Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

Flanky wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Flanky wrote:Well Russians have Sprut that is true however it is a tracked platform. It is ideal in regular conflicts but in Guerilla wars like those in Chechniya you need speed and responsiveness more than crosscountry capability.
I mean mobility is important that said wheeled platform is cheaper for maintenance and much faster. Regarding the MGS it is used as supporting platform for ground operations against insurgency and guerillas...
Russians would be good to have an equivalent of this... Sprut could be used but its caterpilars are not good for the roads, it consumes too much of fuel, maintenance is much harder and so on....

Flanky, just because the U.S. Ground Forces possess such a vehicle, does not mean the Russian Ground Forces suddenly need one.

Such thought is consistent with shills that instantly think the Russian Forces now requires something similar to what the U.S. fields in it's inventories.

If you believe that the Russian Armed Forces require something of the likes of the Stryker MGS, then I suggest you go here: http://www.f-16.net/

There you find all sorts of like-minded peers.

Again, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.

As you have probably found out by now... Putin needs such a vehicle even more than Americans... Im also a fan of not pursuing each and every research and development americans do... but as i said earlier "Stryker" in the ranks of Russian army would be a very good addition. Essentially a wheeled Sprut. This type of vehicle is ideal in guerilla wars, town / village sieges and so on... If Russians today would still fight the great Chechen war and would had this vehicle in their posession it would ake a big differrence. Tanks are slow and bulky, fighting a guerilla infantry needs speed and agility... That is why the Americans have stryker, Italians have Centauro, Japanese have gun on wheels, France as well as many other nations. Caterpilars on Sprut-SD are great for cross country mobility but they are slow, harder to repair and maintain and thus more costly. On the other hand Sprut-K having the cannon too huge would mean vehicle instability during fire. 125mm kicks a lot of recoil punch, so they would have to stabilize it somehow.

 

One more time, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.

Flanky, I would advise you to research U.S. Army vehicles and their armaments, and to look at which vehicle with the exception of the Stryker MGS, possesses a 120mm cannon.

Take note of this vehicle's ability to carry infantry, or lack of ability.

Afterwards, take a gander at the inventory of the Soviet/Russian Army vehicles.

There you will find a vehicle with a 100mm cannon, high mobility, and perfectly filling the Stryker's intended purpose .

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:At the parade, I didn't see any Bumerang BTRs, presumably shown in the following image.

Morpheus, did you take any pics during the parade that has not been published by various media outlets already?

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Flanky wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Flanky wrote:Well Russians have Sprut that is true however it is a tracked platform. It is ideal in regular conflicts but in Guerilla wars like those in Chechniya you need speed and responsiveness more than crosscountry capability.
I mean mobility is important that said wheeled platform is cheaper for maintenance and much faster. Regarding the MGS it is used as supporting platform for ground operations against insurgency and guerillas...
Russians would be good to have an equivalent of this... Sprut could be used but its caterpilars are not good for the roads, it consumes too much of fuel, maintenance is much harder and so on....

Flanky, just because the U.S. Ground Forces possess such a vehicle, does not mean the Russian Ground Forces suddenly need one.

Such thought is consistent with shills that instantly think the Russian Forces now requires something similar to what the U.S. fields in it's inventories.

If you believe that the Russian Armed Forces require something of the likes of the Stryker MGS, then I suggest you go here: http://www.f-16.net/

There you find all sorts of like-minded peers.

Again, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.

As you have probably found out by now... Putin needs such a vehicle even more than Americans... Im also a fan of not pursuing each and every research and development americans do... but as i said earlier "Stryker" in the ranks of Russian army would be a very good addition. Essentially a wheeled Sprut. This type of vehicle is ideal in guerilla wars, town / village sieges and so on... If Russians today would still fight the great Chechen war and would had this vehicle in their posession it would ake a big differrence. Tanks are slow and bulky, fighting a guerilla infantry needs speed and agility... That is why the Americans have stryker, Italians have Centauro, Japanese have gun on wheels, France as well as many other nations. Caterpilars on Sprut-SD are great for cross country mobility but they are slow, harder to repair and maintain and thus more costly. On the other hand Sprut-K having the cannon too huge would mean vehicle instability during fire. 125mm kicks a lot of recoil punch, so they would have to stabilize it somehow.

 

One more time, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.

Flanky, I would advise you to research U.S. Army vehicles and their armaments, and to look at which vehicle with the exception of the Stryker MGS, possesses a 120mm cannon.

Take note of this vehicle's ability to carry infantry, or lack of ability.

Afterwards, take a gander at the inventory of the Soviet/Russian Army vehicles.

There you will find a vehicle with a 100mm cannon, high mobility, and perfectly filling the Stryker's intended purpose .

Please re-read my posts again and then lets have a discussion... because caterpilar BMP3 is not going to provide you with a speed of 100kph and more which is required for a quick reaction. Additionally the Stryker being a wheeled vehicle is having better fuel economy and also maintenance of a wheeled platform is easier than that of a caterpilar one. Russia during Soviet times loved the caterpilars because of their crosscountry capability but times has changed since then and today speed and mobility are the focus of modern armies. Being able to react quickly in small local conflicts is the key and BMP3 is not ideal for this. Yanks knew perfectly well why have they put the gun on a wheeled platform - the idea was good, however Stryker as a platform is having difficulties connected with its poor design.

Flanky wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Flanky wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Flanky wrote:Well Russians have Sprut that is true however it is a tracked platform. It is ideal in regular conflicts but in Guerilla wars like those in Chechniya you need speed and responsiveness more than crosscountry capability.
I mean mobility is important that said wheeled platform is cheaper for maintenance and much faster. Regarding the MGS it is used as supporting platform for ground operations against insurgency and guerillas...
Russians would be good to have an equivalent of this... Sprut could be used but its caterpilars are not good for the roads, it consumes too much of fuel, maintenance is much harder and so on....

Flanky, just because the U.S. Ground Forces possess such a vehicle, does not mean the Russian Ground Forces suddenly need one.

Such thought is consistent with shills that instantly think the Russian Forces now requires something similar to what the U.S. fields in it's inventories.

If you believe that the Russian Armed Forces require something of the likes of the Stryker MGS, then I suggest you go here: http://www.f-16.net/

There you find all sorts of like-minded peers.

Again, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.

As you have probably found out by now... Putin needs such a vehicle even more than Americans... Im also a fan of not pursuing each and every research and development americans do... but as i said earlier "Stryker" in the ranks of Russian army would be a very good addition. Essentially a wheeled Sprut. This type of vehicle is ideal in guerilla wars, town / village sieges and so on... If Russians today would still fight the great Chechen war and would had this vehicle in their posession it would ake a big differrence. Tanks are slow and bulky, fighting a guerilla infantry needs speed and agility... That is why the Americans have stryker, Italians have Centauro, Japanese have gun on wheels, France as well as many other nations. Caterpilars on Sprut-SD are great for cross country mobility but they are slow, harder to repair and maintain and thus more costly. On the other hand Sprut-K having the cannon too huge would mean vehicle instability during fire. 125mm kicks a lot of recoil punch, so they would have to stabilize it somehow.

 

One more time, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.

Flanky, I would advise you to research U.S. Army vehicles and their armaments, and to look at which vehicle with the exception of the Stryker MGS, possesses a 120mm cannon.

Take note of this vehicle's ability to carry infantry, or lack of ability.

Afterwards, take a gander at the inventory of the Soviet/Russian Army vehicles.

There you will find a vehicle with a 100mm cannon, high mobility, and perfectly filling the Stryker's intended purpose .

Please re-read my posts again and then lets have a discussion... because caterpilar BMP3 is not going to provide you with a speed of 100kph and more which is required for a quick reaction. Additionally the Stryker being a wheeled vehicle is having better fuel economy and also maintenance of a wheeled platform is easier than that of a caterpilar one. Russia during Soviet times loved the caterpilars because of their crosscountry capability but times has changed since then and today speed and mobility are the focus of modern armies. Being able to react quickly in small local conflicts is the key and BMP3 is not ideal for this. Yanks knew perfectly well why have they put the gun on a wheeled platform - the idea was good, however Stryker as a platform is having difficulties connected with its poor design.

Quick reaction to what?

BMP-3 provides an exemplary tactical and strategic mobility.

Strykers are not going anywhere near 100kph anyway, not even close. They have tipped over from lesser speeds.

And indeed, speed and mobility are the focus of modern armies.

What you do not realize is that in this aspect, Russia has a lead over everyone.

The VDV is absolutely unparalleled.

Imagine hundreds of Chechen rebels are spotted by UAV crossing Pankisi valey to Russia... you think BMP3 would be suitable for going to the hills - or a VDV battaliong making paradrop in mountains (with BMDs or Spruts)? This is what i am pointing out... gun mounted on a wheeled platform as a tool combating in an asymetric warfare. Stryker or a wheeled platform in theory could go over 100 kph without problems - something that tracked platform would never sustain. It will quickly get into the region by road and then fight the rebels by supporting local infantry antiterror op. Placing itself against slope full of rebels tearing them apart by HE-FRAG rounds from the gun well outside of common AT weapons reach like rpg-7. And this scenario is not so unlikely taking into account how many of those bastards are fighting in Syria - what would happen when Syrian war is over - they would want to return to Russia with all those weapons.... Again i reiterate there is a GOOD reason why yanks have put the gun on a wheeled platform like stryker and not on a tracker platform like Bradley.

Flanky wrote:Imagine hundreds of Chechen rebels are spotted by UAV crossing Pankisi valey to Russia... you think BMP3 would be suitable for going to the hills - or a VDV battaliong making paradrop in mountains (with BMDs or Spruts)? This is what i am pointing out... gun mounted on a wheeled platform as a tool combating in an asymetric warfare. Stryker or a wheeled platform in theory could go over 100 kph without problems - something that tracked platform would never sustain. It will quickly get into the region by road and then fight the rebels by supporting local infantry antiterror op. Placing itself against slope full of rebels tearing them apart by HE-FRAG rounds from the gun well outside of common AT weapons reach like rpg-7. And this scenario is not so unlikely taking into account how many of those bastards are fighting in Syria - what would happen when Syrian war is over - they would want to return to Russia with all those weapons.... Again i reiterate there is a GOOD reason why yanks have put the gun on a wheeled platform like stryker and not on a tracker platform like Bradley.

If hundreds of Chechen rebels are spotted by UAV, then they can be targeted by things like arty, helos, bombers,tactical and theatre ballistic missiles, etc.

BMP3 and other tracked platforms are usually better for firing of angled platforms btw.

Strykers have never gone over 80kph.

I could just paradrop a VDV battalion in wait for these rebels. A full VDV paradrop that travels by plane and then drops and drives to the target area will always be faster than wheeled platforms.

The reason why the Yanks got the MGS is because they had no BMP-3 to provide cover for troops. Bradley was also pathetic.

The reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:At the parade, I didn't see any Bumerang BTRs, presumably shown in the following image.

Morpheus, did you take any pics during the parade that has not been published by various media outlets already?

Jhelb,

No, I wasn't there.

By "at the parade" I was just referring to the pictures and video reports from the parade.

https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/said-aminov/album/466834/view/2276194

Is this sucker big or what? Wow!

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:At the parade, I didn't see any Bumerang BTRs, presumably shown in the following image.

Morpheus, did you take any pics during the parade that has not been published by various media outlets already?

Jhelb,

No, I wasn't there.

By "at the parade" I was just referring to the pictures and video reports from the parade.

They were the very last vehicle to be paraded...only 4 or so models.

franco wrote:https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/said-aminov/album/466834/view/2276194

Is this sucker big or what? Wow!

When you see it like that... yeah, pretty freakin' big. I guess no one will be riding on top of that, unless they're prepared to rappel down.

Good footage showing Kurganets-25 chassis being made at a Kurganmash factory, at '2:24' you see what a completely stripped down Kurganets-25 chassis looks like...someone do us a favor and post a screen capture of it.

Flanky wrote:Imagine hundreds of Chechen rebels are spotted by UAV crossing Pankisi valey to Russia... you think BMP3 would be suitable for going to the hills - or a VDV battaliong making paradrop in mountains (with BMDs or Spruts)? This is what i am pointing out... gun mounted on a wheeled platform as a tool combating in an asymetric warfare. Stryker or a wheeled platform in theory could go over 100 kph without problems - something that tracked platform would never sustain. It will quickly get into the region by road and then fight the rebels by supporting local infantry antiterror op. Placing itself against slope full of rebels tearing them apart by HE-FRAG rounds from the gun well outside of common AT weapons reach like rpg-7. And this scenario is not so unlikely taking into account how many of those bastards are fighting in Syria - what would happen when Syrian war is over - they would want to return to Russia with all those weapons.... Again i reiterate there is a GOOD reason why yanks have put the gun on a wheeled platform like stryker and not on a tracker platform like Bradley.

Stryker AGS are for what I know produced at a very slow rate, never reached full scale production, i think less than 150 for all US Army.
Maybe Centauro or even earlier AMX-10 would be more fitting examples, not only because they act as real light tanks and not as just an assault gun but also because they would operate tigether with their own wheeled IFV version
Also a motorized btg equipped with BTR-82 and some Vena would deliver more firepower than a similar Stryker based unit.

Mike E wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:At the parade, I didn't see any Bumerang BTRs, presumably shown in the following image.

Morpheus, did you take any pics during the parade that has not been published by various media outlets already?

Jhelb,

No, I wasn't there.

By "at the parade" I was just referring to the pictures and video reports from the parade.

They were the very last vehicle to be paraded...only 4 or so models.

Are there any images of them?

I'm on mobile right now so there isn't much I can post, but this is one image I managed to find. If you re-watch the latter part of the parade you will see the Bumerang finishing off the land vehicle segment.

Mike E wrote:I'm on mobile right now so there isn't much I can post, but this is one image I managed to find. If you re-watch the latter part of the parade you will see the Bumerang finishing off the land vehicle segment.

Thank you Mike.

The image you posted shows the Bumerang BMP. The Bumerang BTR has the small turret of the Kurganets-25 BMP. The picture I posted is from the practice at Alabino with the canvas covering the turret.

One other role of the BTR versions of Kurganets-25 and Bumerang, apart from those I listed in an older post, would probably be that of the control vehicles for the robotic assets.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
If hundreds of Chechen rebels are spotted by UAV, then they can be targeted by things like arty, helos, bombers,tactical and theatre ballistic missiles, etc.

BMP3 and other tracked platforms are usually better for firing of angled platforms btw.

Strykers have never gone over 80kph.

I could just paradrop a VDV battalion in wait for these rebels. A full VDV paradrop that travels by plane and then drops and drives to the target area will always be faster than wheeled platforms.

The reason why the Yanks got the MGS is because they had no BMP-3 to provide cover for troops. Bradley was also pathetic.

The reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.

Well each fight is about what tools are available to you as a commanding officer.
Arty might need a FO to guide the bombardment. UAV can provide but how fast are you able to place your artillery units on a designated place to be within range?

BMP3 and other tracked platforms are usually better for firing of angled platforms btw.

Is this your opinion or is there a science behind it - if there is science care to explain?
Because usualy tracked platforms are heavier than their wheeled counterparts and thus slopes are much of a problem to them than to their wheeled colleagues because the heavier the mass the bigger gravitational force that is resisting the vehicle to go up  the slope.

I could just paradrop a VDV battalion in wait for these rebels. A full VDV paradrop that travels by plane and then drops and drives to the target area will always be faster than wheeled platforms.

You want to paradrop a vehicle in the mountains? Vehicle paradrop is very risky in any terrain other than plain or big valley... In mountains huge winds can cause the vehicle to be veered of from the expected drop site miles and miles away and not just that but it might also land on a slop in which case it might release itself from the paradropping platform and fall of the cliff and other nasty things... Have you seen a vehicle being paradroped in mountains? And let me also tell you that preparing a VDV regiment for a paradrop is not so easy nor is it that fast as you might think. Planes have to be ready, stationed at nearby airfield and paratroop units have to have their equipment ready. Another thing is in order to minimize causalties on your side you have to wipe out enemy as fast as possible and for that you need heavier weapons. Infantry might not be enough and Su-25 and airforce in general is not good in slim an tight mountain valleys... the standard issue Su-25 does not have equioment to fight in bad weather and couple of them even crashed because of weather / low visibility in mountains... No matter how i look at it Gun on wheels is gun on wheels and it has its own unique place... or do you think they would have been researching something they don't need... especially after the T-95 fiasco?

When you see it like that... yeah, pretty freakin' big. I guess no one will be riding on top of that, unless they're prepared to rappel down.

Finally! It might have been a bit uncomfortable to ride BTR-80 inside but a lot more safer... Troops have been riding BTRs on the top and then when ambush came none survived....

Flanky wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
If hundreds of Chechen rebels are spotted by UAV, then they can be targeted by things like arty, helos, bombers,tactical and theatre ballistic missiles, etc.

BMP3 and other tracked platforms are usually better for firing of angled platforms btw.

Strykers have never gone over 80kph.

I could just paradrop a VDV battalion in wait for these rebels. A full VDV paradrop that travels by plane and then drops and drives to the target area will always be faster than wheeled platforms.

The reason why the Yanks got the MGS is because they had no BMP-3 to provide cover for troops. Bradley was also pathetic.

The reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.

Well each fight is about what tools are available to you as a commanding officer.
Arty might need a FO to guide the bombardment. UAV can provide but how fast are you able to place your artillery units on a designated place to be within range?

BMP3 and other tracked platforms are usually better for firing of angled platforms btw.

Is this your opinion or is there a science behind it - if there is science care to explain?
Because usualy tracked platforms are heavier than their wheeled counterparts and thus slopes are much of a problem to them than to their wheeled colleagues because the heavier the mass the bigger gravitational force that is resisting the vehicle to go up  the slope.

I could just paradrop a VDV battalion in wait for these rebels. A full VDV paradrop that travels by plane and then drops and drives to the target area will always be faster than wheeled platforms.

You want to paradrop a vehicle in the mountains? Vehicle paradrop is very risky in any terrain other than plain or big valley... In mountains huge winds can cause the vehicle to be veered of from the expected drop site miles and miles away and not just that but it might also land on a slop in which case it might release itself from the paradropping platform and fall of the cliff and other nasty things... Have you seen a vehicle being paradroped in mountains? And let me also tell you that preparing a VDV regiment for a paradrop is not so easy nor is it that fast as you might think. Planes have to be ready, stationed at nearby airfield and paratroop units have to have their equipment ready. Another thing is in order to minimize causalties on your side you have to wipe out enemy as fast as possible and for that you need heavier weapons. Infantry might not be enough and Su-25 and airforce in general is not good in slim an tight mountain valleys... the standard issue Su-25 does not have equioment to fight in bad weather and couple of them even crashed because of weather / low visibility in mountains... No matter how i look at it Gun on wheels is gun on wheels and it has its own unique place... or do you think they would have been researching something they don't need... especially after the T-95 fiasco?

When you see it like that... yeah, pretty freakin' big. I guess no one will be riding on top of that, unless they're prepared to rappel down.

Finally! It might have been a bit uncomfortable to ride BTR-80 inside but a lot more safer... Troops have been riding BTRs on the top and then when ambush came none survived....

The last time Russian troops have been piggybacking BTR's/BMP's and gotten in an ambush, beaten that ambush off and killed half the ambush party...Better yet, Ukrops driving in BTR4-K have been found BBQed in late August.

It's just a matter of circumstance and tactical situation

Yea but it beats the entire logic of using armoured troop carriers when troops are being carried on the top unprotected?

Flanky wrote:Yea but it beats the entire logic of using armoured troop carriers when troops are being carried on the top unprotected?

Once again you have to decide what you are arguing about.

The initial BTR's were just dedicated guntrucks. Then the current armored car tendency since the 60P makes them only so much more safe (HMG's could already punch through them then, making them good tincases for dead motorized infantry. Over the time the protection has only evolved so far as to have the guys inside die from suffocation.

The number one protection on most current system (bar IED/AT mines) is first and foremost their SA (situational awareness). PAssive protection is doctrinally secondary. It is a case of see first/fire first/kill first.

The idea behind the protection upping up comes from totally different experience and that is low intensity warfare the Western Powers have been committed to since more than a decade. This is coincides with many a lesson the SADF has learned the hard way in un-hospitable places during its own run in with "irregulars".

However, all this becomes useless when you face an enemy whose assets consist on heavy area saturation artillery and who can interdict whole lines of transit on a pinch.

IE real war. Once your 30 ton behemoth gets "saturated" you better have a different plan than stay put in your well armoured truck that would have some quality time with OPFOR infantry and its ATGM's.

That's something I still don't understand with the new Russian lineup. It is "better", but is it more suitable to their needs in the long run?

Cyberspec wrote:

...Hmmmm, looks like not too many people seem interested in discussing what a stripped down Kurganets-25 chassis looks like.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

The last time Russian troops have been piggybacking BTR's/BMP's and gotten in an ambush, beaten that ambush off and killed half the ambush party...Better yet, Ukrops driving in BTR4-K have been found BBQed in late August.

It's just a matter of circumstance and tactical situation

Yes, You are right.
There were few successful ambushes in 8.8.8. when Russian BMPs were burned to crisp by Georgian SF. But yes, Georgian SF got into pockets later on as Russians could get tactical superiority in all engagements. (not by numbers of course)
Separatists have had few quirks too, when their whole light column was annihilated in unprepared ambush (by artillery and tanks fire) thanks to changing frontlines, bad intel and then unclear leadership. They pretty much stumbled into UA block post and FO posts. Ukrainians did it few times too, especially was popular to send logistics through sep blockposts. Even through towns who were under sep control.
It only means that no one is immune for an ambushes or fuck ups, especially in modern wars when roads could be important than high ground.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Once again you have to decide what you are arguing about.
The initial BTR's were just dedicated guntrucks.  Then the current armored car tendency since the 60P makes them only so much more safe (HMG's could already punch through them then, making them good tincases for dead motorized infantry. Over the time the protection has only evolved so far as to have the guys inside die from suffocation.

Well i know that in the 80s the view from inside the troop carrier was not the best bust still it was not a tunnel vision... the troops inside could see arround the vehicle its vicinity... and they could even start shooting. But BTR-80 armour to be defeated by 12.7mm round - to be honest i am not aware of this... But you have to ask yourself what is its role purpose... to be able to defend infantry from small arms fire, antipersonel mines, shrapnes, artillery? Anything else? when sitting on top yea they have a better situational awareness - but is that enough to see well hidden masked fighter 100m away laying and waiting for a ambush? I don't think so... The excercises they regularly do to train for ambush looks nice and dandy but thats as beautiful as it gets... to me it looks like the armour of a btr has its purpose and if the infantry is being carried on top even in war zones... whats the point of having a BTR other than its gun... a standard topless truck can be used and is much cheaper, lighters and more agile...

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The idea behind the protection upping up comes from totally different experience and that is low intensity warfare the Western Powers have been committed to since more than a decade. This is coincides with many a lesson the SADF has learned the hard way in un-hospitable places during its own run in with "irregulars".

However, all this becomes useless when you face an enemy whose assets consist on heavy area saturation artillery and who can interdict whole lines of transit on a pinch.

IE real war. Once your 30 ton behemoth gets "saturated" you better have a different plan than stay put in your well armoured truck that would have some quality time with OPFOR infantry and its ATGM's.

That's something I still don't understand with the new Russian lineup. It is "better", but is it more suitable to their needs in the long run?

Well today you can protect such vehicle with APS pretty good.... this means ATGMs are much less effective and RPGs as well. So the only way how to defeat such a vehicle would be using KE penetrators or Mines or top attack? Top Attack and KE penetrators are also vulnerable to APS defense to a certain excent... and Mines... well MRAP configuration protects the crew anyway...