the parliament and the prime minister approve the proposals of the Ministry of Defense, then in the near future the corresponding reforms will begin. They will lead to noticeable results in just a few years.

Armored cuts


Of greatest interest in the new plans of the British Ministry of Defense is the proposal to abandon MBT. By implementing such ideas, Great Britain will become one of the few developed European countries that have abandoned tanks, while other states are striving to maintain and modernize this technology.

It should be recalled that in recent years in the UK there has been an active discussion of the prospects for the development of army armored vehicles in general and the future of tanks in particular. Various ideas and measures are proposed, up to the most radical, but for now MBT remain in service and retain the role of the main strike force of the ground forces.

According to the results of the recent Army 2020 modernization program, only 227 Challenger 2 tanks remain in the Royal Tank Corps, with about a quarter of this number being training and reserve vehicles. This technique was produced mainly in the nineties and can still continue to serve, but in the foreseeable future it will run out of service and will have to be written off.


Upgraded tank from RBSL with new turret and weapons. Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com

The need for new measures was discussed in 2015 in connection with the appearance of the Russian T-14 tank. Challenger 2 in its current form was called obsolete. Soon, several defense companies came up with a proposal to develop a fundamentally new MBT to replace the Challenger, but the Ministry of Defense considered such a scenario unacceptably expensive. However, the development of the Life Extension Program (LEP) was soon launched. With its help, it is planned to extend the service life of equipment until 2025 or beyond.

Along the path of modernization


As part of the LEP, to date, two projects have been created to modernize the tank. The first one was developed by BAE Systems and offers a radical modernization of on-board electronics. Also presented is an unnamed project from the Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) joint venture, the main feature of which is a new turret with a smoothbore gun. According to known data, both projects have not yet progressed beyond preliminary checks and demonstrations of samples, incl. layouts.

At the end of last year, the Royal Armored Corps tested a modernized version of the Streetfighter II tank, adapted to work in urban environments. Such MBT receives some attachments and a set of equipment that expands the situational awareness of the crew. In particular, the system of "transparent armor" is used.

All the presented projects for the modernization of the Challenger 2 tank have certain advantages and may be of interest to the army. However, work on this topic has been seriously delayed, and their future remains unknown. The projects are quite complex and expensive, which may not suit the military and political leadership of the country.


Tank with Streetfighter II service pack. UK Department of Defense Photo

The final decision on the LEP program has not yet been made and the project for serial modernization has not been chosen. Moreover, from the last News it may follow that the upgrade of equipment will not start at all, and by the time the service ends, the tanks will retain their current appearance.

Possible replacement


According to the plans already approved, the development of armored, motorized rifle and other parts of the British army will be carried out using the Ajax family of armored vehicles. So, the outdated Warrior infantry fighting vehicles will gradually give way to the modern tracked armored personnel carriers Ares APC. With the help of unified equipment, the fleet of command and staff, engineering and other vehicles will be updated.

The Ajax family lacks a direct analogue of the main battle tank. However, some of the functions of such equipment can be assigned to the basic model of the line - the Ajax tracked reconnaissance vehicle with a 40-mm automatic cannon, guided missiles (optional) and advanced optical-electronic equipment.

However, the replacement will not be equal. Despite the general obsolescence and lagging behind foreign counterparts, the Challenger 2 MBT has a number of obvious advantages over the equipment of the promising family. It is better protected, carries more powerful weapons and is capable of solving a wider range of combat missions, incl. fundamentally impracticable for "light" equipment.

Poorer and weaker


An obvious consequence of the abandonment of tanks will be a drop in the combat effectiveness of the ground forces. It is MBT that are the main multipurpose striking force of any developed army, and therefore developed countries are in no hurry to abandon them and even launch the development of new projects. Great Britain is also engaged in modernization projects - but may stop these works.


The basic model of the Ajax family is the reconnaissance vehicle of the same name with artillery weapons. UK Department of Defense Photo

It is argued that MBTs do not meet the requirements of modern local conflicts, and machines of lighter classes, such as the BRM of the Ajax family, are more useful in such conditions. However, this is debatable. In the current wars, tanks are widely used. Massive tank battles involving dozens and hundreds of armored vehicles are a thing of the past, but in other situations MBTs and even outdated medium tanks remain highly effective combat units with broad capabilities.

However, in the current situation, it is far from the combat capabilities of technology that are decisive. Now the British army cannot count on a serious increase in the defense budget, capable of maintaining combat effectiveness, updating materiel and carrying out various activities. In such conditions, it is necessary to look for ways to reduce costs, and tanks can become victims of these processes.

The freed up resources are planned to be redirected to other directions that seem promising. This idea raises certain questions. In fact, it is proposed to abandon ready-made and available samples in favor of new developments, some of which will enter service in the indefinite future or not at all. This can hardly be called an equivalent and expedient exchange.

Thus, in the near future, the British armed forces may become poorer due to new budget cuts and weaker due to a radical restructuring of the armored vehicle fleet. However, the tankers still have cause for optimism. The final version of the long-term plans is not yet ready, it will be completed only at the end of the year. Then it will become clear how the army will develop and what fate awaits one or another armored combat vehicle.
Author:
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 9 September 2020 04: 54 New
    +3
    Those who are considered the inventors of tanks are preparing to abandon them as a type of weapon after just 100 years of use. Many types of weapons have sunk into oblivion, giving way to others, but this hardly applies to tanks right now. So the reason for the originality of the islanders is the banal lack of money for all Wishlist at once.
    1. Finches
      Finches 9 September 2020 06: 28 New
      +4
      This, of course, is a personal matter for the British - every country has its own Serdyukov laughing And if to be serious, the tank is a classic of the genre - the personification of classic armies and classic wars, but today all military post-fires, ours and not ours, are based on the use of tanks. Since man has not invented anything better yet with such a maximum combination of weapons, maneuverability and security.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 September 2020 09: 28 New
        +6
        Quote: Finches
        This, of course, is a personal matter for the British - every country has its own Serdyukov

        He-he-he ... Serdyukov just increased the number of combat-ready tanks, and did not reduce them - by starting to transfer armored vehicles from Soviet-made tanks (T-72A and B, T-62 and even T-55) to T-72B3.

        Yes, a hole in the forehead. Yes, the T-90 is inferior in performance characteristics.
        But for the T-90, UVZ asked for 118 million (having raised the price by 70% in a year). And B3 was worth 52 million. And we must compare it not with the T-90, but with the basis of our armored vehicles for 2010 - the T-72A and B, produced in the USSR and have been pretty worn out since then. It was necessary to replace about 2000 vehicles of the first line in the shortest possible time, otherwise the BTV would have simply died out, reducing to a couple of court divisions.
        1. WeAreNumerOne
          WeAreNumerOne 9 September 2020 10: 57 New
          +1

          Yes, they performed quite well in comparison with the T-64
        2. Engineer
          Engineer 9 September 2020 12: 07 New
          +3
          Is it possible in more detail in which units under Serdyukov by 2007 there were still T-55 and T-62?
          BHVT not to offer - these tanks are still there
          I studied to be a tanker at the department of the university. In the early 2000s, the T-64 was officially removed from service. In my presence, posters and training equipment were replaced. Even the trainer based on 64-k was taken out from the territory of the university.
          I do not believe in the T-55 and T-62 in linear units in the 2000s for one reason - the 72nd and the XNUMXth in the country were stuck. Much more than they could actually exploit.
          1. Liam
            Liam 9 September 2020 12: 51 New
            +3
            Quote: Engineer
            And it is possible in more detail in which units under Serdyukov by 2007 there were still T-55 and T-62?


            Armed conflict in South Ossetia - as part of the regimental tactical group of the 42nd Motorized Rifle Guards Division, the Russian Armed Forces were used in South Ossetia during the destruction of Georgian armored vehicles in battles east of Tskhinval

            One was lost by the way
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 9 September 2020 13: 09 New
            +3
            Quote: Engineer
            Is it possible in more detail in which units under Serdyukov by 2007 there were still T-55 and T-62?
            BHVT not to offer - these tanks are still there

            For example, the 42nd "Chechen" division



            Quote: Engineer
            I do not believe in the T-55 and T-62 in linear units in the 2000s for one reason - the 72nd and the XNUMXth in the country were stuck.

            Budanov's regiment, at least in 2000, was on them
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 9 September 2020 13: 25 New
              +4
              Liam and Lopatov
              Thanks for the info, I was wrong.
              It's embarrassing for ourselves and our aircrafts with such rubbish. Even if it's a difficult time
              1. Liam
                Liam 9 September 2020 13: 29 New
                +3
                Hero of Russia Vitaly Neff died on the T-62.
                And there is a lot of bias towards Serdyukov's activities and the real state of the Russian army by 2008.
              2. hohol95
                hohol95 9 September 2020 15: 11 New
                +1
                The 62rd Mechanized Explosive Regiment fought the second Chechen war on the T-93.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 9 September 2020 14: 07 New
            +3
            Quote: Engineer
            Is it possible in more detail in which units under Serdyukov by 2007 there were still T-55 and T-62?
            BHVT not to offer - these tanks are still there

            T-62 is the 42nd infantry division, which was also considered a permanent readiness division. belay
            T-55 is 18 pools. The T-55AM was replaced by the T-80 only with a furniture maker.
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 9 September 2020 15: 36 New
              0
              Thank you.
              In general, tin turns out that this trash was not sent for storage back in the days of the USSR
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 9 September 2020 16: 15 New
                +2
                Quote: Engineer
                Thank you.
                In general, tin turns out that this trash was not sent for storage back in the days of the USSR

                Uh-huh ... we will keep T-72 in warehouses and BHVT, and in combat units - T-55 and T-62.
                With 42 mechanized infantry division, it is partly understandable - it was considered a kind of army analogue of the explosives, designed to maintain order in the Chechen Republic. In theory, the T-62 was enough to solve these problems. But in practice, the division had to fight a theoretically comparable enemy. And we were very lucky that it was timid Georgians ©.
                In addition, some bewilderment is caused by the fact that part of the T-62 of the 42nd Mechanized Infantry Division belonged to the early modifications - without DZ and even without "Brezhnev's eyebrows." For something, but protection from RPGs for actions in the Chechen Republic was extremely important.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 9 September 2020 17: 03 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  With 42 mechanized infantry division, it is partly understandable - it was considered a kind of army analogue of the explosives, designed to maintain order in the Chechen Republic. In theory, the T-62 was enough to solve these problems.

                  Is not a fact. And to the west, in 19 MRD, and east in Buinaksk, and in general in the North Caucasus Military District, T-72s were in service.
                  So the solution is definitely strange.
    2. RealPilot
      RealPilot 10 September 2020 12: 25 New
      +1
      The inventors of tanks ... Yes, it was.
      And the sun never set over their empire ... And we remember that!

      Now the empire has been blown away to the size of several islands, and if with the exit from the EU (left, but the trade agreements have not yet been signed - a transitional period) recession and degradation begins, then Scotland and Northern Ireland will secede, and there will be no kingdom left!

      They don't have an expansionist agenda now, which means they don't need tanks. There is simply no one to storm their islands with land units.
      Plus, in recent years, they have sent tank battalions to Afghanistan, then to Iraq ... And now there is a reason to save money, slyly to tell the main partner that there are simply no tanks!
  2. FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 9 September 2020 05: 29 New
    +5
    Island state. Maybe they are not needed nafig (put in storage) if the doctrine is thoroughly defensive.
    Fleet, Air Force and Air Defense.
    They somehow defeated Argentina without tanks.
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 9 September 2020 06: 37 New
      0
      probably Japan or the same Taiwan is simply dumber than the British and, on the contrary, strengthen their tank component.
      1. WTF1980
        WTF1980 9 September 2020 12: 31 New
        +3
        No, it's not more stupid, it's just that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have one very restless and ambitious neighbor from whom you can expect anything, incl. and invasions of territory.
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 9 September 2020 12: 39 New
          0
          which means tanks are needed. not. I understand England is apparently not afraid of invasion. so even if the ground forces disperse in general, they still eat just like that) the state should always rely on negative scenarios. otherwise, later, throw up your hands with words, but we did not expect to have)
          1. Speedy
            Speedy 9 September 2020 16: 49 New
            0
            They, even when Hitler waved the Sea Lion across the English Channel, did not actually have a land army. Who will climb to them in principle? There are no colonies, the commonwealth countries have their armies.
            1. Zementbomber
              Zementbomber 14 September 2020 11: 23 New
              0
              27 infantry divisions alone and only in the British Isles did they then have. + armored (tank) and two cavalry. + a bunch of dep. brigades.
    2. Alf
      Alf 9 September 2020 14: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: FRoman1984
      They somehow defeated Argentina without tanks.

      On one's last legs.
      And the enemy, so to speak, is from the second league ...
      And if you remember how much room in the Focklands there is for tank attacks ... There the mahra moved on foot and in single file ...
      1. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 10 September 2020 07: 20 New
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: FRoman1984
        They somehow defeated Argentina without tanks.

        On one's last legs.
        And the enemy, so to speak, is from the second league ...
        And if you remember how much room in the Focklands there is for tank attacks ... There the mahra moved on foot and in single file ...

        I agree. But I do not have to have tanks to fight and win in modern warfare, especially for an island state. It is not necessary, after all, to invade the territory and walk with ice rinks to destroy the economy and industry.
        Well, in order to enter Britain, you must first destroy their Navy, then the Air Force and Air Defense. And when this is over (hypothetically), why would Britain need tanks? Again, they will be scorched from the air without overlapping from the air, left.
        1. Alf
          Alf 10 September 2020 13: 53 New
          0
          Quote: FRoman1984
          It is not necessary, after all, to invade the territory and walk with ice rinks to destroy the economy and industry.

          Yugoslavia and Iraq were bombed? They bombed. Then, if, in your opinion, this is enough for victory, why did they invade with ground forces? It is not in vain that the principle of war is over in all the armed forces at all times and will continue to operate, only if the enemy is occupied by infantry.
          1. Zementbomber
            Zementbomber 14 September 2020 11: 43 New
            0
            So in the NATO wars against the FRY and RSK BiH - RBU from the air and sea and operations of special forces was just enough. It was required to enter the SV only for the occupation.
  3. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 9 September 2020 05: 54 New
    +6
    Gentlemen and comrades! I don’t have time to search the archive right now, but if I’m not mistaken, an article with almost the same title (and the content is exactly the same) has already flashed on VO, and not so long ago! And there have already been comments on it.
    Is the editorial office running out of material?
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 9 September 2020 16: 49 New
      0
      This material is either the 3rd or 4th in a month.
    2. Avior
      Avior 9 September 2020 20: 02 New
      +2
      I saw the response of the site team to a similar question, if I am not mistaken, from Volodin (perhaps I am mistaken, I apologize).
      The first article is short news, the second article is the full article in another section.
      For comments, of course, there is no difference :))
  4. Doccor18
    Doccor18 9 September 2020 06: 29 New
    +1
    UK may abandon tanks

    Judging by the constant "drying out" of the royal tank park, everything went to this ...
    But what other ground vehicles can replace the tank in terms of protection? At this stage, there is no such ...
    KAZs do not yet provide full protection of armored vehicles.
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 14 September 2020 11: 26 New
      0
      what other ground vehicles can replace the tank in terms of protection?

      TBMP, TBTR. Yes with KAZ, yes with yes with ERAWA class DZ ...
  5. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 9 September 2020 06: 45 New
    0
    It is assumed that such measures will optimize the organizational and staff structure of the army and increase its potential, taking into account actual threats.
    It is logical. At the VO it was that they and their tank plant had lost to the Germans. what They think. The United States will not abandon this suitcase without a handle.
  6. Per se.
    Per se. 9 September 2020 06: 46 New
    +5
    UK may abandon tanks
    As they say, these are your problems. The Britons have historically preferred to fight with someone else's hands and an expeditionary force. The British can also "indulge", there is also NATO and the United States itself, where all the basic concepts of tanks are presented, with a diesel engine, and with a gas turbine, and with a smoothbore gun, and with a rifled gun, without an automatic loader, and with AZ (the same " Leclerc "). A new 130-140 mm tank gun is also planned.

    If only for our "effective managers" such a crafty British statement did not become a reason to doubt the role of tanks for Russia.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 September 2020 09: 18 New
      +5
      Quote: Per se.
      If only for our "effective managers" such a crafty British statement did not become a reason to doubt the role of tanks for Russia.

      These managers need to be poked in the panzerwaffe, which, on the contrary, increase the number of tanks by as much as 50%. Moreover, it began under the wise guidance of Frau a gynecologist who changed shoes in a jump, who before that with the same enthusiasm had spread rot on military equipment for the sake of social and cultural life. smile
  7. Private SA
    Private SA 9 September 2020 07: 08 New
    -1
    Poor band "Uria Heep" with their 1971 album cover "Salisberry".
    1. thinker
      thinker 9 September 2020 08: 27 New
      0
      Oh, this Salisbury, and was noted here yes
      In early December 2019 at the British Combat Training Center in Copehill Down at the military training ground in Salisbury passed the first tests of the modified prototype of the British Challenger 2 main tank, designated Streetfighter II, modified for operations in urbanized areas.
  8. Reviews
    Reviews 9 September 2020 08: 51 New
    -1
    Well, they have long abandoned strategic bombers, now tanks ... What's next?
    1. Alf
      Alf 9 September 2020 14: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: Avis
      Well, they have long abandoned strategic bombers, now tanks ... What's next?

      The army itself.
  9. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 9 September 2020 09: 15 New
    +2
    According to the results of the recent Army 2020 modernization program, only 227 Challenger 2 tanks remain in the Royal Tank Corps, with about a quarter of this number being training and reserve vehicles.

    Two more tanks than it was before 2016 in the Bundeswehr. smile
    True, in 2016, German politicians changed their minds - and raised the bar from 225 "Leo" right up to 329. And a year later they gave more money - to upgrade 205 of them to version 2A7V.
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 September 2020 20: 14 New
      +3
      The Germans are forced to raise defense spending, since they are far short of the 2 percent of GDP accepted by NATO.
      1. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber 14 September 2020 11: 40 New
        0
        This is not an obligation, but only a recommendation. In NATO, a number of countries spend on national defense significantly less than 2% of GDP.
    2. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 14 September 2020 11: 31 New
      0
      It is in service in combat units. And so - in the Bundeswehr as of 01.01.2017/824/8, it was listed, taking into account those in storage, XNUMX MW. Moreover, their number is on Wed. from before. year even increased - though only by XNUMX cars.
  10. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 9 September 2020 10: 51 New
    -1
    Most likely, like the European countries and Japan and Sweden, they will switch to a heavy BMP-BTR-medium tank.
    With KAZ systems, it is quite viable.
  11. Lesorub
    Lesorub 9 September 2020 11: 24 New
    +3
    UK may abandon tanks

    I'm infinitely happy for Britain), if they really give up MBT - the right step to self-disarm)
  12. sleeve
    sleeve 9 September 2020 12: 23 New
    +1
    It turns out that "effective managers" are not only here. So that's the right decision. Refuse. And from manned aircraft, change to drones. We decided that only local conflicts with partisans were ahead - arm yourself according to the colonial-police concept.
    1. Alf
      Alf 9 September 2020 14: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: sleeve
      arm yourself according to the colonial-police concept.

      The backbone of the XNUMXst century British army.
      laughing
    2. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 14 September 2020 11: 38 New
      0
      Belgium and the Netherlands are oriented primarily towards "a large-scale coalition defensive war in Europe." But MVT was completely abandoned.
      1. Alf
        Alf 14 September 2020 13: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Zementbomber
        Belgium and the Netherlands are oriented primarily towards "a large-scale coalition defensive war in Europe." But MVT was completely abandoned.

        Ie, so that others would fight for them. Homosexual they are homosexual ..
        1. Zementbomber
          Zementbomber 14 September 2020 13: 44 New
          0
          Do not worry you so! Your children will definitely meet their same sex Love. And they will look at you as even cool, but very funny fossils.

          laughing laughing
  13. Aeshken
    Aeshken 9 September 2020 12: 40 New
    +1
    The Britons have a pit bull in the form of America, the Americans, of course, often throw their allies-vassals, but they will hardly throw the Englishwoman.
  14. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 9 September 2020 15: 36 New
    +1
    Perhaps, if we take low-intensity conflicts as a basis, tanks are not particularly needed there. And III WW I don’t know if tanks will be needed there? It is quite possible that ak, mosinka, broadsword. Will be more in demand than MBT. request
    1. Alf
      Alf 9 September 2020 15: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: Grim Reaper
      It is quite possible that ak, mosinka, broadsword.

      As well as stones and clubs.
      1. Grim Reaper
        Grim Reaper 9 September 2020 20: 12 New
        0
        Well, something like this.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Mark kalendarov
    Mark kalendarov 10 September 2020 11: 28 New
    0
    In all military doctrines, the tank is an offensive weapon. Given the insular nature of the territory, yes, the Britons do not need it. They need powerful anti-tank defenses. And for external operations, MBT can be rented.
    Although voluntarily abandon the exciting process of measuring pussy ...)))))))
    1. Alf
      Alf 10 September 2020 13: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Mark Kalendarov
      And for external operations, MBT can be rented.

      And how do you imagine this interesting moment?
      1. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber 14 September 2020 11: 34 New
        0
        Well, Royal Navy leases SLBMs (!!!!).
    2. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 14 September 2020 11: 36 New
      0
      In defense - "sometimes" counterattacks and counterattacks are required, however ...
  17. Svetlana
    Svetlana 10 September 2020 13: 46 New
    0
    Normal story. It was inappropriate for satellites to independently produce high-tech and expensive products. Their role is to buy everything from the metropolises. And this applies to everyone who is under the wing of the states.
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 14 September 2020 11: 33 New
      0
      And nevertheless - the program of the 6th generation hawk "Tempest II" - the British "for some reason" launched into implementation ...
  18. Captain Pushkin
    Captain Pushkin 10 September 2020 22: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Alf
    Quote: Grim Reaper
    It is quite possible that ak, mosinka, broadsword.

    As well as stones and clubs.

    It is, rather, for the 4th world.