Home
Latest images
Register
Log inThe much smaller number of Boomerangs does suggest development has lagged compared to the tracked vehicles, as reports had suggested.
+65
PapaDragon
Stealthflanker
Vann7
Strizh
Khepesh
Bolt
k@llashniKoff
cheesfactory
alexZam
AbsoluteZero
EKS
Acheron
KoTeMoRe
smerch24
xeno
Rmf
victor1985
2SPOOKY4U
Brovich
cracker
mack8
Cpt Caz
OminousSpudd
Dima
ult
akd
chicken
Big_Gazza
GarryB
mutantsushi
fragmachine
RTN
NickM
Mike E
sweetflowers365
calripson
Asf
Vympel
AZZKIKR
runaway
magnumcromagnon
etaepsilonk
Morpheus Eberhardt
NationalRus
As Sa'iqa
Sujoy
Department Of Defense
Regular
gaurav
AJ-47
AlfaT8
Viktor
Werewolf
collegeboy16
Russian Patriot
flamming_python
Cyberspec
Austin
Mindstorm
KomissarBojanchev
medo
Zivo
George1
TR1
TheArmenian
69 posters
Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-07
2SPOOKY4U- Posts : 276
Points : 287
Join date : 2014-09-21
[img]
[/img]
That is one sharp v-hull.
And good to see some large durable-looking wheels on it as well. It won't suffer like the Stryker.
[/img]That is one sharp v-hull.
And good to see some large durable-looking wheels on it as well. It won't suffer like the Stryker.
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
Camera, yellow arrow, notch outlined in red. It's an odd design choice.
cracker- Posts : 232
Points : 273
Join date : 2014-09-04
how's the tire building industry of russia? And to what these tires are vulnerable (all tires like on BTR or boomerang or stiker), like can they be fucked up by small arms, are they full, alveoled, or air pressured, in that case, there is an automatic "air pressure" control in case of holes?
Werewolf- Posts : 5931
Points : 6120
Join date : 2012-10-25
cracker wrote:how's the tire building industry of russia? And to what these tires are vulnerable (all tires like on BTR or boomerang or stiker), like can they be fucked up by small arms, are they full, alveoled, or air pressured, in that case, there is an automatic "air pressure" control in case of holes?
They work even if you drive on small mines, the tire is shreded to pieces but inside there are few metal rings giving basic "wheel" like attributes so it could drive on them, unless they have changed that design and just made normal tires, but i doubt that for heavy vehicles.
smerch24- Posts : 7
Points : 12
Join date : 2014-10-24
Location : london
cracker wrote:how's the tire building industry of russia? And to what these tires are vulnerable (all tires like on BTR or boomerang or stiker), like can they be fucked up by small arms, are they full, alveoled, or air pressured, in that case, there is an automatic "air pressure" control in case of holes?
I believe even the BTR-152 had automatic tire pressure regulator and the ability to still run after being punctured
mack8- Posts : 1039
Points : 1093
Join date : 2013-08-03
Does anyone know the original source?
Is the front of the hull like that by design, or there is actually some other section not installed yet that goes over and covers the wheel mechanism from the front etc.?
Is the front of the hull like that by design, or there is actually some other section not installed yet that goes over and covers the wheel mechanism from the front etc.?
cracker- Posts : 232
Points : 273
Join date : 2014-09-04
I bet this thing is much more expensive and complex than kurganets. Is it really needed? BTR-82 are good.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-07
cracker wrote:I bet this thing is much more expensive and complex than kurganets. Is it really needed? BTR-82 are good.
Not for the crews inside those BTR-82s when they get blown up or hit with anything serious.
Everyone uses wheeled armored vehicles for a reason, the inherent mobility and deployment advantage.
Plus, much cheaper to run.
KoTeMoRe- Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-22
Location : Krankhaus Central.
It looks a LOT like Nexter's VBCI. I know Form follows Function etc, but still.
cracker- Posts : 232
Points : 273
Join date : 2014-09-04
bigger and probably better in every aspect. Russia was definitely impressed by the VBCI.
I hope boomerang uses simpler and cheaper solutions for drive train, and also, the VBCI has lame armament for a modern vehicle.
I hope boomerang uses simpler and cheaper solutions for drive train, and also, the VBCI has lame armament for a modern vehicle.
KoTeMoRe- Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-22
Location : Krankhaus Central.
cracker wrote:bigger and probably better in every aspect. Russia was definitely impressed by the VBCI.
I hope boomerang uses simpler and cheaper solutions for drive train, and also, the VBCI has lame armament for a modern vehicle.
VBCI will get Jaguar update with 40mm chaingun+ATGM probably a Spike variation since the MMP isn't yet issue free.
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
KoTeMoRe wrote:cracker wrote:bigger and probably better in every aspect. Russia was definitely impressed by the VBCI.
I hope boomerang uses simpler and cheaper solutions for drive train, and also, the VBCI has lame armament for a modern vehicle.
VBCI will get Jaguar update with 40mm chaingun+ATGM probably a Spike variation since the MMP isn't yet issue free.
It looks well armed.
GarryB- Posts : 40560
Points : 41062
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
like in the BMP-3, we will need to have a bigger hole than the one in the BMP-3, that’s will weaken the turret and that’s no good.
Weaken the turret for what?
there are no crew in the turret...
RWS on the turret is a must and 23mm gun with coaxial 7.62mm MG will be the best option. The RWS will be operated by gunner no’-2. This way we’ll keep the gunners doing there jobs and the commander doing his job.
there are only three crew... gunner, commander, and driver... the gunner will be engaging the target the commander tells him to engage... the commander will be looking for new targets and new threats and the driver will be driving where the commander tells him to... the commander has no time to be using weapons to shoot at targets... that is the gunners job... the commander is looking for covered places to fire from behind to direct the driver to drive from cover to cover and at the same time is looking out for new targets and new threats.... a new threat might lead to the commander to order the driver to drive to a new position with better concealment and cover from enemy fire, and he might command the gunner to hold fire on the target he was engaging and to attack the new target, but if he does then he wont be attacking new targets himself he will be monitoring for new threats.
Enemy infantry spotted 4km away the commander might order a burst of 57mm HE shells... as the gunner is lining up the target an Abrams might drive into view... ie the gunner is engaging a valid target but a threat has appeared that is a much higher priority so the commander might order a hold fire... opening fire will get the attention of the Abrams if it hasn't already seen you... turning the turret himself the commander will order the gunner to engage the new threat first and order the driver to move to a place where only the armatas turret is showing for the abrams to aim at.
With that example... having a commander operated 23mm cannon might allow the commander to engage the troops... but while he might monitor what they are doing he will hardly waste time firing at the troops when there is an enemy tank nearby...
We have to remember that for fighting in urban areas we need to have a lot of firepower and good protection. To increase the firepower, we can put 2 RWS at the back, and on both side of the FSV hall, and every RWS will be equipped with 23mm and 7.62mm guns.
A RWS is of little use if there is no one to control it.
I see no reason for HMG as we have the 23mm gun; there is no need for anther type of ammo. I like the 40mm, but until one 40 mm round will hit the target; the 23 mm gun will put there 100 rounds.
So I will stick to the 23mm gun and coaxial 7.62mm MG as the weapons for the RWS.
The advantage of the 40mm is low recoil and very small compact weapon. A 7.62mm MG would carry rather more ammo than a 50 cal or 23mm, which would be useful, but effect on target on a modern battlefield is starting to be fairly limited...
The TOS 1A as 6 km range. It has 2 support vehicles to help it with reloading.
Will likely withdraw to a rear area to reload... even with a 6km range... it is an engineer vehicle.
It doesn't even have a machinegun.
how's the tire building industry of russia? And to what these tires are vulnerable (all tires like on BTR or boomerang or stiker), like can they be fucked up by small arms, are they full, alveoled, or air pressured, in that case, there is an automatic "air pressure" control in case of holes?
Likely run flat tires.
Unlike tracks one mine wont immobilise the vehicle.
Camera, yellow arrow, notch outlined in red. It's an odd design choice.
the area removed from the armour (ie in red) likely wont matter... impacts in that area wont hit crew areas and might not even hit an important part of the engine... in fact hits there would likely hit the frontal armour side on which is not an efficient way to penetrate armour plate.
ult- Posts : 837
Points : 877
Join date : 2015-02-21
ult- Posts : 837
Points : 877
Join date : 2015-02-21
flamming_python
flamming_python- Posts : 9560
Points : 9618
Join date : 2012-01-31
- Post n°767
Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1
flamming_python Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:24 pm
The Bumerang really is taken straight from Western designs, isn't it (unless we trace it all the way back to the BTR-60 which defined the shape in the first place)
Apart from maybe the amphibious capability; which not everyone else can boast.
To some extent the Kurganets-25 is too; although there is more obviously Russian heritage with that one.
Apart from maybe the amphibious capability; which not everyone else can boast.
To some extent the Kurganets-25 is too; although there is more obviously Russian heritage with that one.
2SPOOKY4U- Posts : 276
Points : 287
Join date : 2014-09-21
flamming_python wrote:The Bumerang really is taken straight from Western designs, isn't it (unless we trace it all the way back to the BTR-60 which defined the shape in the first place)
Apart from maybe the amphibious capability; which not everyone else can boast.
To some extent the Kurganets-25 is too; although there is more obviously Russian heritage with that one.
Taken from Western designs how?
It has wheels? A driver? Armor? A turret? An Engine?
In your opinion it has to have all sorts of radical new things, should they have gone with anti-gravity?
xeno- Posts : 270
Points : 273
Join date : 2013-02-04
ult wrote:
sharp like a blade.
Very unique and creative design, I love it...
flamming_python- Posts : 9560
Points : 9618
Join date : 2012-01-31
- Post n°770
Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1
flamming_python Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:44 pm
2SPOOKY4U wrote:flamming_python wrote:The Bumerang really is taken straight from Western designs, isn't it (unless we trace it all the way back to the BTR-60 which defined the shape in the first place)
Apart from maybe the amphibious capability; which not everyone else can boast.
To some extent the Kurganets-25 is too; although there is more obviously Russian heritage with that one.
Taken from Western designs how?
It has wheels? A driver? Armor? A turret? An Engine?
In your opinion it has to have all sorts of radical new things, should they have gone with anti-gravity?
It bears more than a resemblance to the Patria, Terrex, Piranha and VBCI.
More so than to the BTR-80 or BTR-90 at any rate.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-07
flamming_python wrote:2SPOOKY4U wrote:flamming_python wrote:The Bumerang really is taken straight from Western designs, isn't it (unless we trace it all the way back to the BTR-60 which defined the shape in the first place)
Apart from maybe the amphibious capability; which not everyone else can boast.
To some extent the Kurganets-25 is too; although there is more obviously Russian heritage with that one.
Taken from Western designs how?
It has wheels? A driver? Armor? A turret? An Engine?
In your opinion it has to have all sorts of radical new things, should they have gone with anti-gravity?
It bears more than a resemblance to the Patria, Terrex, Piranha and VBCI.
More so than to the BTR-80 or BTR-90 at any rate.
Automotive cutting edge knows no national boundaries.
Cpt Caz- Posts : 86
Points : 95
Join date : 2013-09-08
flamming_python wrote:The Bumerang really is taken straight from Western designs, isn't it (unless we trace it all the way back to the BTR-60 which defined the shape in the first place)
Apart from maybe the amphibious capability; which not everyone else can boast.
To some extent the Kurganets-25 is too; although there is more obviously Russian heritage with that one.
Eh, it's a similar situation to the Space Shuttle and the Buran. When different things are designed with a very similar goal in mind, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the end products are, well... similar.
I see where you're coming from though. The BTR is iconic, and the 82A especially looks cool as hell with that 30mm gun. Still, I like the look of the Boomerang, familiar as it may be in some ways.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
- Post n°773
Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1
magnumcromagnon Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:05 am
Cpt Caz wrote:flamming_python wrote:The Bumerang really is taken straight from Western designs, isn't it (unless we trace it all the way back to the BTR-60 which defined the shape in the first place)
Apart from maybe the amphibious capability; which not everyone else can boast.
To some extent the Kurganets-25 is too; although there is more obviously Russian heritage with that one.
Eh, it's a similar situation to the Space Shuttle and the Buran. When different things are designed with a very similar goal in mind, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the end products are, well... similar.
I see where you're coming from though. The BTR is iconic, and the 82A especially looks cool as hell with that 30mm gun. Still, I like the look of the Boomerang, familiar as it may be in some ways.
Good point, the most successful weapon system in human history is the legendary 'bow & arrow' which was developed by countless civilizations independent of each other.
AJ-47- Posts : 205
Points : 222
Join date : 2011-10-05
Location : USA
GarryB wrote:
A big hole will make the turret less strong against kinetic rounds.Weaken the turret for what?
there are no crew in the turret.
Enemy infantry spotted 4km away the commander might order a burst of 57mm HE shells... as the gunner is lining up the target an Abrams might drive into view... ie the gunner is engaging a valid target but a threat has appeared that is a much higher priority so the commander might order a hold fire... opening fire will get the attention of the Abrams if it hasn't already seen you... turning the turret himself the commander will order the gunner to engage the new threat first and order the driver to move to a place where only the armatas turret is showing for the abrams to aim at.
With that example... having a commander operated 23mm cannon might allow the commander to engage the troops... but while he might monitor what they are doing he will hardly waste time firing at the troops when there is an enemy tank nearby.
We are talking about the FSV that so far we didn’t see.The old BMPT with crew of 5 get close to that.
The FSV, will use the same chassis as the APC, and will have 2 extra gunners to operate the 2 RWS at the end of the vehicle. The 2 gunners will seat behind the 3 crew members and behind them we will have the turret with the 57 mm gun.
In this arrangement the gunners will do there job, and the commander will do his as you mention.
Don’t forget, the FSVs don’t carry dismount soldiers, that’s the APCs job.
BTW in my view the Army should be organized by the concept of High/Low mixed forces. In this concept, the Infantry will have the APCs as the Low and the FSVs as the High, in the tank group the FSV will be the Low and the tank will be the High.
The advantage of the 40mm is low recoil and very small compact weapon. A 7.62mm MG would carry rather more ammo than a 50 cal or 23mm, which would be useful, but effect on target on a modern battlefield is starting to be fairly limited.
The main job of the RWS is to fight against soldiers armed with MGs and RPGs for that the 7.62mm gun and the 23mm gun will be perfect.
After they fire there rockets there will be no enemy to fight with.Will likely withdraw to a rear area to reload... even with a 6km range... it is an engineer vehicle. It doesn't even have a machinegun.
AJ-47- Posts : 205
Points : 222
Join date : 2011-10-05
Location : USA
KoTeMoRe wrote:cracker wrote:
VBCI will get Jaguar update with 40mm chaingun+ATGM probably a Spike variation since the MMP isn't yet issue free.
Yoy right about the ATGM, but the 40mm is not a chaine gun. It has telescopic ammo.