The poster on the right, clockwise, has Bumerang, Kurganets and Armata beside each vehicle. This does not follow the naming convention you
describe and that is why it is confusing.
The turret is the standard for the APC... whether it will be an APC in a heavy brigade or a medium brigade. If that turret is accepted as the standard turret for the APC today that would make it the BTR turret and it would only be fitted to the 8 wheeled BTR-82.
the future structure however means a brigade wont have a mix of vehicles... it will only have one vehicle type... so in an Armata brigade the APC vehicle will have this turret and will look like the vehicle indicated on this poster as armata.
In other words the APC in the heavy brigade will be a combination of this turret and the armata chassis.
The other vehicles all have their engines at the front... ie Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon are all front engined vehicles.
The Armata is the exception... in the standard MBT version and some other models it will have a rear mounted engine. In the troop carrying model and presumably the artillery model and likely the ambulance model and others it will have a front mounted engine and ramp rear doors.
Ramp rear doors are good for APCs and IFVS so this picture of armata has a front mounted engine and therefore a rear mounted turret. For MBTs rear mounted engines are better and the MBT the engine will be rear mounted.
Yes, but I do not expect the tracked chassis on the lower right in the right panel to be the one used by the Armata MBT subspecies. So the label
is simply nonsensical.
You have to get out of your head the idea that armata means MBT. It does not mean MBT.
Kurganets does not mean IFV (BMP) and Boomerang does not mean APC (BTR) and Typhoon does not mean scout car (BRDM-2)
Armata will come in two chassis versions... engine to the front for various types like APC and/or IFV, Engineer vehicle, Command vehicle, Air defence vehicle etc etc AND Engine to the rear MBT. It is likely all the ammo in the Koalition is loaded into the turret so it will likely have a rear mounted engine too.... without hull ammo storage.
Kurganets will be front engined and have an APC/IFV, engineer, etc etc.
All four vehicles will have MBT, IFV/APC, BMPT, Engineer, Air Defence, Artillery, Recon, Ambulance, Anti tank missile vehicle, UAV control vehicle, ECM vehicle etc etc etc.
The MBT will have the engine at the back so the turret cannot sit on top of it. If they are going to use the popular name
Armata for the MBT (which everyone is using), then they should have done it on another poster with a rendering of the MBT chassis. Nobody
is talking about the light tank variant when they use the name Armata. Whether the whole family is called that or not is not the issue.
The purpose of the posters is to show off the turret, not the vehicle base. If KBP had developed a new Tunguska turret that was completely self contained and could be fitted to any vehicle from the 10 ton class to the 60 ton class they would do the same... ie first poster explaining the turret and its armament and capabilities and a second poster showing the vehicle platform families it could be fitted to.
Of course with the Air Defence turret not requiring rear hull access they might show the Armata chassis twice... one with the front engined model and one with the rear engined model as it should be possible to fit that turret to both.
In this case it is a troop carrier turret designed to support troops... you would not fit it to the MBT chassis of the armata because then the troops would have to sit in the middle of the vehicle under the turret. The turret would block their roof hatches and the engine to their rear would block their exit out the rear of the hull so they would be stuck in the vehicle.
The poster above shows the turret to the rear because the engine is front mounted and the turret doesn't penetrate into the hull, so the troops sit below the turret and exit and enter in the rear ramp doors of the hull.