Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

I will never understand why they chose the obsolete front engine placement over the truly excellent and revolutionary BMP-3 configuration.

Better load bearing making it possible to adding more armor and weaponry, and maybe an ammo bustle.with less weight gain.

Better driving balance

Better gun depression for a much lower profile(this fat CG monstrosity would be almost as big as M2 Crapley)
Better amphibious mobility

Much cooler looking

Only iffy disadvantage is supposed less efficient troop placement

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I will never understand why they chose the obsolete front engine placement over the truly excellent and revolutionary BMP-3 configuration.

Better load bearing making it possible to adding more armor and weaponry, and maybe an ammo bustle.with less weight gain.

Better driving balance

Better gun depression for a much lower profile(this fat CG monstrosity would be almost as big as M2 Crapley)
Better amphibious mobility

Much cooler looking

Only iffy disadvantage is supposed less efficient troop placement

Kurganets isn't a APC, IFV, etc., it's a medium-weight platform, with variants with engines in the front and some in the back, etc. Its a good time to go pick up the pieces of your argument left laying on the floor.

Speak of the devil....

Nice pics... my vote to you...

the barrel looks very slim however and might be a 45mm competitor to the 57mm gun version...

I will never understand why they chose the obsolete front engine placement over the truly excellent and revolutionary BMP-3 configuration.

Actually the BMP-1 and BMP-2 had better layouts with engines in the front and large rear doors for easy entrance and exit.

The BMP-3 had the engine in the back because its heavy armour at the front and the heavy turret in the middle meant they needed the engine at the rear to balance the weight in the design otherwise there would have been no way to make it amphibious. this resulted in a rear mounted engine and the awkward exit and entry doors where the troops have to climb over the engine to exit the vehicle.

Not really ideal but the fire power was not negotiable and neither was the frontal armour, so there was no choice but a rear mounted engine.

Better load bearing making it possible to adding more armor and weaponry, and maybe an ammo bustle.with less weight gain.

Front mounted engine is ideal for APCs and IFVs... it is not ideal for armour protection as it is not made of metals useful as armour, but it makes getting into and out of the vehicle much easier.... which is critical when done under fire.

Better driving balance

The medium and light vehicles are fully amphibious but the armata would snorkle so its ability to float level is not relevant. Its ability to drive fast cross rough country can be effected using wheel spacing to ensure the weight is spread evenly.
The armata is the only new vehicle with the option of front or rear mounted engine... the medium and light vehicles will all have front mounted engines.

Better gun depression for a much lower profile(this fat CG monstrosity would be almost as big as M2 Crapley)
Better amphibious mobility

the high profile turret allows better gun elevation and depression... the former critical for engaging enemy aircraft and the latter for firing from reverse slopes and dug in positions... in terms of being a target it is irrelevant as there are no crew members inside it to kill and no ammo to set fire to so a penetration will destroy whatever it travels through but it wont damage much else.

Think of putting an enormous card board box on the roof of your car with a rifle down the centre. that box is huge and an easy target but if you don't actually hit the rifle then the rifle can be used remotely to kill you and yours. Even if you manage to hit the rifle or something critical and most things in the box will have duplication and wide separation and some armour protection... but even if you blow the turret off the crew is OK and the troops are OK and the ammo wont be hit and the fuel wont be hit so no fire and no explosion...

Kurganets isn't a APC, IFV, etc., it's a medium-weight platform, with variants with engines in the front and some in the back, etc. Its a good time to go pick up the pieces of your argument left laying on the floor.

Kurganets is a medium weight (25 ton class) vehicle family including MBT or should I say gun platform or medium tank, IFVs, APCs, etc etc of tracked vehicles.

Boomerang is the corresponding wheeled medium weight equivalent family...

The turrets shown above include a turret with a 30mm cannon and Kornet ATGMs and a turret with a 57mm gun... these turrets will be standard for all the APCs and IFVs in all the families of vehicles so the 30mm and Kornet on Armata is the armata heavy tracked APC turret, the 57mm gun turret on the armata is the IFV version of armata... both will have front mounted engines.

the Armata with a 125mm main gun will have a rear mounted engine and it will be the MBT or in this case as there will be light wheeled, medium wheeled, and medium tracked and heavy tracked vehicles carrying 125mm main guns as their main armament we should call them light, medium wheeled, medium tracked, and heavy tracked tanks...

GarryB wrote:the high profile turret allows better gun elevation and depression... the former critical for engaging enemy aircraft and the latter for firing from reverse slopes and dug in positions... in terms of being a target it is irrelevant as there are no crew members inside it to kill and no ammo to set fire to so a penetration will destroy whatever it travels through but it wont damage much else.

C'mon, everyone knows that russians never cared about gun depression

The main reason why the vehicle is so tall would be amphibious requirement. Just like with ships, heaver ones need deeper draught to maintain buoyancy. And kurganets is gonna need a lot of that considering it weighs 10 tons more than bmp-2.

C'mon, everyone knows that russians never cared about gun depression

they did care, but felt smaller turrets made the tanks safer than having a taller turret with better gun depression.

With no crew in the turret a shallow turret is no longer necessary, so it makes sense to improve depression ranges... especially when all these new vehicles are being developed based on experience in Chechnia where in built up areas enemy troops engaged Russian armour from upper floors and basements where 125mm guns had problems depressing and elevating to engage.

With remote main guns better gun elevation and depression options just make sense.

to me these photos look like the Armata vehicles, which will not be amphibious... the hulls on these models just look too big to be kurganets.

With the lighter amphibious vehicles I am sure spaced armour will allow amphibious capability though it will also make them look big and bulky too.

looks ok, just wondering if the passenger number is decreased.

The APC turret with the 30mm cannon probably would not need to penetrate deep into the hull so you could have troops under it... with a decent sized turret that could be an extra 4-5 soldiers sitting under it.

With the IFV those 57mm shells are huge and if you want to carry more than a dozen rounds you would need the area under the turret for ammo storage. Obviously there is no point separating the crew from the gun and ammo and fuel if you are going to place a turret full of ammo next to troops so it will be walled off so 4-5 troops less than the APC model but at least some armour between the troops and the 57mm ammo.

Wasn't the crew bubble supposed to be 3 persons side by side for Armata?

chicken wrote:Wasn't the crew bubble supposed to be 3 persons side by side for Armata?

The armored capsule? Yes, that is a technical requirement for Armata.

Those last two depictions the hull front is different from the Armata and the sides extend rather beyond the tracks and as pointed out the hull is narrower than the tank so the crew are two side by side with one crew behind and the engine in front of the crew... that looks to me like Kurganets.

Notice the two Small turrets on the hull near the front... perhaps DIRCMs with sensors further forward that look like cameras and those small lights they use, though they could be for the IFF signalling system... or just sensors to detect if the tank is being marked.

Interesting.

Note no obvious Nakidka camo fitted...

GarryB wrote:

Notice the two Small turrets on the hull near the front... perhaps DIRCMs with sensors further forward that look like cameras and those small lights they use, though they could be for the IFF signalling system... or just sensors to detect if the tank is being marked.

Interesting.

Note no obvious Nakidka camo fitted...

Those are radar modules for the Arena-E the artist has depicted on the hull.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

chicken wrote:Wasn't the crew bubble supposed to be 3 persons side by side for Armata?

The armored capsule? Yes, that is a technical requirement for Armata.

The Otvaga Armata 3D doesn't look like it's 3 persons side by side.

akd wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Notice the two Small turrets on the hull near the front... perhaps DIRCMs with sensors further forward that look like cameras and those small lights they use, though they could be for the IFF signalling system... or just sensors to detect if the tank is being marked.

Interesting.

Note no obvious Nakidka camo fitted...

Those are radar modules for the Arena-E the artist has depicted on the hull.

That is right. They are what a person can call a super-AESA.

Each of the transmit modules has only one element, transmitting throughout the radar's field of view concurrently with a non-scanning beam. Each of the receive arrays is a sparse array of only 5 elements (i.e. only 5 of the 5X5 array element positions are populated). The receive array forms many staring beams, where all of the beams simultaneously receive throughout the radar's field of view, without a need for any sequential scanning of the field of view.

This design permits extremely fast detection of targets throughout the radar's field of view without a need for wasting time by scanning in azimuth and elevation, like a normal radar.

Mounting brackets for additional side armor can clearly be seen- good.

ult wrote:

As already mentioned you can clearly see where on the sides where modular applique armor could be applied, at least 14 attachment points are visible.

Do you think they shipped them without the side armor and will add them on for the parade?

I am sure of it, otherwise it would look very ugly for the parade.

That being said I would love to see good photos of the base hull.

Looking foreward to actual Epoha emerging though.

As of right now, the firepower improvement over BMP-3 is fairly ho-hum, if we ignore the obvious non-firepower advantages of the isolated module and the improved fire control.

Russia Rolls Out All-New Armored Vehicle

A photo of the new Russian tracked armored vehicle Kurganets-25, made during Monday’s rehearsal of the upcoming May 9 Victory Day parade on Red Square, is now available on the Web.

The tryout in Alabino, just outside Moscow, featured a group of partially camouflaged armored vehicles rolling past. The Kurganets-25 provides a high degree of commonality with the new T-14 Armata heavy battle tank, whose photo earlier appeared online, Military-informant.com reported.

The Kurganets-25 will evolve into various models, gradually replacing BMP and BMD and MT-LB and other types of tracked armored platforms. It will have modular armor that can be upgraded for specific threats, a 2A42 30 mm cannon, and four Kornet-EM anti-tank guided missile launchers.

The Kurganets-25 is fully amphibious, propelled in the water by two water-jets at the rear of the hull.

The vehicle uses a new technology for amphibious operation which increases the speed in the water up to 10 km/h.

The vehicle will be equipped with automatic fire control system which is able to automatically select targets.

Standard equipment of the Kurganets-25 could include a thermal imager, eye-safe laser rangefinder, GPS / inertial navigation system and computerized fire control system.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150324/1019920141.html#ixzz3VIIwxRhr

George1 wrote:Russia Rolls Out All-New Armored Vehicle

A photo of the new Russian tracked armored vehicle Kurganets-25, made during Monday’s rehearsal of the upcoming May 9 Victory Day parade on Red Square, is now available on the Web.

The tryout in Alabino, just outside Moscow, featured a group of partially camouflaged armored vehicles rolling past. The Kurganets-25 provides a high degree of commonality with the new T-14 Armata heavy battle tank, whose photo earlier appeared online, Military-informant.com reported.

The Kurganets-25 will evolve into various models, gradually replacing BMP and BMD and MT-LB and other types of tracked armored platforms. It will have modular armor that can be upgraded for specific threats, a 2A42 30 mm cannon, and four Kornet-EM anti-tank guided missile launchers.

The Kurganets-25 is fully amphibious, propelled in the water by two water-jets at the rear of the hull.

The vehicle uses a new technology for amphibious operation which increases the speed in the water up to 10 km/h.

The vehicle will be equipped with automatic fire control system which is able to automatically select targets.

Standard equipment of the Kurganets-25 could include a thermal imager, eye-safe laser rangefinder, GPS / inertial navigation system and computerized fire control system.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150324/1019920141.html#ixzz3VIIwxRhr

So they are isntalling Okhotnik or similiar system on all vehicles now, not just T-90MS and drones/attack helicopters.

Kurganets-25 is truly impressive. Loving it. Hope with the covers off it will look like the one below.
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/03/blog-post_17.html

Dima wrote:Kurganets-25 is truly impressive. Loving it. Hope with the covers off it will look like the one below.
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/03/blog-post_17.html

Ιt is clear that will have 30mm gun, not 45mm o 57mm that we had seen in scale models before some years