Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

Only that photo of the Indian T-72 being fitted on the Il-76.
Basically it fits, but barely.

I have seen photos of T-90A on An-22, now that is a spacious bay.

etaepsilonk wrote:WW2? Man, M728 was successfully used up until the first gulf war  Rolling Eyes

Do you are seriously suggesting to anyone to even only take in consideration an abortive "weapon" (in reality it is NOT EVEN a weapon in the real meaning of the term) like the M165, as the main weapon selection for a BMPT-like vehicle , moreover saying that this .......weapon........ was used "successfully" in Gulf War ?


M278 was NOT conceived and is totally ILL-SUITED for taking active part or engage in any kind of battlefield activity involving direct confrontation with enemy vehicles and/or manpower.

M278 and its M-165 gun was conceived for strict demolition tasks of hard battlefield barricades, blockades or residual defensive structures , potentially capable to hinder ground force's rate of advancement or exploitable by the enemy in the event of re-occupation of the area or of a counter-attack , and only after that allied armoured ,infantry and mechanized brigades had fought the battle to free the area from the bulk of enemy presence  .

Nothing more nothing less.

A "weapon" such as M-165 show not only a simply abysmal rate of fire, accuracy, lethality (against both exposed and defilated manpower) and engagement range   ,any of which would already render it an horrible weapon of choice against enemy infantry equipped even only with the most outdated RPG and ATGM models , but its design prevent the employment of the required "gamut" of different ammunitions in need, for such a weapon, to actively and/or reactively engage the most common battlefield contestants of a low-tech or an high-tech enemy.....and not only in urban combat.

etaepsilonk wrote:  In this case we are comparing M135 and Nona cannons, mounted on a tank chassis.

Comparing a laughing stock like M135 with the 2S9 Nona gun , the same gun that literally humiliated US's М109А2, manned by US Army operators , in comparative trials ?
What a nerve.    

Well, even the 100 mm 3OF70 and E-3OF70 rounds of today BMP-3 are already incomparably more lethal , precise ,fast and tactically ductile than the rounds shot by that anachronistic metallic appendage mounted on M-60's chassis.

To GarryB:

"Non standard new ammo type, with low rate of fire, and low ammo capacity.
Extremely short range puts vehicle in enemy fire range."

Yes it's not standart ammo, but the cost to develop it would be very negligible (because it's low pressure, same as BMP-3)

Rate of fire depends on the autoloader.

And I disagree about ammo capacity. M-728 carried 30 rounds, but remember that the turret had 3 crew, and even space for winch equipment had to be spared. And lenght of 165mm ammo is 701mm, that is actually SHORTER than BM-42M round without the propellant part.

About the range. In case you don't know, there are quite a few ways to prevent being fired upon, not only staying out of range. Because otherwise, everything within 40km of the frontlines would be obliterated with artillery, wouldn't it?   




"It can be used in the direct fire mode... in which case a single rocket can be used."

You do realise of course, that MLRS means "Multiple launch rocket system"? Firing single rockets out of it would be ineffective, firstly, because it's not designed for this kind of operation mode.






"Laser homing missiles worked out at something like the cost of 5 standard rounds, so they weren't that expensive. The new guidance packages are $1,000 US each so they are very cheap and offer all weather day/night accuracy."

You know, cheapest Ferrari also cost like 5 times more than family van, so it isn't that expensive too, right?    You should know, that 5 times is actually A LOT.

For example, in 2011 Libya operation France came close to running out of guided bombs. What makes you think, that in the similar conflict Russia not only wouldn't run out, but also would have such an abundance of PGMs, that could even leisurely use them for engineering tasks, like you suggest?
As far as I know, in Soviet-Afghan war, 240mm smelchak rounds were in VERY high demand, just as any PGM, actually. So, at least in my opinion, your suggestion is not gonna work for all but very low-insurgency conflicts.






To Mindstorm:
"M278 was NOT conceived and is totally ILL-SUITED for taking active part or engage in any kind of battlefield activity involving direct confrontation with enemy vehicles and/or manpower."

Vietnam war says otherwise   







"M278 and its M-165 gun was conceived for strict demolition tasks of hard battlefield barricades, blockades or residual defensive structures , potentially capable to hinder ground force's rate of advancement or exploitable by the enemy in the event of re-occupation of the area or of a counter-attack , and only after that allied armoured ,infantry and mechanized brigades had fought the battle to free the area from the bulk of enemy presence ."

Yes, absolutely. But in case you haven't noticed, BMPT is supposed to operate with " that allied armoured ,infantry and mechanized brigades" in the first place    as it's title says " Боевая машина поддержки танков" or "tank support vehicle".




"any of which would already render it an horrible weapon of choice against enemy infantry equipped even only with the most outdated RPG and ATGM models"

That's what tank level armor is for.








"Comparing a laughing stock like M135 with the 2S9 Nona gun , the same gun that literally humiliated US's М109А2, manned by US Army operators , in comparative trials ?"

There, I don't understand. M728 and 2S9 Nona are vehicles of entirely different categories, and therefore, incomparable. I remind you, that we are comaparing guns, not actual vehicles. And until you can prove , that 2A60/80 is superior to M135 for BMPT role, all current evidence is in the latter's favor.   






"Well, even the 100 mm 3OF70 and E-3OF70 rounds of today BMP-3 are already incomparably more lethal , precise ,fast and tactically ductile than the rounds shot by that anachronistic metallic appendage mounted on M-60's chassis."

As far as I know, 100mm gun configuration was tried and rejected. So pardon me, but I don't think that it's so much superior as you state.
And to be frank, even M135 is not perfect for such role. Given that the job for BMPT would mainly be escorting armored, mechanised formations, convoys, and picking-off gun emplacements in urban environments, the most suitable weapon, IMO, is a 57mm autocannon.
However, since some members here have suggested that Nona cannon would be such a great choice for BMPT, I just felt tempted to point out, that mounting a light artillery cannon there would actually be pretty stupid, mainly because it would be limited to direct fire mode only, and therefore, significantly inferior to 125mm in range and versatility, while offering too little Explosive power to compensate. So, as the alternative to Nona for BMPT, M135 actually offers significantly more power, and is more versatile, while not duplicating the function of the 125mm gun of the tanks, that it will surely operate with.

5 times more expensive guided munition is nothing compared how much they are effective over dumb one.
Only thing I don't get about BMPT is those damned twin barrels. At least it doesn't have those ridiculous AGS mounted in the hull any more.
Personally I think they should simplify design even further to get attention of even poorest customers. I doubt that SAA would use tube launchers against enemy they are facing. It's close and personal, hell I can even imagine flamethrower finding it's use in Syrian war. Good ol WW2 vintage one, non thermobaric one.

Regular wrote:5 times more expensive guided munition is nothing compared how much they are effective over dumb one.  
Only thing I don't get about BMPT is those damned twin barrels. At least it doesn't have those ridiculous AGS mounted in the hull any more.
Personally I think they should simplify design even further to get attention of even poorest customers. I doubt that SAA would use tube launchers against enemy they are facing. It's close and personal, hell I can even imagine flamethrower finding it's use in Syrian war. Good ol WW2 vintage one, non thermobaric one.

About twin barrels, there was a discussion about this a couple of pages back in this very same thread.

And about guided rounds, it's really not that simple. (In)effectiveness of guided rounds over dumb ones depends a lot on many things: intensity of the conflict, battlefield environment, hardware available for military tasks, enemy forces, etc.
And let's not forget, that even the type of PGM (laser, Gps, optical) can make it's performace vary greatly.

Yeah I know, even dumb bombs today can be accurate with good FCC and small turboprop COIN planes could do amazing work in Astan, but we still see JDAMs being used on mudhuts. Some countries can afford "luxuries" even in low intensity conflicts.
I probably took it out of context as I was talking more about artillery where guided rounds really make the difference. And increased cost can be negated by increased effectiveness.

etaepsilonk wrote:Vietnam war says otherwise Rolling Eyes

Oh well ,if in ascertaining the value of M135 gun as main weapon for an urban combat optimized BMPT your "otherwise" element is represented by....Vietnam conflict..... you are definitely not in a good position in this debate

Anyone can easily point out to the almost daily instances, in the tough battles in Vietnam's hills and jungle, where North Vietnamese "insurgents" whas shooting ,from multiple directions and with very short exposure, ATGMs and RPGs from the upper floors or an "half window" or directly from the basements of buildings against enemy armored/IFV vehicles in the streets ............... Ops...........

But even worse than what just said, even in those '60 jungle battlefield conditions ,totally irrelevant to the points in debate here , M728 was obviously never employed to independently and/or directly confront NVA defensive positions and at very good reasons.

etaepsilonk wrote:Yes, absolutely. But in case you haven't noticed, BMPT is supposed to operate with " that allied armoured ,infantry and mechanized brigades" in the first place Rolling Eyes as it's title says " Боевая машина поддержки танков" or "tank support vehicle".

Obviously not.
A BMPT vehicle complement MBT's presence only in the battlefield scenarios where an advanced enemy deploy a mixed force of advanced IFV or MBT mixed with entrenched/hidden ambushing infantry element.

Instead in the COIN operations ,in urban environment, where the first element is totally absent , an exclusive employment of BMPTs ,in support of dismounted infantry's operations and with the support of vehicles such as SBRM, would not simply be preferable but several times more efficient.

To clarify the thing even more we could say that ,if SAA would had get , an year and half ago ,some hundreds of BMPT or BMPT-72 and some dozen of SRBM ,instead of its T-72Ms, by now the terrorist's front would have already totally collapsed on almost any front.

etaepsilonk wrote:As far as I know, 100mm gun configuration was tried and rejected. So pardon me, but I don't think that it's so much superior as you state

Actually, to the exact contrary, just the fact that a combined 100 mm gun /30 mm autocannon configuration was selected ,with the Объект 782, as one of the two last contending designs for the BMPT's final configuration should suggest something to you.  

Last time i checked i don't rember instead a single design for a similar vehicle , anywhere at world, where an abortive 165 mm engineering demolition gun was even only proposed as main weapon for a BMPT-like system and also that should suggest something to you.  


 

etaepsilonk wrote:There, I don't understand. M728 and 2S9 Nona are vehicles of entirely different categories, and therefore, incomparable.

I agree completely.

This one



is a weapon still today without a corresponding anywhere at world , conceived to fight and gain the upper hand in major war against NATO and capable to be : air-dropped , proceed autonomously over any water surface thank to its full amphibious configuration and offer very fast reaction and high-volume of indirect/direct 120 mm firepower


This other one instead....





About the rational behind the choice to implement a relatively large caliber gun in the design of similar assault vehicles (as in the BMP-3/BMP-4 instance) ,very likely you have overlooked to the very "unlucky" effects that the saturation,stand-off, rapid fire, with HE-Frag rounds , by part of similar weapons have on targets like those ones









Get it ?

Hey Mindstorm, what's wrong with high calibre being used on insurgents?
OSV-96 was successfully used in Chechen wars. Kord was used almost as sniper rifle as well.

Regular wrote:Hey Mindstorm, what's wrong with high calibre being used on insurgents?

Maybe i has been too cryptic in mine explanation ; i will attempt to repeat the thing in a more straight way.

What i have attempted to show with those videos from Afghan theatre of war are typical potential targets for a 120 mm gun/mortar (but also the 100 mm 3OF70 and E-3OF70 projectile of today BMP-3 and BMD-4 ) all engageable ,from stand-off range, with its HE-Frag rounds.


2С9 Нона-С ,in particular was designed around a combinations of mobility and fire power capabilities (some of which still without any correspoinding anywhere still today !) capable to realize the concept of "paralysing" VDV attacks in NATO deep sectors .





In particular contribuited to the task

For the Mobility departement :

- Capability to be air dropped and perfectly ready for combat operations in a matter of few minutes !
- Outstanding off-road mobility and capabilities to negotiate with difficult high-gradient terrain
- Full amphibious mobillity (3 level sea included)  , so to avoid completely NATO defensive choke points and/or also "dilute" greatly the force's concentration of unavoidable NATO's defensive lines.
- Very big authonomy's range, so to both assure that dropping aircrat wouldn't be forced in dangerous area of delivery and also to render the actual targets of the VDV's attack dozen of times more difficult to foresee for the enemy command.  


On the Fire Power department :

- Very high speed of zeroing (one of the features allowing Нона-С to beat easily M-109A2 US artillery crew )
- Unmatched first volley accuracy after short stop.
- Average time of fire from march (another of the capabilities which leaved US team speechless in the "competition")
- Ammunition wide area of assured target defeat.
- Accuracy and speed for "Area saturation shooting" from short stop.
- High variety of the rounds at disposition.


In the '80s the intended NATO infantry targets (outside the radars , C4 and main NATO airfields representing obviously the primary ones ) to be  engaged by 2С9 Нона-С's saturation fire was mainly TOW's teams and NATO defensive structures ; today would be also FGM-148 team (usually eternally waiting to get, after cooling and collimation operations, finally a chanceto shoot at a target in the meantime still reamining within its limited engagement range ,  ) sniper firing posts and FOBs.

Got it. Thanks for informative answer. 
What I find fascinating as well is newer Russian artillery systems. Towed NONA-M1 would be perfect for protecting FOBs in Afghanistan and for any motorized forces. It literally takes mortar systems to new level of efficiency.

I wonder why they didnt put 120mm nona instead of 100mm low velocity gun on BMP-3?
Edit: nona 120mm is a mortar, too slow and parabolic of a trajectory so disadvantage in a firefight with other IFVs.

New question: Can we expect kurganets to survive 120mm Apfsds like m829a3?
if i recall correctly only armatas will use afghan aps which is the one that can stop even apfsds rounds, so hard kill is not the answer.

collegeboy16 wrote:

New question: Can we expect kurganets to survive 120mm Apfsds like m829a3?
if i recall correctly only armatas will use afghan aps which is the one that can stop even apfsds rounds, so hard kill is not the answer.

APS aside, no way.

Unless they find a way to deform the penetration somehow, you would need either a very heavy or bulky vehicle to have any hope of defeating a modern APFSDS.

To GarryB:
TOS1 is not suitable for single rocket firing. In fact, there are rocket launchers, specialy designed for engineering tasks. They're called MCLC (mine clearing line charge) systems. Russia has them too, and quite successfully used them in Afghanistan and Chechnya.




"With a tank sized vehicle able to carry plenty of tank sized rounds and with no troop compartment the BMPT can carry a 120mm weapon and its ammo and the ability to use existing ammo and in direct and indirect modes makes it versatile."

How much do you think that Nona gun could elevate in tank sized turret of the BMPT? To achieve max range, about 45 degrees elevation is required (and for efficient artillery operations, even more   ). I remind you that current Russian tanks elevate 15 degrees, and even that is by having the short recoil slide gun (while nona is long recoil slide).





To Mindstorm:
"Anyone can easily point out to the almost daily instances, in the tough battles in Vietnam's hills and jungle, where North Vietnamese "insurgents" whas shooting ,from multiple directions and with very short exposure, ATGMs and RPGs from the upper floors or an "half window" or directly from the basements of buildings against enemy armored/IFV vehicles in the streets"

That's pretty much the exact environment of the Vietnam war, just replace ATGMs with RRs.   








"M728 was obviously never employed to independently and/or directly confront NVA defensive positions and at very good reasons."

If you claim, that M-728 was never used in direct combat, then maybe you have some link to prove it?
Because the link I had provided, states the exact opposite.   

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/eng/M728.html

Here, even a citation for your convenience:
"During the Vietnam war, the M728 was used in fire support, base security, counterambush fire, direct assault of fortified positions, and limited reconnaissance by fire. During Operation Desert Storm, M728s were used to augment M1A1s equipped with mine rollers and mine plows."

Well?

Wonder why US and UK doesn't use those guns anymore.

To Regular:
Because the entire M60 and Centurion, respectively, classes got retired due to post-cold war budget cuts, and introducing vehicles created on basis of new tanks would be pretty expensive.
Probably this could be worthy a thread of its own. The thing is, nowadays you don't see many engineering tanks based on Abramses, Challengers, etc. in the first place, unlike their eastern counterparts. That's because the chassis and maintenace of those 60-tonners are very expensive, and therefore, introducing them in large numbers would be quite problematic, budget-wise, especially given that they will be performing secondary, "unprestigious" earth moving tasks    (let's also not forget that many western military scholars still believe that airforce alone is sufficient to win wars    ).

To GarryB:
Great elevation angles are indeed possible... if the turret similar to 2s9 nona in dimensions, weight, and geometry is applied. But do you realise, that in that case, the BMPT's turret would have pretty weak armor ? I think that isn't very desirable for the BMPT, given the tasks it would be performing.

To GarryB:
"Getting rid of old engineer MBTs and replacing them with new tank based vehicles should be relatively cheap... in fact, thanks to recent conflicts there should be plenty of Abrams and Challenger tanks with damaged turrets that could be adapted to the role of engineer vehicle.
The maintainence would be no worse for the few hundred engineer models than the thousands of MBT versions in service."

In theory, yes.... However, check out the numbers of tank based engineering vehicles, in western countries their number is surprisingly negligible.
Also, ckeck out the bottom of this site:
http://www.casr.ca/101-army-armour-arv3-buffel.htm

"[1] There appears to have been no public notice that the two ARV 3s have been purchased as Urgent Operational Requirements. With the upgrades needed, a UOR purchase makes sense but, in contrast with past practice on the Afghan mission, the ARV 3 buy was kept quiet. Our thanks to Sgt Patrick Vigneault for providing clarification of the exact nature of the procurement of the Canadian Forces' two ARV 3s."

Don't you find a bit strange, that purchase of two simple prime movers was kept quiet as some sort of state secret?





"The turret of the BMPT will be unmanned and have no ammo above the turret ring... why would it need to be heavily armoured?"

Of course it would need to be armored. Keep in mind, that armor protects not only the crew, but also key components of the vehicle. And dunno about external weapon mounting, but in the case of stryker MGS, it was quite unsuccessful. We also know, that external cannon was rejected for objekt 195 tank. So, I think it's safe to assume, that such configuration has quite a number of drawbacks isn't it?





"This also offers range and elevation, with direct and indirect firing weapons for use against point and area targets at close and medium ranges."

Do you know what is the main difference between tanks and artillery?
Tanks are more of a direct fire weapons, while artillery- more of an indirect fire weapons, and their design reflects exactly that.
Here you are trying to bring those two systems as one.
If that happens, such "BMPT" would be inferior to 2S9 in affordability, and also inferior to tanks in armor protection. By far, the best option for BMPT is 57 mm cannon, something like this:
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/12/72.html

The reason for that is that BMPT's exact purpose is not to replace tanks in any particular battle environment, but to supplement them, work together and mutually protect each other.
That's why I think, that BMPTs shouldn't duplicate tanks' armament, and that leaves pretty much 2 choices:
1. IFV's cannons (30 ,57mm and whatnot)

2. Cannons of the assault guns (such as M728 like I suggested).

Now, having arty at your disposal is ,of course, very useful too, but that should be left to dedicated platforms, IMO.

Of course it would need to be armored. Keep in mind, that armor protects not only the crew, but also key components of the vehicle. And dunno about external weapon mounting, but in the case of stryker MGS, it was quite unsuccessful. We also know, that external cannon was rejected for objekt 195 tank. So, I think it's safe to assume, that such configuration has quite a number of drawbacks isn't it?

We don't know exactly how 195's turret looks. I suspect it's actually lightly armored, id est, resistant to autocannon fire only.

It makes no sense to try to armor the front of the turret when the turret is unmanned. I'd almost bet money that when Armata is revealed this year, the mbt variant will look very similar to this CGI model.



Do not forget, Armata should enter serial production with an APS which will significantly increase its survivability.

Zivo wrote:

Of course it would need to be armored. Keep in mind, that armor protects not only the crew, but also key components of the vehicle. And dunno about external weapon mounting, but in the case of stryker MGS, it was quite unsuccessful. We also know, that external cannon was rejected for objekt 195 tank. So, I think it's safe to assume, that such configuration has quite a number of drawbacks isn't it?

We don't know exactly how 195's turret looks. I suspect it's actually lightly armored, id est, resistant to autocannon fire only.

It makes no sense to try to armor the front of the turret when the turret is unmanned. I'd almost bet money that when Armata is revealed this year, the mbt variant will look very similar to this CGI model.



Do not forget, Armata should enter serial production with an APS which will significantly increase its survivability.

I think, that having lightly armored turret would require quite a change in tank battle doctrine in the first place, for example, hull-down position would become much less effective, and so on.  Just not worth it.

And besides, I think that the turret of your picture is actually armored, those stripes on both sides of the gun looks like armor to me  .

We can also compare this turret to some other designs, such as Falcon:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.htm
This one is clearly armored.

Is there complete confirmation that the kurganets IFVs will have ramp door and front engine? Does the BMP-3 config have any major disadvantages compared to the classic solution? I heard that the upper opening passenger hatches of the BMP 3 give much less fire cover doors at the back.

etaepsilonk wrote:

Zivo wrote:

Of course it would need to be armored. Keep in mind, that armor protects not only the crew, but also key components of the vehicle. And dunno about external weapon mounting, but in the case of stryker MGS, it was quite unsuccessful. We also know, that external cannon was rejected for objekt 195 tank. So, I think it's safe to assume, that such configuration has quite a number of drawbacks isn't it?

We don't know exactly how 195's turret looks. I suspect it's actually lightly armored, id est, resistant to autocannon fire only.

It makes no sense to try to armor the front of the turret when the turret is unmanned. I'd almost bet money that when Armata is revealed this year, the mbt variant will look very similar to this CGI model.



Do not forget, Armata should enter serial production with an APS which will significantly increase its survivability.

I think, that having lightly armored turret would require quite a change in tank battle doctrine in the first place, for example, hull-down position would become much less effective, and so on.  Just not worth it.

And besides, I think that the turret of your picture is actually armored, those stripes on both sides of the gun looks like armor to me  .

We can also compare this turret to some other designs, such as Falcon:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.htm
This one is clearly armored.

Here's another shot



This isn't falcon, nor is it official. Debating any details on this specific model is pointless.

Like 195, there's nothing above the hull worth protecting from anything more than autocannon fire. The armor surplus they gain from cutting the turret will go towards protecting the hull.

Zivo wrote:

This isn't falcon, nor is it official. Debating any details on this specific model is pointless.

Like 195, there's nothing above the hull worth protecting from anything more than autocannon fire. The armor surplus they gain from cutting the turret will go towards protecting the hull.

You do realise of course that armor is meant to protect not only the crew, right?
If a shell hits unarmored turret, then it's a mission-kill for the tank. And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some studies made which came to conclusion that tank turret and not the hull has the biggest probability of being hit?

And falcon was only an example, that it doesn't have any crew above hull too, yet the turret is armored. So what makes you think, that the same isn't applied to T-95 or Armata for that matter?