Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I really hope grenade launchers on the kurganets will be next gen 40-57mm AGLs. There is no reason for a next gen AFV to have AGLs designed in the 70s. Please give confirmation for the 40mm balkan AGL or 57mm syste to be installed on all 5th gen BTR and IFV  families.

We cant know that at this point. What we do know is this:

"The 6G27 Balkan AGL will be brought into service with Russia's armed forces this year. The military is set to receive the tripod-mounted modification of the weapon. TekhMash Concern is also integrating the Balkan AGL with the MBDU remote controlled weapon station [RCWS] developed by the Kalashnikov Group. The military is planning to install the MBDU unmanned turret on light and medium armoured vehicles, as well as on fast attack craft [FAC]," Rusakov told IHS Jane's at the Army 2016 exhibition."

Why can't armata MBT be named T-97, KURGANETS IFV be named BMP-4 and bumerang be named BTR-100(for kord equipped AFV, BTR=101 for 30mm equipped, BTR-103 for 57mm equiped BTR)?

Because BMP means IFV, BTR means light troop transport. T means tank based vehicle.

Who knows what designation system they have devised...

KURGANETS-25

TheArmenian wrote:KURGANETS-25

Certainly it has a totally different "feeling" when compared to precedent BMP/BDM.
As they looked low and agile but somewhat too cramped this look menacing, well protected and comfortable but also very bulky.

marcellogo wrote:Certainly it has a totally different "feeling" when compared to precedent BMP/BDM.
As they looked low and agile but somewhat too cramped this look menacing, well protected and comfortable but also very bulky.

Well, these vehicles are for sure the next generation. But keep in mind that replacement program doesn't happen in an instant, also older upgraded vehicles I'm pretty sure can be almost on par with the new ones. New vehicles just a lot more effective in local low intensity wars against inferior enemies. But in a case of bigger scale conflict large numbers of older vehicles can quickly become operational after conservation.

Kurganetz live fire

Kurganetz workshop includes one unit mounting what appears to be a turret from a BMD-4?

Big_Gazza wrote:Kurganetz workshop includes one unit mounting what appears to be a turret from a BMD-4?

This looks to me like a BMP-3 with some modifications. Turret looks like that of a BMD-4, but possibly this particular vehicle has its engine mounted at the front.

Probably a test platform. Nothing to do with Kurganets tho.

Big_Gazza wrote:Kurganetz workshop includes one unit mounting what appears to be a turret from a BMD-4?

I can't believe there were idiots a couple of years ago on this board claiming that the 100/30 combo would disappear   , not surprisingly they were the same people claiming the 45mm gun was definitively chosen over the 57mm gun , and basically claimed that the 45mm gun was the only armament that would be chosen for Kurganets-25 class.....

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:Kurganetz workshop includes one unit mounting what appears to be a turret from a BMD-4?

I can't believe there were idiots a couple of years ago on this board claiming that the 100/30 combo would disappear   , not surprisingly they were the same people claiming the 45mm gun was definitively chosen over the 57mm gun , and basically claimed that the 45mm gun was the only armament that would be chosen for Kurganets-25 class.....

Don't let the fact that K-25 vehicles have seven roadwheels while the vehicle in the photo has six.

This might just be a modified previous existing vehicle, or it might be the air-drop version of K-25, we'll see in due time.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:Kurganetz workshop includes one unit mounting what appears to be a turret from a BMD-4?

I can't believe there were idiots a couple of years ago on this board claiming that the 100/30 combo would disappear   , not surprisingly they were the same people claiming the 45mm gun was definitively chosen over the 57mm gun , and basically claimed that the 45mm gun was the only armament that would be chosen for Kurganets-25 class.....

It is clear that modularity is being implemented in the design and assembly process as was being widely discussed during the 1990s. They can stick
any number of turrets with different guns and ammunition handling facilities into the Kurganetz.

A 152 mm gun turret assembly has most likely been designed for the T-14.

x_54_u43 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:Kurganetz workshop includes one unit mounting what appears to be a turret from a BMD-4?

I can't believe there were idiots a couple of years ago on this board claiming that the 100/30 combo would disappear   , not surprisingly they were the same people claiming the 45mm gun was definitively chosen over the 57mm gun , and basically claimed that the 45mm gun was the only armament that would be chosen for Kurganets-25 class.....

Don't let the fact that K-25 vehicles have seven roadwheels while the vehicle in the photo has six.

This might just be a modified previous existing vehicle, or it might be the air-drop version of K-25, we'll see in due time.

Your obviously not aware of the debate that we had a couple years back:

1.) The person claimed that the 45mm would defeat the 57mm, he made this claim due to the information that he got from his "inside sources", fast forward 2 years and we've seen nothing about the 45mm autoncannon, but plenty of the 57mm.

2.) The person implied that we wouldn't see anything other than 45mm, he basically implied there weren't going to be any other weapon, supposedly the 45mm was supposed to fill every role, and even the mortar carrier role....which obviously was preposterous.

3.) Yes, it's obvious that it isn't K-25, but it doesn't change the claim that I made a couple a years ago. Not RU MOD, nor Kurganmash ever made the claim that the 100/30 would stop being produced, which was my original claim. What we see is previous BMP series being upgrade with K-25 ERA applique, and yet the 100/30 combo has lasted the test of time, and would likely be carried in to the next series.

Even if the Russian military decided to drop the 100/30 combo from all their new vehicles the BMP-3 and the BMD-3 still carry both weapons.

The 100/30 evolved from the BMP-1 and BMP-2 and their 73/30 gun combination between the two vehicles that were found to be complimentary rather than one replacing the other as expected.

Of course the 100mm rifled gun is a huge step forward in performance over the 73mm, but the 30mm hasn't evolved as quickly as the enemy armour it was supposed to deal with has.

The obvious replacement for the 30mm therefore is the new 57mm gun, but its potential for HE power means it can also practically replace the 100mm too.

Obviously a 100mm shell will carry more HE than any 57mm shell, so there will be some loss in performance in terms of HE power but as each unit will also be supported by tanks with 125mm guns able to fire HE rounds and also artillery able to offer 120mm and 152mm calibre guns and also rockets of various calibres I don't think that will be a huge problem.

In terms of the transition from 30mm to 57mm there will be a large step up in effective range and armour penetration performance and effect on target that will reduce the amount of work the organic tank units will have to perform... heavy enemy IFVs will no longer need to be engaged with 100mm missiles or 125mm guns...

This vehicle could be a new upgraded export model, or a test example.

Once the 57mm calibre is fully ready for service I think the 100/30 combination will become redundant.

In fact I think a good solution would be to replace the 100mm with a 120mm gun/mortar system... eliminating a calibre from the inventory and stores without reducing performance and capability... the 120mm gun/mortar can fire rounds to almost double the range and has more powerful HE rounds and also can use 120mm and 122mm guided rounds.

I would still use the 30mm for a while anyway... but even in air defence I think guided 57mm shells have more promise than just firing thousands of 30mm shells and hoping for a hit.

GarryB wrote:Even if the Russian military decided to drop the 100/30 combo from all their new vehicles the BMP-3 and the BMD-3 still carry both weapons.

The 100/30 evolved from the BMP-1 and BMP-2 and their 73/30 gun combination between the two vehicles that were found to be complimentary rather than one replacing the other as expected.

Of course the 100mm rifled gun is a huge step forward in performance over the 73mm, but the 30mm hasn't evolved as quickly as the enemy armour it was supposed to deal with has.

The obvious replacement for the 30mm therefore is the new 57mm gun, but its potential for HE power means it can also practically replace the 100mm too.

Obviously a 100mm shell will carry more HE than any 57mm shell, so there will be some loss in performance in terms of HE power but as each unit will also be supported by tanks with 125mm guns able to fire HE rounds and also artillery able to offer 120mm and 152mm calibre guns and also rockets of various calibres I don't think that will be a huge problem.

In terms of the transition from 30mm to 57mm there will be a large step up in effective range and armour penetration performance and effect on target that will reduce the amount of work the organic tank units will have to perform... heavy enemy IFVs will no longer need to be engaged with 100mm missiles or 125mm guns...

This vehicle could be a new upgraded export model, or a test example.

Once the 57mm calibre is fully ready for service I think the 100/30 combination will become redundant.

In fact I think a good solution would be to replace the 100mm with a 120mm gun/mortar system... eliminating a calibre from the inventory and stores without reducing performance and capability... the 120mm gun/mortar can fire rounds to almost double the range and has more powerful HE rounds and also can use 120mm and 122mm guided rounds.

I would still use the 30mm for a while anyway... but even in air defence I think guided 57mm shells have more promise than just firing thousands of 30mm shells and hoping for a hit.

I still find the 100/30 combo more useful though, you have one 30 for handling enemy personnel and a 100 for enemy armor/fortifications, besides the BMP-3 ain't going anywhere might as well use the ammo, and i wouldn't use an IFV for air defense.

Anyway the issue i am here for is that i wonder why the T-15 isn't amphibious, because i don't see any pump-jets.



UPDATE: Nevemind, i just found out the the T-15 and the Kurganets aren't one and the same.

AlfaT8 wrote:

GarryB wrote:Even if the Russian military decided to drop the 100/30 combo from all their new vehicles the BMP-3 and the BMD-3 still carry both weapons.

The 100/30 evolved from the BMP-1 and BMP-2 and their 73/30 gun combination between the two vehicles that were found to be complimentary rather than one replacing the other as expected.

Of course the 100mm rifled gun is a huge step forward in performance over the 73mm, but the 30mm hasn't evolved as quickly as the enemy armour it was supposed to deal with has.

The obvious replacement for the 30mm therefore is the new 57mm gun, but its potential for HE power means it can also practically replace the 100mm too.

Obviously a 100mm shell will carry more HE than any 57mm shell, so there will be some loss in performance in terms of HE power but as each unit will also be supported by tanks with 125mm guns able to fire HE rounds and also artillery able to offer 120mm and 152mm calibre guns and also rockets of various calibres I don't think that will be a huge problem.

In terms of the transition from 30mm to 57mm there will be a large step up in effective range and armour penetration performance and effect on target that will reduce the amount of work the organic tank units will have to perform... heavy enemy IFVs will no longer need to be engaged with 100mm missiles or 125mm guns...

This vehicle could be a new upgraded export model, or a test example.

Once the 57mm calibre is fully ready for service I think the 100/30 combination will become redundant.

In fact I think a good solution would be to replace the 100mm with a 120mm gun/mortar system... eliminating a calibre from the inventory and stores without reducing performance and capability... the 120mm gun/mortar can fire rounds to almost double the range and has more powerful HE rounds and also can use 120mm and 122mm guided rounds.

I would still use the 30mm for a while anyway... but even in air defence I think guided 57mm shells have more promise than just firing thousands of 30mm shells and hoping for a hit.

I still find the 100/30 combo more useful though, you have one 30 for handling enemy personnel and a 100 for enemy armor/fortifications, besides the BMP-3 ain't going anywhere might as well use the ammo, and i wouldn't use an IFV for air defense.

Anyway the issue i am here for is that i wonder why the T-15 isn't amphibious, because i don't see any pump-jets.



UPDATE: Nevemind, i just found out the the T-15 and the Kurganets aren't one and the same.

Mby because T-15 has 40+ tons

Mby because T-15 has 40+ tons Very Happy

It's almost like a russian MBT, does it have the same protection ? Can it survive direct NATO 120 mm frontal hit ?

Kurganets replace BMPs but T-15 is an all new class, how will they organize their tactics now that they have 3 types of vehicle instead of just BMPs and T-90 ??

IMO the T-15 will replace BMP's in Tank brigades & regiments.

Isos wrote:

It's almost like a russian MBT, does it have the same protection ? Can it survive direct NATO 120 mm frontal hit ?

Compared to a regular IFV, it has insane level of protection, and that quite low-angled front plate could protect against pretty much anything from 30 to 100mms.

Isos wrote:

Kurganets replace BMPs but T-15 is an all new class, how will they organize their tactics now that they have 3 types of vehicle instead of just BMPs and T-90 ??

Actually, T-15 will replace BMPs in future Armata platform based tank divisions/brigades, while Kurganets will be organized into motor rifle brigades/divisions that are currently using current BMP-2s or BMP-3s (some brigades in the Eastern Military District are using BMP-1s too).

Isos wrote:

Mby because T-15 has 40+ tons Very Happy

It's almost like a russian MBT, does it have the same protection ? Can it survive direct NATO 120 mm frontal hit ?

Kurganets replace BMPs but T-15 is an all new class, how will they organize their tactics now that they have 3 types of vehicle instead of just BMPs and T-90 ??

Seems current general idea is to form 3 types of divisions, somewhat like motorised cavalary (motorstrelki as of today) that will rely on wheeled platforms like Boomerang/MRAPs), mechanised formed of K-25 and derivates and armored based on T-14 and T-15. That is the idea, how it will look in future it depends on many factors, some of the deciding are moneyz.

Well it has same general protection as T-14 has, its basically T-14 with different weapon platform and rearanged propulsion.

I assume Armored Divisions and Regiments will field T-15 and T-14. Motorized Rifle will field Kurganets as IFVs and T-14s as tanks (in time). New Tank Armies will have 1 Armored and 1 or 2 Motorized Rifle Divisions.

calripson wrote:I assume Armored Divisions and Regiments will field T-15 and T-14. Motorized Rifle will field Kurganets as IFVs and T-14s as tanks (in time). New Tank Armies will have 1 Armored and 1 or 2 Motorized Rifle Divisions.

I'm sure that tank armies will have more than one (at least three) armored divisions, plus some armored brigades (it's in their name "Tank Army", so they will focus on armored units/formations the most) .

EDIT: They will have some motor rifle units too.

No they will be formed around 1 armored division, possible with an additional regiment although unlikely, plus 1 or 2 motorized rifle divisions. There are not enough armored divisions, nor enough money, nor trained personnel to have a force structure reminiscent of WWII or the Cold War.

I'm trying to understand why the ATOM IFV has a 57 rifled gun instead of a smooth-bore gun -- a gun that could actually make use of sabot rounds.

The 57mm rifled guns can still use sabot rounds... they are just fitted with slip rings.

The new 57mm guns for IFVs in Russia are rifled because the HE rounds they fire benefit from spin stabilisation, while the HEAT anti armour rounds they will fire will likely be guided so rifling does not matter.

Because of the size of the round a good APHE round would be interesting for use against lighter vehicles and fortifications.

Making tank calibre guns smoothbore makes sense because APFSDS rounds don't like being spun and neither do HEAT rounds. The other rounds are guided missiles... which don't like being spun much eitehr, and HE rounds that can be fin stabilised.

For smaller calibres APFSDS rounds can have slip rings that prevent the rifling from spinning the projectile, but HE rounds benefit from spin stabilisation and guided shells will soon stop spinning when their control fins pop out after being fired.

New Arctic variant under testing;

http://mil.today/2017/Arctic1/