Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Has liked: 99 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 18:36 My understanding is that the Integrated Review 2021 was cutting the size of RM from around 6,700 to around 4,000, with Commandos being reduced from 6 Companies to 4 Companies.
Is this known?
I don't remember any such detail - indeed my endless frustration is with the never released endless waffley bollocks that is dicussion of what FCF 'really' means!
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post:
Scimitar54

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6974
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 237 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With LSG(N) I still do not expect a Battalion size force being used. What I can see is the LSG being reinforces by the Commando's other Company sized LSUs, each operating as separate units but under a combined operational plan. They would be conducting raiding missions to keep any hostile force off balance, neutralising key targets and enabling the conventional forces to have a greater chance of success. This would also entail the use of one or more additional MRSS on which these additional LSUs would be embarked.

For Ship to shore connectors we will have the FAA's Merlin HC4 and 4As, and the existing RHIBs in their various configurations as well as the small number of Hovercraft in use. Additionally there could also be SF operating form SSNs when needed.

Getting the Viking ashore under the FCF is complicated as they do not deem to be compatible with the FCFs planned raiding role. They are more suited to conventional operations. I suppose in a major campaign in Northern Norway one or more LSU may be used, taking advantage of teir Arctic training to act as a SFSG for SF and therefore use the available Viking to enable their land combat operations. These vehicles could be brought ashore via a sea borne vessel like a landing craft or lifted by Helicopter once a landing site has been secured. Regarding the former, a faster vessel that what existing today will be need though probably not the size of the LSU. A vessel able to carry up to two Viking would be the ideal, to be able to move at speeds greater the 20 kts and ideally have some form of radar signature reduction, possibly having an enclosed load space. This would also help with the climatic conditions in northern Norway.

As for the size of the MRSS and the restriction this may impose on the future form of the RM, was the FCF envisioned when when our current Amphibious vessels were planned and built. I cannot think of any time in living memory that the Regular Amphibious and Airborne forces have actually been increased, the opposite is true. It would take a monumental change in how we organise out military for the RM to be reformed as the old 3 Cmdo Brigade or larger. IF such were to happen there would have to have been a significant increase in the Budget for defence and as such funding would be available for newer larger ships to accommodate this change. In the meantime we will have four to six, most likely the former in my eyes, that provide a very flexible flotilla on which the FCF will be embarked.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 14:00 Looking at Ukraina, I'm getting more concerned about how to get the landing ship out of horizon.
IMO Ukraine has reminded us on how difficult an opposed landing is to make and how easy it is for defenders to inflict significant damage. With the increase in A2D capabilities this is also not just limited to tier1 militaries.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 14:00 So, keeping the LSD/LPD 40-100 km (or 20-50 nm) away from the shore will be essential.
Yes, but OTH is part of the answer, given transit times and vulnerability of ship-to-shore connectors it is not the full answer. That’s way the suggestion to invest in a small number of large ships is flawed IMO. From previous interviews it seems both the RN and USN has accepted this.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 14:00 Do we need CB-90 type "man-only" (no vehicle) landing boats which can steam at 40 knots? If yes, from where these boats will go? RN/RM will surely need tens of drones to scan and constantly monitor the shore, but from where they will deploy?
IMO multiple RM platforms are required - I see four:
- Small fast “man-only” insertion craft capable of moving section sized units.
- Small fast landing craft capable of moving a section of troops with light supporting vehicles or armed drones.
- Medium fast landing craft capable of moving a troop with vehicles (a couple of Vikings) or 25t of supplies.
- Medium fire support / littoral patrol ship armed with guns and short ranged missiles, capable of securing a littoral area (with OTH support), provide a level of NGFS and “ride shotgun” to protect landing craft sailing in OTH.

The first two types should be deployable on LPDs (and LSDs) and also on T26s/T31s, OPVs and RFAs.

I would also see Mexiflotes being part of the logistics chain, but obviously only when the landing ground is secured.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 14:00 … can we allocate them another task (such as MCM mother ship and/or littoral ASW asset) so that they can find good "other jobs" when no amphibious operation is there (= even in war time, amphibious operation is only a small fraction of the time).
This is a must - The ability to deploy MCM/Survey drones will be key. I see the vessels coming out of Project Vahana and Project Wilton delivering the platforms for this.

ASW against subs and drones will become increasingly important, part of this can be done using helicopters, drones and ASW frigates - but I would say where putting ASW capabilities on the “Medium fire support / littoral patrol ship” is also required.
Lord Jim wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 02:00 Regarding the former, a faster vessel that what existing today will be need though probably not the size of the LSU. A vessel able to carry up to two Viking would be the ideal, to be able to move at speeds greater the 20 kts and ideally have some form of radar signature reduction, possibly having an enclosed load space.
Agree with this. The large LCUs were designed to deliver a Challenger Tank over the beach - for many reasons this should no longer be a priority requirement, and would say something half the size would be about right.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 443 times
Been liked: 49 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 02:00 With LSG(N) I still do not expect a Battalion size force being used. What I can see is the LSG being reinforces by the Commando's other Company sized LSUs, each operating as separate units but under a combined operational plan. They would be conducting raiding missions to keep any hostile force off balance, neutralising key targets and enabling the conventional forces to have a greater chance of success. This would also entail the use of one or more additional MRSS on which these additional LSUs would be embarked.

For Ship to shore connectors we will have the FAA's Merlin HC4 and 4As, and the existing RHIBs in their various configurations as well as the small number of Hovercraft in use. Additionally there could also be SF operating form SSNs when needed.

Getting the Viking ashore under the FCF is complicated as they do not deem to be compatible with the FCFs planned raiding role. They are more suited to conventional operations. I suppose in a major campaign in Northern Norway one or more LSU may be used, taking advantage of teir Arctic training to act as a SFSG for SF and therefore use the available Viking to enable their land combat operations. These vehicles could be brought ashore via a sea borne vessel like a landing craft or lifted by Helicopter once a landing site has been secured. Regarding the former, a faster vessel that what existing today will be need though probably not the size of the LSU. A vessel able to carry up to two Viking would be the ideal, to be able to move at speeds greater the 20 kts and ideally have some form of radar signature reduction, possibly having an enclosed load space. This would also help with the climatic conditions in northern Norway.

As for the size of the MRSS and the restriction this may impose on the future form of the RM, was the FCF envisioned when when our current Amphibious vessels were planned and built. I cannot think of any time in living memory that the Regular Amphibious and Airborne forces have actually been increased, the opposite is true. It would take a monumental change in how we organise out military for the RM to be reformed as the old 3 Cmdo Brigade or larger. IF such were to happen there would have to have been a significant increase in the Budget for defence and as such funding would be available for newer larger ships to accommodate this change. In the meantime we will have four to six, most likely the former in my eyes, that provide a very flexible flotilla on which the FCF will be embarked.
If this capability cut (losing ability to deploy RM Battalion strength Battlegroup to Norway) is not reversed, then it makes a mockery of the 29 March 2022 paper on UK's Defence Contribution to the High North.

It would mean that UK's Artic strategy to be little more than hot air.....

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

when it comes to the North for me we need a third Army Light BCT with Viking an it needs to keep a Battalion battle group in place the RM need to be able insert up to 3 Companies on the flanks of this battle group to allow the follow on of the rest of the BCT before pushing out

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2234
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 59 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 10:52 when it comes to the North for me we need a third Army Light BCT with Viking an it needs to keep a Battalion battle group in place the RM need to be able insert up to 3 Companies on the flanks of this battle group to allow the follow on of the rest of the BCT before pushing out
If the FCF concept is to be successful the Army is going to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in the North. This will intensify further if Sweden and Finland join NATO later this year.

A few companies here and the odd Battalion there will make little difference in the final analysis. The UK needs to get serious and stop the shrinkage. Adding strength in depth to allow for high attritional combat against a first world country in Europe is once again a REAL possibility.

It has always been said that if the threat level increased then the budget would increase. If that holds true then that time is now.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »



Royal Anglians heading up for artic exercises
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
Repulsewargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

its a good start as we have said a Light BCT based on Viking's would be the ideal force to have in the North and as said 1 Battalion battle group always station there with support kit is a must now

It will also be good to see how foxhound goes up North
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Repulse

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 16:40 its a good start as we have said a Light BCT based on Viking's would be the ideal force to have in the North and as said 1 Battalion battle group always station there with support kit is a must now

It will also be good to see how foxhound goes up North
Yeah actually thinking over the past few months this part of the army ( 1 div) should be looking at all arms battlegroups as it’s main grouping, sort a cross between the force in Mali and a us marine meu. Especially as they’re the force that with be fwd working with allies likely in several locations at the same time.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Repulse

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 12:52
Tempest414 wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 10:52 when it comes to the North for me we need a third Army Light BCT with Viking an it needs to keep a Battalion battle group in place the RM need to be able insert up to 3 Companies on the flanks of this battle group to allow the follow on of the rest of the BCT before pushing out
If the FCF concept is to be successful the Army is going to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in the North. This will intensify further if Sweden and Finland join NATO later this year.

A few companies here and the odd Battalion there will make little difference in the final analysis. The UK needs to get serious and stop the shrinkage. Adding strength in depth to allow for high attritional combat against a first world country in Europe is once again a REAL possibility.

It has always been said that if the threat level increased then the budget would increase. If that holds true then that time is now.
What I am putting forward is a Full army BCT supported by 3 re-enforced Commando companies the battalion battle group is there to ensure the rest of the BCT have somewhere to arrived

This is a far cry from a few companies here and the odd Battalion there you remark on
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6974
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 237 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

the FF is not about moving and landing Battalions strength formations anywhere. We could end up sending two or three Company sized LSU up North but thought they would most likely co operate at times there would be no Battalion Headquarters, but two to three separate units. As pointed out it is the Army that will be doing the main job on land and I have previously mentioned the Army forming a third Light BCT that would be equipped for the extreme terrain and climate of northern Norway, replacing 3 Cmdo Brigade in that role. The then three Light BCTs could rotate this role, each staying in role for four to five years before rotating out.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Repulse

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2234
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 59 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 20:51 This is a far cry from a few companies here and the odd Battalion there you remark on
I was not making a direct criticism of what you wrote, it was a wider point that small groups of widely distributed forces are strategically negligible if deterrent turns to direct conflict.

The UK’s NATO commitment to reinforce the Northern flank has been clearly established for a long time along with a considerable presence in the Baltics. If Sweden and Finland join NATO then the UK’s commitment will increase further, few other European nations have suitably trained forces available to permanently deploy to the High North.

To rely on the USA and Canada to provide more troops to guarantee even more European countries security is not credible over the long term IMO as the pivot to the Pacific continues.

If the UK will now have to contribute more by permanently deploying additional forces to the High North and the Baltics then HMG will have to increase funding to make it happen.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Difficult to see what the UK could permanently assign in the north beyond battle group level formations the numbers simply aren’t there, and even at that it could only do battlegroup operations in a limited number of locations, so we need to think really hard about where we are to go especially if there is to be any requirements outside of nato. The more numerous the location the more enablers you need and we’re already well short in that area.

Think it should be recognised that Germany, France and Italy all retain alpine brigades, not to mention the fact that all the Nordic countries have extremely competent militaries. So maybe a contribution of competent battlegroup equipped accordingly is sufficient.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 60 times
Been liked: 68 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Yes they do and they also have mountainous areas to defend. French & Italian forces would also have a much longer distance to travel to Scandinavia. Perhaps you think that we should re-enforce Southern NATO Countries, while they re-enforce the Northern NATO countries. At the very least it would be an inefficient use of Forces and resources and at worst a total cluster.… ! :mrgreen:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6974
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 237 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Our contribution to defending Norway under NATO goes way back to when we were seen as the No2 Navy in both size and capability in NATO and naval operations in that region were a big part of our commitment with amphibious operations a logical accompaniment.

I do believe that both Canada and the US still have units earmarked for being deployed to Norway, the former a Brigade and the latter a reinforces Battalions Battlegroup, though I maybe wrong on the size of this last one.

As for the UK, the commitment of two to three Commando LSUs and up to a Brigade sized light mechanised formation using specialist transport and support vehicles is a sizeable contribution by any measure.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 23:56 Yes they do and they also have mountainous areas to defend. French & Italian forces would also have a much longer distance to travel to Scandinavia. Perhaps you think that we should re-enforce Southern NATO Countries, while they re-enforce the Northern NATO countries. At the very least it would be an inefficient use of Forces and resources and at worst a total cluster.… ! :mrgreen:
Or perhaps I just don’t think we are somehow unique in what can be offered to alliance security. You don’t overcommit yourself and then somehow claim you need more money for X. We are already committed in Estonia, Poland and Romania, there’s only so many places you can commit to permanently position forces.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 17:32
Tempest414 wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 16:40 its a good start as we have said a Light BCT based on Viking's would be the ideal force to have in the North and as said 1 Battalion battle group always station there with support kit is a must now

It will also be good to see how foxhound goes up North
Yeah actually thinking over the past few months this part of the army ( 1 div) should be looking at all arms battlegroups as it’s main grouping, sort a cross between the force in Mali and a us marine meu. Especially as they’re the force that with be fwd working with allies likely in several locations at the same time.
Moved over to the future Army thread for this
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
SW1

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6974
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 237 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I have come across an interesting naval platform that I haven't seen mentioned on here before. Called the X-18 Tank Boat, it is an armoured vessel designed for littoral warfare and in addition to a six man crew, is capable of carrying up to twenty troops as well as other equipment and small boats. It is also heavily armoured for a watercraft and mounts a versatile Cockrill turret able to mount a gun up to 105mm as well as a secondary RWS that can mount weapons up to 12.7mm. It is a high performance craft with a Catamaran style hull and waterjet propulsion that can push teh vessel up to a maximum speed of forty knots.

https://navalpost.com/x18-tank-boat-ind ... 582c46261e
As it is a catamaran and has waterjet propulsion it would be possible to operate such a craft from the well deck of any amphibious warfare ship with only minimal alterations to the parent ship. Alternatively given it good "Blue" water performance it could sail from the UK to Norway under tis own power, say taking SF or RM Patrol Detachments as advance parties ahead of the remainder of the LSG in its MRSS. Once in theatre the MRSS could act as a tender for maintenance of the X-18s as well as the craft it has bought along.

Its PR states it is cost effective and as its main competitor would be the CB-90 I am taking this ti mean it would be cheaper, and given we have numerous small boat construction yards still operating in this country we could hopefully manufacture such a craft.

Anyway just a few ideas for us to discuss.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Dahedd

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 48 times

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

Lord Jim wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 05:00 Our contribution to defending Norway under NATO goes way back to when we were seen as the No2 Navy in both size and capability in NATO
Sorry for going off on a tangent but to my mind this is still the case? The French aren't far away at all and the Italians have significantly narrowed the gap to us but not sure anyone other than the USN could make a compelling case to be either larger (at least in tonnage terms) or more capable than the RN.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Has liked: 99 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

wargame insomniac wrote: My understanding is that the Integrated Review 2021 was cutting the size of RM from around 6,700 to around 4,000, with Commandos being reduced from 6 Companies to 4 Companies.
have there ever been any stated headcount figures for 3Cdo under FCF/DCM?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2234
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 59 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

This is exactly the type of capability RN needs for the FCF and next generation Amphibious Ops IMO.

I’m surprised RN aren’t actively involved in this program or something very similar.

Clearly, keeping costs within reasonable limits is paramount.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/v ... y-warships
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 19 Apr 2022, 20:48 This is exactly the type of capability RN needs for the FCF and next generation Amphibious Ops IMO.

I’m surprised RN aren’t actively involved in this program or something very similar.

Clearly, keeping costs within reasonable limits is paramount.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/v ... y-warships
I have said this so many times over the last couple of years and only recently of the US thread when talking about there lightning carriers.

The USMC did drop that project for a while but looks like they’ve picked it back up and we should be jumping all over it, not just because of the reaper style variant but all the others from Electronic warfare to AEW ( better than crowsnest ) it’ll turn the QEs in to truly capable vessels.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 443 times
Been liked: 49 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Wow - it is a lot bigger than I thought from seeing previous articles. If you look at 4th picture down in that article, it's within a hangar with people standing near wing, giving it a scale to me for the first time.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6974
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 237 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I think that is the larger original platform for the USMC's MUX programme. Mind you from the description they have only slimed down the fuselage so it will still be a big beast. If its wing/rotors fold like that of the Osprey it should easily fit inside a hanger designed for the Mh-60R though. Such a platform would give the FAA a few options to meet existing requirements.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Jensy

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2234
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 59 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... flat-tops/ Very interesting development.

This is one of the reasons why the MRSS needs much more careful thought than the standard LPD or LSD type designs. Is STOL drones the future? Perhaps not but they may well be the crossover to whatever the future ultimately becomes.

Having any CVF within 200km of a hostile shoreline would seem dangerous in today’s battle space so IMO the MRSS will have to possess the ability to launch and recover STOL drones at the very least while Amphibious Ops are underway. This would apply for large scale Amphibious Ops and well as short endurance littoral strike missions.

Also, the ability to operate in much the same way as sea guardian (albeit with a 30hr endurance) could be a game changer for the LSG’s. What could be achieved when combined with XLUUV’s, a modest number of Merlin and perhaps one or two of either RB2/T31/T32 with Captas 1,2 or 4 compact? Perhaps a pretty comprehensive ASW screen for a very modest cost when compared with two or three T26 and Merlin plus a SSN.

It would be good to see some serious experimentation get underway with STOL drones and XLUUV’s well in advance of any decisions being made about the Amphib replacements.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply