Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

Peŕrier wrote:

But it is depending on the mission envisaged for the weapon system: Sprut-SD is mainly a tank destroyer, a Bumerang armed with a large caliber could be developed as well to provide a tank destroyer to Bumerangs' regiments as it could be intended to perform a fire support platform.

There are couple of possible applications IMHO
a) Arabic countries (hot, desert climate where wheeled platforms make sense)
b) Russia - Rosgvardia, or whatever is mostly for defence wthin Russia or is to accompany light motrized brigades.
c) Marines? but again depends n buoyancy. I am sure much better than Pt-76 or BTR-82

Looks like our finding gets official

The question is however... will they use the Sprut turret and therefore move the commander and gunner to the turret... or will they use the same turret as used on the Armata and Kurganets with no crew in the turret and the crew in the vehicle hull under the heaviest armour?

The point being that the boomerang with the Sprut turret on it has no troops, so the rear of the hull should be totally empty...

That means you could either have the gunner and commander in their normal hull positions and have the turret and ammo where the 8 troops normally sit... or you could move the commander and gunner to the absolute rear so they sit where the back four troop positions currently are and everything forward of that could be firewalled off ammo and unmanned turret position that is firewalled from the rest of the crew.

Or you could have the commander and gunner in the Sprut turret and the troop compartment full of ammo for combat persistence.

I suspect the best option is keeping the unmanned turrets... but using the Sprut gun and the commander and gunner at the very rear of the vehicle and driver at the front.

The D30 was cited by me just as an example of alternative type of main armament, I wasn't implying that D30 could actually be then gun to choose.

Fair enough, but if you are suggesting that the 125mm gun is too powerful for a wheeled vehicle then the same would apply to a 122mm gun, or indeed a 120mm gun/mortar.

The next suitable gun that offers enough HE fire power but without the excessive recoil would be the 100mm rifled medium pressure gun from the BMP-3, which I would agree is a very good choice, but the fact that the long recoil 125mm gun on the Sprut works on an 18 ton vehicle that it should be OK on a 30 ton wheeled vehicle too... so despite the fact that the 100mm rifled gun would be a good alternative I don't think one is needed and 125mm rounds would be totally superior in the range of types of round and their performance.

The only advantages of the 100mm rounds is their compact size so you could carry rather more, and their low recoil.

But even a far larger and heavier AFV, like the italian Centauro 2 weighting around 30 tons, has had issues with its 120 mm long recoil gun, both in terms of stability when firing the gun traversed and in terms of tear and wear suffered from suspensions, even if the hull in itself is way heavier than a Stryker, and was designed from day one as a specialized tank destroyer.

The Russians bought and tested a few wheeled "tanks" of those already...

It seems as if wheeled vehicles have some inherent problem when employing real large guns, unless in turn they get really large, somehow larger than similar tracked vehicles.

The Boomerangs are in the same weight class as the Kurganets vehicles... which are also 25-30 ton vehicles...

It should of course possible to overcome such problems, but the point is the driver behind the choices to made: if the main requirement is direct fire support, a high velocity, mainly antitank large gun could just not be the preferred choice, because it could require more efforts to get the whole thing work seamlessly than is deemed desirable. A different king of gun, actually more close to an howitzer than an antitank gun, would provide the same capabilities in terms of direct fire support with less strain posed on the hull and as such requiring less modification to the base hull.

The boomerangs are not BTR-80s... they are better armoured than BMPs... their experience with direct fire 100mm rifled guns and new 120mm gun/mortars suggests they have some experience and know what they are doing.

If the main mission, on the other hand, is actually to fight enemy's MBTs, such efforts are more than justified, and a Bumerang with a Sprut-SD derived turret, or even an ad hoc developed turret with the same 2A75 gun employed by the Sprut-SD, would be the logical choice.

But it is depending on the mission envisaged for the weapon system: Sprut-SD is mainly a tank destroyer, a Bumerang armed with a large caliber could be developed as well to provide a tank destroyer to Bumerangs' regiments as it could be intended to perform a fire support platform.

In current divisions tanks provide direct high power fire support... in a boomerang div a 125mm gun armed boomerang would provide the same fire support... and with APS and solid armour it should be fairly difficult to knock out actually... except by APFSDS rounds, but that is the same in all the vehicles in that unit so dealing with enemy MBTs would be a priority so 125mm gun armed boomerangs become rather important.

As a last note, if there could be chances that in a foreseeable future the 125 mm gun employed by T-14 and T-90 would no longer be effective enough, it could in turn reduce greatly the viability and effectiveness of a 125 mm armed tank destroyer.

Not really.

The main benefits of a boomerang tank destroyer is that it could operate somewhere like Syria and no vehicle it would come up against could survive a hit from a 125mm gun, yet a boomerang force would be highly mobile... fully amphibious... obviously better in rocky terrain than sand, but you know what I mean.

In sand or marsh then the Kurganets is a similar weight, similar fire power, similar protection, fully amphibious too... fast and highly mobile.

While at least the T-14 could be rearmed with a larger gun, I doubt a wheeled AFV has any chance to get a larger one. 120 - 125 mm seems to be the largest caliber a wheeled AFV, weighting no more than 30 tons could actually employ, and even those calibers are proving troublesome to integrate in wheeled hulls.

If the enemy is so well equipped that you need a 152mm main gun then you probably want to send Armata based vehicles rather than lighter ones anyway.

So it could be, if military top brass have already took into account the need to rearm the T-14, that they could deem more future-proof to rely on an ATGM armed AFV for the role of tank destroyer.

They already have missile armed tank destroyers... the old MTLB chassis with Shturm and Ataka missiles that has been replaced with the radar equipped Khrisantema... they will remain in motor rifle divs in addition to tanks.

A wheeled vehicle armed with a high velocity heavy gun designed to destroy enemy heavy armour is a tank... a medium tank.

The term MBT no longer applies now that they will have heavy tank, two medium tank types and two light tank types.

Armata is the heavy tank. Kurganets and Boomerang are the medium tanks... tracked and wheeled respectively, and Sprut and Typhoon are the light tanks tracked and wheeled respectively.

It is all together possible that the Typhoon might have a 100mm rifled gun with a standard round of HE and tube launched missiles for anti armour use.

ATGMs are slow and vulnerable to APSs compared to any APFSDS shot, but they could be quite easily replaced with more effective ones when their penetration capabilities are no longer enough, something not easily doing with a gun.

Russian laser beam and command guided ATGMs are all supersonic, and firing two on the same laser beam with Kornet would be tricky for any APS to engage.

They have revealed mini ATGMs called Bulat for short range engagements of lighter armour for IFVs to use... they are supposed to be fire and forget.

There are couple of possible applications IMHO

All three good examples, and further they are useful in places where the enemy has nothing better... their superior optics and communications and coordination with artillery and air power would make them fast and light and pretty devastating if used with skill.

IMHO, the Sput-SD turret would be, if choosed, only an interim solution.

It is a pretty mediocre solution, and not because it is manned.

I see no point at all into keeping any capability to carry an infantry squad into a tank destroter.

So the turret could either be manned or umanned, far more relevant should be the array of sensors both active and passive available to the crew.

The vehicle should be able both to have a real time picture of the battlefield, and an ability on itself to detect and counter any threat against itself or the vehicles it is escorting.

LWR,RWR and any other kind of passive sensors like those found in an attack helicopter or aircraft, should be the very basic equipment, enabling it to obliterate any threat within 6 to 8 seconds it first detected its.

And of course, it should operate far behind the standard AFVs, hidden and in a dominant position.

Exactly.... this is not a light tank that brings its own troop support, so while the gun is the right one it would make rather more sense to use the turret developed for the Armata and Kurganets that is unmanned, but with all the latest sensors and equipment and fit that in the central location on the vehicle.

Most of the internal space taken by crew and troops in the centre can be for ammo for the turret... right at the rear of the vehicle you can have a rear hatch ramp door for the gunner and commander... perhaps with a hatch through the rear firewall used to load ammo into the autoloader of the turret system, but otherwise the very rear of the hull should be given over to crew positions for the gunner and commander... and possibly an extra crewman to operate UAVs to support the vehicle and help with security and maintainence....

from the bit where he is in the front and moves to the back past the engine compartment in the rear there are 8 seats for soldiers and the interviewer sits in another seat and the cameraman sits in another seat opposite

The layout with driver front left, passage beside the engine then commander & gunner at front of the passenger compartment was known or guessed before the first prototype was shown.
What's surprising to me is the big space between the back of the engine bay & the commander/gunner, seems like a huge waste.
Move them forward & there should be room for another couple of passengers.

Russians dont have so much choice: either 57mm AA gun or 125 one.

Eh? In service they have 152, 125, 122, 100, 57, various sizes of mortar including 120mm gun-mortar on the Nona.

Remember there was this pic from back in 2013...

hoom wrote:

Russians dont have so much choice: either 57mm AA gun or 125 one.

Eh? In service they have 152, 125, 122, 100, 57, various sizes of mortar including 120mm gun-mortar on the Nona.

I do. I can see mortar/gun 120 , 57mm, 57mm, 125mm

GarryB wrote:

Looks like our finding gets official

The question is however... will they use the Sprut turret and therefore move the commander and gunner to the turret... or will they use the same turret as used on the Armata and Kurganets with no crew in the turret and the crew in the vehicle hull under the heaviest armour?

The boomarang will most certainly not have the Armatas turret.

Firstly the Armatas turret would be way too heavy as it is designed for an MBT and is only light in comparrison to a conventional MBT turret and this would make the vehicle increadibly to heavy.

Secondly there is simply not enough room in the boomarangs hull for the T-14s autoloader carocel.

Also as I said earlier and said it could use the Dragun 125mm unmanned turret for the BMP-3.

The-thing-next-door wrote:
Also as I said earlier and said it could use the Dragun 125mm unmanned turret for the BMP-3.

Like this one?

http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-13378.htm

OK, an Armata-like turret is obviously a too long shot for a 30 tons wheeled hull.

Where "wheeled" is the real factor: wheeled hulls are far more fragile than tracked ones in terms of transmission and suspensions, and usually have an higher center of gravity that just worsen everything up.

Still Sprut-SD turret is just a poor man solution, even for the VDV it was deemed not satisfactory in terms of sensors and battlefield management, while Armata turret is state of the art.

I see as a more sensible and likely solution a derivate from the Armata turret, retaining most of the electronics but in a package tailored for the Bumerang hull.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:
Also as I said earlier and said it could use the Dragun 125mm unmanned turret for the BMP-3.

Like this one?

http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-13378.htm

Yup although they would have to modify the autoloader to fit in the boomerangs hull.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Yup although they would have to modify the autoloader to fit in the boomerangs hull.

Im sorry but the turret in the first picture mounted on the BMP-3 to me looks like a regular manned turret of the Sprut (gunner sight on the left front of the turret).
The RCWS 125 cleary has the gunner sight on the other side of the turret, as seen on the modernised Sprut.

Just pointig it out.

0nillie0 wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Yup although they would have to modify the autoloader to fit in the boomerangs hull.

Im sorry but the turret in the first picture mounted on the BMP-3 to me looks like a regular manned turret of the Sprut (gunner sight on the left front of the turret).
The RCWS 125 cleary has the gunner sight on the other side of the turret, as seen on the modernised Sprut.

Just pointig it out.

It is supposed to be an unmanned version maybe the version pictured is a prototype based on modified Sprut turret and they did not bother to change the roof layout.

It is supposed to be one out of 3 unmanned turrets for the BMP-3

Peŕrier wrote:

Where "wheeled" is the real factor: wheeled hulls are far more fragile than tracked ones in terms of transmission and suspensions, and usually have an higher center of gravity that just worsen everything up.

How can you comment that reality says otherwise - many armies do fields wheeled transporters with big gun? Can you explain why wheeled are fragile? examples perhaps?

The-thing-next-door wrote: It is supposed to be an unmanned version maybe the version pictured is a prototype based on modified Sprut turret and they did not bother to change the roof layout. It is supposed to be one out of 3 unmanned turrets for the BMP-3

There was no info so far about progress with BM-125 mm so I'd suspect this will be just Spud's turret modification= costs, time savings. Roof shudb be designed in advance for heavier turret as Boomerang is a platform not ASPC am I right?

"Boomerang" of large caliber. Why does the Russian army have wheeled tanks

Surgical tool"
Wheeled tanks are unofficially called a family of armored cars, armed with a tank gun in a full-turn tower. These machines, although they are inferior to heavy caterpillar technology in terms of security, significantly exceed it in speed, maneuverability and power reserve. Of course, they are not capable of completely replacing the classic tanks on the battlefield as the main strike force of the Ground Forces, but they are not required from them. A mobile wheeled vehicle with a powerful gun is a much thinner surgical tool. And it is much easier to move it over longer distances than caterpillar technology.
"Military equipment on the march always goes with the speed that all the cars in the column can withstand," explained Viktor Murakhovsky, the editor-in-chief of the Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, "There is in military science such a term - the value of the daily transition, that is, the distance overcome column for 24 hours For caterpillar and mixed columns it is 300 kilometers, and parts equipped exclusively with wheeled vehicles will exceed this standard by at least twice, moving along roads of general purpose.What will happen to such roads if they pass through I think the basic battle tanks or heavy infantry fighting vehicles, I think, it is not necessary to explain. "

The expert stressed that the wheeled equipment is an order of magnitude greater than the caterpillar for such an important indicator as the resource, or the overhaul mileage. Roughly speaking, if the main battle tank (MBT) breaks down after ten thousand kilometers, the BMM with the gun will go all one hundred thousand. A large power reserve, "sparing" the impact on transport infrastructure, high reliability of units and units will allow the wheel parts to perform operational maneuvers to a great depth.


"We have a number of strategic directions where such an opportunity can be very useful," Murakhovsky said, "For example, the Central Asian direction." If there is a need to fight terrorist groups there, we will have to transfer our units to a depth of over a thousand kilometers. To say the least, a large grouping is impossible to move through the air, only a small forward contingent, and here, as we found out, the wheeled vehicles nickname a serious advantage. "

According to Murakhovsky, the wheeled tanks, thanks to their powerful armament, can also be used in combined arms operations - on the flanks, in reconnaissance, patrols, military escorts, in separate operational directions. It is important to note that the machines on the Boomerang platforms are floating. Perspective wheeled tanks are capable of quickly crossing water obstacles without preliminary preparation and exploration of the reservoir, which again distinguishes them from caterpillar technology.

The largest caliber
Wheeled tanks are in service with a number of NATO countries and the Asian region. This class includes American M1128 MGS on the platform Stryker, French AMX-10RC, Japanese MCV, Italian Centauro. The Ministry of Defense in the late 2000's - early 2010-ies negotiated with Rome on the purchase of a party Centauro for the Army. Several cars were even brought to Russia for testing, but this did not go further: as it turned out, Italian BBMs did not meet the Russian requirements for the reliability of military equipment.

All of the above foreign equipment is armed with 105-millimeter tank guns, similar or similar in performance to the cannons of American tanks M60 and M1 Abrams early versions. While it is not known what exactly the caliber will receive the Russian car on the platform "Boomerang", but, according to experts, the choice of armourers is small.

"Based on logical reasoning, I think the most likely option is the installation of a combat compartment with a 125mm cannon on the Boomerang platform, as on the Sprut-SDM1 anti-tank self-propelled gun," Viktor Murakhovsky told RIA Novosti. the machine will become truly unique.In the world there are no wheeled tanks with weapons, like the MBT, and at the same time floating. "

The self-propelled antitank "Sprut-SDM1" was developed for the Airborne Forces of Russia. Its main armament is a 125-millimeter gun 2A75 on a stabilized system with a submachine gun and an ammunition of 40 rounds, similar to the 2A46M cannons of the T-72 and T-90 tanks. The self-propelled gun can fire all types of Russian ammunition of the appropriate caliber, as well as anti-tank guided missiles. The auxiliary weaponry of the combat compartment is a 7.62 mm PKT machine gun paired with a gun.

The wheeled tank is only one of many variants of technology on the wheeled platform "Boomerang". The infantry fighting vehicle on this chassis was first shown to the public at the Victory Day parade in 2015. In addition, it is planned to build an armored personnel carrier, a reconnaissance patrol car and a number of other modifications. According to the developers, the reserve of this technique along the highway is about 800 kilometers, the speed is up to 100 kilometers per hour. New cars are better protected than wheeled combat equipment of previous generations. It is known that the "Boomerangs" provide for the ability to adjust, depending on the task, the thickness of the armor. To do this, it is enough to replace some removable armored cars with others. It is claimed that in the thickest version the machine will withstand even the hit of an artillery shell.

РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20180307/1515884030.html

The boomarang will most certainly not have the Armatas turret.

Do you not remember the posters with the unified turrets that showed those turrets fitted to armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon?

Why do you think it makes sense to design separate turrets for the tank vehicle and separate turrets for the IFV and separate turrets for the APC etc etc... if they are using the same gun they need the same loading system because they are all unmanned... they will need the same sensors and other systems too.

Firstly the Armatas turret would be way too heavy as it is designed for an MBT and is only light in comparrison to a conventional MBT turret and this would make the vehicle increadibly to heavy.

First of all the armour on the armata tank turret is modular and not as heavy as you might think.

For use on lighter vehicles they don't need as heavy armour modules.

Obviously it would also need to be adapted for the long recoil gun it uses, which is different from the one in the armata but uses all the same ammo.

Secondly there is simply not enough room in the boomarangs hull for the T-14s autoloader carocel.

The Boomerang is taller than the Armata... the roof of the hull is higher and it has room for 8 fully equipped troops... why do you think there wont be enough room for the autoloader etc... it wont have 8 seats for troops you know... it is a tank not a troop transport.

Also as I said earlier and said it could use the Dragun 125mm unmanned turret for the BMP-3.

A manned turret will be heavier as it will need proper armour and will be rather bigger because it needs space for two crew to sit in it, which means less space for ammo and autoloader...

OK, an Armata-like turret is obviously a too long shot for a 30 tons wheeled hull.

Why?

With a modification for a long recoil main gun and sophisticated suspension it should be fine.

Where "wheeled" is the real factor: wheeled hulls are far more fragile than tracked ones in terms of transmission and suspensions, and usually have an higher center of gravity that just worsen everything up.

The long recoil gun does not throw around a Sprut at 18 tons... why would it be a problem for a 30 ton vehicle?

I see as a more sensible and likely solution a derivate from the Armata turret, retaining most of the electronics but in a package tailored for the Bumerang hull.

Which is basically the armata turret with lighter modular armour for the boomerang class vehicle... and a long recoil main gun.

Improved mobility only applies if all the vehicles benefit... for instance... having a force with tracked 50 ton MBTs means those vehicles will either slow the entire force down or the force will arrive in groups with the tanks getting there last...

Not ideal.

GarryB wrote:Do you not remember the posters with the unified turrets that showed those turrets fitted to armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon?

Why do you think it makes sense to design separate turrets for the tank vehicle and separate turrets for the IFV and separate turrets for the APC etc etc... if they are using the same gun they need the same loading system because they are all unmanned... they will need the same sensors and other systems too.

Becuase the MBT turret needs to protect against autocannon and HEAT rockets.

First of all the armour on the armata tank turret is modular and not as heavy as you might think.

For use on lighter vehicles they don't need as heavy armour modules.

Obviously it would also need to be adapted for the long recoil gun it uses, which is different from the one in the armata but uses all the same ammo.

I doubt that it is possible to remove the biul in heavy armor the light spaced armor yes but the base armor just no you may aswell use a lightened T-90A turret.

If you were to want an Armata like Turret you would need to make a special lightened version designed for a gun with an extended recoil absorbtion system.

The Boomerang is taller than the Armata... the roof of the hull is higher and it has room for 8 fully equipped troops... why do you think there wont be enough room for the autoloader etc... it wont have 8 seats for troops you know... it is a tank not a troop transport.

Yes but if you look at its profile from the front you will see that it is only the top half of the hull that has enough horizontal space for an autoloader caroucel
but it is has far too little vertical space for the T-14s autoloader with its rounds facing upwards would simply not fit therfor you would have to completely change the autoloader.

The only compatible autolader type that comes to mind would be the one from the Object-490 and Object-477 series tanks.

A manned turret will be heavier as it will need proper armour and will be rather bigger because it needs space for two crew to sit in it, which means less space for ammo and autoloader...

Dragun turret is suposed to be unmanned.

Becuase the MBT turret needs to protect against autocannon and HEAT rockets.

Why?

HEAT rockets should be stopped by the APS system installed on the vehicle... and if the enemy with a 40mm gun wants to shoot at the turret of the vehicle... let them.

 

I doubt that it is possible to remove the biul in heavy armor the light spaced armor yes but the base armor just no you may aswell use a lightened T-90A turret.

It would be stupid to use a T-90A turret.., a T-90A turret has two big hollow areas inside where the commander and gunner sit, which is just wasted space.

It also means the sensors and optics need to be moved to allow proper vision from the crew compartment in the hull... the Armata turret already has that.

If you were to want an Armata like Turret you would need to make a special lightened version designed for a gun with an extended recoil absorbtion system.

Why would it need to be a special lightened version? The turret of the Armata wont be a fraction of the weight of a T-90 turret... a T-90 turret has frontal armour that is equivalent to almost a metre of metal... the Armata turret has nothing like that level of protection not including the APS.

Yes but if you look at its profile from the front you will see that it is only the top half of the hull that has enough horizontal space for an autoloader caroucel
but it is has far too little vertical space for the T-14s autoloader with its rounds facing upwards would simply not fit therfor you would have to completely change the autoloader.

The only compatible autolader type that comes to mind would be the one from the Object-490 and Object-477 series tanks.

What are you talking about?

The boomerang is a much taller vehicle than the Armata vehicle... there is plenty of vertical space and in terms of width there is enough room for two people sitting and space down the middle for another person to walk and leave the vehicle...

Dragun turret is suposed to be unmanned.

The Armata turret is already developed and will also be used on the Kurganets... why design a totally different turret?

What a waste of time... and money...

GarryB wrote:

Why?

HEAT rockets should be stopped by the APS system installed on the vehicle... and if the enemy with a 40mm gun wants to shoot at the turret of the vehicle... let them.

Becuase then your all of your tanks primary weapon systems are easily destroyed.

And the Afganit system is a little bit lacking the the infinite amunition department.

 

It would be stupid to use a T-90A turret.., a T-90A turret has two big hollow areas inside where the commander and gunner sit, which is just wasted space.

It also means the sensors and optics need to be moved to allow proper vision from the crew compartment in the hull... the Armata turret already has that.

I was saying that it would take the same amount of effort to lighten the turret of the T-90A.


[quote]Why would it need to be a special lightened version? The turret of the Armata wont be a fraction of the weight of a T-90 turret... a T-90 turret has frontal armour that is equivalent to almost a metre of metal... the Armata turret has nothing like that level of protection not including the APS.

[quote] Over a meter of protection? where di you read about that?

And why so you think the designers of the T-14 would compromise the protection of the tanks main weapon system?

What are you talking about?

The boomerang is a much taller vehicle than the Armata vehicle... there is plenty of vertical space and in terms of width there is enough room for two people sitting and space down the middle for another person to walk and leave the vehicle...

I cannot believe this just look at a side view of the boomerang the only part wide enough is the upper part of the hull that extends over the wheeles and good luck vertically stacking Vaccum and Svinets in there.

Would you be so kind as to create a diagram explaining just how exactly you would fit the T-14s rather tall autoloader into the boomerang?

The Armata turret is already developed and will also be used on the Kurganets... why design a totally different turret?

What a waste of time... and money...

And where did you hear this?

Armata's turret will not be installed on the Kurg's....the russians have never said anything like that. You cannot fit the Armata's gun on the kurg.

That is just a big fat lie, they could mount a smaller gun on the Kurg's sure but it ain't going to be the armata's 125mm.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Armata's turret will not be installed on the Kurg's....the russians have never said anything like that. You cannot fit the Armata's gun on the kurg.

That is just a big fat lie, they could mount a smaller gun on the Kurg's sure but it ain't going to be the armata's 125mm.

It is really not that far fetched if the centauro can have a 120mm MBT gun I would not be so hasty to brand the Boomerang being equiped with a modified 2a82 as impossible.

But it will not have a standard T-14 Armata turret although a lightened variant with a modified autoloader is a possibility.

Becuase then your all of your tanks primary weapon systems are easily destroyed.

Easily?

First to destroy the gun you would have to actually hit it... in combat, which tank can post their first round that accurately?

Second if they are firing at your gun they are not firing at your troop compartment... that is a good thing.

That is like the armour is so thick they are trying to hit your tracks... if they get you then you are immobilised and they can move around and shoot you from behind... but dude... while they are shooting your tracks and then trying to get around you... are you asleep?

They are shooting at your turret trying to damage your gun, while you are firing your main 125mm gun against their IFVs and ripping them a new one with every hit... you are an IFV with a tanks gun for fucks sake.

And the Afganit system is a little bit lacking the the infinite amunition department.

It wont stop everything, but unless you are a moron and just roll out into plain view and try to take the entire enemy force on your own that should be plenty... launch a UAV and fire a 125mm guided anti armour missile without even exposing yourself from behind cover if you want to.

These vehicles wont be taking on well equipped enemy, the will be operating in places where the enemy likely wont even have their own armour half the time... and any armour they do have will be picked off by the Kornets carried by the IFV you are operating with, or the Ka-52s and Mi-28NMs...

I was saying that it would take the same amount of effort to lighten the turret of the T-90A.

No, it would not.

The Armatas turret is modular... most of the external features are modular add on armour for the Armata. Take all that stuff off and replace with modular armour developed for the Boomerang family of vehicles.

They are replacing all the vehicles in an armoured division... do you think they are designing 4 complete new families of totally different vehicles even though all the MBTs will have the same or similar weapons and sensors and equipment?  We have seen the 30mm cannon armed turret for all the different APC vehicles... is that a hint or what?

And why so you think the designers of the T-14 would compromise the protection of the tanks main weapon system?

Everything worth protecting from enemy fire is in the crew compartment... everything else like the main gun and ammo and fuel are outside that area.

The main gun and fuel and ammo can be easily replaced... crew cannot.

Here are some pictures:







So the top photo shows Armata... with a 125mm gun turret and an Armata with a 30mm gun turret.

The second photo shows a Kurganets with a 30mm gun turret and a Kurganets with a 12.7mm gun turret.

The third photo shows the 30mm gun turret fitted to Armata, Kurganets, and Boomerang.

None of these are my drawings BTW.

Regarding the turret itself and its vulnerability can I replay this video:



Originally posted by marcellogo in the armata thread...

As you can see the actual gun is a tiny target front on, and no tank turret is well protected from the side or rear anyway...

And where did you hear this?

Rather than reinvent the wheel for every vehicle they were standardising each type of vehicle across the vehicle families... the ground equivalent of avionics... aircraft electronics and sensors... except for armoured vehicles.

Armata's turret will not be installed on the Kurg's....the russians have never said anything like that. You cannot fit the Armata's gun on the kurg.

That is just a big fat lie, they could mount a smaller gun on the Kurg's sure but it ain't going to be the armata's 125mm.

They spent time and money developing the long recoil 125mm gun version for light vehicles... it is currently used on the Sprut 18 ton vehicle... why would they not put that on a 30 ton wheeled vehicle?

The Kurganets is also in the 30 ton weight range and will also get the same gun/turret.

But it will not have a standard T-14 Armata turret although a lightened variant with a modified autoloader is a possibility.

Why lighten it? It is already designed for the job... making it lighter would probably make it vulnerable to anti material rifles...

Well Patria /Cockreil, Rooikat or Centauro they all can use 120mm guns in manned turret. I wonder why Russian bumerang cannot? especially that Spruts turret is ready

0nillie0 wrote:So if i understand correctly, they say even the platforms with heavier weapons will retain the possibility of carrying 8 dismouts?

They can do that if the turrets are desidned to completely position above the roof instead of half-half inside the hull.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Well Patria /Cockreil, Rooikat or Centauro they all can use 120mm guns in manned turret.  I wonder why Russian bumerang cannot? especially that  Spruts turret is ready

"Cannot" is totally different to "don't want". May be the cheap of manned version will be for export but domestic.

I find quite hard to believe you can design a turret armed with a 125 mm gun the is all external to the hull.

That in addition to the futility of carrying a full infantry squad inside a tank destroyer/fire support AFV.

The Armata turret itself would prove to be too heavy for the Bumerang, a turret hosting all of the autoloader and ammunition above the turret ring would make Bumerang so top heavy to loose most of its mobility.

It would be more useful to give up the entire infantry carryng requirement, and design an ad hoc developed turret penetrating the full height of the hull, placing most of the autoloader and turret's traversing below the hull roof along with the ammunitions, keeping the center of gravity as low as possible.

Gunner and commander could have their seats place just behind the driver, and the turret could replace most of the infantry compartment.

I mentioned about 57mm, not 125mm gun. Boomerangs with 125mm gun become a tank definitely, not BTR so do not need to carry 8 troops anymore.