Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

GarryB wrote:
Why do you think it is wrong?

Do you think they will put heavy armour in the turret... when they moved the crew into the hull so the turret didn't need heavy protection...

What is wrong is that this is not oficial Uralvagonzavod material and is therfor nothing but speculation

It makes you a bigger target.

Only in computer games...

The T-14 Armata is no less of a target than the abmrams or leopard 2.

It means that big powerful engine they developed is only going to make you adequately mobile, instead of zippy and fast...

Let me guess the next thing you will say is that the BT-7 was better than the T-34.

Why would it not need more armour... if you need to protect your gun then the Coalition has a huge one and all the ammo in the rear of the turret needs protecting too...

Maybe becuase it is a self propelled long range artillery vehicle that is never supposed to go near the front line.

The Chinese are developing a wheeled tank also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=SyqNuXix8Po

franco wrote:The Chinese are developing a wheeled tank also.

For steppes of inner Asia or quick movement on roads it has its hight value. Not to mention cost factor. It is cheaper. I dont understand though why all above of lads is arguing about Armata tower. There is already tested Sprut one and will be used with high probability - both risk and cost factor.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

franco wrote:The Chinese are developing a wheeled tank also.

For steppes of inner Asia or quick movement on roads it has its hight value. Not to mention cost factor. It is cheaper. I dont understand though why all above of lads is arguing  about Armata tower. There is already tested Sprut one and will be used with high probability - both risk and cost factor.

No they will make a lightwieght 125mm unmanned turret for the Boomerang, Kurg and maybe eve for a more modern Sprut variant.

and maybe eve for a more modern Sprut variant.

Sources ???

Why would they start state trials of the Sprut SD with the manned turret, if they plan to switch to unmanned?

And furthermore : Can you explain to me the advantage of an unmanned turret on the BMD-4M chassis?

0nillie0 wrote:

and maybe eve for a more modern Sprut variant.

Sources ???

Why would they start state trials of the Sprut SD with the manned turret, if they plan to switch to unmanned?

And furthermore : Can you explain to me the advantage of an unmanned turret on the BMD-4M chassis?

I am just speculting about the most likely course of action for Russia to take.

Also there is no way in hell that the Sprut SD's turret basket and underfloor autoloader would fit in the Boomerangs hull.

The only way you could fit a 125mm autoloader into the boomerang in a manned turret is if you made a ultra compact autoloader that could fit in the narrow lower section of the Boomerangs hull or you could add a turret bustle autoloader instead.

It would be most sensible to create an unmanned turret to allow for the autoloader to be installed in the upper section of the hull that is wide enough to acomadate it.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

0nillie0 wrote:

and maybe eve for a more modern Sprut variant.

Sources ???

Why would they start state trials of the Sprut SD with the manned turret, if they plan to switch to unmanned?

And furthermore : Can you explain to me the advantage of an unmanned turret on the BMD-4M chassis?

I am just speculting about the most likely course of action for Russia to take.

Also there is no way in hell that the Sprut SD's turret basket and underfloor autoloader would fit in the Boomerangs hull.

The only way you could fit a 125mm autoloader into the boomerang in a manned turret is if you made a ultra compact autoloader that could fit in the narrow lower section of the Boomerangs hull or you could add a turret bustle autoloader instead.

It would be most sensible to create an unmanned turret to allow for the autoloader to be installed in the upper section of the hull that is wide enough to acomadate it.

In case my previous post was not clear, i was talking strictly about the modernised Sprut which is built on BMD-4 chassis, not about the Bumerang or other platforms..

0nillie0 wrote:

In case my previous post was not clear, i was talking strictly about the modernised Sprut which is built on BMD-4 chassis, not about the Bumerang or other platforms..

Standardisation and improved survivability when in a hull down position.

What is wrong is that this is not oficial Uralvagonzavod material and is therfor nothing but speculation

What differences would you suggest for the real thing then?

The purpose of moving the crew to the hull was to offer max protection for the crew.

Normally on a standard tank the heaviest armour is on the turret front, so by moving the crew to the front hull the heaviest armour on the vehicle becomes redundant and the whole vehicle can be made much lighter without putting the crew at more risk.

Only in computer games...

If you are not going to be sensible, why bother discussing this issue.

Take a look at any photo where you can see a T-90 and an Abrams or Leopard II tank and you will see rather clearly the size difference in the different tanks...

The T-14 Armata is no less of a target than the abmrams or leopard 2.

Actually that is not true because the frontal area of the Armata is tiny because it does not really include the turret.

With an Abrams or Leopard any penetration of the hull or turret can kill crew.

Let me guess the next thing you will say is that the BT-7 was better than the T-34.

The T-34 was easily the most mobile tank in its class during the war with the exception of the paper thin US tank destroyers... vehicles that would have been horribly vulnerable on the eastern front to even anti tank rifles.

Maybe becuase it is a self propelled long range artillery vehicle that is never supposed to go near the front line.

It will be operating with an armata division.... it will operate where they operate... and where exactly is the front line in a modern war?

Do the Javelin operators know where the front line is?

There is already tested Sprut one and will be used with high probability - both risk and cost factor.

For the same reason they didn't use the T-90 turret for the Armata... the Sprut turret, like the T-90 turret are designed for manned turret vehicles... the purpose of the new vehicles is to separate ammo and fuel from crew and troops to increase safety.

The redesign from the Sprut to Kurganets will be more than from Armata to Kurganets... the 30mm cannon turret is shared between the platforms... why not all the turrets and all the weapons/sensor suites?

No they will make a lightwieght 125mm unmanned turret for the Boomerang, Kurg and maybe eve for a more modern Sprut variant.

The Sprut version needs a two man crew and will be different... they have already developed a turret for the Armata... why reinvent the wheel...

Also there is no way in hell that the Sprut SD's turret basket and underfloor autoloader would fit in the Boomerangs hull.

the boomerangs hull is huge... and there would be no troops in the back... there is tons of space for turret basket and a long recoil gun and extra ammo in the rear...

The-thing-next-door wrote:

0nillie0 wrote:

In case my previous post was not clear, i was talking strictly about the modernised Sprut which is built on BMD-4 chassis, not about the Bumerang or other platforms..

Standardisation and improved survivability when in a hull down position.  

In the case of the modernised Sprut, which will be undergoing state acceptance trials with a manned turret this year (confiremd by multiple sources, check google), i could argue that there already is standardisation.
The modernised Sprut uses a chassis which the VDV use in the majority of their modern vehicles (BMD-4M), and combines it with the modernised version of a turret which is already in their inventory (modernised Sprut turret).

Lets not forget that we have yet to see this 125mm remote weapon station by Kurganmashzavod, even as a mockup. In the case of the Sprut, and for the sake of standardisation within the VDV, i would argue that it makes more sense to adopt a 125mm platform which is ready now, and is in line with the manned turret of the IVF's.

In terms of increased protection, an unmanned 125mm would provide obvious advantages, at least in the hull down position. Depending on how much weight they are able to save in the turret, the vehicle could even be upgraded with additional protection on the sides.

However, keep in mind that for the Sprut, this unmanned turret will have to be able to withstand an airdrop. I also believe personally, that the manned turret offers better situational awareness for the crew, and that the VDV also appreciates this. This could explain why they order manned turrets for their IFV's, even though the unmanned Bachka-U module has already been developed. And unlike the 125mm RCWS, we have actually seen this.

I apologize for dragging this off topic. This is not about the Sprut. If you would like to retort, perhaps we can continue this in a different topic in the VDV section.

Whill the kurganets and boomerang 125mm versions have the same shitty penetrator length limitation as the T-72/90?

Whill the kurganets and boomerang 125mm versions have the same shitty penetrator length limitation as the T-72/90?

First of all, lets shove one of those little penetrators up your ass and you can tell us what it feels like and perhaps you can ask for a longer one...

I am sure you will have more respect for them after that.

Second in a tank like a T-72 or T-90 and even the Armata tank, there is the crew in front in the hull, there is the turret ring and behind there is a tiny space between the turret and the engine.

In the T-90AM in that tiny gap behind the turret ring and the engine there is an armoured box containing 6 further rounds of ammo and propellant stubs... in the other models there is nothing AFAIK.

In the Kurganets and Boomerang the engines are at the front and the crew as well with the turret next and what is normally the troop compartment at the back is empty... so there is plenty of space for extra ammo and an ammo handling system to push rounds from the rear of the vehicle forward into the turret from behind up into the autoloader direction without needing to rotate the rounds 90 degrees and without needing to fit them within half the radius of the turret ring, so you can make them as long as you want.

Now Garry that is a tad too immature.

Anyway if they want it to fight tanks even 10 years from now they will need to be able of firing the Vaccum 1.

First of all, lets shove one of those little penetrators up your ass and you can tell us what it feels like and perhaps you can ask for a longer one...

I am sure you will have more respect for them after that.

WTF I asked a normal question. And for now I have to accept the T-90(except MS/AM) penetrator length limit as bad(I.E. impossible to reach the power of the m829A3/4 and DM53) since no  reputable sources(fofanov, mindstorm, gurkhan, bmpd,etc.) prove otherwise.

Now Garry that is a tad too immature.

Anyway if they want it to fight tanks even 10 years from now they will need to be able of firing the Vaccum 1.

Obviously I should treat his whining seriously, because the Russians are new to the idea of making tanks and really are not as smart as he is.

Of course he is right... they will spend a small fortune to develop a whole new range of armour... not just one tank but at least four, possibly five or six vehicles that cannot use the new ammo they have developed for it...

Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon, Sprut for the VDV and a naval Kurganets for Naval Infantry...

But only the T-90AM can use the new rounds (MS is for export)...

In fact they will probably make mini turrets so even shorter penetrators will have to be developed for these brand new vehicles...

You need Lube too?

WTF I asked a normal question. And for now I have to accept the T-90(except MS/AM) penetrator length limit as bad(I.E. impossible to reach the power of the m829A3/4 and DM53) since no reputable sources(fofanov, mindstorm, gurkhan, bmpd,etc.) prove otherwise.

I gave you the answer your question deserved... you claim a penetrator is inadequate and I told you where to stick it, what is the problem?

The amusing thing is that you think it is about who has the longest penetrator... if it wont penetrate an Armata who cares what its performance is and if it does penetrate what difference does it make what size penetrators are sitting in the autoloader of the Armata?

Perhaps you should worry more about what colour they paint the tanks and armour and to make sure they get the racing stripes straight, and hang the fluffy dice in the rear vision mirror...

BTW penetration is about mass and velocity Mr Smarty Pants... if the information about the muzzle velocity of the new 125mm rounds is true... ie over 2km/s then being slightly shorter and lighter wont mean anything...

you claim a penetrator is inadequate and I told you where to stick it, what is the problem

Then you should tell Fofanov and khlopotov to stick it too...

BTW penetration is about mass and velocity Mr Smarty Pants...

Then why does the DU 1800m/s svinets-2 APSFDS have a max penetration of 650mm(according to Fofanov) vs the lighter and slower(1500m/s) tungsten
DM53 which penetrates 700mm?

over 2km/s then being slightly shorter and lighter wont mean anything...

Yet you said before that its physically impossible to make a projectile with chemical propellant go over 2000m/s...

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Then why does the DU 1800m/s svinets-2 APSFDS have a max penetration of 650mm(according to Fofanov) vs the lighter and slower(1500m/s) tungsten
DM53 which penetrates 700mm?

Isn't fofanov a ukrop? His website has a ukropi adress and the url even says kiev.

Which brings me to the question where the blody hell a ukrop would find information on Russian tanks?

The-thing-next-door wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Then why does the DU 1800m/s svinets-2 APSFDS have a max penetration of 650mm(according to Fofanov) vs the lighter and slower(1500m/s) tungsten
DM53 which penetrates 700mm?

Isn't fofanov a ukrop? His website has a ukropi adress and the url even says kiev.

Which brings me to the question where the blody hell a ukrop would find information on Russian tanks?

Its info about soviet ammunition.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Then why does the DU 1800m/s svinets-2 APSFDS have a max penetration of 650mm(according to Fofanov) vs the lighter and slower(1500m/s) tungsten
DM53 which penetrates 700mm?

Isn't fofanov a ukrop? His website has a ukropi adress and the url even says kiev.

Which brings me to the question where the blody hell a ukrop would find information on Russian tanks?

Fofanov is i believe Russian by nationality, at least that is what i got from chatting with him in 2009. on one occasion. Where does he get the information i am not totally sure, but 99% of what i heard from him seemed legit. My dad agreed the same on metalurgy parts they discussed.

Also alot of his information are actually related to Soviet designs, to which he would had access if he was in the army depots.

My father also was present and says that he is probably tank maintenance engineer, or at least was one, as i got no clue about his age.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Then why does the DU 1800m/s svinets-2 APSFDS have a max penetration of 650mm(according to Fofanov) vs the lighter and slower(1500m/s) tungsten
DM53 which penetrates 700mm?

Isn't fofanov a ukrop? His website has a ukropi adress and the url even says kiev.

Which brings me to the question where the blody hell a ukrop would find information on Russian tanks?

Its info about soviet ammunition.

Yes, Soviet ammo. It's not Soviet anymore. The ammunition Mango isn't even used anymore except by India (for whatever reason).

miketheterrible wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Then why does the DU 1800m/s svinets-2 APSFDS have a max penetration of 650mm(according to Fofanov) vs the lighter and slower(1500m/s) tungsten
DM53 which penetrates 700mm?

Isn't fofanov a ukrop? His website has a ukropi adress and the url even says kiev.

Which brings me to the question where the blody hell a ukrop would find information on Russian tanks?

Its info about soviet ammunition.

Yes, Soviet ammo. It's not Soviet anymore. The ammunition Mango isn't even used anymore except by India (for whatever reason).

Except that soviet ammo is still used in the T-90A, T-72B3, T-80BVM and sprut SD. Ive tried searching for any post soviet APSFDS more powerful than the svinets 2 but could only find vacuum 1 which will only be used in the T-14.

Then you should tell Fofanov and khlopotov to stick it too...

If they are polite I will suggest they use lubricant...

Then why does the DU 1800m/s svinets-2 APSFDS have a max penetration of 650mm(according to Fofanov) vs the lighter and slower(1500m/s) tungsten
DM53 which penetrates 700mm?

If someone says 50 plus 50 equals 100 and then says 40 plus 40 equals 100, do you then complain that 50 isn't good enough to get to 100?

Where did he get his numbers from... check the sources...

Yet you said before that its physically impossible to make a projectile with chemical propellant go over 2000m/s...

Bullshit... find that quote I would love to read that...

In fact take a 3VBM17 found with a 3BM42 APFSDS round and reduce the weight of the 7.05kg projectile to maybe 4kgs and you would get over 2km/s easy... it pushes a 7kg projectile at 1.7km/s... a much lighter projectile would easily go 300m/s faster...

It would not retain velocity as well as a heavy penetrator and likely would not penetrate as much armour but making it faster is easy.

In fact that data is with an older gun, so the newer guns should already get above 2km/s already with standard ammo...

Except that soviet ammo is still used in the T-90A, T-72B3, T-80BVM and sprut SD. Ive tried searching for any post soviet APSFDS more powerful than the svinets 2 but could only find vacuum 1 which will only be used in the T-14.

Could be possible they have ammo about which there is no information on the internet available... yeah.. scary I know...

Could be possible they have ammo about which there is no information on the internet available... yeah.. scary I know...

It could also be possible that the US has jammers that disable the S-400 completely, but possible isnt good enough.

GarryB wrote:

Then you should tell Fofanov and khlopotov to stick it too...

If they are polite I will suggest they use lubricant...

If they are ukropi I would suggest they use the Griffel-1 sabot included

GarryB wrote:

Then why does the DU 1800m/s svinets-2 APSFDS have a max penetration of 650mm(according to Fofanov) vs the lighter and slower(1500m/s) tungsten
DM53 which penetrates 700mm?

If someone says 50 plus 50 equals 100 and then says 40 plus 40 equals 100, do you then complain that 50 isn't good enough to get to 100?

Where did he get his numbers from... check the sources...

100% agreed you can never trust a ukrop espetially on matters related to the Russian army.

And wait a minute isn't the dm53 supposed to penetrate 800mm of armor and the american thing 780?

Also we must remember that Russia tests its rounds against harder armor and requires an 80% chance of pentration as opposed to the 50% required by nato.

Except that soviet ammo is still used in the T-90A, T-72B3, T-80BVM and sprut SD. Ive tried searching for any post soviet APSFDS more powerful than the svinets 2 but could only find vacuum 1 which will only be used in the T-14.

There is always Svinets 1 which has a DU penetrator. And I would take fofanovs data with a grain of salt you just cannot trust a ukrop.