Home
Latest images
Register
Log inWhen the tank’s radar/sensors detect the missile, it will automatically get the location of the launcher, point his guns against it and open fire, at the same time the tank should launch smoke grenade/rockets as far as it can from the tank, the smoke will break the laser beam between the launcher and the missile as it pass the smoke, and the missile will get lost. That will buy few seconds for the crew to move the tank from the path of the incoming missile, if the tank will not move it might got hit.
+65
PapaDragon
Stealthflanker
Vann7
Strizh
Khepesh
Bolt
k@llashniKoff
cheesfactory
alexZam
AbsoluteZero
EKS
Acheron
KoTeMoRe
smerch24
xeno
Rmf
victor1985
2SPOOKY4U
Brovich
cracker
mack8
Cpt Caz
OminousSpudd
Dima
ult
akd
chicken
Big_Gazza
GarryB
mutantsushi
fragmachine
RTN
NickM
Mike E
sweetflowers365
calripson
Asf
Vympel
AZZKIKR
runaway
magnumcromagnon
etaepsilonk
Morpheus Eberhardt
NationalRus
As Sa'iqa
Sujoy
Department Of Defense
Regular
gaurav
AJ-47
AlfaT8
Viktor
Werewolf
collegeboy16
Russian Patriot
flamming_python
Cyberspec
Austin
Mindstorm
KomissarBojanchev
medo
Zivo
George1
TR1
TheArmenian
69 posters
Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1
AJ-47- Posts : 205
Points : 222
Join date : 2011-10-05
Location : USA
flamming_python- Posts : 9284
Points : 9346
Join date : 2012-01-30
- Post n°677
Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1
flamming_python Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:02 pm
TheArmenian wrote:Here is something that is puzzling me:
Since the EPOHA turret does not intrude into the crew compartment, why use the smaller turret and gun on the APC version of the Kurganetz?
They could have just used the EPOHA on both the IFV and APC versions.
What's puzzling me is why they don't have 3, frickin, machine-guns, on, those, APCs, and 1, puny, peashooter, on, the IFV.
They are both underarmed but where I can understand the IFV turret not being ready; the APC version really needs a machine-gun controlled by the gunner, a machine-gun controlled by the squad leader and makybe another machine-gun controlled by the assitant squad leader if we really want to get rockin'.
This is hardly a new concept. The BTR and BMP series had firing ports for the squad to fire from while inside; they weren't all that effective but it still raised the firepower of the vehicle by allowing it to take advantage of the firepower of the men inside it.
Firing ports won't be happenign on the Kurganets/Armata/Bumerang chassis, while the IFV turret will take up too much space already for there to be any auxillary machine-guns on the IFV version. However, on the APC version it's perfectly feasible.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Theoretically speaking neither 45mm nor a 57mm main gun is ready yet, but I don't think 30mm is adequate (unless its meant for a pure troop carrier variant), probably MOD feels the same. In all likeliness the IFV Kurganets will likely be the tried and proven combination of 100/30mm while the BMPT could be a 57 mm grenade launcher coaxial with with the Gsh-6-23, a potent anti-personnel setup!
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
How could you possibly think it will have the 100mm when the parade photos make it clear one has the pre-Epoha with 30mm, and the other a much smaller machine gun turret?
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
TheArmenian wrote:Here is something that is puzzling me:
Since the EPOHA turret does not intrude into the crew compartment, why use the smaller turret and gun on the APC version of the Kurganetz?
They could have just used the EPOHA on both the IFV and APC versions.
Probably because the machine gun turret does not penetrate the hull very deeply at all.
And the overriding reason is cost. Epoha, even in its current form does not look cheap.
GarryB- Posts : 39672
Points : 40168
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Instead of gears a magnetic based moving sistem could be more faster and more accurate? Also i have a question: big cannons can move till firing or you need te move them whit the platform that they are on when firing?
Metal gears don't just move the gun precisely... they also hold it firmly in position.
Magnetic gears would always have some give and therefore movement.
I have a question: we know that tracks and wheels are thw most nonarmoured parts of a APC IFV and tanks. Why they are not more inside the chassis? I mean less distance between left and right row of wheels and tracks
The Germans found during WWII that especially with their panther tank the interlocked wheels would clog with mug and then freeze in the cold.
Generally wheels that are hard to access are hard to maintain and keep serviceable.
Since the EPOHA turret does not intrude into the crew compartment, why use the smaller turret and gun on the APC version of the Kurganetz?
First of all lets be clear... the Epoha turret wont enter service till about 2020, but to be an APC turret it just needs weapons to support infantry operations... a grenade launcher, light cannon or HMG are generally deemed adequate for such a role.
For an IFV the 30mm cannon is already marginal... even with new ammo with western IFVs in the 35-45 ton range there is only so much you can do with a 30mm round.
They could have just used the EPOHA on both the IFV and APC versions.
For the IFV role they need a weapon that can take on equivalent vehicles and they will need a rather bigger gun than a 30mm for that job.
If talk of the 45mm gun winning... that would be a shame... it would be like putting a 90mm gun in the Armata MBT as a main gun because you can have twice as many rounds ready to use when they are smaller calibre... Maybe investing in new technology propellent for liquid propellent caseless rounds...
The problem will be that the company making the 57mm gun probably have not invested in the new rounds it would need to be an all round system, while the company making the 45mm round probably have developed the rounds but are likely trying to make them as good as a 57mm equivelent could be.
Personally I think... and I have said it before... the Army needs it, the Navy needs it, and the Air Force might find a need for it... hey the next Su-25 upgrade with a 57mm anti armour gun....
Why not develop a compact, but very powerful 57mm round for the all the military services... the Army can use it for IFV and AA, the Navy could use it as a CIWS and a general purpose gun for small boats, the Air Force and Air Defence forces could both use it for air defence and ground attack...
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
TR1 wrote:How could you possibly think it will have the 100mm when the parade photos make it clear one has the pre-Epoha with 30mm, and the other a much smaller machine gun turret?
So your saying a military vehicle that's in prototype stage can't evolve later before going in to mass production? Or that changes can't come later in it's production cycle? Or that a single military parade somehow negates decades of military service (how long has the 100/30mm combo been in use)?
Yeah it's impossible for the 100/30mm to be seen on a Kurganets-25, even though the company that's overseeing the development of Kurganets (Kurganmash) just so happens to be the developers of the BMP-3, which just so happens to have the 100/30mm combo, which they've used time after time as the preferred armament combination for decades now...
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
The plan for Epoha has been illustrated, and it does not include the 100mm/30mm combo in any way.
So yeah, I can say fairly safely there is zero indication it will get that weapon configuration- not one that would be particularly feasible with Epoha in any case.
With external Kornets, 30/100mm makes even less sense.
So yeah, I can say fairly safely there is zero indication it will get that weapon configuration- not one that would be particularly feasible with Epoha in any case.
With external Kornets, 30/100mm makes even less sense.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
TR1 wrote:The plan for Epoha has been illustrated, and it does not include the 100mm/30mm combo in any way.
So yeah, I can say fairly safely there is zero indication it will get that weapon configuration- not one that would be particularly feasible with Epoha in any case.
With external Kornets, 30/100mm makes even less sense.
Epoch light isn't even the final turret remember? So did Kurganmash specifically say they will never use the 100/30 combo ever again, or did you just come to your own conclusion? While external ATGM like Kornet is good for defeating MBT's, reality is Kurganets-25 doesn't have the armor to go up against MBT's so it's purely used for defensive reasons, and reality is Kurganets-25 most likely will be going up against insurgents/infantry, so a significant amount of 100mm HE-Frag's will be far more useful and practical, and 4 HE-Frag Kornet's won't cut the mustard against a 'X' amount of insurgents.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
30mm is not the final weapon and for good reason- all the more argument to not go for the 30mm/100mm combo in the long run.
https://i.imgur.com/3dx5Y7M.jpg
Remember this? I don't see a 30mm/100mm combo. And imagine the nightmare of fitting both 30mm and the large 100mm rounds all within the above deck turret....even if you made the space via a huge bulky bustle the feed would be a pain in the ass to deal with as well.
And all that for a weapon combo that makes no sense in the future. The HE argument is the only thing it would have going for it...but a high velocity smart munition 45mm (or larger) weapon would make a powerful anti-infantry weapon on its own. And it would be far superior against any non-mbt vehicle.
45mm + Kornet >>> 100mm/30mm combo.
https://i.imgur.com/3dx5Y7M.jpg
Remember this? I don't see a 30mm/100mm combo. And imagine the nightmare of fitting both 30mm and the large 100mm rounds all within the above deck turret....even if you made the space via a huge bulky bustle the feed would be a pain in the ass to deal with as well.
And all that for a weapon combo that makes no sense in the future. The HE argument is the only thing it would have going for it...but a high velocity smart munition 45mm (or larger) weapon would make a powerful anti-infantry weapon on its own. And it would be far superior against any non-mbt vehicle.
45mm + Kornet >>> 100mm/30mm combo.
flamming_python- Posts : 9284
Points : 9346
Join date : 2012-01-30
- Post n°686
Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1
flamming_python Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:51 am
magnumcromagnon wrote:4 HE-Frag Kornet's won't cut the mustard against a 'X' amount of insurgents.
If I had to guess, then I would guess that those Kornets would be a mixture of HEAT (for AT) and Thermobaric (for AP) ones.
And Thermobaric warheads would certainly cut the mustard against an 'X' amount of insurgents. Remember that the IFV squad will do the main work, the IFV's firepower is only there to support them.
Werewolf- Posts : 5921
Points : 6110
Join date : 2012-10-24
The 100m for IFV's isn't dead yet. The Arkan GLATGM with 5.5km range and 800mm RHAe penetration along with HE-Frag capability is very capable and outweights any 57mm. Space for Kornets is always there.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
flamming_python wrote:magnumcromagnon wrote:4 HE-Frag Kornet's won't cut the mustard against a 'X' amount of insurgents.
If I had to guess, then I would guess that those Kornets would be a mixture of HEAT (for AT) and Thermobaric (for AP) ones.
And Thermobaric warheads would certainly cut the mustard against an 'X' amount of insurgents. Remember that the IFV squad will do the main work, the IFV's firepower is only there to support them.
4 thermobaric missiles still wouldn't cut the mustard, because insurgents tend to move place to place, from bunker/fortification to another and if they didn't than ISIS, and Al Nursa would of been defeated already. Once you out of those 4 then your stuck with a 30 mm cannon that's far less efficient than a 100mm HE-Frag at defeating insurgents hiding in log bunkers and fortifications.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
TR1 wrote:30mm is not the final weapon and for good reason- all the more argument to not go for the 30mm/100mm combo in the long run.
https://i.imgur.com/3dx5Y7M.jpg
Remember this? I don't see a 30mm/100mm combo. And imagine the nightmare of fitting both 30mm and the large 100mm rounds all within the above deck turret....even if you made the space via a huge bulky bustle the feed would be a pain in the ass to deal with as well.
And all that for a weapon combo that makes no sense in the future. The HE argument is the only thing it would have going for it...but a high velocity smart munition 45mm (or larger) weapon would make a powerful anti-infantry weapon on its own. And it would be far superior against any non-mbt vehicle.
45mm + Kornet >>> 100mm/30mm combo.
This is the very definition of clutching straws, I asked specifically for an official confirmation from Kurganmash that they'll never use 100/30 combo again, and you still haven't provided one. All you did was provide a picture that didn't say Kurganmash will never use the 100/30 combo ever again. 45mm cannon for all intensive purposes will be a anti-armor weapon above all else, so it's a high velocity rounds will be inefficient anti-personnel weapon compared to a low-velocity 100mm HE-Frag round, above all it's not even ready. It's incredibly inefficient to rely on 4 Kornet's which are mostly used for defensive anti-armor capability, and 2-4 HE-Frag/Thermobaric rounds lacks a sufficient ammo count to combat insurgents who tend to run from one fortification to another, and once the Kornet's are used up your stuck with a 30mm cannon that's also not efficient at defeating a insurgency. The majority of recent combats rarely saw modern vehicles fighting other modern vehicles of the same generation, and almost all of them were low-intensity conflicts with significant insurgency. If your armored vehicles are inefficient at tackling an insurgency, then your up shit creek without a paddle! Kurganet-25's a family of vehicles so for all intensive purposes so their won't be a 'one size fits all' weapon combo...are you seriously going to argue that the mortar carrying Kurganets will have a 45 and Kornet combo, instead of an actual mortar cannon?
This isn't the first time Soviet/Russians have been dabbling with 45mm and 57mm cannons, they already had anti-armor 57mm cannons in the early onset of the Cold War, and the reality is Kurganmash could of easily chose a brand new 57mm cannon before choosing the 100/30 but they didn't. It's a ridiculous moot point to bring up the 45 when it's not even ready or in service, or bring up the Kornet's that are primarily a defensive anti-armor weapon that the lacks ammunition count to be considered a reliable anti-personnel weapon. So your just stuck with just a 30mm cannon that's inefficient at defeating modern IFV's, and also inefficient at defeating an insurgency in comparison to a 100mm HE-Frag shell. Kurganets-25 is a family of vehicles, with various different turrets with different weapon combinations so to say that a 100/30 could will never be seen on a Kurganets-25 with no official confirmation is bizarre, ridiculous and absurd to say the least.
So in short: Decades of service for the 100/30mm combo and being installed on countless Kurganmash BMP-3's, even being used and produced even with this armament even to this day>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clutching straws about a photo, with no official confirmation from Kurganmash that they will never use the 100/30mm combination again, and claiming a 45mm cannon Kornet combo will be a one size fits all for a family of Kurganets-25 vehicles (even a mortar carrying Kurganets).
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
The was a "official" kurganets model that had a 100/30 turret with a bustle. At some point they considered the configuration.
Here's my breakdown and comparison of each system.
30mm/Kornet combo:
Advantages
1) Anti-armor capability spans the entire spectrum.
2) Space efficient design, external missiles and compact shells allow for compact, lightweight turrets.
3) 30mm is good against common targets on open terrain. Infantry, light vehicles, and medium weight vehicles.
4) Kornet can engage aerial targets, and can fire beyond gunship range.
Disadvantages
1) Most systems only carry two-four ready to fire ATGMs.
2) 30mm lacks performance against medium/high armored targets at extended range.
3) 30mm lacks lethality against fortifications.
My thoughts
Epoha-lite is a no frills economical design that has all the features of a modern remote weapon station. The lethality is adequate, and due to the compact nature of the design, it could be widely distributed and added to an expansive range of vehicles. It's unmanned, modular, digital, and doesn't penetrate into the hull, so almost any vehicle could use it with little modification.
100mm/30mm combo:
Advantages
1) Anti-armor capability spans most of the spectrum.
2) The 2A70 offers one shot lethality against light armored vehicles, and a high chance to defeat heavy IFV's and older MBT's.
3) Significant overlap in performance between 100mm and 30mm guns provide excellent lethality against medium weight vehicles.
4) High performance against fortifications, including complete destruction of cover.
Disadvantages
1) The magazine requires a high amount of volume.
2) Lacks high performance anti-armor capability.
3) Limited anti-air capability
My thoughts
There's no denying it, the 100mm/30mm turret is a versatile design. It's also a popular model on the export market. The 100mm 2A70 allows any vehicle it's mounted on to work as a mini-MBT. Obviously ammo storage will be an issue, especially if the Russian army demands ammo isolation from the PAX/crew compartment on the new vehicles.
57mm/kornet combo.
Advantages
1) Anti-armor capability spans the entire spectrum.
2) 57mm offers one shot lethality against light armored vehicles, APHE offers high chance to defeat heavy IFV's, Kornet can defeat modern MBT's.
3) Exceptional anti-air capability.
4) APHE offers high lethality against infantry behind cover. Air burst HE offers high lethality against infantry and light vehicles on open terrain.
Disadvantages
1) The 57mm round needs modernization. APHE with air-burst fuses, and guided air-burst/proximity rounds will be needed.
2) The magazine requires a high amount of volume.
3) Low ammo count, in regards to both 57mm and Kornet. A coaxial Kord may be necessary to fill the low side of the target spectrum.
My thoughts
High velocity 57mm APHE would be an absolutely devastating round against practically every target on the battlefield. With or without Kornet, the 57mm still spans the same range of targets that the 100mm/30mm combo does, but unlike the 100mm/30mm it brings with it significant anti-air capability. The 57mm round count will fall somewhere between 80-100 rounds, with almost the same lethality against armored vehicles as the 100mm 2A70, but in a higher velocity package.
Here's some interesting and relevant footage of the BMP-3 shooting on the move.
Here's my breakdown and comparison of each system.
30mm/Kornet combo:
Advantages
1) Anti-armor capability spans the entire spectrum.
2) Space efficient design, external missiles and compact shells allow for compact, lightweight turrets.
3) 30mm is good against common targets on open terrain. Infantry, light vehicles, and medium weight vehicles.
4) Kornet can engage aerial targets, and can fire beyond gunship range.
Disadvantages
1) Most systems only carry two-four ready to fire ATGMs.
2) 30mm lacks performance against medium/high armored targets at extended range.
3) 30mm lacks lethality against fortifications.
My thoughts
Epoha-lite is a no frills economical design that has all the features of a modern remote weapon station. The lethality is adequate, and due to the compact nature of the design, it could be widely distributed and added to an expansive range of vehicles. It's unmanned, modular, digital, and doesn't penetrate into the hull, so almost any vehicle could use it with little modification.
100mm/30mm combo:
Advantages
1) Anti-armor capability spans most of the spectrum.
2) The 2A70 offers one shot lethality against light armored vehicles, and a high chance to defeat heavy IFV's and older MBT's.
3) Significant overlap in performance between 100mm and 30mm guns provide excellent lethality against medium weight vehicles.
4) High performance against fortifications, including complete destruction of cover.
Disadvantages
1) The magazine requires a high amount of volume.
2) Lacks high performance anti-armor capability.
3) Limited anti-air capability
My thoughts
There's no denying it, the 100mm/30mm turret is a versatile design. It's also a popular model on the export market. The 100mm 2A70 allows any vehicle it's mounted on to work as a mini-MBT. Obviously ammo storage will be an issue, especially if the Russian army demands ammo isolation from the PAX/crew compartment on the new vehicles.
57mm/kornet combo.
Advantages
1) Anti-armor capability spans the entire spectrum.
2) 57mm offers one shot lethality against light armored vehicles, APHE offers high chance to defeat heavy IFV's, Kornet can defeat modern MBT's.
3) Exceptional anti-air capability.
4) APHE offers high lethality against infantry behind cover. Air burst HE offers high lethality against infantry and light vehicles on open terrain.
Disadvantages
1) The 57mm round needs modernization. APHE with air-burst fuses, and guided air-burst/proximity rounds will be needed.
2) The magazine requires a high amount of volume.
3) Low ammo count, in regards to both 57mm and Kornet. A coaxial Kord may be necessary to fill the low side of the target spectrum.
My thoughts
High velocity 57mm APHE would be an absolutely devastating round against practically every target on the battlefield. With or without Kornet, the 57mm still spans the same range of targets that the 100mm/30mm combo does, but unlike the 100mm/30mm it brings with it significant anti-air capability. The 57mm round count will fall somewhere between 80-100 rounds, with almost the same lethality against armored vehicles as the 100mm 2A70, but in a higher velocity package.
Here's some interesting and relevant footage of the BMP-3 shooting on the move.
Werewolf- Posts : 5921
Points : 6110
Join date : 2012-10-24
4 Kornet launchers can be even equipped to the 100/30mm turret of the Kurganetz model.
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
Werewolf wrote:4 Kornet launchers can be even equipped to the 100/30mm turret of the Kurganetz model.
True, but I've never seen it done. My guess is that the designers feel that because the 100mm can easily deal with most targets and it's a case of "good enough". Although the 100mm would have trouble outright destroying the front armor of modern MBT's, the HE rounds would have a really good chance to disable them. Against any IFV, the 100mm is lethal.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Touchy, aren't you?magnumcromagnon wrote:TR1 wrote:30mm is not the final weapon and for good reason- all the more argument to not go for the 30mm/100mm combo in the long run.
https://i.imgur.com/3dx5Y7M.jpg
Remember this? I don't see a 30mm/100mm combo. And imagine the nightmare of fitting both 30mm and the large 100mm rounds all within the above deck turret....even if you made the space via a huge bulky bustle the feed would be a pain in the ass to deal with as well.
And all that for a weapon combo that makes no sense in the future. The HE argument is the only thing it would have going for it...but a high velocity smart munition 45mm (or larger) weapon would make a powerful anti-infantry weapon on its own. And it would be far superior against any non-mbt vehicle.
45mm + Kornet >>> 100mm/30mm combo.
This is the very definition of clutching straws, I asked specifically for an official confirmation from Kurganmash that they'll never use 100/30 combo again, and you still haven't provided one. All you did was provide a picture that didn't say Kurganmash will never use the 100/30 combo ever again. 45mm cannon for all intensive purposes will be a anti-armor weapon above all else, so it's a high velocity rounds will be inefficient anti-personnel weapon compared to a low-velocity 100mm HE-Frag round, above all it's not even ready. It's incredibly inefficient to rely on 4 Kornet's which are mostly used for defensive anti-armor capability, and 2-4 HE-Frag/Thermobaric rounds lacks a sufficient ammo count to combat insurgents who tend to run from one fortification to another, and once the Kornet's are used up your stuck with a 30mm cannon that's also not efficient at defeating a insurgency. The majority of recent combats rarely saw modern vehicles fighting other modern vehicles of the same generation, and almost all of them were low-intensity conflicts with significant insurgency. If your armored vehicles are inefficient at tackling an insurgency, then your up shit creek without a paddle! Kurganet-25's a family of vehicles so for all intensive purposes so their won't be a 'one size fits all' weapon combo...are you seriously going to argue that the mortar carrying Kurganets will have a 45 and Kornet combo, instead of an actual mortar cannon?
This isn't the first time Soviet/Russians have been dabbling with 45mm and 57mm cannons, they already had anti-armor 57mm cannons in the early onset of the Cold War, and the reality is Kurganmash could of easily chose a brand new 57mm cannon before choosing the 100/30 but they didn't. It's a ridiculous moot point to bring up the 45 when it's not even ready or in service, or bring up the Kornet's that are primarily a defensive anti-armor weapon that the lacks ammunition count to be considered a reliable anti-personnel weapon. So your just stuck with just a 30mm cannon that's inefficient at defeating modern IFV's, and also inefficient at defeating an insurgency in comparison to a 100mm HE-Frag shell. Kurganets-25 is a family of vehicles, with various different turrets with different weapon combinations so to say that a 100/30 could will never be seen on a Kurganets-25 with no official confirmation is bizarre, ridiculous and absurd to say the least.
So in short: Decades of service for the 100/30mm combo and being installed on countless Kurganmash BMP-3's, even being used and produced even with this armament even to this day>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clutching straws about a photo, with no official confirmation from Kurganmash that they will never use the 100/30mm combination again, and claiming a 45mm cannon Kornet combo will be a one size fits all for a family of Kurganets-25 vehicles (even a mortar carrying Kurganets).
You can speculate all you want. The Kurganets will never have 100mm/30mm and I will be sure to bump this when that becomes even clearer.
I suggest learning to read Russian and heading over to Otvaga, for starters.
I am not sure why its hard to understand that Epoha is by definition supposed to be up-gunnable.
Good luck putting a 100mm/30mm combo in a turret that does not penetrate the hull. Just look @ the photo Zivo posted: the turret is HUGE in comparison to Epoha. And of course, that plan was REJECTED.
2A42 is used while something better is developed, and to use an available ammo stock. End of story.
If they wanted 100mm/30mm, Bakhcha-U is around and available.
Last edited by TR1 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:40 pm; edited 2 times in total
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Zivo wrote:Werewolf wrote:4 Kornet launchers can be even equipped to the 100/30mm turret of the Kurganetz model.
True, but I've never seen it done. My guess is that the designers feel that because the 100mm can easily deal with most targets and it's a case of "good enough". Although the 100mm would have trouble outright destroying the front armor of modern MBT's, the HE rounds would have a really good chance to disable them. Against any IFV, the 100mm is lethal.
The problem is 100mm shell size and velocity. A perspective 45mm or larger round would allow for larger capacity, space and weight saving (especially if we consider the 30mm/100mm double up), and much better anti IFV capability.
There is something to be said for the 100mm HE ability, but that is all it has going for it.
I am a fan of 45mm vs 57mm because of ammo count, and ease of installation. Epoha could be made compatible easily with a 45mm weapon...with a 57mm IMO there will be much more significant penalties in the way of ammunition size and feed. The only real downside is smart round miniaturization (easier on 57mm) as well as explosive payload.
Werewolf- Posts : 5921
Points : 6110
Join date : 2012-10-24
I am pretty sure that we will see 100/30mm guns either on Armata or on Kurganetz. The 100mm Arkan ammunition is fairly new and the cannon itself is very potent, the only problem with it would be that they try to integrate IFV into Self defense capable against Helicopters/UAV's that is the only argument i see not to use it, especially when there is 5 years minimum to wait for 57mm, while 30mm maybe good for most targets even current/older IFV's but it won't have range advantages to any other IFV with 30/40mm gun.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
But in what form...Epoha can't use 100mm/30mm any time soon. It would require a total turret rework. At that point might as well wait for the new caliber.
And if they wanted it, they would have just gone with the proposed turret seen earlier. It was rejected in favor of the "epoha and friends" family, the first of which we see today.
They is new 30mm ammo that is adequate for the near future, plus you get to utilize the existing stockpile of ammo and don't have to start from scratch.
So 2A42 is quite adequate for now, even if its in no way a firepower upgrade from the Berezehok turret.
Hell I would not be surprised if there were a crapton of 2A42 barrels stored "in-grease".
And if they wanted it, they would have just gone with the proposed turret seen earlier. It was rejected in favor of the "epoha and friends" family, the first of which we see today.
They is new 30mm ammo that is adequate for the near future, plus you get to utilize the existing stockpile of ammo and don't have to start from scratch.
So 2A42 is quite adequate for now, even if its in no way a firepower upgrade from the Berezehok turret.
Hell I would not be surprised if there were a crapton of 2A42 barrels stored "in-grease".
AJ-47- Posts : 205
Points : 222
Join date : 2011-10-05
Location : USA
magnumcromagnon wrote:Theoretically speaking neither 45mm nor a 57mm main gun is ready yet, but I don't think 30mm is adequate (unless its meant for a pure troop carrier variant), probably MOD feels the same. In all likeliness the IFV Kurganets will likely be the tried and proven combination of 100/30mm while the BMPT could be a 57 mm grenade launcher coaxial with with the Gsh-6-23, a potent anti-personnel setup!
When you put 100mm explosive round with 10 soldiers, it's bring catastrophic result, look what's happen to BMP-3 when it get hit, no thank you.
The idea about the APC is to put a turret that is not penetrating to the hall.
The only type of vehicle that can accept this good turret is the Fire Support Vehicle-FSV.
Do you think that 57mm gun with 120 SPM will be less good than 100mm?
The 57mm has a range of 12 km and it can deal with long range ATGM.
AJ-47- Posts : 205
Points : 222
Join date : 2011-10-05
Location : USA
GarryB wrote:
Since the EPOHA turret does not intrude into the crew compartment, why use the smaller turret and gun on the APC version of the Kurganetz?
First of all lets be clear... the Epoha turret wont enter service till about 2020, but to be an APC turret it just needs weapons to support infantry operations... a grenade launcher, light cannon or HMG are generally deemed adequate for such a role.
For an IFV the 30mm cannon is already marginal... even with new ammo with western IFVs in the 35-45 ton range there is only so much you can do with a 30mm round.
The APCs will have to fight not only in open areas, but also in urban areas, and the best weapon for that is the GSh-2 the 23mm gun. His rate of fire and the amount of explosive, will take out most of the enemies strongholds in a city.
As for the IFV, there is no doubt in my mind that the 57mm is a must. I like the big round with a lot of power, rate of fire and range. There are already 2 turrets for it, and one of them we saw on the Atom. I don't understand why we don't have IFV with one of this turret/gun.
to develop a telescopic round is nice but very expansive and will take long time. There is no need for that right now. In 2020 if there will be a need for that, we will replace the turret.
There so many thing that need to be done with the new vehicles, and if we are not starting now with a new turret and a new gun, we losing time
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Did you see how big Atom was? It was a freaking barnyard.
And that turret would have huge under-deck penetration.
That 57mm module shown recently is just a mockup, not a serious product yet. And once again, that flimsy looking thing would have a big drum inside, right in the middle of the troop compartment.
And that turret would have huge under-deck penetration.
That 57mm module shown recently is just a mockup, not a serious product yet. And once again, that flimsy looking thing would have a big drum inside, right in the middle of the troop compartment.
GarryB- Posts : 39672
Points : 40168
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
So your saying a military vehicle that's in prototype stage can't evolve later before going in to mass production? Or that changes can't come later in it's production cycle? Or that a single military parade somehow negates decades of military service (how long has the 100/30mm combo been in use)?
The main reason for the 30mm on the BMP-3 was to defeat enemy IFVs. The main reason for the 100mm was experience with the 73mm gun of the BMP was found to be useful... which was why the BMP wasn't replaced in service by the BMP-2 and the BMP turret wasn't replaced by the BMP-2 turret.
each gun type complimented the other and made sense.
With a new vehicle now however the 30mm cannon is simply not powerful enough for the job.
A high velocity 45mm or 57mm gun could do the job, but it would make the 100mm gun redundant too... though the 100mm HE shell of the BMP-3 is tiny compared with the 57mm shell we are talking about.
the 100mm being a low velocity round with a small propellent case, while the 57mm round has an enormous case to generate a high muzzle velocity.
If I had to guess, then I would guess that those Kornets would be a mixture of HEAT (for AT) and Thermobaric (for AP) ones.
And Thermobaric warheads would certainly cut the mustard against an 'X' amount of insurgents. Remember that the IFV squad will do the main work, the IFV's firepower is only there to support them.
I suspect he means 4 wont be enough... especially compared with 22-40 odd 100mm rounds in the BMP-3M autoloader.
Here's my breakdown and comparison of each system.
Here is my opinion of your points...
advantages... they do compliment each other well, the 100mm gun is clearly superior to the 73mm gun of the BMP it is replacing. The 30mm is an effective weapon though I have read its HE round is not amazing.
disadvantages... despite having metal shell cases, te 100mm rounds means a lot of propellent and HE in the crew compartment... though less of an issue in an unmanned turret it is still a problem...
BTW laser guided shells fired through the 100mm gun can hit helicopters and slow moving aircraft to 8km AFAIK.
Regarding the 57mm round... it is a calibre also used by the Russian navy who can share some of the development costs and also therefore benefit. Guided 57mm shells to 16km would be a very useful thing... even against snipers/mg positions/ATGM team positions etc etc.
Although the 100mm would have trouble outright destroying the front armor of modern MBT's, the HE rounds would have a really good chance to disable them. Against any IFV, the 100mm is lethal.
the 100mm gun has plenty of elevation capability... no reason why a top attack version could not be developed for taking out tanks...
There is something to be said for the 100mm HE ability, but that is all it has going for it.
If we look at anti aircraft use of guns the best compromises are small calibre fast firing guns and large calibre slow firing guns. The 23mm made the Shilka very capable... WWII experience showed cannon was better than machine guns, but the bigger calibre the slower the fire... proximity fused ammo made bigger guns more effective but small fast flying fast manouvering targets were better engaged with a cluster of rounds rather than a slow steady stream that the target could fly through moving slightly so that the round just fired will not make contact.
As range requirements got bigger the 23mm calibre was replaced by the 30mm... still a very high rate of fire but extra range and shell weight.
the reason 57mm were tried and rejected was low rate of fire and low individual shell kill probability.
But guided rounds change all that... instead of firing 200 23mm rounds in a burst to hit a plane you can fire one 57mm shell. The ZSU-57-2 carried about 300 rounds which was not enough as it probably took about 800 rounds to get a single hit. the faster firing 23mm round probably only took about 200 rounds to get a hit, which means the 2,000 odd rounds the Shilka carried meant it could engage maybe 4-5 targets... with guided shells the ZSU-57-2 could probably hit 200 targets...
yeah... those are big rounds but being guided you only need one.
Vastly more powerful than the 30mm and good enough compared with the 100mm to replace its need.
I am a fan of 45mm vs 57mm because of ammo count, and ease of installation. Epoha could be made compatible easily with a 45mm weapon...with a 57mm IMO there will be much more significant penalties in the way of ammunition size and feed. The only real downside is smart round miniaturization (easier on 57mm) as well as explosive payload.
I don't mind a compromise... telescopic 57mm rounds....
I am pretty sure that we will see 100/30mm guns either on Armata or on Kurganetz.
The thing is that the 100mm gun is very similar to the 120mm gun/mortar... they could use it on a BMPT vehicle... but I think a 120mm long barrel rifled gun mortar would be more useful and a 23mm gatling more fun.
The 57mm has a range of 12 km and it can deal with long range ATGM.
The naval 57mm is good to 16km.
The only type of vehicle that can accept this good turret is the Fire Support Vehicle-FSV.
Do you think that 57mm gun with 120 SPM will be less good than 100mm?
IFV.
The APCs will have to fight not only in open areas, but also in urban areas, and the best weapon for that is the GSh-2 the 23mm gun. His rate of fire and the amount of explosive, will take out most of the enemies strongholds in a city.
Soviet and Russian experience with 73mm low velocity gun and 30mm cannon show both are useful for different target types.
That 57mm module shown recently is just a mockup, not a serious product yet. And once again, that flimsy looking thing would have a big drum inside, right in the middle of the troop compartment.
I rather suspect an IFV variant will have crew in the front hull separated from the turret by a fire wall, with the turret next and then a fire wall and then the troops. Ammo and gun will be walled off from crew and troops. turret section separate and firewalled.
|
|
|