Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

But I would prefer to see a 57mm variant as well, it will be a good asset in clearing urban areas.

They are probably not finished for serial production yet.

Speaking about unified chassis', any thought about the Scout-SV? It's way more modest in comparison to the Kurganets-25:

The turret is way back to the rear, unlike the most IFV´s, and i wonder how it will not be in the way for the rear passenger area? As they enter and exit from rear, a turret will take up the most space, hence no passenger area there, but forward of turret?

Strange...

The "Epoha-lite" turret expected to be on the Kurganets (at least for now) does not penetrate the hull deeply at all. Ammo is all within the unit.

TR1 wrote:The "Epoha-lite" turret expected to be on the Kurganets (at least for now) does not penetrate the hull deeply at all. Ammo is all within the unit.

Alright, the turret is remote and the crew is forward of turret, that makes sense. But then i wonder whats the point with the turret way back rear?

runaway wrote:

TR1 wrote:The "Epoha-lite" turret expected to be on the Kurganets (at least for now) does not penetrate the hull deeply at all. Ammo is all within the unit.

Alright, the turret is remote and the crew is forward of turret, that makes sense. But then i wonder whats the point with the turret way back rear?

Probably to balance engine weight in front, as well as allow for the vehicle crew to have hatch access + un-obscured vision devices.

TR1 wrote:

runaway wrote:

TR1 wrote:The "Epoha-lite" turret expected to be on the Kurganets (at least for now) does not penetrate the hull deeply at all. Ammo is all within the unit.

Alright, the turret is remote and the crew is forward of turret, that makes sense. But then i wonder whats the point with the turret way back rear?

Probably to balance engine weight in front, as well as allow for the vehicle crew to have hatch access + un-obscured vision devices.

Hm, hatch access is likely, but with both turret rear and passenger of 8 per 100kg soldiers + 300-400kg equipment, i suspect it would be rear heavy. The BMP is balanced and there is engine at front, turret in middle.
I am sure the Kurgantes is well balanced, its just a very different solution then what we are used too!

Well I hope the balance comes from the frontal arc being heavily armored enough.

Rounds like these:
http://www.cta-international.com/apfsds-t-d-8.html

Are only going to become more and more common.

TR1 wrote:Well I hope the balance comes from the frontal arc being heavily armored enough.

Rounds like these:
http://www.cta-international.com/apfsds-t-d-8.html

Are only going to become more and more common.

Hard to achieve 140mm protection against KE with weight limitation and amphibious requirement.

Any pictures of Boomerang till now?

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:Well I hope the balance comes from the frontal arc being heavily armored enough.

Rounds like these:
http://www.cta-international.com/apfsds-t-d-8.html

Are only going to become more and more common.

Hard to achieve 140mm protection against KE with weight limitation and amphibious requirement.

Could be done I think. BMP-3 frontal plate is pretty thick on its own:

http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/vbtt_1991_bmp31.htm

Kurganets has an extra 7 tons at the very least to play with. Plus, more advanced materials, weight saving in other areas (turret alone is a big weight cutter), and advanced ERA/NERA/applique armor/whatever they go for.

TR1 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:Well I hope the balance comes from the frontal arc being heavily armored enough.

Rounds like these:
http://www.cta-international.com/apfsds-t-d-8.html

Are only going to become more and more common.

Hard to achieve 140mm protection against KE with weight limitation and amphibious requirement.

Could be done I think. BMP-3 frontal plate is pretty thick on its own:

http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/vbtt_1991_bmp31.htm

Kurganets has an extra 7 tons at the very least to play with. Plus, more advanced materials, weight saving in other areas (turret alone is a big weight cutter), and advanced ERA/NERA/applique armor/whatever they go for.

Well the ERA on BMP-2/3 that was specially designed withstands 30x165mm AP-I rounds eve from the side without detonating, there are two or three armor plates within that provide front and side protection against 30 API rounds, while without it they pierce both sides like paper.

If I read another time how this shows a Russian turn to "Western solutions" I will shoot someone.

WTF is 'Western' about modern technical solutions that everyone came to? Not all "Western" IFVs even use the same solutions.

BMP-1 laid out the modern IFV formula, it has been improved on by everyone since. That's it.

Applique armor is not a reflection that older Russian solutions were wrong. Christ, no one back then even used applique armor.

In fact, what huge revolutionary breakthrough is the Kurganets from the BMP-2? It is across a board a modern BMP-2 equivalent, adjusted for 2015 advances.

TR1 wrote:If I read another time how this shows a Russian turn to "Western solutions" I will shoot someone.

WTF is 'Western' about modern technical solutions that everyone came to? Not all "Western" IFVs even use the same solutions.

BMP-1 laid out the modern IFV formula, it has been improved on by everyone since. That's it.

Applique armor is not a reflection that older Russian solutions were wrong. Christ, no one back then even used applique armor.

In fact, what huge revolutionary breakthrough is the Kurganets from the BMP-2? It is across a board a modern BMP-2 equivalent, adjusted for 2015 advances.

How relevant... An idiot and I on Engadget are spewing it out over how Kurganets is a "copy of the Bradley". I   'd to hard.

Don't recall any Bradley ATGM vehicles, Bradley air-defence vehicles, Bradley MBTs, Bradley-based recovery vehicles, Bradley command vehicles, Bradley bridge-layers, Bradley EW vehicles, Bradley self-propelled artillery, Bradley mortar-support vehicles, Bradley MLRSs..

Seriously - how can you compare it to an IFV? It's not an IFV - it's a chassis.

There actually are Bradley recovery vehicles, the Linebacker AD vehicle (just a stinger box strapped on to the turret lol), and other variants, but your point is taken.

But really what it comes down to is, if the Kurganets is a Bradley copy, the Bradley is a BMP copy.

TR1 wrote:There actually are Bradley recovery vehicles, the Linebacker AD vehicle (just a stinger box strapped on to the turret lol), and other variants, but your point is taken.

But really what it comes down to is, if the Kurganets is a Bradley copy, the Bradley is a BMP copy.

I simply can't wait until Russia has a whole brigade composed entirely or nearly entirely out of Bradley-Kurganets vehicles

Including maybe 3 or so companies of equipped with those teletank-robot vehicles, for recon purposes - no need for a manned Kurganets-based replacement for the BRDM-2, remote-controlled vehicles for the purpose will do fine.

flamming_python wrote:

TR1 wrote:There actually are Bradley recovery vehicles, the Linebacker AD vehicle (just a stinger box strapped on to the turret lol), and other variants, but your point is taken.

But really what it comes down to is, if the Kurganets is a Bradley copy, the Bradley is a BMP copy.

I simply can't wait until Russia has a whole brigade composed entirely or nearly entirely out of Bradley-Kurganets vehicles

Including maybe 3 or so companies of equipped with those teletank-robot vehicles, for recon purposes - no need for a manned Kurganets-based replacement for the BRDM-2, remote-controlled vehicles for the purpose will do fine.

What this guy is doing is for all practical purposes... Denying Russian innovation (because it *doesn't exist* here in the West) and parading it as a copy of what was made years ago. Kinda like how US sites have been comparing the all new Armata design to the 40 year old Abrams, they are in a whole different (superior) league. 

The Bradley is junk either way, and there's a reason the Army wants it gone so fast. They've been trying for over a decade now with no solution in site. In fact, they are going to remove the very successful M113 chassis and replace it with the far inferior Bradley one under the guise of age... The Bradley is 40 years old... 

Can't wait as well. This is the future Russian force I've been wanting to see for years. 

Mike E wrote:
What this guy is doing is for all practical purposes... Denying Russian innovation (because it *doesn't exist* here in the West) and parading it as a copy of what was made years ago. Kinda like how US sites have been comparing the all new Armata design to the 40 year old Abrams, they are in a whole different (superior) league. 

The Bradley is junk either way, and there's a reason the Army wants it gone so fast. They've been trying for over a decade now with no solution in site. In fact, they are going to remove the very successful M113 chassis and replace it with the far inferior Bradley one under the guise of age... The Bradley is 40 years old... 

Can't wait as well. This is the future Russian force I've been wanting to see for years. 

Aren't they brilliant though? I mean what I really love about the West is that they believe their own rhetoric when it comes to innovation. In the long run this hampers their military development no end.

Another demonstration of the West being its own worst enemy, and I think the sweetest part is that they don't even know it.

I find it completley hilarious when some US/NATO fanboys say, russia should adopt western standards for tanks...like any western country has made any standards on tanks it were constantly russians that invented tank technologies, even the entire IVF is russian concept.

OminousSpudd wrote:

Mike E wrote:
What this guy is doing is for all practical purposes... Denying Russian innovation (because it *doesn't exist* here in the West) and parading it as a copy of what was made years ago. Kinda like how US sites have been comparing the all new Armata design to the 40 year old Abrams, they are in a whole different (superior) league. 

The Bradley is junk either way, and there's a reason the Army wants it gone so fast. They've been trying for over a decade now with no solution in site. In fact, they are going to remove the very successful M113 chassis and replace it with the far inferior Bradley one under the guise of age... The Bradley is 40 years old... 

Can't wait as well. This is the future Russian force I've been wanting to see for years. 

Aren't they brilliant though? I mean what I really love about the West is that they believe their own rhetoric when it comes to innovation. In the long run this hampers their military development no end.

Another demonstration of the West being its own worst enemy, and I think the sweetest part is that they don't even know it.

This is a classic case of an across-the-board unified mindset causing a systemic failure due to the inability of the policy makers to perceive how reality is contradicting their cherished (and self-serving) beliefs. Russia-haters in the US Ruling Elite simply cannot accept that Russians are as clever and creative as they are, and these retrogrades insist in burying their heads in the dirt and dismissing Russian technology advancements as simple "copying".

This willful ignorance should be considered to be a blessing. Let the Amerikan Regime underestimate Russian capabilities and war-fighting prowess. If push ever comes to shove, they will be in for a NASTY surprise....

There actually are Bradley recovery vehicles, the Linebacker AD vehicle (just a stinger box strapped on to the turret lol), and other variants, but your point is taken.

And how many different vehicles are based on the original BMP design that predates the Bradley?

Can't wait until the west catches up with all of the Soviet and Russian innovations in armoured warfare so they can be given the respect they deserve... smoothbore main tank guns, IFVs, autoloaders for tanks...

Kurganets-25 next to BMD-4M.

Nvm, couldn't see the whole photo.  Thanks for the photo, can't wait to see these babies when they're finally unveiled.