Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

To make a family vehicle viable they have to end up with 26-27 different family members to replace all the vehicle types in a division... that was never going to happen over night anyway.

Once they get the base vehicle design sorted out they can start putting it into service, but the work on the system and equipment suites needed for each of these 26-27 vehicle types is already continuing on Armata and Boomerang and Typhoon chassis anyway... they wont be making a separate system for Kurganets... the idea is for all the systems to be compatible and transferable... the easiest way is of course making most of the suite part of the turret design and making sure all the vehicles have the same turret ring size and capacity so you can take a T-14 turret out of an Armata T-14 vehicle and put it in, for instance a Boomerang vehicle and create a K-22 or whatever the MBT designation for the Boomerang based family might be.

They say it is postponed, which is not cancelled.

Delaying it so they can get it right is better than storming ahead and making it and having 500 or more made only to find some things that need to work can't work... like supersonic flight and the tail falls off, so they will either eliminate that requirement, or solve the problem properly and accept that the first 500 F-35s are shit...

GarryB wrote:The purpose of the families is to reduce the number of actual different vehicle types in a force...

Sure, but with several constraints:

> The families are different among them and therefore oriented towards a certain set of missions. One family of wheeled vehicles will not produce heavy tanks for instance, the Armata family will not make sense for light vehicles etc.
> Due to the way platform introduction and retirement from service works in Russian military, the complete substitution of older families by a single one standardized for i.e. a divisional unit is not likely.

But on the whole the point of having a vehicle family is to minimise the logistics tail to make it more mobile and deployable...

Within the famility you need also a different number of pieces that are unique, not only engines and transmissions. And of course, without denying that unification is a legit intention and has advantages of all kind, once that you have a certain amount of vehicles in one unit, keeping spares for different platforms it is not such an overhead. For instance, if you have 20 different types of vehicles and 1 unit of each, you have a huge overhead of spares since you need pieces for all the types, even when they are very few. If you have 100 units of each, you just stock depending on the statistical failure rates and he amount of spares / amount of vehicles is severely reduced and actually approaches notably to the amount you would need if you had only one type of vehicle. Your list of spares will be longer indeed, but the amount of pieces in total and needed investment will not. And if the platforms have already been in use for a while, your tools are there, as well as your trained technicians, so it does not mean any serious additional expense.

They don't need a huge number of heavy forces... compared with the old model, they will actually have a lot more ready to use units available sooner and with modern equipment and systems able to call up massively more capable support units of both tube and rocket artillery and air support in the form of fixed and rotary wing as well as tactical guided missiles...

I a m not so sure, US evolved their army into some relatively lighter expeditionary forces, all the while Russia developed the heavy platform Armata and created a huge IFV like the T-15. APS is indeed a new factor to take into account that to a degree decouples protection and armour, but still Russian military is not putting all their eggs in that basket, not yet.

But not all tank divisions will need heavy tanks... on the border with Mongolia or Kazakhstan they don't need to be Armata based divisions... light amphibious armoured vehicles makes rather more sense and are much more cost effective.

Well, it is (I think) more an issue of level of threat than of heavy vs. light platforms. So they can have heavy platforms like T-72 tanks and other not so modern vehicles... that makes more economic sense than replacing all units in low risk environments with new technology. They do not introduce the new platforms all at once like the US does, they don't retire them all at once either.

The make up of the units will depend on the terrain they have to work with and the expected enemy they will be facing... in Syria they wouldn't need Armatas... Kurganets would be fine for frontline stuff... their APS and NERA would render TOWs and RPGs useless... for policing the Boomerangs would be very mobile and fast with excellent fire power... and still pretty decent protection...

Expeditionary forces in non combatant mode (like Syria) is what Bumerang is ideal for. In fighting roles, Syria uses tanks above all, no matter how old, because even without enemy tank formations, they are the best thing that has been invented to assault an enemy position safely and with the capacity to eliminate fortifications. IFVs are not even close, even when 57 mm grenades are going to be revolutionary in this regard, a tank cannon is something else.

they can just use the T-14 turret for at least the Kurganets and Boomerang... it works... it has been tested and when fitted to smaller vehicles it might need a tweek or two but applying a tank turret to the other vehicles saves developing four new tank turrets...

The T-14 is the heaviest platform in Russian ground forces and probably the most protected and most lethal tank in the world... it makes sense that this turret has been designed to take advantage of the unique capabilities of that platform, in order to get qualitatively distinct advantages, and not the limitations of a light wheeled APC. The fact that Spruts is not like the T-90 turret in any regard is a hint to me that we will not see the Armata RCWS on the Bumerang or Kurganets.

Weight and cost. The Russian military will find itself in an enormous variety of situations... previously it had generations of tanks to help it cope,

They will still have generations of tanks, Shoigu has just said the T-72 are not going anywhere. Cost / weight and intended roles are not independent IMHO as you say. That is, some roles demand a heavy or a light platform. That is what we see different.

If they chose not to have the Kurganets family that would mean they had two families...

I think it will come, as a infantry oriented platform. In the meantime they have many tracked families, BMP3 for instance. With the new modification on Manul (engine to the front, new RCWS, APS, new sights etc) they have essentially removed most of its limitations... I see no need to hurry with Kurganets, which always looked to me as a vehicle with very high hull for my taste. It is easier to build, hide, move and protect a smaller hull, obviously.

heavy tracked and medium wheeled... heavy tracked is expected to be used in built up areas and forests where armour is very vulnerable to surprise attack at short range... they wont need that level of armour on flat open terrain or mountains where enemy vehicles and troops can be seen at great distances... speed and mobility and amphibious performance are more valuable there.

Wow I would think Armatas are needed specially where there is no cover. Armata units have always looked to like the spearhead of Russian ground forces, I don't think in case of a high intensity conflict with NATO in Europe they would not be in charge of the main offensive roles and deep penetration in enemy territories. Russia has enough barges to get them across rivers where snorkels are not enough. Maybe I am missing something but it looks definitely counter-intuitive that it would not be like that...

Kurganets should be able to use the full power 125mm gun of the T-14 just fine... it would be the Typhoon that would need the long recoil model... perhaps an unmanned version  of the Sprut turret... I would think even the Boomerang could use the T-14 turret without problems too.

Why do you think it will be slow... it will be fully amphibious and much lighter than the T-14... it should be able to cross country a T-14 might have problems with because of its weight... or it needs bigger tracks...

If I was not lazy or had more time I would calculate the pressure on the ground of both platforms. It does not look to me like Kurganets has much more track surface per ton than the Armata. In terms of speed, tracked vehicles are similar.

Surely if the T-14 is the tank and the B-11 is the BMP-4 and the K-15 is the BTR-100 or whatever and the Typhoon is the BRDM-4 then why are they talking about all the other vehicle types they are making?

They are optimizing and unifying in the same family what can be unified... it does not mean they will get a 100% of success and get all vehicles in a division belonging to the same family, see above my reasoning re. spares.

The Epoch turret was shown installed on all these types of vehicles and has been seen on the BMP-3 as well... we have seen the small APC/BTR turret with the Kord HMG on the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang platforms too...

I will be surprised if the Armata ends up serving with such a RCWS, but let us see.

You say that, and I thought that for a while, but we have seen a truck mounted Koalition turret that fires with very little movement of the vehicle... add a couple of the support legs the truck uses for stabilisation and it should be fine on a Boomerang... on a Typhoon you are probably taking it a bit too far... the Typhoon are light recon vehicles that would probably be supported by a separate artillery regiment that would be attached as needed.

It is just logical to design weapons according to the platforms that carry them, much cheaper and easier and reliable than adding gadgets to make the operation compatible with very small platforms.

Let us make a bet, the one who loses needs to buy and read Bolton's last book?? Cheer on Pompeo's tweeter?

In a COIN type situation it would make more sense to replace the MBT vehicle in an Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang unit with something like a BMPT or just a BMP with the troops replaced with extra ammo instead of the tanks... all the other vehicles could be the same.

See above for Syria, the firepower and protection of a MBT is a very nice thing to have in any case of conflict... the occasional added BMPT comes handy too. I actually expect seeing MBT-based heavy IFVs like Namer or T-15 rather than Kurganets based tanks ... you never know in whose hands an advanced ATGM can end up.

In Afghanistan the BTRs were very popular... their armour wasn't great but they bounced over all sorts of rough rocky terrain and the loss of a wheel to a mine was not a big problem... they were often used together with tracked vehicles that sat back and used their fire power to support them.

Yeah, I meant ground with little carrying capacity...

Don't think of wheeled vehicles as being like a truck that will just bog down as soon as it leaves the tarmac... they have central tire pressure regulation systems and can lower their tire pressure for better grip on mud or sand or snow and are fully amphibious...

Tracked vehicles are a pain the *** ...they exist for a reason. Wheeled vehicles, with all modern sophistications, are still very far from tracks in that regard. Recently in Syria the Mad Max races between US and Russia demonstrated that, even in dry soil... I also remember a Turkish MRAP being towed by a BTR because it got stuck in an apparently uncomplicated terrain... armour & wheels are not the best combination.

Keep in mind the BMP-3 is an 18 ton vehicle so we are talking quite a bit lighter than either Boomerang or Kurganets

I would need to know what part of that is due to the size, hull height in Kurganets is huge compared to BMP3... agree on the rest.

About state tests of Kurganets in 2022... it does not seem like it has been indefinitely postponed

https://iz.ru/1058372/anton-lavrov-roman-kretcul/u-podnozhiia-kurgantca-dlia-boevoi-mashiny-ustanovili-sroki-gosispytanii

> The families are different among them and therefore oriented towards a certain set of missions. One family of wheeled vehicles will not produce heavy tanks for instance, the Armata family will not make sense for light vehicles etc.

I would suggest a missing piece in the family could be filled in using drones.

Light mobile drones could be used for recon in an Armata based force... and to be honest it makes more sense to me having forward deployed eyes and ears and weapons in light drones on the ground and in the air would give a ground based force better awareness of the situation around them than sending forward a few jeeps with guys with binos...

For the light family a light vehicle with lots of missiles and a low recoil gun could be used in the "tank" role... Even if it is a 120mm gun/mortar... or indeed they could do to the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 what they did to the 57mm grenade launcher... with a large APFSDS round and much stronger barrel...

Of course the 120mm gun/mortar could be used to launch a version of the Sokol-V 125mm gun launch guided missile... with perhaps an 8km range instead of the 12km range it is supposed to have...

I don't think any of the vehicles are going to run out of fire power...

> Due to the way platform introduction and retirement from service works in Russian military, the complete substitution of older families by a single one standardized for i.e. a divisional unit is not likely.

It was less than 10 years ago that people were complaining because no two Russian soldiers wore the same uniform... most of the time the pants didn't even match the jacket. There were about 7 or 8 different patterns and colours used for different environments and the seasons... plus white for snow camo... if you had suggested then that their uniforms could become uniform I would have doubted you... and probably said it would be better to get good body armour and helmets into general use... and they have managed both.

The Boomerang based vehicles will be much cheaper than existing types simply because wheeled vehicles are easier and quicker to maintain and operate, especially if you need to go any distance in them... having forces armed only with them will dramatically reduce costs of training and exercises, and in many places improve mobility too.

They would also be the cheapest type to put into mass production so I would expect them to rapidly replace the older equipment.

The problems with the Kurganets will likely mean those forces get older gear for a bit longer, but when I say older gear I mean upgraded previous generation gear which is not the worst stuff they could be using.

As I keep suggesting they are not going to have thousands and thousands of T-14 tanks.

The new technology they will be using they might find they can mix roles for some of the existing 26-27 different types so they can get away with fewer actual types doing the same job.

The same way Ratnik reduces the number of different things that need to be carried by combining features and making things multifunction...

Within the famility you need also a different number of pieces that are unique, not only engines and transmissions.

Of course... within the Armata family the 120mm gun/mortar carrier vehicle will have a unique 120mm gun/mortar, but teh Kurganets mortar carrier and the Boomerang mortar carrier will have the same gun with the same ammo. The Typhoon might keep their weight down by using an 82mm mortar for their family... but then the NONA is not a heavy vehicle and it manages to use it effectively... and the 2S23 based on the 14 ton BTR-80 chassis has a 120mm mortar as well so who knows...

Your list of spares will be longer indeed, but the amount of pieces in total and needed investment will not. And if the platforms have already been in use for a while, your tools are there, as well as your trained technicians, so it does not mean any serious additional expense.

As long as they still get the job done having four different vehicle bases instead of over a dozen makes management and support easier and cheaper... having to keep spare parts for three different BMP vehicles all perhaps present in the same unit that are not interchangeable would be a pain in the arse.

Of course if they have the parts then it makes sense to use them, but situations where they kept the 2S1 in use because although the gun is getting old and they wanted to retire it the new electronics made them viable and potentially useful weapons and they had plenty of spare parts... from memory the chassis is the GTSM chassis that is also a mine vehicle and has other uses as well, so they were replacing its 122mm D-30 gun for the 120mm gun/mortar... it had slightly less range but could use 120mm mortar shells, 120mm shells, 120mm Gran guided missiles, and 122mm Kitilov guided missiles. The range was 13km with the 120mm shells and 15km with the 122mm gun so there was not a huge loss in performance but the rounds were also used in mortars still in use.

They have brought the 2S7 and 2S4 out of retirement because of their ammo offers capabilities existing new types can't match... 70km range 152mm shells is very useful but when the target is much closer but your 40kg shells are not doing enough damage then 203mm 110kg shells or 240mm 130kg shells can be more effective against some targets.

I doubt they would both making Armata versions of these vehicles... because they don't need them in large numbers, though it is possible they might make towed or wheeled models for mobility and low operating costs when the current vehicles are worn out... I am still hoping for a joint Army/Navy 203mm gun programme...

I a m not so sure, US evolved their army into some relatively lighter expeditionary forces, all the while Russia developed the heavy platform Armata and created a huge IFV like the T-15. APS is indeed a new factor to take into account that to a degree decouples protection and armour, but still Russian military is not putting all their eggs in that basket, not yet.

They have never put all their eggs in one basket, the fundamental common theme through all their families of vehicles is separating crew from ammo and fuel, and putting them behind the best armour on the vehicle.

Existing vehicle types don't have that feature... including all the support vehicles, which is just another reason to replace them...

Well, it is (I think) more an issue of level of threat than of heavy vs. light platforms. So they can have heavy platforms like T-72 tanks and other not so modern vehicles... that makes more economic sense than replacing all units in low risk environments with new technology. They do not introduce the new platforms all at once like the US does, they don't retire them all at once either.

I am not suggesting they replace them all at once.... it would be physically impossible to replace them all at once because most of the vehicles that they would need are not developed yet...

Expeditionary forces in non combatant mode (like Syria) is what Bumerang is ideal for. In fighting roles, Syria uses tanks above all, no matter how old, because even without enemy tank formations, they are the best thing that has been invented to assault an enemy position safely and with the capacity to eliminate fortifications. IFVs are not even close, even when 57 mm grenades are going to be revolutionary in this regard, a tank cannon is something else.

When the threat from the enemy does not really include large numbers of tanks I would suggest an APS system adapted that is optimised to intercept HEAT rockets and missiles further from the protected armoured vehicle to reduce its effect on the armour to zero... meaning a Boomerang would be just as well protected as a T-90. With Armata level optics and sensors I would think the turret with the 57mm grenade launcher should actually be the turret of choice for such a situation... 7-8kgs of HE per shot would probably be very comparable with a 125mm HE shell, and the APFSDS round would punch through any armoured truck or vehicle IEDs... and at 120 rounds per minute would be devastating. Air burst HE would be very effective too.

When it comes to taking down heavy structures I would think calling in 152mm artillery or TOS, or even air attack would make more sense using appropriate tools for the job... we have seen the Syrians have Tulip... the guidance systems for the standard 152mm rounds for Coalition are electronic nose mounted fuses that have control vanes to steer the round... the 203mm and 240mm weapons use the same standard heavy fuses as the 152mm and 160mm mortar weapons do, so it should already be compatible with the ammo...

The fact that Spruts is not like the T-90 turret in any regard is a hint to me that we will not see the Armata RCWS on the Bumerang or Kurganets.

That is not really very logical... the Spruts turret is for an 18 ton tracked amphibious vehicle... there was never a possibility of fitting the T-90s turret on to it simply because the turret would probably weigh half as much again as the vehicle chassis it was being put on.

There is no point in having 500mm+ of turret cheek armour protecting the head and upper body of the gunner and commander if the hull armour offered less than 100mm of protection for their lower bodies and all the ammo the vehicle was carrying.

The Epoch turret in the 30mm cannon model and the 57mm grenade launcher model and the 57mm high velocity gun model seem to be the same for the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang... the tiny APC turret with the single Kord HMG mount seem the same across the types too... why do you think the MBT turret would need to change?

Do lighter vehicles not need optics and APS radar sensors and all the other things already fitted to the turret?

What possible changes would you make? Make it smaller? Meaning less room for equipment so the tanks in lighter brigades have less capable tanks...

Making them all the same would actually increase production numbers and allow a more uniform performance and probably help keep costs down.

Certainly if you run out of spares for your MBTs or BMPs being able to go to any other unit and borrow some items makes sense if they all use the same stuff where possible.

I mean what is the point of being the light mobile force if you need to get a slow heavy tank to come forward to capture video of the target because your camera in your Boomerang force is stink... because it was cheaper...

They will still have generations of tanks, Shoigu has just said the T-72 are not going anywhere. Cost / weight and intended roles are not independent IMHO as you say. That is, some roles demand a heavy or a light platform. That is what we see different.

They have scrapped a lot of tanks recently... to the point where they had to buy some T-34s from a foreign country, but just because they are introducing new vehicles does not mean the current upgraded models are going to be scrapped. They will go into reserve of course and if a job comes up for which an upgraded T-72 makes more sense than sending Armata tanks then of course they will do that.

These new vehicle types are supposed to make them more flexible... not less flexible.

Currently the command vehicle in a unit is the ACRV-2 and it is an MTLBu based vehicle. There will be older models in use in service based on the older MTLB, so it is not the case that the 26-27 different vehicles are all standardised... each will have old models and each will have new upgraded models... for vehicles based on BMP or BTR vehicles quite often an upgrade might be changing from a BMP-1 base to a BMP-2 base so performance is not dramatically changed as it would be going from a BMP-2 based ambulance vehicle to a Boomerang based ambulance vehicle. The BMP-3 has a walkway rear entrance where you open a whole lot of doors and climb over the engine to get into it... not ideal for putting stretcher patients in the rear... but no worse than the BTR with roof hatches and side doors... there will be three and now four different BTRs used (the newest BTR-87 has rear doors and a front mounted engine), three BMPs... the first two with front mounted engines, at least two MTLBs, and of course T-72 and T-80 based vehicles used for BMO-T troop transports for engineer troops and MSTA 152mm artillery pieces, and BREM mine clearing engineer vehicles there are probably already three or four versions of each type anyway... updating them with new technology and putting them in brand new state of the art vehicle chassis is a good step forward even though they old vehicles will be used for years to come with all those spare parts and support equipment.

I am sure in 20 years time when a soldier is told to service that BTR-60 based communications vehicle the first thing he will ask is where to plug in his palm computer to do a diagnostic check of the systems...

I think it will come, as a infantry oriented platform.

Armata will be too expensive to try to have 40% of the Russian Army equipped with it... 10% will be affordable and useful, but with 50% Boomerang that means you will have 30% of your forces operating old equipment... (would expect the other 10% would be using Typhoon super light recon vehicles, though in other branches the lighter Typhoon types will be much more widely used...)

In the meantime they have many tracked families, BMP3 for instance. With the new modification on Manul (engine to the front, new RCWS, APS, new sights etc) they have essentially removed most of its limitations... I see no need to hurry with Kurganets, which always looked to me as a vehicle with very high hull for my taste. It is easier to build, hide, move and protect a smaller hull, obviously.

There is no hurry... they need to get this right, but when they said they would upgrade the to the MiG-35 and the Su-35, or the upgraded AK-74M or the T-72M3 there was never any suggestion that it was to replace the next gen product... it was to apply some of the new technology being worked on with the newer stuff to make the current fleet more capable and to allow the troops to get experience with the new gear and to practise potential new tactics without having to wait for a new inventory of equipment to get into service.

The difference is that the MiG-35 and Su-35 compliment the new stealth fighter and could probably continue to be produced side by side with the new aircraft along with drones of course which may replace it all...

The AK-74M was a stopgap while the AK-12 was getting perfected, but they are actually talking about an all new family of small arms for Ratnik 3 to be released and produced in 2025.

The point is that about 20% of Russian armour is going to be used by units and the rest will be sitting in storage just in case... do you think they are going to put Armata T-14s and T-15s and Kurganets B-11s and Boomerang K-15 and K-16 vehicles in storage while they use BMP-3s and T-90s?

They have brand new digital training facilities... and were producing new ones for each Russian military district... so some training is going to be digital which should save a lot of fuel and ammo... but you still need to use the real things to count as being soldiers...

They might say you get to use the T-72s and just wear them out... they are cheap and have similar optics and comms to newer vehicles so you can train at night and develop new coordination and operational manouver tactics using the battle management systems... they will just be lighter and cheaper and we don't care if you scratch them or run them into a ditch... once you have trained on the T-72 then the T-90 and T-14 will be luxury... the point is that when you are training you really don't know how well protected you are... no one is firing back at you so a T-72 is as good as anything for the experience of driving around and firing the gun and for the commander to learn to add information to his map and share information on what he can see... probably by taking images or videos and uploading it to the other tanks and HQ...

Wow I would think Armatas are needed specially where there is no cover.

Why? With the T-14 turret a Kurganets should be able to detect and engage enemy targets to max range in flat open terrain so no one is going to be able to sneak up on you and get a point blank shot at your side or rear armour...

Armata units have always looked to like the spearhead of Russian ground forces, I don't think in case of a high intensity conflict with NATO in Europe they would not be in charge of the main offensive roles and deep penetration in enemy territories.

Why would they want deep penetration into HATO territory? It is easier to do that with hypersonic missiles...

It is not about capturing and holding enemy territory... it is about destroying a threat...

Russia has enough barges to get them across rivers where snorkels are not enough. Maybe I am missing something but it looks definitely counter-intuitive that it would not be like that...

They might use a few Armata divisions as breakthrough forces, their weight would count against them for speed, but their protection and fire power could allow them to be more reckless, but I would think like the Germans invading Russia they used lighter less well armoured vehicles like Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs, and good communications and manouver to bypass hard points and claw deep into the enemy interior... hard positions were left for the infantry units to wear down with luftwaffe support... the Russians could use 2S4M and 2S7M...

In terms of speed, tracked vehicles are similar.

After a 1,000km road march a wheeled vehicle is ready to fight... a tracked vehicle is half way to a full service overhaul and repair...

They are optimizing and unifying in the same family what can be unified... it does not mean they will get a 100% of success and get all vehicles in a division belonging to the same family, see above my reasoning re. spares.

100% success? Do you think they are bobbing for apples?

The existing types didn't exist before they made them and they generally built them on the most suitable available chassis. Well now they have created three (or four) new universal chassis for making brand new support vehicles from. They will keep upgrading the old ones no doubt but they will start to introduce these new vehicles to replace the old ones... that was the idea from the start...

I will be surprised if the Armata ends up serving with such a RCWS, but let us see.

The model of the T-16 BREM vehicle has no weapon fitted at all... for some roles no armament would be needed and for some roles the support of a heavy machine gun would be useful... why wouldn't they fit one if they think it suits the role?

It is just logical to design weapons according to the platforms that carry them, much cheaper and easier and reliable than adding gadgets to make the operation compatible with very small platforms.

But surely the command equipment fitted to the MTLB chassis in the ACRV-2 is designed to get the job done... they didn't just fit what would go into that vehicle and then just used what they managed to create...

The ACRV-2 has an increased volume body that looks rather different from the original MTLB vehicle that it is based on to create the volume and internal space needed for the job... they would likely do the same to the three new chassis as well, but I would think new equipment could be made more compact.

As you point out all these vehicles are big so they probably have more internal space than the vehicles currently being used... wouldn't you agree there would be more internal room in the Kurganets and Boomerang than in a BTR or BMP model of any type?

Having more internal space for equipment suggests they can be better equipped as well... and using new engines and new transmissions and new armour...

Let us make a bet, the one who loses needs to buy and read Bolton's last book?? Cheer on Pompeo's tweeter?

I never make a bet I am not prepared to lose... and contributing money to that cock sucker alone would be a bridge too far let alone reading that fiction...

See above for Syria, the firepower and protection of a MBT is a very nice thing to have in any case of conflict... the occasional added BMPT comes handy too. I actually expect seeing MBT-based heavy IFVs like Namer or T-15 rather than Kurganets based tanks Razz ... you never know in whose hands an advanced ATGM can end up.

With modern ceramic armour and ERA and APS I rather suspect the protection level of the Kurganets based vehicles is actually going to be pretty damn good anyway... a large land mine will destroy a T-14 or the Kurganets or Boomerang equivalent... there might be a few situations where a T-14 might survive and a Kurganets would not but I would suspect in either case the crew will walk away safe and sound... not sure I could say the same about a T-55 or T-72 or even T-90 crew in the same situation.... they are not bad but they don't have the crew separation the new vehicles do... and the newer vehicles are more likely to have new versions of ERA and APS, and perhaps SHTORA replacement and new grenades etc etc.

Yeah, I meant ground with little carrying capacity...

Do tanks and BMPs ever operate in very close proximity to each other?

I don't think they would... the idea of mounted attacks on enemy positions was tried in the ME in the 70s and 80s and failed...

If the enemy AT capacity is weak then the tank do go in and shoot the place up with troops coming in to clear positions with support from BMPs sitting back and watching with modern optics.

Tracked vehicles are a pain the *** ...they exist for a reason. Wheeled vehicles, with all modern sophistications, are still very far from tracks in that regard. Recently in Syria the Mad Max races between US and Russia demonstrated that, even in dry soil... I also remember a Turkish MRAP being towed by a BTR because it got stuck in an apparently uncomplicated terrain... armour & wheels are not the best combination.

Any vehicle can get stuck... terrain is like the sea... no boat or sub is safe... no vehicle is safe... but wheeled vehicles are much more mobile on firm ground, and when the ground is mostly soft then tracked vehicles will be the standard... preferably lighter ones than heavy ones, but dragging other vehicles out of holes will always be an important part of training... I also remember a video of a dozen different wheeled vehicles in the snow and it was the western Iveco that failed right at the start and the other Russian vehicles just drove on through...

I would need to know what part of that is due to the size, hull height in Kurganets is huge compared to BMP3... agree on the rest.

Size also means your soldiers are not sick and exhausted when they arrive at the place where they are supposed to be getting out... I doubt I would get into a BTR-60 to be honest...

According to Izvestia's sources, it is possible that additional time will be allocated after the end of Kurganets ' state tests to correct the identified shortcomings.

So there will be a delay... but not a huge problem really...

Wow... thanks for that article... it adds new designations to the list of those known... B-10 for the APC and B-12 for the engineer and recovery vehicle (BREM).

GarryB wrote:The problems with the Kurganets will likely mean those forces get older gear for a bit longer, but when I say older gear I mean upgraded previous generation gear which is not the worst stuff they could be using.

Indeed, all vehicles incl. BMP-2 are being upgraded with new sights, modular armour, RCWS, communications, engines etc... First step is to avoid obsolescence of the equipment, then newer platforms may appear as they are developed and matured.

When the threat from the enemy does not really include large numbers of tanks I would suggest an APS system adapted that is optimised to intercept HEAT rockets and missiles further from the protected armoured vehicle to reduce its effect on the armour to zero... meaning a Boomerang would be just as well protected as a T-90.

Enemy has a tendency to find the weak spot in every technology, so Armata has both APS and extremely strong armour. Maybe you see future ATGMs that separate in several parts to fool the APS, or ATGM crews just use RPGs or other means to double tap a target and deplete their interceptors. Regardless I guess APS will be used more and more and this may allow lighter platforms to be more combat capable, it is possible indeed.

With Armata level optics and sensors I would think the turret with the 57mm grenade launcher should actually be the turret of choice for such a situation... 7-8kgs of HE per shot would probably be very comparable with a 125mm HE shell, and the APFSDS round would punch through any armoured truck or vehicle IEDs... and at 120 rounds per minute would be devastating. Air burst HE would be very effective too.

Those in 57 mm are 2.6 kg grenades aren't they? 600 g HE or something like that. In Syria they ended up using massive explosive demining systems to take care of fortifications, I would say large caliber will be in demand. Don't get me wrong I basically agree with what you say, only I don't see tank rounds being substituted any time soon.

That is not really very logical... the Spruts turret is for an 18 ton tracked amphibious vehicle... there was never a possibility of fitting the T-90s turret on to it simply because the turret would probably weigh half as much again as the vehicle chassis it was being put on.

I have no hard data about the T-14 RCWS, but as an example look the pictures below for the AU-220M module in several weights and configurations. They specify the kind of vehicle (or ship) that can carry it. The heavy variant for the Derivatsiya is 6 t, twice as much as the DUBM-57.




This guy is estimating a weight of 13 t for the RCWS + gun

https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=33534

I have not checked whether the hole diameter would be compatible with the Kurganets etc.

why do you think the MBT turret would need to change?

Different weight, dimensions and massively different gun loads.

What possible changes would you make?  

An unmanned RCWS with special recoil devices derived from Spruts would be the proper thing IMHO, as it was discussed for Bumerang.

Making them all the same would actually increase production numbers and allow a more uniform performance and probably help keep costs down.

Welding 100 or 200 turrets is not going to change prices a lot, it is the technologically complex systems that need to be produced en masse to get scale economies. Those can be common among the RCWS of a tank proper and a tank hunter, but not the gun and gun mount.

I mean what is the point of being the light mobile force if you need to get a slow heavy tank to come forward to capture video of the target because your camera in your Boomerang force is stink... because it was cheaper...

No that is absurd for sure  

do you think they are going to put Armata T-14s and T-15s and Kurganets B-11s and Boomerang K-15 and K-16 vehicles in storage while they use BMP-3s and T-90s?

I hope not!

They might say you get to use the T-72s and just wear them out...

Like what could apply to VKS now with that surge of NATO flights... they could as much use MiG-21s for such missions that only generate expense and wear down equipment. The issue is that you need to get proficiency with the equipment you are expected to use in combat and that comes only with real practice.

Why would they want deep penetration into HATO territory?  It is easier to do that with hypersonic missiles...

Bombing raids did not stop the nazis, taking Germany did  

The model of the T-16 BREM vehicle has no weapon fitted at all... for some roles no armament would be needed and for some roles the support of a heavy machine gun would be useful... why wouldn't they fit one if they think it suits the role?

I meant in a fighting role.

I never make a bet I am not prepared to lose...

Hahaha I would not be ready to lose that bet either  

Any vehicle can get stuck... terrain is like the sea... no boat or sub is safe... no vehicle is safe... but wheeled vehicles are much more mobile on firm ground, and when the ground is mostly soft then tracked vehicles will be the standard... preferably lighter ones than heavy ones, but dragging other vehicles out of holes will always be an important part of training... I also remember a video of a dozen different wheeled vehicles in the snow and it was the western Iveco that failed right at the start and the other Russian vehicles just drove on through...

Any plowed field + rain turns into a complicated terrain. Deep snow too. Russians know a thing or two about that  

There is a gun

Indeed, all vehicles incl. BMP-2 are being upgraded with new sights, modular armour, RCWS, communications, engines etc... First step is to avoid obsolescence of the equipment, then newer platforms may appear as they are developed and matured.

Well your old stuff is your reserve gear so if you can put the same night vision systems and communications gear in them that you have in the new vehicles it will make it easier for the old stuff to work together with the new stuff in mixed formations.

There is no chance they will delay the service entry of the T-14 and T-15 until they have all the other T model vehicles ready... they might not get them all ready until 2030, but that is OK too.... the tank and the BMP and BTR vehicles are the ones that face the enemy head on and lead the force... having an older command vehicle like the ACRV-2 or something is not the worst thing in the world as a command vehicle.

Obviously once all the vehicles are ready you might want to complete a few units and try it to see if it works out as well as you expected... take it on an exercise for 2,000km and see how it all works.

Enemy has a tendency to find the weak spot in every technology, so Armata has both APS and extremely strong armour.

Fully agree the Armata formation is definitely the best protected force, but will also be the slowest and certainly the most expensive.

They make the rules... they might decide that unifying each force into one vehicle family is not actually that practical and so they might want T-14s in Kurganets or Boomerang forces if the enemy is particularly mobile like a terrorist force, or particularly well equipped with anti armour weapons.

I mean even if they said that the current vehicle for command is an MTLB based vehicle and this and this vehicle is BMP based and that vehicle is BTR based and currently they do fine in terms of operating... why don't we replace the MTLB and BMP tracked vehicles with Kurganets vehicles... much heavier but certainly lighter than a tank based model, and the BTR based current vehicles use a Boomerang based model... in fact teh Boomerang will be very mobile and much lighter so they might use the Boomerang as the basis for more vehicles than the BTR and BRDM based vehicles are being currently used for.

You are still only using three vehicle families with two different engine families so it would be a generation better than what they have now...

They are the military so I suspect they have all sorts of plans, but once these new vehicles get into production and service there is going to be a lot of extra other vehicles... they will be adding three vehicle families... so I rather suspect they will be looking at families they can drop.

Maybe you see future ATGMs that separate in several parts to fool the APS, or ATGM crews just use RPGs or other means to double tap a target and deplete their interceptors. Regardless I guess APS will be used more and more and this may allow lighter platforms to be more combat capable, it is possible indeed.

Or they might just use IEDs and land mines and remote piloted vehicles to drive up to a target and roll under it and explode upwards to take on the thin belly armour... in fact programming it to detect the tank itself and working out which is the front and which is teh rear and sneaking around the rear and going under it to explode should be fairly straight forward in terms of AI and programming... Belly armour is generally rather thin and when ammo is kept on many vehicles.

Those in 57 mm are 2.6 kg grenades aren't they?

No, that is the S-60 bottle necked round for AA guns. The 57mm grenade launcher round has been described as equivalent to a 76.2mm artillery shell in power... and the standard Soviet 76.2mm artillery shell is a 7-8kg shell.

In Syria they ended up using massive explosive demining systems to take care of fortifications, I would say large caliber will be in demand. Don't get me wrong I basically agree with what you say, only I don't see tank rounds being substituted any time soon.

I appreciate what you are saying... shell weight does not equal HE mass, but grenade launchers and artillery tend to have higher HE content than most guns including tank guns. If there is a fortification to be reduced I would use 152mm guns or bring up 2S4 240mm mortars and 203mm 2S7 guns for the job... much more efficient than 125mm smooth bore or 120mm gun/mortar.

I have no hard data about the T-14 RCWS, but as an example look the pictures below for the AU-220M module in several weights and configurations. They specify the kind of vehicle (or ship) that can carry it. The heavy variant for the Derivatsiya is 6 t, twice as much as the DUBM-57.

Very interesting, but to my eyes it says the heavy model is 5 tons, rather than 6.

I would also suggest that previous generations of vehicles were never designed to share turret types, while the concept from the get go was that the Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang vehicles would be sharing turrets... as we have already seen with the epoch turrets with 30mm cannons and with 57mm guns.

The older generation vehicles like the BTR at 14 tons loaded weight would be hard pressed to maintain performance with its 1-2 ton turret removed and replaced with a 5 ton turret, so of course a 2.5 ton version of their new 57mm gun turret makes sense to develop to fit it.

That is not to say Boomerang will get the 2.5 ton turret. Note the BMP-1 and BMP-2 use the 2.5 ton turret but the BMP-3 has a 3.2 ton turret because teh BMP-3 obviously can carry a much heavier turret.... it says the BTR-T can also carry the heavier 3.2 ton turret.. but further along the BTR-T can also use the 4 ton model.. which is no great surprise as the BTR-T is a tank troop transport vehicle.

Different weight, dimensions and massively different gun loads.

Different to what? You understand these vehicles were designed from the outset to be vehicle families and so the turret rings of all the vehicles would be design to use the different weapons and different turrets. I mean the Epoch turret with a 30mm cannon and a few missiles is not the same as the same Epoch turret with the high velocity AA 57mm gun...

An unmanned RCWS

Well that does without saying... they are hardly going to start using manned turrets for things...

with special recoil devices derived from Spruts would be the proper thing IMHO, as it was discussed for Bumerang.

The Sprut turret is smaller than the Armata turret why do you think there would be a problem just dropping the different gun in the Armata turret?

It should be designed to take a 152mm smoothbore... I am sure the turret itself can take a long recoil 125mm...

Welding 100 or 200 turrets is not going to change prices a lot, it is the technologically complex systems that need to be produced en masse to get scale economies.

Actually having one factory making one MBT turret on one production line and another production line making a different turret and then fitting them each to all three vehicles with no modification at all would be the goal.

The factories making the chassis can then just fit the turrets and have them drive out ready... simple and modular.

Those can be common among the RCWS of a tank proper and a tank hunter, but not the gun and gun mount.

You haven't said why yet.

No that is absurd for sure

I am glad you agree that even light units need the best optics and sensors they can make.

The issue is that you need to get proficiency with the equipment you are expected to use in combat and that comes only with real practice.

They have state of the art German electronic training systems that can train individual riflemen up to an entire division I seem to recall where soldiers can be trained to lead armoured formations, and it can all be recorded including all the armoured vehicle simulators etc etc... like a game of War Thunder so you can check penetration angles and even try new gear before it is in service, but obviously driving the real thing is important too... but more importantly where all the real vehicles are simulated and logistics is simulated too.

Bombing raids did not stop the nazis, taking Germany did

They couldn't precisely hit the buildings Hitler was in and take him and his cronies out and then threaten that if they want to escalate the next ones will be nukes... do you feel lucky...

I meant in a fighting role.

Even the current BREMs are heavily armoured and covered in ERA bricks because clearing enemy mine fields is dangerous... not just from the mines as minefields are often covered by enemy fire as an ambush type situation to get easy kills of exposed enemy assets busy clearing mines.

I think the original had HMGs that could be fired from within the vehicle so the T-16 might have a rifle calibre mg or HMG in a remote weapon mount...

Any plowed field + rain turns into a complicated terrain. Deep snow too. Russians know a thing or two about that

Of course... in the west there is a thing where you get in your big 4WD vehicle and drive out in the most terrible terrain and get stuck on purpose... and then use a winch attached to a nearby tree or a ground anchor and winch yourself out.... it is called winching and they do it for fun.

In the real world even the lightest most mobile tracked vehicle with super wide tracks can get stuck... even amphibious ones can get stuck in the mud or snow... part of your training and experience with your vehicles is to look around and work out where you can go and where you probably can't.

The MTLB was used as a BMP in some places because it is lighter and has much wider tracks... but has M113 level paper thin armour and a PKT in a small turret so much worse armour and fire power to the BMP... (though rather comparable to the M113 at the time...)

There is a gun

Fair enough... the ambulance version currently used is I believe based on a BMP and does not have any weapons, so the new vehicle versions probably wont either.

This is interesting... I believe a doctored image using the revealed shape of the internal bits of the Armata turret without the armoured casing around them... ie the T-14 with the turret internals exposed...



The Kord turret for the vehicle families



Official plastic model of the T-16 BREM armoured recovery vehicle.

Epoch turret with 30mm cannon being shown on Armata, Kurganets, and Boomerang...



Kurganets with the APC Kord turret... note they don't seem to be making bigger HMG turrets for the heavier vehicles... you would think if they made smaller turrets for Boomerang they would make a bigger APC turret for Kurganets with more ammo and perhaps a couple of Bulat rockets...

With Bulat missiles it would technically be an AIFV.

Not really... you could put Fagot missile launchers on a BTR-60 and that doesn't make it a BMP.

But if that is a problem for you then replace the Bulat launcher with one of those new box launchers for 80mm or 57mm unguided rockets, or use the 40mm Balkan grenade launcher instead of the HMG and have 500-600 grenades in the turret... so it will need to be bigger.

If it has a 30mm gun or a ATGM it is an AIFV and not an APC. That´s the definition.

GarryB wrote:Well your old stuff is your reserve gear so if you can put the same night vision systems and communications gear in them that you have in the new vehicles it will make it easier for the old stuff to work together with the new stuff in mixed formations.

Of course, and the crews will need much shorter adaptation time if they have to switch vehicles.

They make the rules... they might decide that unifying each force into one vehicle family is not actually that practical and so they might want T-14s in Kurganets or Boomerang forces if the enemy is particularly mobile like a terrorist force, or particularly well equipped with anti armour weapons.

At the army they had information next to the Armata saying it is intended for tank and motor rifle units. We will see how the actual deployment works.

You are still only using three vehicle families with two different engine families so it would be a generation better than what they have now...

Certainly a bit of structure helps avoiding logistics and maintenance chaos. Those three families look a good compromise to me.

They are the military so I suspect they have all sorts of plans, but once these new vehicles get into production and service there is going to be a lot of extra other vehicles... they will be adding three vehicle families... so I rather suspect they will be looking at families they can drop.

Now we are linking images about known developments:

Or they might just use IEDs and land mines and remote piloted vehicles to drive up to a target and roll under it and explode upwards to take on the thin belly armour... in fact programming it to detect the tank itself and working out which is the front and which is teh rear and sneaking around the rear and going under it to explode should be fairly straight forward in terms of AI and programming... Belly armour is generally rather thin and when ammo is kept on many vehicles.

Creeping mines, creepy idea APS would need to be trained against them, I think the Afganit should be capable if an artificial vision system is implemented on the cameras surrounding the vehicle...

No, that is the S-60 bottle necked round for AA guns. The 57mm grenade launcher round has been described as equivalent to a 76.2mm artillery shell in power... and the standard Soviet 76.2mm artillery shell is a 7-8kg shell.

This is the round:

I appreciate what you are saying... shell weight does not equal HE mass, but grenade launchers and artillery tend to have higher HE content than most guns including tank guns. If there is a fortification to be reduced I would use 152mm guns or bring up 2S4 240mm mortars and 203mm 2S7 guns for the job... much more efficient than 125mm smooth bore or 120mm gun/mortar.

If they are available, of course! In Syria it was not normally the case.

Very interesting, but to my eyes it says the heavy model is 5 tons, rather than 6.

True, I forgot to link the proper image:

I would also suggest that previous generations of vehicles were never designed to share turret types, while the concept from the get go was that the Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang vehicles would be sharing turrets... as we have already seen with the epoch turrets with 30mm cannons and with 57mm guns.

The only RCWS we see shared among platforms are low weight, low recoil. The design bureaus obviously want to see them spread as much as possible, we should not confuse that with that the ground forces actually want to do, which may be quite different. Besides, you have a T-14 but no Kurganets based tank... I mean, we can discuss further and I am not going to convince you. Let us try to find conclusive data about what RCWS can be used by what platform.

The older generation vehicles like the BTR at 14 tons loaded weight would be hard pressed to maintain performance with its 1-2 ton turret removed and replaced with a 5 ton turret, so of course a 2.5 ton version of their new 57mm gun turret makes sense to develop to fit it.

What about storing such data for RCWS in special technical data threads?

That is not to say Boomerang will get the 2.5 ton turret. Note the BMP-1 and BMP-2 use the 2.5 ton turret but the BMP-3 has a 3.2 ton turret because teh BMP-3 obviously can carry a much heavier turret.... it says the BTR-T can also carry the heavier 3.2 ton turret.. but further along the BTR-T can also use the 4 ton model.. which is no great surprise as the BTR-T is a tank troop transport vehicle.

The issue is actually quite complex, like anything seen not from our armchairs but from the workshop. It was interesting to read the developer talking about the Manul, apparently the new RCWS allows to balance the vehicle and move the engine to the front... who can predict this without being the developer or having quite accurate data and professional level knowledge?

Different to what?

Epocha does not even have the high ballistics 57 mm gun... I am sceptic about it carrying a 125 mm gun with 20% more muzzle energy than that of a T-90

You understand these vehicles were designed from the outset to be vehicle families and so the turret rings of all the vehicles would be design to use the different weapons and different turrets.

See my reasoning above

I mean the Epoch turret with a 30mm cannon and a few missiles is not the same as the same Epoch turret with the high velocity AA 57mm gun...

The first is the Boomerang-BM, but the second you say is not Epocha right? That is the AU-220M. If you mind the Epocha with he 57 mm low ballistics, true, they are completely different in their internals.

The Sprut turret is smaller than the Armata turret why do you think there would be a problem just dropping the different gun in the Armata turret?

Dont know if the gun mount is much different or takes much more place, sounds plausible even when over-dimmensioned.

Actually having one factory making one MBT turret on one production line and another production line making a different turret and then fitting them each to all three vehicles with no modification at all would be the goal.

The missing piece is that there is a competition between different companies too...

You haven't said why yet.

I have said why but not proved it, agreed.

In the real world even the lightest most mobile tracked vehicle with super wide tracks can get stuck... even amphibious ones can get stuck in the mud or snow... part of your training and experience with your vehicles is to look around and work out where you can go and where you probably can't.

Certainly, that does not mean that a heavily armoured vehicle can use wheels and move more or less as well in difficult terrain as a tracked ones. Contact patch of a wheel and a track are worlds apart.

This is interesting... I believe a doctored image using the revealed shape of the internal bits of the Armata turret without the armoured casing around them... ie the T-14 with the turret internals exposed...

Nice!

marcellogo wrote:Some western European nations has got completely rid of any tracked IFV

Dear marcellogo, you must be aware that Western European countries are not very serious about high intensity land warfare. It is normal they focus on expeditionary forces and their wheeled vehicles, they are not exactly planing to repeat WWII battle tanks... but Russia certainly has a clear opinion on what a war for survival looks like and what it demands from their military. Anyway, you can convince us easily with soil pressure data for those vehicles compared to tracked ones. On soft, slippery ground the traction of a wheel and a track have nothing to do... what are you going to do if you have to cross agricultural land turned into mud? I have done that with low weight 4x4 vehicles and it is easier said than done, imagine how enormously heavy vehicles behave in such conditions. I have seen the difference weight does in such conditions and I remain sceptic... will try to find out myself.

If it has a 30mm gun or a ATGM it is an AIFV and not an APC. That´s the definition.

I think the key is the Soviet terminology... IFV is BMP, and APC or troop transport is BTR.

A BTR-80A with a 30mm cannon is not a BMP.

The first western IFV was probably the Marder and it had a 20mm cannon... in terms of armour penetration the KPV in 14.5mm has better performance than any 20mm cannon so essentially all the BTRs from the BTR-60PB onwards and also the BRDM-2 with the PBs turret would be IFVs in that case.

Boomerang have certainly the capacity of operate as a full fledged Infantry Combat Vehicle like VBC Freccia, Boxer, Patria and VBCI are actually doing, not just like in the roles of actual BTRs.

It certainly could and it would have an Epoch turret, rather than a turret with a HMG and a few rockets or light missiles.

It's because of that that I consider the Kurganet with its 25 tons weight the actual weakest link of actual russian land vehicle program.

It needed to be affordable to replace all the rear area vehicles that support a divisions operations... and it is 7-8 ton heavier than a BMP-3 after all...

It has full APS and ERA and could have further extra armour added to it... it is fully modular and designed to increase in weight over time with engine power increases over its lifetime.

25 tons is its weight class just like 45 tons is the Armata weight class and 25 tons is the Boomerang weight class... individual vehicles can be rather heavier than that with heavier turrets and extra armour or equipment.

[quoteProbably such a light weight was dictated by the russian (well founded) insistence about having fully amphibious vehicles, needing not any special arrangements for crossing rivers and move through marshes but a.t.m. heavy wheeled vehicles have demonstrated the possibility to grow over the 30ton limit without any problem.[/quote]

They will certainly want to keep their amphibious capacity, so any add on armour may include buoyancy aides... I suspect ceramic armour with airbubbles could be very effective...

Needless to say it is not amphibious without preparation.

The Abrams is amphibious with preparation... you drain the lake or the sea or divert the river you were going to cross... even then it will likely get stuck.

At the army they had information next to the Armata saying it is intended for tank and motor rifle units. We will see how the actual deployment works.

Well of course because some tank forces will be Armata based and they will need Armata based Motor Rifle units to work with them... there will be Kurganets and Boomerang units that are tank and motor rifle units too.

If a unit needs tank level protection tanks (T-14) then of course they are going to also need tank protection level IFVs and APCs too (T-16 and T-?)... and it would be the same in a tank division as a Motor Rifle division...

Certainly a bit of structure helps avoiding logistics and maintenance chaos. Those three families look a good compromise to me.

It looks really messy now, and could be pretty messy for a couple of years to come, but they have started a process to make things much more streamlined and efficient.

This is the round:

Nice.... look at the length of that entire round (don't worry about the little stubby propellent charge)... that is 57mm calibre so essentially twice the diameter of a 30mm cannon shell, so look at the length of that with a tiny APFSDS dart and a cartridge case the full length of that round full of propellent... that is going to penetrate way more armour than any new 30mm cannon shell they could come up with using the normal 165mm case...

The design bureaus obviously want to see them spread as much as possible, we should not confuse that with that the ground forces actually want to do, which may be quite different.

So why would the ground forces not want 125mm smoothbore guns in their tanks in Kurganets and Boomerang vehicle units?

Besides, you have a T-14 but no Kurganets based tank... I mean, we can discuss further and I am not going to convince you. Let us try to find conclusive data about what RCWS can be used by what platform.

We have not seen any command vehicles of any type in any of the new vehicle family formats... does that mean they will keep using the old MTLBu based ACRV-2?

The issue is actually quite complex, like anything seen not from our armchairs but from the workshop. It was interesting to read the developer talking about the Manul, apparently the new RCWS allows to balance the vehicle and move the engine to the front... who can predict this without being the developer or having quite accurate data and professional level knowledge?

Very true, things that seem puzzling at first only make sense when you get more information.

For years I kept reading in western documents how the BTR-60 series was rubbish and if they had real democracy these wheeled coffins would not be used.

Wasn't too long before wheeled coffins became trendy in the west... NZ has LAVIIIs for instance.

The BTR-60 compared with the M113 has much better performance on firm ground and actually bounces cross country quite nicely... its armour is no worse but its weaponry is much better... the gunner being in a fully protected turret with a more powerful weapon. What is not clear is much cheaper to buy and much cheaper to operate because a wheeled vehicle is much more maintenance friendly than any track layer.

It had two engines because they were cheap widely used truck engines which were simple and easy to keep running. Later models introduced new engines... also used on trucks and relatively cheap...

Epocha does not even have the high ballistics 57 mm gun... I am sceptic about it carrying a 125 mm gun with 20% more muzzle energy than that of a T-90

I assumed Epocha would need one because I didn't realise the grenade launcher model has a high velocity APFSDS round. The fact that the APFSDS round of the 57mm grenade launcher probably has much better AP performance than a 30mm cannon and teh HE round clearly much more HE... I would say the S-60 gun can be used for AA use only... a BMP needs to be able to kill enemy BMPs, and the old 30mm round just does not cut it now, but the new 57mm grenade launcher with APFSDS rounds can do the job of both the 30mm and the 100mm of the BMP-3. With Kornets and Bulats it should be fine.

Dont know if the gun mount is much different or takes much more place, sounds plausible even when over-dimmensioned.

I would think the Epocha turrets were design from the outset to fit all three vehicles (the Typhoon seems to have a different 30mm cannon armed turret so it might not fit that), why is it so hard to believe they might have designed the Armata T-14 turret to fit all three vehicles... just because we have only seen it on the Armata... We know it is supposed to take the 152mm smoothbore... perhaps the reason they didn't adopt the 152mm smoothbore is because in addition to the 125mm calibre being good enough, maybe the turret works on all three vehicle families as is with the 125mm gun, but not the 152mm gun.

They might delay the introduction of the 152mm while the develop a long recoil version for the Kurganets and Boomerangs...

The missing piece is that there is a competition between different companies too...

And there might have been other turrets developed... the T-14 turret clearly won.

Certainly, that does not mean that a heavily armoured vehicle can use wheels and move more or less as well in difficult terrain as a tracked ones. Contact patch of a wheel and a track are worlds apart.

The Matilda tank the Soviets received from the UK during WWII needed metal plates wielded to it so they didn't slide on flat ice covered ground.

Lots of different things effect traction... sometimes when one gets stuck it is because nothing can get through and the only solution is a tow or a winch.

Some western European nations has got completely rid of any tracked IFV

New Zealand replaced out old tracked APCs for LAVIIIs.

Much cheaper, more mobile... much much better armed and probably better armoured as well.

We use them mainly for peacekeeping roles rather than hot conflicts... we did have troops in Afghanistan... my nephew went... they didn't take the LAVS.

what are you going to do if you have to cross agricultural land turned into mud?

If you can't cross it then treat it like it is land mined.... go around. Wheeled vehicles can be very fast on roads... being limited to roads makes ambushes easier, but then a good commander will use tactics to compensate... and he will have enormous fire power at his disposal.

In most COIN ops the locals will suffer because of overreactions by military forces burned in an attack... it is the way of things.

marcellogo wrote:About your doubt on mobility, all report states that thanks to variable tyre inflation systems such vehicles shown to be perfectly at ease if not plain superior into all the terrains a tracked vehicle can go, except maybe the finest sand deserts and, in this I concord with you, russian plains during the snow melting season.

I have researched a bit:

https://www.dsta.gov.sg/docs/default-source/dsta-about/an-assessment-of-land-vehicles-trafficability.pdf?sfvrsn=2
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a166390.pdf
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1834.html
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf
https://www.army-technology.com/features/tracks-or-wheels/
https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2020/05/28/tracked-vs-wheeled-vehicles/

The best link I found in case of having little time is this:

https://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html

In summary and in order to get rough but correct values, tracked vehicles exert roughly half the ground pressure of wheeled ones and tolerate better weight increase (there are concrete values in the last link). They normally have also lower profile. On road, they create roughly twice the resistance to advance, compared to cross-country type of wheels, and have half the range. Wheeled vehicles going cross country have no fuel consumption advantage, though.

It is clear then that tracked vehicles continue to have much better tactical mobility and armour levels, while operational and strategic mobility are best in wheeled vehicles. One of the studies linked shows the percentage of paths a tracked vs wheeled vehicle can go through depending on weight and scenario, and also time employed... tracked vehicles excel in such metrics, since they have a very low ground pressure level comparable or lower than a human and hence don't get stuck normally.

Hence because I earnestly think that the latter would end up, like our actual tracked IFV, as a sort of niche vehicle i.e. a successor of MT-LB, while the standard future russian BMPs would be T-15 and Boomerangs.

That is only logical, if you think that all lighter infantry vehicles can be wheeled. I am still not convinced, let us see what happens.

GarryB wrote:Well of course because some tank forces will be Armata based and they will need Armata based Motor Rifle units to work with them... there will be Kurganets and Boomerang units that are tank and motor rifle units too.

If a unit needs tank level protection tanks (T-14) then of course they are going to also need tank protection level IFVs and APCs too (T-16 and T-?)... and it would be the same in a tank division as a Motor Rifle division...

I was theorizing that they would create shock troops based on tank divisions and defensive troops based on motor rifle ones, with Kurganets and older tanks. If they use the T-14 in motor rifle divisions then it is not that simple.

so look at the length of that with a tiny APFSDS dart and a cartridge case the full length of that round full of propellent... that is going to penetrate way more armour than any new 30mm cannon shell they could come up with using the normal 165mm case...

Certainly, the amount of propellent and size of penetrator should achieve that without a problem...

I would say the S-60 gun can be used for AA use only... a BMP needs to be able to kill enemy BMPs, and the old 30mm round just does not cut it now, but the new 57mm grenade launcher with APFSDS rounds can do the job of both the 30mm and the 100mm of the BMP-3. With Kornets and Bulats it should be fine.

The T-15 uses it, odds are they want to have a long ranged gun to engage ground targets before they can return fire. Unless you suggest the T-15 is the AAA of the Armata units, but it apparently lacks some features to do that properly.

They might delay the introduction of the 152mm while the develop a long recoil version for the Kurganets and Boomerangs...

Why would the Kurganets and Bumerang units settle for a inferior gun like the 125 mm one, when the Armata has the 152??!  

If you can't cross it then treat it like it is land mined.... go around. Wheeled vehicles can be very fast on roads... being limited to roads makes ambushes easier, but then a good commander will use tactics to compensate... and he will have enormous fire power at his disposal.

That is called inferior tactical mobility, and mind you, it is not an advantage...

marcellogo wrote:First, armored wheeled vehicles (why,why there is not a f... english word equivalent to autoblindo or?)

autoblindo (Italian) = armored car (English), there's also the term AFV (armored fighting vehicle) but that's not limited to armored vehicles with wheels but also means tracked vehicles too. So 'armored car' is the best term to use.

tracked vehicles excel in such metrics, since they have a very low ground pressure level comparable or lower than a human and hence don't get stuck normally.

Ground pressure is not the only important figure... having lots of traction means nothing if you belly out and are sitting literally on the belly of the vehicle in mud or snow... the wheels or tracks just spin in either direction.

Another factor is actual mass... some bridges wont take vehicles that weigh more than say 20 or 30 tons and no way they will take 65 ton western tanks no matter how wide the tracks are.

And of course in terms of terrain some of the best modern cross country vehicles are wheeled... there is a Russian vehicle with 6 huge tires that are very low pressure. Can't drive fast but can drive anywhere...

I was theorizing that they would create shock troops based on tank divisions and defensive troops based on motor rifle ones, with Kurganets and older tanks. If they use the T-14 in motor rifle divisions then it is not that simple.

What do you mean by shock troops... I would think mobility and fire power would create more shock than just having super heavy vehicles... the Blitzkrieg the Germans inflicted on Europe at the start of the war would not have worked with Tiger IIs and Panther IIs... for a start they didn't have enough of them and they would be too vulnerable to air power....

Forces to punch holes in HATO lines could be Armata based but the actual breakthrough forces that rush through and shatter rear area forces and HQs and suppliers and staging areas would be better lighter like Boomerang forces, while either side of the hole Kurganets forces could hold the HATO front line in place...

Certainly, the amount of propellent and size of penetrator should achieve that without a problem...

Still can't get over how clever that was... basically taking the idea of telescoped rounds... which they essentially invented quite a few decades ago in a 23mm cannon shell BTW, they have made a gun effective in replacing two totally different guns effectively... one 57mm grenade launcher replaces a 30mm cannon and a 100mm rifled HE bomb lobber... but a thicker 100mm barrel and an APFSDS round for that and that is really really cool for light vehicles... a much more sensible alternative to that Israeli 60mm round for light vehicles designed to take on BMPs and lighter armoured vehicles like old T-55 types that are so common around the place.
It has a fantastic 100mm HE round... a useful APFSDS round, and of course the 100mm guided missile as well... what a useful weapon that already has an autoloader designed and ready to go... just a higher pressure barrel and chamber... you could probably keep the 30mm cannon for other targets...

The T-15 uses it, odds are they want to have a long ranged gun to engage ground targets before they can return fire. Unless you suggest the T-15 is the AAA of the Armata units, but it apparently lacks some features to do that properly.

Show me a photo of it. I am not doubting you but is it an AU-220 turret or an Epoch turret... the point is taht there are probably other turrets competing for each job and having an AU-220 turret for the T-15 using the S-60 gun instead of the 57mm grenade launcher equipped Epoch turret suggests they might see the Armata family of vehicles fighting some future peer enemy where the 57mm grenade launchers APFSDS round is not good enough so it needs the S-60 gun... or perhaps the makers of the AU-220 turret made the gun and the Epoch turret makers are pushing the grenade launcher instead.

Fighting somewhere where the enemy simply does not have a lot of BMPs let alone tanks the Epoch turret with the 30mm cannon might be good enough and be cheaper than the 57mm grenade launcher or the S-60 57mm gun... and the 30mm cannon shells would be easier and cheaper to get a hold of... any BMP unit would have them.

They might decide the T-15 needs a more powerful weapon or they might decide on a standard BMP turret for all three vehicles.

That Au-220 seems to be a BMP turret but without the Kornet and Bulat missiles, though I suppose they could be added. The Epoch turrets are BMP turrets too clearly with their missiles.

the 57mm S-60 turret of the 2S38 is clearly for air defence and not a BMP turret but eventually an Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang version of both 2S38 plus the Pine/Sosna missile vehicle (ie Tunguska 2S6M replacements) both without radar, or a version of Pantsir with radar and improved TOR with radar will be used in these vehicle family platforms.

Why would the Kurganets and Bumerang units settle for a inferior gun like the 125 mm one, when the Armata has the 152??!

They will all be using the at the moment... I would think a long recoil version of the 152mm smoothbore would be a solution when needed... go with something that already works...

That is called inferior tactical mobility, and mind you, it is not an advantage...

But is it? I mean if you take tracked vehicles across freshly ploughed farmland are you telling me that every single vehicle sent across is going to get through without any problems? And when you get half way across and a land mine goes off and you start coming under fire from 3km away from the exposed flank with TOW missiles being launched in large numbers... I would tell you what you could do with your superior tactical mobility...

Let's add that they can move even when a wheel has been heavily damaged,by mines or enemy fire while a tracked one would get a total mobility kill if even one track is down.

And also unlike truck wheels which are optimised for carrying heavy loads on ashphalt or hard flat surfaces, many wheeled armoured vehicles have central tire pressure regulation systems so the tire pressure can be reduced to improve amphibious performance and also lower tire pressure on the ground...

Real war is not like a computer game where you can right click for 20 seconds and have the track fixed... normally in combat you get a damaged track you abandon the vehicle and try to make it back to your own lines and hope they recover your tank before some rebel takes a shit in it... the gift that keeps on giving....

GarryB wrote:Ground pressure is not the only important figure... having lots of traction means nothing if you belly out and are sitting literally on the belly of the vehicle in mud or snow... the wheels or tracks just spin in either direction.

Ground pressure is the determining factor to avoid that in the first place...

And of course in terms of terrain some of the best modern cross country vehicles are wheeled... there is a Russian vehicle with 6 huge tires that are very low pressure. Can't drive fast but can drive anywhere...

Yeah, new armoured divisions will consist of guys riding quads... a wheeled vehicle is only as good as a tracked one if it is substantially lighter. I mean, this is a done issue, tracks are used despite their huge disadvantages because they are unmatched in terms of off-road mobility.

What do you mean by shock troops... I would think mobility and fire power would create more shock than just having super heavy vehicles... the Blitzkrieg the Germans inflicted on Europe at the start of the war would not have worked with Tiger IIs and Panther IIs... for a start they didn't have enough of them and they would be too vulnerable to air power....

Centauros for everyone then? The ground forces are going to love it...  

Forces to punch holes in HATO lines could be Armata based but the actual breakthrough forces that rush through and shatter rear area forces and HQs and suppliers and staging areas would be better lighter like Boomerang forces, while either side of the hole Kurganets forces could hold the HATO front line in place...

Let's see how it evolves. Until now there is zero tank hunter based on Kurganets, zero based on Bumerang (there is talk though and it definitely makes sense for expeditionary forces) but we do have T-90 and T-14. Tomorrow you can be right, who knows.

Show me a photo of it. I am not doubting you but is it an AU-220 turret or an Epoch turret... the point is taht there are probably other turrets competing for each job and having an AU-220 turret for the T-15 using the S-60 gun instead of the 57mm grenade launcher equipped Epoch turret suggests they might see the Armata family of vehicles fighting some future peer enemy where the 57mm grenade launchers APFSDS round is not good enough so it needs the S-60 gun... or perhaps the makers of the AU-220 turret made the gun and the Epoch turret makers are pushing the grenade launcher instead.

It is the Kinzhal / DUBM-57, the lighter of the AU-220M RCWS range. I agree they probably want to make a future proof RCWS for the T-15. Manufacturers are different, too.



The older RCWS was the first Epocha, now called Boomerang-BM with the 30 mm gun.

They might decide the T-15 needs a more powerful weapon or they might decide on a standard BMP turret for all three vehicles.

As of late, Armata is shown with the DUBM-57, Kurganets with the Epocha (57 mm) and Bumerang with the Boomerang-BM (30 mm)

That Au-220 seems to be a BMP turret but without the Kornet and Bulat missiles, though I suppose they could be added.

What do you mean by BMPT turret? As to the ATGM, they have Ataka

the 57mm S-60 turret of the 2S38 is clearly for air defence and not a BMP turret but eventually an Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang version of both 2S38 plus the Pine/Sosna missile vehicle (ie Tunguska 2S6M replacements) both without radar, or a version of Pantsir with radar and improved TOR with radar will be used in these vehicle family platforms.

Yeah, most probably 2S38 and Sosna, they need SHORADs marching together with the tanks.

They will all be using the at the moment... I would think a long recoil version of the 152mm smoothbore would be a solution when needed... go with something that already works...  

But is it?  I mean if you take tracked vehicles across freshly ploughed farmland are you telling me that every single vehicle sent across is going to get through without any problems? And when you get half way across and a land mine goes off and you start coming under fire from 3km away from the exposed flank with TOW missiles being launched in large numbers... I would tell you what you could do with your superior tactical mobility...  

It works completely different, the fact that the tracked vehicles can actually (and not only in certain conditions) go off road makes much more difficult to predict what routes they are going to follow, while wheeled vehicles are restricted to roads and well compacted paths. So that attack you talk about is much more probable to happen against the wheeled unit that took the easily predictable path.

And also unlike truck wheels which are optimised for carrying heavy loads on ashphalt or hard flat surfaces, many wheeled armoured vehicles have central tire pressure regulation systems so the tire pressure can be reduced to improve amphibious performance and also lower tire pressure on the ground...

... and still have way worse ground pressure levels than the tracked vehicles.

First, armored wheeled vehicles (why,why there is not a f... english word equivalent to autoblindo or?) are not limited to move on road only in most cases, they just have greater difficulties and are slower on muddy terrain but in temperate regions those zones are quite limited.

Farmland is quite common in Europe as are rains. They are already a difficult terrain for any moderately heavy wheeled vehicle.

There is however an upper weight limits given by the weight every axle can support but it was increased upon time so such vehicles are grown up until to reach the actual values.
Heavy European style Autoblindo (sorry, let me use the term) use big tyres in order to distribute the weight better for this reason.

Of course, that is the reason why wheeled vehicles have way bigger suspension and higher hulls.

They are structurally diverse from tracked IFV, they tend to be higher from ground but have a way inferior width, so one thing compensate the other.

This is very detrimental to visibility in the battlefield and also in terms of stability...

Major advantages of wheeled ones is instead that they no matter the weight they need no trailers to be moved on roads, neither damage asphalt in doing so, and are in most cases fully amphibious without preparation.

No question they have advantages and I look forward to seeing a Bumerang based tank hunter, all I am saying is that at the heavier end, tracked vehicles are still needed.

So, they are real IFV with good level of protection, good mine resistance, amphibious, with good mobility, not a second class alternative, just different. Hence the astounding success of formula.

See above my reasoning, and also the considerations in the links I posted, they are all saying essentially the same things. Where off-road mobility is priority, tracked vehicles are a must, where operational or strategic mobility is needed, wheeled vehicles are the best option.

marcellogo wrote:LFMS, certainly  in many things we agree. You have not to se my post as a direct contraposition of your own.

Is more a way to assess what is the actual state of art about IFV and because there is here  a tectonic shift toward wheeled heavy ones.

And no, normal farm land even when recently ploughed is not such a problem for such vehicles, only VERY soft and incoherent terrains, like marshes or sand dunes could result problematic but there is not anything here of such a dimension that would result in a more than merely tactical hindrance.

Sure, I totally see the point of wheeled vehicles and I am sure APS and other new technology will make them even more relevant, because it may reduce the need to make very heavy vehicles where wheels cannot really compete. I may have a more sceptical view regarding their off-road capability but it may be a matter of subjectivity and personal experience, the effect of weight on the performance of a wheeled vehicle in soft ground is huge, and then one has to consider the effects on the paths of many heavy weight vehicles transiting them. The links I posted deal with this in a statistical manner showing the percentage of places that can be reached as a function of weight for wheeled and tracked vehicles, and the time needed for that. The fundamental problem with off-road mobility is that it does not matter that a column travels 99% of the time without a problem, if they need to cross even a narrow stream or swamped terrain, or any other difficult patch of ground (for so many reasons), it will be stuck or at best will need to stop and take the necessary provisions to cross an recover all vehicles, losing a lot of time and remaining highly vulnerable in the meantime. I was watching some videos about off-road behaviour of different military vehicles and really Russia has to meet very harsh demands that probably Western Europe sees differently. They do all kinds of crazy things with T-72 and similar vehicles, which are of course limited by their very heavy weight and not specialised layout. The off-road capability of vehicles like DT-30 is difficult to believe, they can literally swim in mud...

Ground pressure is the determining factor to avoid that in the first place...

The Soviets developed a special arctic vehicle for polar exploration and they thought they could make it mobile by simply giving it massive tracks... like super wide... as you say... lower ground pressure and it can go anywhere right?

They ended up cutting them back to near the original size in the field because of the problems they had with them... it is not just a question of using 10 metre wide tracks and flying 2 metres above the ground because your ground pressure is so low. The engine and transmission have to be able to move the tracks for them to work...

I think I posted on the Arctic thread.

Yeah, new armoured divisions will consist of guys riding quads... a wheeled vehicle is only as good as a tracked one if it is substantially lighter. I mean, this is a done issue, tracks are used despite their huge disadvantages because they are unmatched in terms of off-road mobility.

The thing about the BTR-60 was that it was as cheap as a light armoured truck but was much more mobile. Unless the ground is rather hard and dry most trucks quickly get stuck when they leave the tar seal. Not so for the BTR... an American soldier testing a BTR out described it as they ultimate RV... (recreational vehicle)...

Centauros for everyone then? The ground forces are going to love it...

Of course not... there will be Armata and Kurganets for those that need tracks or something heavier and slower and more expensive.

Let's see how it evolves. Until now there is zero tank hunter based on Kurganets, zero based on Bumerang (there is talk though and it definitely makes sense for expeditionary forces) but we do have T-90 and T-14. Tomorrow you can be right, who knows.

That is where it is heading, but just like the Americans realising the F-35 is shit, sometimes plans change... they might decide to just use the four new vehicle families in mixed forces to replace existing types... that alone will reduce the number of different types of vehicles they operate by a large number... but in a world where a Sprut could be useful... why wouldn't a wheeled version be useful in some places too? And a lighter tracked model than the T-14 is the same... instead of sending T-55s to Afghanistan, then Kurganets could have done...

What do you mean by BMPT turret? As to the ATGM, they have Ataka

Sorry, I use the term BMP where westerners would probably use the term IFV... as opposed to BTR or in western terminology APC.

In other words the AU-220 turret is in direct competition with the Epoch turret with an S-60 type 57mm gun...

It works completely different, the fact that the tracked vehicles can actually (and not only in certain conditions) go off road makes much more difficult to predict what routes they are going to follow, while wheeled vehicles are restricted to roads and well compacted paths. So that attack you talk about is much more probable to happen against the wheeled unit that took the easily predictable path.

Not very often there is only one way for them to go... remember they are amphibious too... and they are also much faster than tracked vehicles so could surprise simply by getting there much faster than expected...

Modern systems that can detect optics could be used to target ATGMs before they are launched... and EM systems could set off mines and IEDS ahead of the vehicles too...

And they could put novachok in their smoke grenades...

... and still have way worse ground pressure levels than the tracked vehicles.

Reducing tire pressure reduces ground pressure...

Farmland is quite common in Europe as are rains.

So... cruise and ballistic missiles don't care about soft ground.

They are already a difficult terrain for any moderately heavy wheeled vehicle.

So you are suggesting a few nuclear detonations to dry out the soil... sure.

Of course, that is the reason why wheeled vehicles have way bigger suspension and higher hulls.

And much better ground clearance is good for driving off road...

No question they have advantages and I look forward to seeing a Bumerang based tank hunter, all I am saying is that at the heavier end, tracked vehicles are still needed.

They have three new ones... Armata, Kurganets and Sprut... what more do you want?

Is more a way to assess what is the actual state of art about IFV and because there is here a tectonic shift toward wheeled heavy ones.

The amusing thing is that most farm tractors are actually wheeled because despite still costing millions of dollars a wheeled vehicle is much cheaper to run and operate and maintain.

Sure, I totally see the point of wheeled vehicles and I am sure APS and other new technology will make them even more relevant, because it may reduce the need to make very heavy vehicles where wheels cannot really compete.

I remember in the early 1990s the US Army kept going on about the ideal tank... it seems shifting 65 ton tanks around the world is not that much fun and they were talking about a more strategically mobile 40 ton tank and there of course was a lot of talk but nothing ever came of it, but I always felt smug thinking at 48 tons the T-90 is pretty much what they really want but cannot say so...

A decent APS system, with NERA add on armour and of course cage armour as well, and some decent light ceramic armour in modules that can be replaced easily when hit would be a great start but wheels means lower operating costs and better speed and performance... and a future with electric drive motors on each wheel... in fact inclosed inside each wheel hub makes it even more interesting...

The links I posted deal with this in a statistical manner showing the percentage of places that can be reached as a function of weight for wheeled and tracked vehicles, and the time needed for that. The fundamental problem with off-road mobility is that it does not matter that a column travels 99% of the time without a problem, if they need to cross even a narrow stream or swamped terrain, or any other difficult patch of ground (for so many reasons), it will be stuck or at best will need to stop and take the necessary provisions to cross an recover all vehicles, losing a lot of time and remaining highly vulnerable in the meantime.

Do you think that only applies to wheeled vehicles?

In current divisions... motor rifle and tank divisions there are already wheeled vehicles and not all of them are amphibious... do you think it is easier to tow a 30 ton wheeled vehicle or a 65 ton tracked tank?

Do you think a 65 ton tracked vehicle will just glide across soft ground like a hovercraft?

Ground units already have problems with soft ground... if not the first vehicles that pass, certainly for the mud bog that is created by all the vehicles following after them...

There were a lot of places in Russia where the narrow tracks of the BMP weren't good enough and MTLBs were used as BMPs despite their weaker armour and poor armament, so even having tracks doesn't always save you from getting stuck.

A direction that risks even just some of your vehicles not making it is a poor choice for any commander to make isn't it? Whether all his vehicles are wheeled or they are all tracked there is a chance that the first vehicles will make it but the rest don't and his force gets split into pieces...

Centauros are not the most amazing tank option that would be first choice every time, but it is very much a case of the T-14 being one of the best, though untested in the modern battlefield, but Russia can not afford... nor does it need an all T-14 tank force of 20,000 T-14s... they couldn't afford to buy them, and they couldn't afford to run them all... most would be in reserve and a total waste of funds to buy these expensive (for a Russian tank) vehicles and put them in storage till they are needed.

The tank gun is an unusual weapon... being direct fire it is one of the more accurate artillery types with HE rounds because most lob shells in directions, whereas tanks can't elevate their guns much more that 20 degrees so shooting at things is normal.

Its armour piercing rounds are optimised to defeat enemy tanks so for a light mobile vehicle that might never go one to one with a heavy front line enemy tank it is actually a rather odd choice of rounds, but having said that they are valuable for their dual purpose HEAT rounds and HE rounds.

It can obliterate the most heavily armoured truck based IED or VIED with one shot... even 30mm cannons would need a burst of fire just to be sure... in fact I would think using lighter vehicles like the Boomerang and the Sprut would stimulate an armour piercing HE shell that penetrates a bunker or lightly armoured vehicle and then explodes inside... vastly more effective against lighter vehicles where an APFSDS or HEAT round designed to penetrate 1m of armour might just punch a neat clean through wound... straight in, straight through and straight out the back end...

Which reminds be of the German claim that their spaced frontal turret armour in their Leopards equals 2.5m of armour... the armour used was very thin and consisted mostly of empty space in which the penetrator is supposed to yaw and therefore shatter like trying to hit a bent nail into a piece of wood in one go with a nail gun or sledge hammer.... all the energy goes into bending and crushing the nail and you get no penetration...

But if that were true then stories of US APFSDS penetrating the front of Iraqi T-72s which had more frontal hull armour than was being used on these Leopard turrets, and the penetrators were going right through the crew compartment... through the engine.... which is quite a feat because layers of engines are good at stopping rifle calibre penetrators normally... they do burst into flames easily though because of all the fuel lines and oil etc, and then out the back of the vehicles.... which is more than 2.5 metres distance.

The purpose of NERA armour is to twist penetrators and break them up to make them yaw and become useless, but I don't think a couple of thin sheets and a large physical cavity could do the same when the frontal hull armour of a T-72... even a monkey model and 2.5m of empty space as well as an engine and a rear engine deck couldn't do it....