Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

Werewolf wrote:Can't see a picture of Bradley...

Same...

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Can't see a picture of Bradley...

Same...

Just click "quote", then you can see the link, highlight and right click and select "go to".

That is if you are on Chrome.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

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.

What I meant is that the Bradley bolts the ramp over the main plate, the Russians do the contrary.

Nothing to do with integrity but with the expected effects? Thinner sheet of metal usually stays outside, because it is far easier to have shrapnels out of thin metal than thicker, denser one.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

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.

What I meant is that the Bradley bolts the ramp over the main plate, the Russians do the contrary.

Nothing to do with integrity but with the expected effects? Thinner sheet of metal usually stays outside, because it is far easier to have shrapnels out of thin metal than thicker, denser one.

I see what you mean, but I don't really think it will make much of a difference.

Pure eyeballing here, I think it will be able to take a 12.7mm bullet to the rear just fine, and the APS and PPS will take care of any rocket threats to the back.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

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.

What I meant is that the Bradley bolts the ramp over the main plate, the Russians do the contrary.

Nothing to do with integrity but with the expected effects? Thinner sheet of metal usually stays outside, because it is far easier to have shrapnels out of thin metal than thicker, denser one.

I see what you mean, but I don't really think it will make much of a difference.

Pure eyeballing here, I think it will be able to take a 12.7mm bullet to the rear just fine, and the APS and PPS will take care of any rocket threats to the back.

That's a 50mm plate over a 5mm sheet IMO. But I'm saying this because they have done the exact contrary for the Boomerang. So it looks strange.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

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.

What I meant is that the Bradley bolts the ramp over the main plate, the Russians do the contrary.

Nothing to do with integrity but with the expected effects? Thinner sheet of metal usually stays outside, because it is far easier to have shrapnels out of thin metal than thicker, denser one.

I see what you mean, but I don't really think it will make much of a difference.

Pure eyeballing here, I think it will be able to take a 12.7mm bullet to the rear just fine, and the APS and PPS will take care of any rocket threats to the back.

That's a 50mm plate over a 5mm sheet IMO. But I'm saying this because they have done the exact contrary for the Boomerang. So it looks strange.

Well it looks pretty snug when all of it is closed, maybe done for a better seal for NBC, maybe better RCS reduction?

Little off topic but here is a tip for y'all next time, trolling for short periods of time under a different name on a YouTube video or a site can be very fun. As many are aware it takes more energy to counter bullsh!t than to spread it so why bother. Instead of trying to counter some mental midget with facts, have some fun with them and see how mad you can get them. I'll be off trolling on that Armata video Mike E had.

Ivan I might join in on the fun

Ironically the one post of mine he didn't respond to was the one where I shut him down...

Off topic though..

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

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.

What I meant is that the Bradley bolts the ramp over the main plate, the Russians do the contrary.

Nothing to do with integrity but with the expected effects? Thinner sheet of metal usually stays outside, because it is far easier to have shrapnels out of thin metal than thicker, denser one.

I see what you mean, but I don't really think it will make much of a difference.

Pure eyeballing here, I think it will be able to take a 12.7mm bullet to the rear just fine, and the APS and PPS will take care of any rocket threats to the back.

That's a 50mm plate over a 5mm sheet IMO. But I'm saying this because they have done the exact contrary for the Boomerang. So it looks strange.

Well it looks pretty snug when all of it is closed, maybe done for a better seal for NBC, maybe better RCS reduction?

It isn't a big deal anyway. That's a movable part. They can up armor that and uprate the hinges afterwards.

I like that arrangement with the outer layer thick and a space and an inner thin layer... it makes more sense to stop as much as you can with heavy outer armour with any near penetrations creating spall which is flat metal bits pealing off the inner side of the outer armour... these spall pieces are not shaped to penetrate armour and the thin inner plate will easily stop them... so think of it as an inner spall lining...

GarryB wrote:I like that arrangement with the outer layer thick and a space and an inner thin layer... it makes more sense to stop as much as you can with heavy outer armour with any near penetrations creating spall which is flat metal bits pealing off the inner side of the outer armour... these spall pieces are not shaped to penetrate armour and the thin inner plate will easily stop them... so think of it as an inner spall lining...

With a solid pentrator like Sabot it wouldn't matter any way, I agree, but with EFP's and other nasty crap, a thin sheet is Russian Roulette.

The most evident case for this was the devastation IED's/RPG's wrecked on tracked US M113 and AAVP's where such "spall liners" (most were half inch plates put on the inner sides to create DIY racks for rucksacks and improvised armour) went to pieces and caused as much death and destruction as the IED's RPG's. That's why most AAVP's were quickly taken out of patrol duties. Same for the Initial soft skined HMMWV's and the DIY up-armouring. Anyway it isn't anything critical for now, they can reverse, up-armour, bolt on anything they like.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

GarryB wrote:I like that arrangement with the outer layer thick and a space and an inner thin layer... it makes more sense to stop as much as you can with heavy outer armour with any near penetrations creating spall which is flat metal bits pealing off the inner side of the outer armour... these spall pieces are not shaped to penetrate armour and the thin inner plate will easily stop them... so think of it as an inner spall lining...

With a solid pentrator like Sabot it wouldn't matter any way, I agree, but with EFP's and other nasty crap, a thin sheet is Russian Roulette.

The most  evident case for this was the devastation IED's/RPG's wrecked on tracked US M113 and AAVP's where such "spall liners" (most were half inch plates put on the inner sides to create DIY racks for rucksacks and improvised armour) went to pieces and caused as much death and destruction as the IED's RPG's. That's why most AAVP's were quickly taken out of patrol duties. Same for the Initial soft skined HMMWV's and the DIY up-armouring. Anyway it isn't anything critical for now, they can reverse, up-armour, bolt on anything they like.  

Likely the IED's could be handled by anti-mine attachments or better yet dedicated anti-mine/IED vehicles, and the RPG's can be handled by APS.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

With a solid pentrator like Sabot it wouldn't matter any way, I agree, but with EFP's and other nasty crap, a thin sheet is Russian Roulette.

Shout from behind with a Sabot? If that happens then you fvcked up something...either you let enemy outmaneuver you like you are the biggest noob or which is more likely it is a friendly fire. Anyways you can not make the door thick enough to wistand anything that is Anti Tank purposed, not even WW2 Bazookas with their 175mm RHAe pen.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The most  evident case for this was the devastation IED's/RPG's wrecked on tracked US M113 and AAVP's where such "spall liners" (most were half inch plates put on the inner sides to create DIY racks for rucksacks and improvised armour) went to pieces and caused as much death and destruction as the IED's RPG's. That's why most AAVP's were quickly taken out of patrol duties. Same for the Initial soft skined HMMWV's and the DIY up-armouring. Anyway it isn't anything critical for now, they can reverse, up-armour, bolt on anything they like.  

They are still not production models and tests begin in a year after that they will show shortcomings and fix them.

Werewolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

With a solid pentrator like Sabot it wouldn't matter any way, I agree, but with EFP's and other nasty crap, a thin sheet is Russian Roulette.

Shout from behind with a Sabot? If that happens then you fvcked up something...either you let enemy outmaneuver you like you are the biggest noob or which is more likely it is a friendly fire. Anyways you can not make the door thick enough to wistand anything that is Anti Tank purposed, not even WW2 Bazookas with their 175mm RHAe pen.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The most  evident case for this was the devastation IED's/RPG's wrecked on tracked US M113 and AAVP's where such "spall liners" (most were half inch plates put on the inner sides to create DIY racks for rucksacks and improvised armour) went to pieces and caused as much death and destruction as the IED's RPG's. That's why most AAVP's were quickly taken out of patrol duties. Same for the Initial soft skined HMMWV's and the DIY up-armouring. Anyway it isn't anything critical for now, they can reverse, up-armour, bolt on anything they like.  

They are still not production models and tests begin in a year after that they will show shortcomings and fix them.

Are you for real? Getting 30/35/40 mm APFSDS'ed from the rear/5/7 O'clock hasn't much to do with being a "noob". In maneuvre warfare things evolve very quickly. You end up in situations where tailing up on the enemy's rear gets you stuck between its rear and rear guard. War isn't a game. Shit happens.

As I said, they have time to understand what's best during trials. (Third) Rome wasn't built in a day etc.

Do you even know how thick you need to make your rear door to withstand 30 to 45mm rounds? You won't be able to use the door anymore with such thickness and weight.

Werewolf wrote:Do you even know how thick you need to make your rear door to withstand 30 to 45mm rounds? You won't be able to use the door anymore with such thickness and weight.

Even full blown MBT's have trouble in armoring the rear to that extent, It's even more doubtful a medium sized vehicle could do so.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Do you even know how thick you need to make your rear door to withstand 30 to 45mm rounds? You won't be able to use the door anymore with such thickness and weight.

Even full blown MBT's have trouble in armoring the rear to that extent, It's even more doubtful a medium sized vehicle could do so.

considering that all tanks have 25 to 50mm on the rear, no tank should be able to sustain a 30mm AP-T ammo, credited with 96mm penetration at 100m vs medium RHA. In fact, even some 20mm AP rounds (from WW2 or later) could penetrate at point blank. In fact at least 1 M1 abrams (M1A2) suffered a catastrophic mobility kill from a 14.5mm KPV machine gun in iraq, it was in the "real war" during the few first weeks of 2003 invasion. It was even said to be a 12.7mm MG (dshk or NSV) but i doubt it.

This will be a shock to many of you, but, the russian tanks T-72/80 have roughly 80mm side armour with a 20mm bottom (unreachable by a projectile) side plate at the level of the torsion bars (the same is found on T-54,55,62 arranged in a simpler way). T-64 is more complex, and not has 80mm everywhere on the side, i think it is 50 or 60 on some areas. T-90A i don't know, i guess it's still like T-72 but probably a bit reinforced (100mm on the forward-central area maybe)

Leopard 2 (all versions) have 50 and 25mm base side armour, it's not a joke. Leopard 2 side armour is exactly 25mm at the level of the suspension (all length), 50mm at the "habitacle" (it goes down to 25 or 30mm at the debut of the engine compartment)... On the top where the "faux" side (sponsons fuel tanks) is found, there is yet another 25mm external armour on the whole length, making 50 + fuel + 25mm best side armour on this tank. The combat protection kit (skirts) improves a lot: the 4 forward panels of each side are a total of 50 + 10 + 50mm steel/air/steel (spaced 50mm x2), protecting the habitable from a forward-side strike to a good mesure, and able to stop simple HEAT warheads and old 100mm and lower caliber full bore AP rounds (100mm not guarantee) on a perpendicular side hit.. it gives 50+50+50mm real armour + many gaps. The rest of the skirts are thin sheet of rubber/steel and have 0 impact on kinetic penetrators, but can disrupt simple HEAT warheads... at this place the armour is like 50+10mm + gap.

Abrams side armour is believed to be between 30 and 50mm all the length, with this + another 30 or 50 at the fuel tanks sponsons. Abrams then uses the skirtks, believed to be 35+air+35mm steel on the forward ones, and, simple thin (10-20mm) plates on the rest of the length.

Those western tanks have very week hull but strong side turret armour.

You can bet all tanks like leclerc, challenger 2 or some asian tanks also follow the same hull armor rule.

And, back in the day, tank praised and bullshited to be best of the best armored ever seen, the chieftain, had litterally 38mm side armour + a thin skirt. WW2 T-34 had 45mm side armour, half of it angled and approaching 60mm real value.

All the while, Tank like T-10M had 90mm side armour with only a very thin and almost unreachable area where it was really 90mm vertical, the rest was 90mm at 60° for a 180mm LOS value and litterally 220 to 250mm real value vs armor piercing and early sabot rounds. Soviet heavy tanks of the 1950s and 1960s (only prototypes) had monstruous side armour (= to front armour of western medium tanks like M48) thanks to ingenious angling, still being around 50t machines.

So, yes, many tanks of the 50s and even WW2 have more side armour than current MBT.

Werewolf wrote:Do you even know how thick you need to make your rear door to withstand 30 to 45mm rounds? You won't be able to use the door anymore with such thickness and weight.

hydraulics are your friend here. problem is, aside from the much slower opening and closing, that there are chances that if something powerful, like say autocannon apfsds hits it, the door will warp or the mechanism itself will be damaged, jamming the door. and that door and its locking mechanism are a whole lot tougher that you and your buddies will break all your fibulas and still get nowhere with opening it. with a thinner door and weaker locking mechanism you can bust it open with a few kicks.

btw, I also think uparmoring rear doors to counter threats bigger than HMG is ultimately futile. also, why protect against autocannon apfsds? you guys know whats even more likely than IFV autocannon apfsds or even HMGs or even plain infantry MGs to be shot up the vehicle's rear? RPGs and LAWs that's what; as everyone and his grandmother have one; and those have penetration much better than most autocannon apfsds.

By Jove Werewolf, can you read? I SAID: it doesn't matter facing sabot rounds. IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. The structural arraignment matters only for splinters, multiple EFP's, IED's, older RPG rounds etc. It is those threats that shown that thin under-skin is a big NO-NO for the US.

I don't get why you'd go all apeshit about something so evident. It's almost like you'd want to show you don't read anything. My point was that

1. The structure of the ramp was awkward especially when you saw the Boomerang door (and T-15).
2. The thin sheet is prone to cause even more damage than the initial penetration.

With a solid pentrator like Sabot it wouldn't matter any way, I agree, but with EFP's and other nasty crap, a thin sheet is Russian Roulette.

Spall is created by lots of different penetrators... a HMG round that penetrates 90% of an armour plate will create spall on the inner surface of the armour at the impact point. Self forging fragments like from artillery often also create spall too.

considering that all tanks have 25 to 50mm on the rear, no tank should be able to sustain a 30mm AP-T ammo, credited with 96mm penetration at 100m vs medium RHA. In fact, even some 20mm AP rounds (from WW2 or later) could penetrate at point blank. In fact at least 1 M1 abrams (M1A2) suffered a catastrophic mobility kill from a 14.5mm KPV machine gun in iraq, it was in the "real war" during the few first weeks of 2003 invasion. It was even said to be a 12.7mm MG (dshk or NSV) but i doubt it.

Standard MBT design... frontal 60 degree angle = enemy MBT main gun protection from 1,000m or better, sides protection from light cannon as fitted to enemy IFV, and rear protection from standard (not AP) HMG.

the rear engine decks of most MBTs can be penetrated by 14.5mm fire... Including T-80 and T-90...

The Boomerang is about to become a star seller, Venezuela already having "some issues" with the ZBL9 and the Chinese themselves being in demand for modern wheeled chassis.

Given the ZBL is marginally better protected than the BTR-80 series, the case is clear that the said vehicle will be in demand. What puzzles me is how well will the K-25 fare in the export market...it is a vehicle that albeit better protected has at least for now a less performant weapon combination when compared to its cousin BMP-3M.

KoTeMoRe wrote:The Boomerang is about to become a star seller, Venezuela already having "some issues" with the ZBL9 and the Chinese themselves being in demand for modern wheeled chassis.

Given the ZBL is marginally better protected than the BTR-80 series, the case is clear that the said vehicle will be in demand. What puzzles me is how well will the K-25 fare in the export market...it is a vehicle that albeit better protected has at least for now a less performant weapon combination when compared to its cousin BMP-3M.

I'd say it has a "different" weapon armament than an "inferior" one.

The 100 mm BMP-3 gun is flexible but against armor fires less effective missiles v. the Kornets on the K-25 IFV.

Both model auto-cannons are similar w/o a distant advantage AFAIK.... So how would the BMP-3 have a superior armament? Maybe against personnel and structures but not armor, especially heavy armor.

Mike E wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:The Boomerang is about to become a star seller, Venezuela already having "some issues" with the ZBL9 and the Chinese themselves being in demand for modern wheeled chassis.

Given the ZBL is marginally better protected than the BTR-80 series, the case is clear that the said vehicle will be in demand. What puzzles me is how well will the K-25 fare in the export market...it is a vehicle that albeit better protected has at least for now a less performant weapon combination when compared to its cousin BMP-3M.

I'd say it has a "different" weapon armament than an "inferior" one.

The 100 mm BMP-3 gun is flexible but against armor fires less effective missiles v. the Kornets on the K-25 IFV.

Both model auto-cannons are similar w/o a distant advantage AFAIK.... So how would the BMP-3 have a superior armament? Maybe against personnel and structures but not armor, especially heavy armor.

If your idea is to fence with a 120mm equipped tank, while riding one of these vehicles, you need to lay down the playstation controller.

Both vehicles have their pros. However, you got a vehicle whose ammunition count in 100mm rounds is about 40 in autoloader and hull (all rounds concerned), while on the otherside, you'd be damned if more than 8 Kornets were available for the  K-25 IFV. Nevermind the flexiblity offered by the various 100mm rounds and the fact that the BMP-3 itself might have a Kornet launcher and 2-4 Kornets on its fighting compartment (over the organic 23-3 Arkan).

So far the 100mm is more interesting than those 4 RTF Kornets.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Mike E wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:The Boomerang is about to become a star seller, Venezuela already having "some issues" with the ZBL9 and the Chinese themselves being in demand for modern wheeled chassis.

Given the ZBL is marginally better protected than the BTR-80 series, the case is clear that the said vehicle will be in demand. What puzzles me is how well will the K-25 fare in the export market...it is a vehicle that albeit better protected has at least for now a less performant weapon combination when compared to its cousin BMP-3M.

I'd say it has a "different" weapon armament than an "inferior" one.

The 100 mm BMP-3 gun is flexible but against armor fires less effective missiles v. the Kornets on the K-25 IFV.

Both model auto-cannons are similar w/o a distant advantage AFAIK.... So how would the BMP-3 have a superior armament? Maybe against personnel and structures but not armor, especially heavy armor.

If your idea is to fence with a 120mm equipped tank, while riding one of these vehicles, you need to lay down the playstation controller.

Both vehicles have their pros. However, you got a vehicle whose ammunition count in 100mm rounds is about 40 in autoloader and hull (all rounds concerned), while on the otherside, you'd be damned if more than 8 Kornets were available for the  K-25 IFV. Nevermind the flexiblity offered by the various 100mm rounds and the fact that the BMP-3 itself might have a Kornet launcher and 2-4 Kornets on its fighting compartment (over the organic 23-3 Arkan).

So far the 100mm is more interesting than those 4 RTF Kornets.

Why throw in what I can only take as an insult? I am not trying to disagree. 

I said the 100 mm was more flexible but it comes with drawbacks as well. 40 rounds of which how many are ATGM's? 

The Kornet has superior characteristics...like it or not that is hugely important. We have seen the value of IFV's attacking MBT's (ala Bradley) and if they can do it well, I would honestly prefer that over the ability to fire a few other rounds. 

Interesting or not...Kornet is the better ATGM and that is what I am saying. 

K-25 IFV may see an armament upgrade in the future anyway, possibly with the heavier turret.

Mike E wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Mike E wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:The Boomerang is about to become a star seller, Venezuela already having "some issues" with the ZBL9 and the Chinese themselves being in demand for modern wheeled chassis.

Given the ZBL is marginally better protected than the BTR-80 series, the case is clear that the said vehicle will be in demand. What puzzles me is how well will the K-25 fare in the export market...it is a vehicle that albeit better protected has at least for now a less performant weapon combination when compared to its cousin BMP-3M.

I'd say it has a "different" weapon armament than an "inferior" one.

The 100 mm BMP-3 gun is flexible but against armor fires less effective missiles v. the Kornets on the K-25 IFV.

Both model auto-cannons are similar w/o a distant advantage AFAIK.... So how would the BMP-3 have a superior armament? Maybe against personnel and structures but not armor, especially heavy armor.

If your idea is to fence with a 120mm equipped tank, while riding one of these vehicles, you need to lay down the playstation controller.

Both vehicles have their pros. However, you got a vehicle whose ammunition count in 100mm rounds is about 40 in autoloader and hull (all rounds concerned), while on the otherside, you'd be damned if more than 8 Kornets were available for the  K-25 IFV. Nevermind the flexiblity offered by the various 100mm rounds and the fact that the BMP-3 itself might have a Kornet launcher and 2-4 Kornets on its fighting compartment (over the organic 23-3 Arkan).

So far the 100mm is more interesting than those 4 RTF Kornets.

Why throw in what I can only take as an insult? I am not trying to disagree. 

I said the 100 mm was more flexible but it comes with drawbacks as well. 40 rounds of which how many are ATGM's? 

The Kornet has superior characteristics...like it or not that is hugely important. We have seen the value of IFV's attacking MBT's (ala Bradley) and if they can do it well, I would honestly prefer that over the ability to fire a few other rounds. 

Interesting or not...Kornet is the better ATGM and that is what I am saying. 

K-25 IFV may see an armament upgrade in the future anyway, possibly with the heavier turret.

1. I wasn't trying to belittle you, it was all in good faith, a gentle poke. But i agree, it sounds childish. Accept my apologies.
2. As much as 8 23-3's.
3. The Kornet is far better than the Arkan in penetration, but you don't fight with a top notch ATGM alone. The Arkan can take on pretty much EVERY AFV out there and cause damage. Nevermind the fact that you'd be stuck with a 30mm for everything non-heavy metal.
What is also hugely important is also having to wipe out pockets with HE Frag, Airburst ammo etc.