Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:

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

There isn't much to say. Looks like the rolling train of BMP-3 reversed with a slightly bigger volume and front mounted engine. Retains sponsons, retains overall balance, has new Epoch turret.

Flanky wrote:

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...

You can protect what with APS? A salvo of Artillery more than likely cripples your APS and its sensors. It also makes you immobile, ready for Saturday Night pounding out of a 70's Porno.

Artillery as shown in Ukraine, remains the Ugly Queen of Battle.

As for SA, Ask yourself how a BTR/BMP with all eyes could time and again get ambushed by those 100M laying insurgents. Then ask yourself how relevant have been better armored, better equipped BTR3/4's against the same people.

You have to understand, there's a paradigm issue here, the BTR/LAV/Patria are too light in most of the "Hot War" situations. They have been useful and reliable in cases which the forces fielding the BTR etc were in control of the battlefield, so they could retreat for a limited distance and repaired.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
You can protect what with APS? A salvo of Artillery more than likely cripples your APS and its sensors. It also makes you immobile, ready for Saturday Night pounding out of a 70's Porno.

Artillery as shown in Ukraine, remains the Ugly Queen of Battle.

As for SA, Ask yourself how a BTR/BMP with all eyes could time and again get ambushed by those 100M laying insurgents. Then ask yourself how relevant have been better armored, better equipped BTR3/4's against the same people.

You have to understand, there's a paradigm issue here, the BTR/LAV/Patria are too light in most of the "Hot War"  situations. They have been useful and reliable in cases which the forces fielding the BTR etc were in control of the battlefield, so they could retreat for a limited distance and repaired.

Well you have to ask yourself first what kind of conflict and situation are you in? Would it be asymetric warfare where the only possible artilerry unit in possesion of enemy would be mortars... or would it be a more capable enemy -army of an alienated country in which case it would most likely be one of the priority targets of your own artillery or airforce... Gone are the days when long and lasting artilerry barrages from both sides were shaking the ranks of infantrymen... today when you have Artyllery radars / UAVs able to detect incomming salvo and estimate the location of enemy artillery and destroying it in early stages of battle... or you call in airforce... You have Russian army at your disposal and if you would be fighting in a conflict it will most likely be a small local conflict in which case you will have qualitative and quantitative advantage - either or both. In this case enemy artillery units wont survive for long... atleast the dangerous one for the BTRs... and another thing is for a BTR an artillery to be dangerous there needs to be forward observer or it has to be cluster munition which is not allways the case... But if the arty would have been such a danger to BTRs the same would apply for IFVs and MBTs as well as it is a top attack weapon...

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

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.

Ah sorry about that mate...there is a reason I don't like to post at two in the morning. 

I'll re-watch the parade and see if I can find the BTR variant, and screenshot it to you.

The BTR variant indeed was not part of the parade, not sure why but at least the Bumerang chassis was.

Flanky wrote: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?

It has a unique place in your imagination.

Flanky wrote: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?

Doesn't always have to be gun artillery, obliterate them with Iskander if they are dumb enough to travel close together.

Flanky wrote:Is this your opinion or is there a science behind it - if there is science care to explain?

Tracks provide better friction against the surface and also provide better distribution of force of the recoil.

Flanky wrote: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...

I meant drop them a little ways off the target area, then drive them there. It would be very fast. VDV can do low altitude drops, which increases accuracy.

Flanky wrote: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....

They did that in in urban scenarios, it was to provide protection against ambush type attacks.

Well to that first statement i have only one logical reaction: Yet Uralvagonzavod is developing a gun turret for the Boomerang...
I take them as more competent in this matter...

A glimpse inside the Boomerang



...

Few more pics of the boomerang
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1304988.html

.

Cyberspec wrote:A glimpse inside the Boomerang

http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1431937095/063f7ff2/8768324.jpg

A while back there was a frenzy about Serdyukov and his interest in the Italian Centauro.   The Boomerang is bigger
and can hold a turret with a much larger diameter cannon.   The profile is too high for the role of the Centauro, but
a bigger gun could be useful.

Flanky wrote:Well to that first statement i have only one logical reaction: Yet Uralvagonzavod is developing a gun turret for the Boomerang...
I take them as more competent in this matter...

[citation needed]

Boomerang:



Stryker ICV:

Clearly shows the versatile rear door arrangement with a small opening door inside the main ramp door... for putting gear into the vehicle the small door is fine while getting out or in in a hurry the ramp allows speed and numbers to get in and out faster.

I meant drop them a little ways off the target area, then drive them there. It would be very fast. VDV can do low altitude drops, which increases accuracy.

Keep in mind that a strategic target will have significant air defences even if it is well behind enemy front lines. However it may not be that well defended from ground attack being again so far behind the front line.

This means that landing forces even 100km away from the target means the enemy will not have air defences ready to oppose the landing and will wonder about what your target really is and may have to mobilise reinforcements to several potential targets.

With modern light fast vehicles 100km could be rapidly covered and your armoured force could take on the small ground forces defending the target fairly easily with heavy fire power. they can take out the air defence units at an airfield and once captured that airfield could be used to land heavier forces and allow a foothold deep in enemy territory to be established.

Heavier units could be landed that could oppose any heavy counter attack the enemy might mount in response to your action.

Regarding riding on the vehicles it is common in most countries to ride on vehicles when the risk of actual combat is low, but the risk of mines is high.

the risk of IEDs means it is probably safer inside the vehicle than outside, but with land mines if you are on top you might be able to jump off and survive a mine if it hits the wheels on the other side of the vehicle.

Equally an RPG or ATGM attack on a BTR could be survivable if you are on top and see the incoming missile and are able to jump clear.

You also might be able to return fire in an ambush situation where your chances of survival might be better outside the vehicle depending on the standard of ability on the part of your enemy.

A few MON-50 mines aimed at the vehicle from a few different angles makes it much safer inside than on top.

Most soldiers will play it by ear... if they hear rumours that the enemy use PKM MGs and RPGs to attack vehicles and that you are safer inside then they will ride inside. Equally if they hear the enemy like IEDs packed with nails and glass they might also think inside is the place to be.

Otherwise if they believe the enemy is not that aggressive and a few land mines are most likely with no actual armed attack to follow up then sitting on top might be considered safer.

These new heavily armoured vehicles will likely make sitting inside the safer option.

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.

And what if all those chechens decide to move through muddy or marshy ground? Even better what of they decide to block the roads with numerous barricades or even worse, litter them with IEDs? Will your beloved wheels go 100kph also then?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

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.

And what if all those chechens decide to move through muddy or marshy ground? Even better what of they decide to block the roads with numerous barricades or even worse, litter them with IEDs? Will your beloved wheels go 100kph also then?

Put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself this question:
Would you be so quick to setup many road barricades over night so that you will catch the authorities offguard the next day or would you be so suicidal to go through swamp/muddy grounds expending huge amounts of energy, while going slower by several times than normal only to try to avoid vehicle patrols while Border guard UAV will spot you without problems? And as long as i know Marsh is not a problem so.... BMP-3 is fine but it was designed with a completely differrent phylosophy in mind... it was designed to take part in a large scale conventional war where you need to fight in a place having or not having standard roads... Boomerang or Styker have limited offroad capability but still good enough. They are not so fast offroad as tracked platforms but they are faster on roads that tracked platforms. Having a Bomerang "MGS" as a complement to BMP-3 / Kurganets would be ideal...

UAVs with kill potential would be my main choice here. Or fast movers, helicopters. Boomerang, Striker and etc... well no matter how protected they can be with kits, I wouldn't still not put them up close and personal when there are other tools to use.

Werewolf wrote:

...Interesting, I don't know if anyone has brought this up but, what looks like the lightly armed recon Kurganets-25 (the one on the right) the APS charges are on a swivel, and their set in a forward position in a 180 degree arc. I'm guessing on normal active duty the APS will be set back in a 270 degree arc?

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

...Interesting, I don't know if anyone has brought this up but, what looks like the lightly armed recon Kurganets-25 (the one on the right) the APS charges are on a swivel, and their set in a forward position in a 180 degree arc. I'm guessing on normal active duty the APS will be set back in a 270 degree arc?

The APS charges are not on a swivel, I also doubt these are actual APS systems.

UAVs with kill potential would be my main choice here. Or fast movers, helicopters. Boomerang, Striker and etc... well no matter how protected they can be with kits, I wouldn't still not put them up close and personal when there are other tools to use.

Indeed air to find and immediately attack the enemy, but ground forces to secure friendly areas and artilery and air power to hammer enemy positions with well trained and well armed ground forces to move in a kill as many as you can as quickly as you can... any enemy that concetrate to resist the ground force will be hammered with air and artillery... if they remain dispersed then the ground forces can just mop them up...

It is unlikely to be APS tubes, even tho they look like ones. The BTR version lacks any kind of sensors to even detect incoming targets, BTR's just carry troops to remote locations and dismount them there, they are not suppossed to enter any fighting zones and APS systems are very very expensie that is why this is just a smoke screen launcher.

The APC version doesn't have an APS system...it's been mentioned in several reports

 
 

V-Hull

Impressed they managed to get that in without a significant increase in height over BMP-3.

Kurganets-25 gets better and better.

That rear ramp structure is interesting...

But what makes me worried is the structural thickness of the main rear plate.



Here's a M2A2 Bradley...

KoTeMoRe wrote:That rear ramp structure is interesting...

But what makes me worried is the structural thickness of the main rear plate.



Here's a M2A2 Bradley...

The structural integrity on the Kurganets looks bretty gud to me.

Judging by your photo, it looks like the Bradley is worse.

Can't see a picture of Bradley...