Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Share

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu May 14, 2015 7:32 pm

    flamming_python wrote:Yep I agree, the APC's carrying capacity is amoebic, if the report of a 8-man capacity is true then nothing justifies it. The turret doesn't (or shouldn't) go into the hull; all that space should be free, and the actual vehicle is high, long and wide.
    Should carry 10-11 at the very LEAST. That's to say a full squad and preferably extra space for 1-2 as well and/or ammo/supplies.

    Jesus the BMP-3 has a 7-men fire team. This is based on the BMP-3 with a new arraignement, engine in front, thicker armour, retains the sponsons that make the rear area really tight. Why in the world are you surprized. Once again, this has less to do with IFV or APC variant, it has to do with the limitations coming from the transformation of an existing model.

    Relax, check the pictures...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 15, 2015 11:08 am

    Russia is not really taking seriously USA . Is relying too much in their nuclear weapons

    Of course Russia is taking the USA seriously, but what do you expect them to do?

    Spend 80% of their GDP on weapons to catch up?

    Do you think that would even help or just make things worse?

    Russia can't afford to spend at the rate the US spends and can't actually afford to have equivalent forces, yet in many areas it actually manages to design and build comparable and even better system and produce them for itself and for export.

    Russia doesn't need to be able to defeat the US... Vietnam even on its best day have never had the forces and capabilities to invade and defeat the US... but they didn't need it. What they needed was the cold hard will to continue fighting long after the US had given up the fight and continue to take hits and take pain while continuing to give hits and give pain the US was no longer prepared to take.

    Russia is in a much better position than any other country on the planet to "defend" itself from the US... at the moment that is largely because of its nuclear forces, but its conventional potential is enormous and is rapidly growing. you want them to have it now and I can understand that, but it didn't happen over night for the west it took decades and trillions of dollars and it wont come over night for Russia either... no matter how much they spend.


    BTW can I ask where the figures for the capacity of the Kurganets APC came from?

    Are they official sources or guesstimates?


    As the firepower of an infantry squad increases with increased communications and more accurate rifles and the ability to call in artillery and air strikes I rather suspect the number of troops in a unit will decrease anyway.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  flamming_python on Fri May 15, 2015 11:15 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Yep I agree, the APC's carrying capacity is amoebic, if the report of a 8-man capacity is true then nothing justifies it. The turret doesn't (or shouldn't) go into the hull; all that space should be free, and the actual vehicle is high, long and wide.
    Should carry 10-11 at the very LEAST. That's to say a full squad and preferably extra space for 1-2 as well and/or ammo/supplies.

    Jesus the BMP-3 has a 7-men fire team. This is based on the BMP-3 with a new arraignement, engine in front, thicker armour, retains the sponsons that make the rear area really tight. Why in the world are you surprized. Once again, this has less to do with IFV or APC variant, it has to do with the limitations coming from the transformation of an existing model.

    Relax, check the pictures...

    The BMP-3 is an IFV, it's small and cramped and the turret mechanism and operator go down all the way into the hull.
    Nevetheless, it's capacity of 7 men is perfectly adequate for an IFV-class vehicle.

    I'm talking about APCs.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri May 15, 2015 11:53 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Yep I agree, the APC's carrying capacity is amoebic, if the report of a 8-man capacity is true then nothing justifies it. The turret doesn't (or shouldn't) go into the hull; all that space should be free, and the actual vehicle is high, long and wide.
    Should carry 10-11 at the very LEAST. That's to say a full squad and preferably extra space for 1-2 as well and/or ammo/supplies.

    Jesus the BMP-3 has a 7-men fire team. This is based on the BMP-3 with a new arraignement, engine in front, thicker armour, retains the sponsons that make the rear area really tight. Why in the world are you surprized. Once again, this has less to do with IFV or APC variant, it has to do with the limitations coming from the transformation of an existing model.

    Relax, check the pictures...

    The BMP-3 is an IFV, it's small and cramped and the turret mechanism and operator go down all the way into the hull.
    Nevetheless, it's capacity of 7 men is perfectly adequate for an IFV-class vehicle.

    I'm talking about APCs.

    Again the BMP has the same limitations because of its engine and sponsons. This vehicle retains the same flaws. Has a front mounted engine that puts the driver quite aback from the original BMP position. Therefore retaining a relatively conservative space for troops. The troop compartiment is barely more spacious, be that on the IVF or the APC variant. And it also retains the sponsons in front which nullify every attempt to gain more space. There's nothing new in here.
    Nevermind the gear for the fireteam has almost doubled and doctrine allows for more firepower.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Fri May 15, 2015 2:38 pm


    Ukraine new Armata competition... APC.. the Saxon AT105 Shocked


    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Fri May 15, 2015 3:00 pm

    the british donated some of these to the iraqi army a few years ago. the Iraqis, graciously gave them to the Kurdish peshmerga immediately Laughing

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri May 15, 2015 6:35 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Yep I agree, the APC's carrying capacity is amoebic, if the report of a 8-man capacity is true then nothing justifies it. The turret doesn't (or shouldn't) go into the hull; all that space should be free, and the actual vehicle is high, long and wide.
    Should carry 10-11 at the very LEAST. That's to say a full squad and preferably extra space for 1-2 as well and/or ammo/supplies.

    Jesus the BMP-3 has a 7-men fire team. This is based on the BMP-3 with a new arraignement, engine in front, thicker armour, retains the sponsons that make the rear area really tight. Why in the world are you surprized. Once again, this has less to do with IFV or APC variant, it has to do with the limitations coming from the transformation of an existing model.

    Relax, check the pictures...

    The BMP-3 is an IFV, it's small and cramped and the turret mechanism and operator go down all the way into the hull.
    Nevetheless, it's capacity of 7 men is perfectly adequate for an IFV-class vehicle.

    I'm talking about APCs.

    Again the BMP has the same limitations because of its engine and sponsons. This vehicle retains the same flaws. Has a front mounted engine that puts the driver quite aback from the original BMP position. Therefore retaining a relatively conservative space for troops. The troop compartiment is barely more spacious, be that on the IVF or the APC variant. And it also retains the sponsons in front which nullify every attempt to gain more space. There's nothing new in here.
    Nevermind the gear for the fireteam has almost doubled and doctrine allows for more firepower.
    BMP-2 and BMP-1 also have a front mounted engine and carry 7 and 8 troops respectively, not to mention they're much smaller than both kurganets variants...
    Who'd have thought a new generation vehicle carried such downgrades...

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri May 15, 2015 6:40 pm

    Armenian wrote:8 men with the Ratnik equipment and gear need as much space as 10-12 men with the old gear.
    If it had the same sillouhette as the previous BMPs then I'd agree, but the Kurganets APC approaches the same bulkiness of western AFVs, hell it's almost the same size as the BTR-50 which carried more than a dozen men if my memory serves me correctly. Although it can be said that the kurganets APC(NOT IFV) would carry less than the BTR-50 of the same size due to increased armor having twice as less troops is just to little.

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3667
    Points : 3779
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri May 15, 2015 7:00 pm


    Nice...  thumbsup

    Russia Reveals Its Latest Tank Is Controlled by a Playstation Gamepad

    It’s a form that has been perfected by decades and tested by millions of gamers over billions of hours - it works


    http://russia-insider.com/en/military/russia-reveals-its-latest-tank-controlled-playstation-gamepad/ri6939

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3082276/War-games-Russia-reveals-latest-tank-controlled-PLAYSTATION-controller.html

    It is one of Russia’s newest military vehicles, designed to take soldiers into battle, while having the firepower of a tank.

    Yet for many in Russia’s military, controlling the Kurganets-25 will be easy.

    Rather than a traditional steering wheel, it uses a controller based on Sony’s Playstation gamepad.

    Scroll down for video The Kurganets-25 is an infantry fighting vehicle, which is a category of machine halfway between an armored truck and a full-size battle tank.

    The vehicle is controlled using a gamepad.

    On May 9th, the Kurganets-25 made its public debut as part of a parade commemorating the 70th anniversary of Russia’s victory in World War II.

    The new Russian armoured vehicle platform uses a device similar to a Playstation controller, the manufacturer’s vice-president told Russian media.

    The new Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle uses a ‘console similar to a Sony Playstation gamepad,’ Tractor Plants vice-president Albert Bakov told state owned outlet Sputnik.

    ‘I spent two years on convincing the designers to make the console similar to a Sony Playstation gamepad, to make it easier for a young soldier to familiarize himself with it,’ Bakov said.

    According to Bakov, the idea of left-right coordination, as well as the fact that the gamepad form has been perfected for decades made it a good choice.

    The gamepad design is also safer and takes up less space than a steering wheel.

    ‘As it turns out, a steering wheel is dangerous for the rib cage during an impact and when climbing out. It takes up more space but provides nothing,’ Bakov added. ...............................................

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sat May 16, 2015 12:33 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Armenian wrote:8 men with the Ratnik equipment and gear need as much space as 10-12 men with the old gear.
    If it had the same sillouhette as the previous BMPs then I'd agree, but the Kurganets APC approaches the same bulkiness of western AFVs, hell it's almost the same size as the BTR-50 which carried more than a dozen men if my memory serves me correctly. Although it can be said that the kurganets APC(NOT IFV) would carry less than the BTR-50 of the same size due to increased armor  having twice as less troops is just to little.

    Obviously you haven't seen the troop compartiment of the former BMP's...nor their protection level of inherent structural trade-offs.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat May 16, 2015 2:44 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Armenian wrote:8 men with the Ratnik equipment and gear need as much space as 10-12 men with the old gear.
    If it had the same sillouhette as the previous BMPs then I'd agree, but the Kurganets APC approaches the same bulkiness of western AFVs, hell it's almost the same size as the BTR-50 which carried more than a dozen men if my memory serves me correctly. Although it can be said that the kurganets APC(NOT IFV) would carry less than the BTR-50 of the same size due to increased armor  having twice as less troops is just to little.

    Obviously you haven't seen the troop compartiment of the former BMP's...nor their protection level of inherent structural trade-offs.
    yeah, there are nice design choices like a fuel tank in the doors, a mini version of the microwave hallway in mgs4 as primary exit, ammo in the same space as everyone, and seats that are only slightly better off than squatting, etc.

    the fewer number of passengers is ok, since compared to your run-of-the-mill conscript back then the soldier now is operator as fck. What a Face

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 16, 2015 9:33 am

    Do we have any actual troop capacity figures for the kurganets and boomerang?

    equally at the moment the ephocha-lite turret has a 30mm cannon and likely does not penetrate the hull so the IFV with that turret probably wont have to give up troop capacity... with 45mm or 57mm gun however they likely will.

    I rather suspect the significant increase in armour protection for the troops and the tremendous increase in fire power (ie sensors and improved aiming systems and longer ranged weapons as well as on call support from air and artillery) more than make up for reduced troop numbers.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 359
    Points : 379
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  VladimirSahin on Sat May 16, 2015 1:35 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Armenian wrote:8 men with the Ratnik equipment and gear need as much space as 10-12 men with the old gear.
    If it had the same sillouhette as the previous BMPs then I'd agree, but the Kurganets APC approaches the same bulkiness of western AFVs, hell it's almost the same size as the BTR-50 which carried more than a dozen men if my memory serves me correctly. Although it can be said that the kurganets APC(NOT IFV) would carry less than the BTR-50 of the same size due to increased armor  having twice as less troops is just to little.

    Obviously you haven't seen the troop compartiment of the former BMP's...nor their protection level of inherent structural trade-offs.
    yeah, there are nice design choices like a fuel tank in the doors, a mini version of the microwave hallway in mgs4 as primary exit, ammo in the same space as everyone, and seats that are only slightly better off than squatting, etc.

    the fewer number of passengers is ok, since compared to your run-of-the-mill conscript back then the soldier now is operator as fck. What a Face

    lol! lol!

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  George1 on Sat May 16, 2015 2:09 pm

    do we have any news if Naval Infantry will also take Kurganets IFV?

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat May 16, 2015 2:49 pm

    At the parade, I didn't see any Bumerang BTRs, presumably shown in the following image.



    Flanky
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 184
    Points : 193
    Join date : 2011-05-02

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Flanky on Sat May 16, 2015 4:07 pm

    Are they developing also a light tank version of the Boomerang?
    Kind of Stryker MGS...
    Personally i think be it not for the Stryker poor terrain performance and reliability issues... the MGS would be a good idea.
    Wheeled chassis have lower maintenance costs, not so bad enviroment impact and is faster, thus providing more responsiveness to urgent deployment situations....

    2SPOOKY4U
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 283
    Points : 300
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sat May 16, 2015 7:04 pm

    Flanky wrote:Are they developing also a light tank version of the Boomerang?
    Kind of Stryker MGS...
    Personally i think be it not for the Stryker poor terrain performance and reliability issues... the MGS would be a good idea.
    Wheeled chassis have lower maintenance costs, not so bad enviroment impact and is faster, thus providing more responsiveness to urgent deployment situations....

    It would be a better idea for you to research the reasons why the Mobile Gun System(Based on Stryker chassis that was meant to operate on front lines) was conceived up in the first place.

    In its intended role, production run, ConOPS, and placement within force structure, represent a filling for a gap that existed within U.S. Army Ground Force Structure ever since the Cold War.

    No such vehicle is necessary for the Russian Armed Forces.

    Flanky
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 184
    Points : 193
    Join date : 2011-05-02

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Flanky on Sat May 16, 2015 7:15 pm

    Well Russians have Sprut that is true however it is a tracked platform. It is ideal in regular conflicts but in Guerilla wars like those in Chechniya you need speed and responsiveness more than crosscountry capability.
    I mean mobility is important that said wheeled platform is cheaper for maintenance and much faster. Regarding the MGS it is used as supporting platform for ground operations against insurgency and guerillas...
    Russians would be good to have an equivalent of this... Sprut could be used but its caterpilars are not good for the roads, it consumes too much of fuel, maintenance is much harder and so on....

    2SPOOKY4U
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 283
    Points : 300
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sat May 16, 2015 7:42 pm

    Flanky wrote:Well Russians have Sprut that is true however it is a tracked platform. It is ideal in regular conflicts but in Guerilla wars like those in Chechniya you need speed and responsiveness more than crosscountry capability.
    I mean mobility is important that said wheeled platform is cheaper for maintenance and much faster. Regarding the MGS it is used as supporting platform for ground operations against insurgency and guerillas...
    Russians would be good to have an equivalent of this... Sprut could be used but its caterpilars are not good for the roads, it consumes too much of fuel, maintenance is much harder and so on....

    Laughing Laughing Laughing


    Flanky, just because the U.S. Ground Forces possess such a vehicle, does not mean the Russian Ground Forces suddenly need one.

    Such thought is consistent with shills that instantly think the Russian Forces now requires something similar to what the U.S. fields in it's inventories.

    If you believe that the Russian Armed Forces require something of the likes of the Stryker MGS, then I suggest you go here: http://www.f-16.net/

    There you find all sorts of like-minded peers.

    Again, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.


    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun May 17, 2015 1:35 am

    A couple of older projects for 'wheeled tank'

    Zhalo (Sting) - 85mm gun on BTR-70


    Sprut-K - 125mm gun on BTR-90




    according to military experts, the most likely option arrangement cannon "Boomerang" will be like the tank "Armata": a fully automated uninhabited turret. It is likely that the tank sighting systems and means of active protection will be unified with the main battle tank.

    Different assumptions about the gun are made, but most likely, it will be carried out on the option 2A75, which is used in the 2S25 "Sprut-SD '. Thanks to that, the "Boomerang-Tank" firepower will be equal to the T-90A, which in principle, will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the combat missions for combined arms teams.

    Source: http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-12163.htm

    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Sun May 17, 2015 6:25 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:

    The BMP-3 is an IFV, it's small and cramped and the turret mechanism and operator go down all the way into the hull.
    Nevetheless, it's capacity of 7 men is perfectly adequate for an IFV-class vehicle.

    I'm talking about APCs.

    The best is 9 dismount soldiers. 3 teams of 3 soldiers in each, plus squad leader.
    But 7 might be ok too. We can have 2 by 3, or 3 by 2, plus commander.

    IFV shouldn't take dismount soldiers, only the APC should do that, the IFV is for fighting only.
    It will be the escort guy for the APC.

    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Sun May 17, 2015 6:32 am



    Nice Pic. The turret looks like the turret on the ATOM.

    2SPOOKY4U
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 283
    Points : 300
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sun May 17, 2015 6:34 am

    AJ-47 wrote:

    Nice Pic. The turret looks like the turret on the ATOM.


    That is the ATOM, check out the scooter wheels.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Sun May 17, 2015 9:33 am

    Cyberspec wrote:A couple of older projects for 'wheeled tank'

    Zhalo (Sting) - 85mm gun on BTR-70


    Sprut-K - 125mm gun on BTR-90




    according to military experts, the most likely option arrangement cannon "Boomerang" will be like the tank "Armata": a fully automated uninhabited turret. It is likely that the tank sighting systems and means of active protection will be unified with the main battle tank.

    Different assumptions about the gun are made, but most likely, it will be carried out on the option 2A75, which is used in the 2S25 "Sprut-SD '. Thanks to that, the "Boomerang-Tank" firepower will be equal to the T-90A, which in principle, will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the combat missions for combined arms teams.

    Source: http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-12163.htm

    Indeed , i see a lot of potential in arming an apc with a heavy gun ,that can be operated either with 1 man or if the place dangerous ,dismount and control it by control remote. Imagine a boomeran with a 152mm gun ,with only 10 rounds ,that its only role is as tank destroyer and perhaps a light machine gun mounted for defense against militants near the tank..trying to capture it..

    according to wikipedia the T-90ms price is near $5 millions.. if Russia can build a purely offensive APC with a Huge deadly 152mm tank Gun.. and with a limited protection only for 30mm rounds in the front. that will cut cost dramatically ,and for example make 10-15 of them for every T-14 they build..

    The psychological effect that this will have on the enemies on the battlefield will be huge..
    because Russia for example could build 50,000 of them. and each one of them with the capability to destroy any modern tank in the west. So you could send 3 Boomerans controlled remote again 1 western tank.. and it will overwhelm it.. with a T-14 manually operated behind ,. and best of all without spending much money..and even if hit ,no loss of life and should be easy to repair.. for having low ammo and not much technology .

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun May 17, 2015 10:09 am

    Vann7 wrote:
    Indeed , i see a lot of potential in arming an apc with a heavy gun ,that can be operated either with 1 man or if the place dangerous ,dismount and control it by control remote. Imagine a boomeran with a 152mm gun ,with only 10 rounds ,that its only role is as tank destroyer and perhaps a light machine gun mounted for defense against militants near the tank..trying to capture it..

    according to wikipedia the T-90ms price is near $5 millions..  if Russia can build a purely offensive APC with a Huge deadly 152mm tank Gun.. and with a limited protection only for 30mm rounds in the front. that will cut cost dramatically ,and for example make 10-15 of them for every T-14 they build..  

    The psychological effect that this will have on the enemies on the battlefield will be huge..
    because Russia for example could build 50,000 of them. and each one of them with the capability to destroy any modern tank in the west.   So you could send 3 Boomerans controlled remote again 1 western tank.. and it will overwhelm it.. with a T-14 manually operated behind ,. and best of all without spending much money..and even if hit ,no loss of life and should be easy to repair.. for having low ammo and not much technology .
    so the closest thing to a glass cannon then? lolnope afro . can a wheeled chassis even withstand firing a 120mm/125mm gun let alone a 152mm one. from what ive read the stryker MGS has trouble shooting anywhere but the front and back relative to the hull with its 105mm gun, otherwise it risks tipping itself.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:24 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:24 pm