I find quite hard to believe you can design a turret armed with a 125 mm gun the is all external to the hull.
Obviously an error... if you are carrying a 125mm gun then it makes more sense to use the hull to carry more ammo for it, than to waste internal space on troops.
The Armata turret itself would prove to be too heavy for the Bumerang,
Why. Look at the video posted above... most of the visible turret is empty space and sheet metal... sensors and APS components.
There is no heavy armour... just a gun and a loading mechanism with all the ammo below the turret ring.
They already rejected the Burlak turret upgrade of the T-72 because the ammo stored in the rear turret bustle was too exposed to enemy fire...
The Armata turret has rather less protection than the T-72 turret... because there is nothing to protect... no crew, no ammo, no fuel... just the gun.
Gunner and commander could have their seats place just behind the driver, and the turret could replace most of the infantry compartment.
The engine is just behind the driver...
I mentioned about 57mm, not 125mm gun. Boomerangs with 125mm gun become a tank definitely, not BTR so do not need to carry 8 troops anymore.
So the IFV will have troops and a main gun able to kill enemy (NATO) IFVS. That makes rather more sense... but I suspect it will only carry 4-6 troops...
The only real advamtage offered by a 57 mm caliber that I could see is rrlated to guided shells, up to now 57 mm seems to be the smallest possible caliber t o implement guided shells.
The arguments I read were viable guided shells and room for smart airburst fuses and a decent amount of HE and fragments to make them more effective.
Sounds to me like they went for slightly fewer rounds that would be more effective.
Especially that this gun is not going to fight tanks but be a support for infantry and eventually used in assault gun roles
The 125mm gun will be used like Russian tanks use them... lots of HE rounds for fixed positions, but also anti armour rounds for use against tanks and IFVs.
Obviously they wont use Boomerang 125mm gun armed tanks against front line NATO forces, but against second line forces or third line forces the boomerang forces will be very mobile and very fast and with full power 125mm guns and of course guided missiles all over the place they will be very powerfully armed forces...
In a third world country M60s and T-55s and even early model T-72s would be in trouble against a boomerang armed with a 125mm gun and modern thermal optics and radar and all the other shit the Armata tank is supposed to be equipped with... the reality is that a third world country level of training and equipment they probably wont even see what hit them.
The sprut uses a smaller 125mm it lacks features of the normal 125mm's , there is also less then 30 of those in service used by the airborne.
All the descriptions by the manufacturer state that the 125mm gun uses a long recoil mechanism and is otherwise exactly the same as the other 125mm guns fitted to Russian tanks. The length of the rounds used is determined by the autoloader and if it uses the armatas turret it will also use the armatas autoloader and therefore also be compatible with all the new ammo... as would the armata and the kurganets.
The sprut is also not a troop carrier....so it can afford to a degree to mount that bigger gun since it doesn't have to worry much about internal space a Kurg does.
The boomerang vehicle with a 125mm gun will not have troops either and all the 125mm ammo will be stored below the turret ring in the hull.
If that is your example god dam you made an utterly stupid one.
Was going to ask why you reposted my entire post like that... if you haven't been paying attention that is currently against the rules and I have given several warnings about it... please do not do this again...
you do realize APC and IFV's need space to carry fully armed troops right? you do realize there is no such thing has a troop carrier with a gun that large right? anywhere in the world at that size.
You do realise that the 125mm gun armed armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon don't carry troops and are not IFVS or APCs?
The 30mm turret with all the ATGMs are for the APC versions of armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon, while the as yet not widely seen 57mm gun turret with missiles will be the IFV turret for the armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon.
So no Garry it's not going to have the same gun and the fact you used a self propelled TD to try and justify your point shows me you have no understanding on how much internals 125mm guns even lowered ones require.
Boomerang divisions are going to need a platform with a 125mm gun to perform all the other roles a MBT tank would do within a division... a 125mm gun armed Boomerang will perform that gun platform mission.
The fact that you talk about tank destroyer suggests you are thinking of WWII perhaps, or maybe world of tanks...
Most of the ammo in a Russian tank is HE frag... of the other half it generally has a mix of HEAT and APFSDS rounds... which just shows that half the time the tank wont be firing on enemy tanks... other threats on the battlefield are not efficiently dealt with using APFSDS rounds, or even HEAT rounds just punch neat little holes in things.
A Sprut is a great example actually... it is used by the VDV and its main feature is its gun and its mobility... with heavier armour you couldn't air drop it so it would not matter how well armoured it is because they couldn't take it with them.
A key mission would be to be air dropped well behind enemy lines... they would have almost no ground forces there to speak of because it would be 100km from a rear area airfield... that airfield might have a few squads and lots of air defence systems to protect it from air attack but its ground defences would be weak... they are thousands of kms behind the front line.
Drop a VDV force 100km away from the airfield and what is the enemy going to do?
They wont know what the target is for quite a bit, and there were no air defences 100km away from the airfield... no country... not even Russia has SAMs over every square metre of land... and they will have picked the landing area specifically because there was nothing there... once on the ground however their high mobility and fire power means they can move rapidly in the enemies rear to find soft targets... supply lines... comms centres.... HQs... airfields... all in the deep enemy rear so they might have air defence units to protect from air attack but they wont have significant ground forces to fight off a ground assault.
With a fully mechanised force like the VDV they cover the 100km in a couple of hours and mount an attack on the airfield which has strong air defences but weak ground defences... all SAMs and no big guns any more so those BMD-4Ms and Spruts rip them to pieces... mobility and fire power is key.
Once they have captured the air base however they can fly in reinforcements and heavier vehicles and equipment and all of a sudden the enemy has a real problem on their hands...
But no... according to your theory they will send all their Spruts to the front line looking for tanks to fight....
Altough it is certainly possible to equip the Kurganets with such a weapon, i dont think they will, as it would be a significant change in doctrine.
There were a range of different roles the BMP chassis was used for... the MTLB, the BTR chassis, the BRDM, even the T-80 chassis is used for the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle.
The point is that even with such reuse there are dozens of different vehicle types in a brigade or a division... despite the BMP being used for a range of roles they still have different vehicle platforms for Tunguska and for ACRVs and other vehicle roles.
The purpose of the new vehicle families is to unify the practise... a boomerang division will have only boomerang vehicles so if there is a vehicle with a 125mm gun it will be a boomerang that carries it. That means in the division there is one engine... one type of transmission... one size and type of tyre... all the vehicles will have a similar level of mobility... a similar level of protection... a similar speed and range... if one vehicle is amphibious then they should all be... in the armata brigade they wont be amphibious so they will all need bridging vehicles... but that bridging equipment will be able to take the weight of all the vehicles in the force... roughly 50-65 tons depending upon the model. (most vehicles about 50 tons and the 152mm coalition artillery vehicle and the rocket artillery version with two pallets of 300mm rockets and the pantsir air defence vehicle will all likely be closer to the 65 tons.)
My opinion is that we will see a 125mm cannon on the Armata Platform and on the Bumerang platform (already confirmed). The Russian Army does not need a light tank, which is essentially what a Kurganets with a 125mm gun is.
It will have kurganets based divisions... are they supposed to slow down for Armata vehicles with 125mm guns? Carry the engine parts and transmission parts and wheels and tracks for a few armata vehicles? They will also need bridging equipment or when they come to a river the armata will have to stay behind or go miles up or down stream looking for a good place to ford the river...
The idea is vehicle families... if you break that you make it all pointless... you might as well have armata MBTs, kurganets IFVs, boomerang APCs and Typhoon BRDMs.
One could argue there is a need for an amphibious vehicle which has better mobility than a 125mm Bumerang, but this is already becoming somewhat of a niche weapon. If the 125mm platform can not keep up due to the environment, then it likely is an evironment where it would not be able to operate with advantages, regardless of its mobility.
The enormous value of having a 125mm gun armed vehicle in the same vehicle chassis as the other vehicles it is operating is that if you can only have a kurganets MBT because Armata is too heavy then the enemy probably wont have any 120mm gun armed vehicles at all so your 125mm gun armed boomerang or kurganets is going to rule...
As for the 125mm kurg well the only group it would really benefit is the Russian marines as the army will be supported by T-14 Armatas and therefore would have no need for them.
Well actually a 125mm gun armed kurganets would benefit that kurganets division that without it has no heavy gun armed vehicle... a wheeled vehicle might not keep up and a heavy vehicle would need bridging equipment or to piss around looking for a place to ford a big river or soft ground, while the kurganets can just raise their bow plates and turn on their bilge pumps and their water jets.
I wonder if 125mm Krug will be still able to swim
That is the point... similar protection, similar mobility, all the same components...
A standard recoil 125 mm gun would most likely inflict destructive damage to the hull in medium to long term.
Yeah, they are fucking idiots and spent money and time developing a 125mm gun for light vehicles but they wont put it on a light vehicle...
They will just force the standard gun on there because they don't know anything about armour... remember they defeated Germany in WWII by just building more tanks than the Germans did... it had nothing to do with quality or skill...
To employ a high pressure gun such a MBT gun, it shall have to be a long recoil one, in order to lessen the impulse transmitted to the hull.
Already developed and in service on a much lighter vehicle than boomerang.
It is almost the same as in a firegun's chamber: more than the overall pressure generated by a cartridge, the critical point is how fast chamber's pressure rises up, and what are peak pressures.
Rubbish. The full power tank guns and the long recoil Sprut gun use the same ammo to the same pressure and the same velocities and same performance.
the difference is that the gun in the lighter vehicles has a much longer recoil stroke to spread the recoil over time...
Yes the vehicle who is only in service with Sweden (that type anyway) and was rejected by the polish due to the problem they found when they mounted that gun on it let me tell you a secret....
the gun RUAG 120 mm Compact Tank Gun, had to be made smaller to fit onto that thing.
There is a reason they called a Compact Tank gun.
So that's a very bad example
Well let me tell you about another gun that is in service... it is mounted on the 2S25, which weighs 18 tons.
Tell me again why the Russians can't put it on another tracked vehicle that weighs 30 tons (Kurganets) or a wheeled vehicle that also weighs about 30 tons (Boomerang).
Oh, yes, because they don't know how to modify a tank turret for a longer recoil gun... fucking morons.
Or maybe they aren't morons, and they actually know a bit about making tanks and have actually come up with a clever idea and are in the process of implementing it right now.
I mean standardisation is bloody stupid... the UK should go back to their 303 ammo, and japan should go back to their different 303 ammo, and of course the French and Americans and Germans and all those other different calibres used in WWII by all those different countries... that was so much better...
Having 50 different vehicle types in each division is also great... different engines, different transmissions, different wheels, different track types, everything different... it just makes everything more complicated... and of course operationally you will find some vehicles can go through that mud but other types can't... half the vehicles can go over that bridge, but these vehicles can float over the river and this vehicle is too heavy for the bridge but we need to add a scouting force and lots of extra vehicles to find shallow fords in rivers for the tanks to cross...
A boomerang force can float... all the vehicles can... one type of spare tires to carry and you can take them off destroyed vehicles too because they fit all the vehicles... engine spare parts, transmission spare parts... all the vehicles have the same engine... higher ratings for the heavier vehicles so they can all move at similar speeds across similar terrain...
it is funny how it is westerners that are not getting the concept... I guess once you think what the west does is perfect then there is no other way of thinking that you could respect... stupid russians for not waiting for the west to come up with the idea first... but of course they did... in 5 years time we will find out some plan for the west to do this in the 1960s... it was all their idea all along you silly billies.
According to Fofanov's data, the 125mm 2A75 gun of Sprut-SD tank is the same with 2A46M gun in all parameters but recoil lenghth.
sarcasm mode on.
Lets not let facts get in the way... obviously this gun was developed to provide tank level fire power to light vehicles... only a madman would even think of fitting this gun that provides tank level fire power to light vehicles onto two light vehicles that need tank level fire power... it is crazy...
sarcasm mode off.