Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

To Mindstorm:
Thanks for those secondary sources. Now, that's a confirmation indeed.

To Regular:
Sorry, I don't remember the link.

To Mindstorm:
Thanks for those secondary sources. Now, that's a confirmation indeed

My vote to you... a real man admits when they are wrong... (it is not the end of the world... happens to me quite a bit too...)

On that topic... I suspect I might have been wrong about the MSTA regarding direct line of fire capability.

The older 2S3 had direct line of fire capability and was even able to fire a dedicated direct line of fire anti armour round that was APHE. The new MSTA does not carry that round AFAIK which together with advertising from its maker that the minimum engagement range is 6.5km made me think it had no direct fire capability.

As Regulars link shows it has a combined direct and indirect telescopic aiming sight.

To GarryB:
Well, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. The sources which were provided clearly indicate the reasons for M728's limited usage, and those are, really, bean-counting downgrading measures. Therefore, with those reversed, I'm sure this vehicle would be much more capable for combat, as well as engineering tasks.

Regarding the sights of the msta, providing it with direct fire mode is entirely logical. I mean, even ww2 towed mass-produced arty pieces had those.

Regarding the sights of the msta, providing it with direct fire mode is entirely logical. I mean, even ww2 towed mass-produced arty pieces had those.

Towed guns are easy to hide and offered a very potent anti armour capability because often they were never spotted till they opened fire.

For modern artillery however... especially for an advanced army, the main focus has to be mobility.

A MSTA battery can direct approximately 3 tons of shells at a target in a minute or so and can be on its way as the first shells are landing... against a first line enemy it would need to be on its way as the first shells land because the biggest threat is counter battery fire.

the effectiveness of modern anti armour weapons means a thinnly armoured vehicle like MSTA would be in serious trouble facing anything more than small arms fire or shell splinters.

http://trucks.autoreview.ru/_archive/section/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=134512&SECTION_ID=7584

Very cool. Nice photos of Federal truck details.

Check out the engine armor.

TR1 wrote:http://trucks.autoreview.ru/_archive/section/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=134512&SECTION_ID=7584

Very cool. Nice photos of Federal truck details.

Check out the engine armor.

Holly cow the british AVa-1 is one ugly Mofo.

It looks like they tried to give it some style.  Sometimes I wonder about LockMart.   

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:http://trucks.autoreview.ru/_archive/section/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=134512&SECTION_ID=7584

Very cool. Nice photos of Federal truck details.

Check out the engine armor.

Holly cow the british AVa-1 is one ugly Mofo.

Woow, your right, the damn thing looks like it was designed by Hotweels.   

http://www.jedsite.info/misc/oscar/obyekt_series/obyekt1200/o1200-intro.html

This seems interesting, the object 1200. Can't find much details about it, but it's form is different then the BTR series that would succeed it.

AZZKIKR wrote:http://www.jedsite.info/misc/oscar/obyekt_series/obyekt1200/o1200-intro.html

This seems interesting, the object 1200. Can't find much details about it, but it's form is different then the BTR series that would succeed it.

Ob''ekt 1200 wasn't a BTR; it was rather a BMP, a wheeled BMP. It participated in the evaluation process that culminated in ob''ekt 765 (BMP-1) being selected.

Ob''ekt 1200 wasn't a BTR; it was rather a BMP, a wheeled BMP. It participated in the evaluation process that culminated in ob''ekt 765 (BMP-1) being selected.

Yes.

They had all wheeled, all tracked, plus vehicles that had tracks in the centre and wheels at the front and back where on rough country the tracks were lowered and used, but on hard ground or roads the tracks were raised and the vehicle moved on wheels only.

Eventually mobility concerns and cost and complication concerns led to tracks only.

They also had models with 30mm cannon, but the 500m minimum range of the AT-3 led to the 73mm gun able to take out an M60 tank in the frontal arc out to 1,200m to cover the dead zone of the missile.

The BMP-2 benefitted from a better missile with a shorter minimum range of 25-75m which allowed a 30mm cannon to be used.

Experience showed that the auto cannon was useful but the 73mm gun with HE shells was also useful and that they complimented each other so the BMP-3 got both a 30mm autocannon plus a 100mm rifled main gun to deliver HE more efficiently and effectively.

Holly cow the british AVa-1 is one ugly Mofo.

Wonder what it transforms into...

GarryB wrote:

Ob''ekt 1200 wasn't a BTR; it was rather a BMP, a wheeled BMP. It participated in the evaluation process that culminated in ob''ekt 765 (BMP-1) being selected.

Yes.

They had all wheeled, all tracked, plus vehicles that had tracks in the centre and wheels at the front and back where on rough country the tracks were lowered and used, but on hard ground or roads the tracks were raised and the vehicle moved on wheels only.

Eventually mobility concerns and cost and complication concerns led to tracks only.

I wonder if such a concept could work today with all the advancements in mechanical and electrical engineering, of course it would have to have an acceptable level weight limit, resilience, durability/reliability, and cost effectiveness.

At the time it was considered not worth it because the weight and complexity didn't reflect the difference in mobility... tracked vehicles with the mobility of wheeled vehicles would not get bogged down like wheeled vehicles on rough country but where the ground is firm would completely outpace the tracked vehicles... which meant the BMPs would outrun most of their tank support.

These days I rather suspect wheeled vehicles would have much better mobility which renders the extra mobility of tracked wheels unnecessary.

I suppose the best compromise would be an 8 wheeled vehicle designed to be fitted with tracks over the standard wheels in very soft or snowy or muddy conditions where tracks offer better performance.

The old Soviet tanks often offered tracks or wheels, but wheels where rarely used so they reverted to tracks only and I suspect the same today.

I agree, half-tracks have no place in modern AFVs. Besides, that mutant BMP/BTR will not use its tracks most of the time, so its dead weight.

The half track was a high mobility truck, but was more expensive than a truck.

These days a prime mover artillery tractor makes rather more sense than a half track...

I wonder what about the other truck with different cabin. The one where you can access crew compartment.

OK that is probably enough photos of the Kamaz Taifun truck here... we did mentioned armoured trucks but this is the Kurganets and Boomerang thread so it is not strictly the right thing to post here...

I hope its possible to see kurganets and boomerang in these repititions

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I hope its possible to see kurganets and boomerang in these repititions

Not this year by the look of it.

Will those Typhoons be armed or unarmed? For now they have nothing.

Will those Typhoons be armed or unarmed? For now they have nothing.

I suspect some might get remote weapon stations, but these are trucks for either troop or supply transport... these are not IFVs.

GarryB wrote:
I suspect some might get remote weapon stations, but these are trucks for either troop or supply transport... these are not IFVs.

Well we know for a fact that they can get RWS - we've seen versions with them, covered up with a sheet