Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

Point is that to not put a bigger cannon on a such machine that is needed. Put only a single type of cannon that is effective in short and long is best. Eventually one for short and medium and one for long. Also a point is make a powerfull cannon that handle different types of cartrige. Mobility and place to where work also are taken in equation. So.....BMP 2and 3 were made when the felt the enemy made signifiant advance in armour development. Reasons were not only new guns but also mobility and armour. Because of russia and usa being very close whit tehnology was expected that since russia made a new armour usa to make too. So they added 57mm.

The 30mm is an effective weapon though I have read its HE round is not amazing.

The 30x165 3UOF-8 HE-FI round is among the most lethal rounds of any 30mm calibre for light anti armor capability and very lethal for anti infantry. The ammunition uses a delayed impact fuze which gives it capability to enter enemies IFV's/APC's or less armored vehicles and than detonate inside the closed vehicle, survivability rate is zero for everyone inside, when the round manages to penetrate the vehicle. This capability also great for Anti Aircraft purposes since it will rip aircrafts from inside out.

BTW laser guided shells fired through the 100mm gun can hit helicopters and slow moving aircraft to 8km AFAIK.

In theory, yes.

I believe Arkan has a tandem HEAT warhead. It may have a prefragmented sleeve, but I don't know for sure.  I can't imagine it would be terribly affective against helicopters and low flying aircraft.

IIRC a single 57mm guided round managed a 40% hit probability against aircraft at 6km, with an optimized warhead. The system was able to guide two rounds simultaneously, doubling the hit probability. Since the 57mm round and Arkan are beam riding, and guided using a autotracking FCS, I'm guessing that Arkan would fall below the 40% hit probability mark against aerial targets due to the HEAT warhead.

the 100mm gun has plenty of elevation capability... no reason why a top attack version could not be developed for taking out tanks...

Gun elevation isn't necessary. They can just use a downward facing EFP warhead like BILL and TOW-2B.

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.

I have doubts about that. Kurganet's turret is fairly rearward with the gunner and commander positions separate from the "turret area" below the ring. They might just resort to sticking the ammo in a huge bustle.

Zivo wrote:

BTW laser guided shells fired through the 100mm gun can hit helicopters and slow moving aircraft to 8km AFAIK.

In theory, yes.

I believe Arkan has a tandem HEAT warhead. It may have a prefragmented sleeve, but I don't know for sure.  I can't imagine it would be terribly affective against helicopters and low flying aircraft.

IIRC a single 57mm guided round managed a 40% hit probability against aircraft at 6km, with an optimized warhead. The system was able to guide two rounds simultaneously, doubling the hit probability. Since the 57mm round and Arkan are beam riding, and guided using a autotracking FCS, I'm guessing that Arkan would fall below the 40% hit probability mark against aerial targets due to the HEAT warhead.

the 100mm gun has plenty of elevation capability... no reason why a top attack version could not be developed for taking out tanks...

Gun elevation isn't necessary. They can just use a downward facing EFP warhead like BILL and TOW-2B.

Excuse me, but the main reason for the 100/30mm combo is the HE of 100mm. With a kornet launcher the need for Arkan missile is small indeed and any top attack version for 100mm is non existant.
Sooner or later they will have to upgun the 30mm, and 57mm would be a good choice since the shell is easy to develop. Then if the 57 HE will be effective the 100mm will not be needed.

excuse me but there were a lot of sacrifices made to put that 100mm gun on bmp workable turret ,  the shells fired from 100mm gun are barely supersonic eg bit over 330m/s , while from 57mm they can be as 1000m/s fast , such slow shells are inacurate and are slow reaction to longer ranged enemies , you can take cover while they reach your position ,
 i held 40mm bofors shell in my hands and its big, cartrige is very big , i can only imagine 57mm  , if i remember my history lesson in ww2 57mm AT gun was one of rare guns and only at such caliber , to penetrate tigers and panters.

Rmf wrote:excuse me but there were a lot of sacrifices made to put that 100mm gun on bmp workable turret ,  the shells fired from 100mm gun are barely supersonic eg bit over 330m/s , while from 57mm they can be as 1000m/s fast , such slow shells are inacurate and are slow reaction to longer ranged enemies , you can take cover while they reach your position ,
 i held 40mm bofors shell in my hands and its big, cartrige is very big , i can only imagine 57mm  , if i remember my history lesson in ww2 57mm AT gun was one of rare guns and only at such caliber , to penetrate tigers and panters.

You remember history right, the 57mm AT was better than 76mm. Yes the size of 57mm is a problem, but the CV90 has 40mm and 500-600 beltfed of these i think.

CV90 uses clips for its Bofors gun I thought.

TR1 wrote:CV90 uses clips for its Bofors gun I thought.

Yes, it might be 24 round box/clips

It's pathetic for relatively simple endoevour of creating a 45 mm autocannon not be ready even after it's vehicle is. Even more so for the 57mm. Is it so freakin an astronomical task to create a derivative of theancient S-60?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:It's pathetic for  relatively simple endoevour of creating a 45 mm autocannon not be ready even after it's vehicle  is.  Even more so for the 57mm. Is it so freakin an astronomical task to create a derivative of theancient S-60?

Well why don't you help them out. I am sure they will appreciate the input of a 17 year old regards engineering level degree of work.

the 76.2mm of the T-34 was "selected" long before any 57mm existed, the original gun was the L-10, itself a replacement for the KT-28, KT-28 being a developement of field guns, the round going as far back as 1902 (76x385mm). The L-10 replaced KT-28 on modernised T-28, it appeared on the A-32 and A-34 prototypes, it evolved into the L-11, which equiped early T-34 and KV-1, then the F-34 with longer bore, simpler cheaper tougher construction came in 1941, equiping all T-34 and a good bunch of KV-1 (which also had early on shorter F-32 and later on Zis-5 equal to F-34). The F-34 was identical in velocity and pressure to modern F-22 and Zis-3 field guns, and it was the most powerful gun on any tank until the arrival of the KwK 40 on the panzer 4 F2 in early 1942. It still outclassed the KwK 40 in the variety of rounds, HE rounds, frag rounds, smoke, etc.

The Zis-4 tank gun derived from the 57mm Zis-2 (model 1941) was indeed refused for mass usage, too expensive, not powerful HE round, and nothing comparable to frag, smoke and all rounds of the F-34 (using lineage of 76x385mm ammo accounting for 40 years of surplus and newest products). The Zis-4 was not durable, wearing came very fast, and the sole usage really was as specialised anti tank weapons, so, only some dozen T-34-57 tank killers (not only 1) were built, a famous unit of ~10 tanks became famous in the battle of moscow, but these special T-34 were used until late 1943, some were built that year on the basis of the new T-34 standard 1943, with an improved zis-4M, it ended up that the 85mm gun was the best thing you could mount on a tank and thus came the T-34-85.

The AP ammo for the F-34 were of various types, and at various periods were faulty rounds, but with best quality rounds of latest type (late production BR-350B or BR-350SP of 1943), the penetration was 90-100mm at 100m, 0°, using russian penetration standard. According to tiger's manual and veterans stories, T-34 and Zis-3 were a threat frontally at 300m, not "only point blank on the side" as many popular litterature suggests. But for most of the war, ammo was earlier types and penetration could drop at 60-70mm using the same criteria, so... (early BR-350A, some BR-350B). The F-34 also received BR-350P APCR shells starting in 1943, both types were supplied, a steel core (high hardness tool grade) and a tungsten alloy core one, the former being cheaper and less effective (about 110mm penetration for the steel APCR and 125mm for the tungsten one, still using same criteria for penetration). The penetration droped very fast with these APCR so it was only advisable to use them under 400m. A HEAT shell existed too, but its use in tanks is not certain, it was given to field guns. About 80mm penetration, very bad ammo, unreliable. Just after the war, 2 new shells were introduced (along with almost all russian calibers), the first was an APCBC named BR-354, designed after the US 75mm M61 and 76mm M62, and german Pzgr39... it allowed the F-34, Zis-3, and newly introduced D-56 of the PT-76, to reach 100-110mm penetration (always the same criteria), the second shell being a new APCR design named BR-354N, designed after german 75mm Pzgr40, reaching about 140-150mm penetration and retaining penetration quite well at long range.

As for the 57mm, your penetration value is way too high. That's close to a 17pdr APDS or german KwK42 APCR. The Zis-2 also had the same ammo quality variations and new designs as the 76mm guns, according to ammo type and ammo batch (talking only AP ammo), penetration could range from 100 to 130mm, 100m, 0°, russian criteria. Ammo included BR-271, 271SP, 271K, the K being the most penetrant vs flat armour, the SP being better vs sloped, the 271 being like the SP but with an explosive charge reducing the penetration a little. The APCR round with tungsten core could do 180-200mm, and at 100m, it dropped fast, past 600m it was better to use standard rounds. Post war, the APCBC round BR-271M was introduced, improved penetration at long range, and about 130-140mm at 100m, also a new APCR, BR-271N, 200-210mm pen, but much better at long range than war era BR-271P APCR. It was the ammo load of ASU-57 spgs and given to Zis-2 still in service (until the late 1950s).

So, as of today, still remains shitloads of cold war BR-271M/N (produced up to the 70s), but they are 57x480mm cartridges, unusable in any current 57mm system. The 57x348mm cartridge however, also mounts the same projectile, named BR-281U, it has exactly the same properties (1050m/s, 140mm pen), the AA cartridge is as powerful as the Zis-2 cartridge, because of case design and propellant type.

What they can do is take apart all surplus long cartridge and put the projectiles on the shorter modern one, but, who cares. These vintage ammo are enough to kill any light armour out to 2km by the way, and with more punch and inner effects than any 30/40mm apds. I can see the russians finally developing modern ammo for the 57x348mm cartridge, including an apfsds with at least 250mm penetration (500m), various HE/frag/retard fuse/smoke/canister rounds, but a HEAT round would be useless, caliber is too small and you must rely on the apfsds for anti armour, or vintage AP rounds for light armour.

i'm fond of the 57mm, really the best caliber for the job, in our age and days, 57mm can both touch high anti armour level and high explosive power. The cartridge pattern is already good, compact, and produced since 60 years. Frankly speaking, not a single human ground vehicle will stand up to 57mm apfsds on its flanks, armata included, but even more so M1 abrams and leopard 2 (70 and 50mm respective side armour for the hull, + various side skirts that bring the total to 120mm max)

Out of tank guns, i'd like to see a totally new built light infantry gun (like for mountains, VDV or who ever wants it), using newest materials and technology with muzzle brake, etc, etc, very light and compact... Using the 57mm AA (348mm long) cartridge, like a sort of super COIN, checkpoint, ambush or countersniper weapon... using old and future ammo... damn, i'd like to see that, 2.5km direct firing range, a rail for day/night highpower scope, ballistic computer, etc.... all under 350kg please. I recall that 30mm one shot gun revealed some years ago... it would be better in 57mm. This thing would cause enormous problems to everything on nowadays battlefields, and even be able to kill tanks in ambush (with remote control, camera, etc)... even going further, a light and cheap tracked robot using a gun like that, with a magazine of 20-30 rounds.. oh lord

Has there been any new information released on the 125mm Kurganets? This model was the last bit of any "official" information I can recall.



I wonder if it would be possible to just cut a hole in Kurganet's roof and drop in the Armata MBT turret?

I wonder if it would be possible to just cut a hole in Kurganet's roof and drop in the Armata MBT turret?

That would be far to heavy for a plattform that "only" weight is 25+ tons the turret will wait around 9t i assume that would be 36% of the weight, i assume they will make it as thin and as flat as possible without wasting to much weight on it to sustain its 25-30t of weight it still has to be amphibic.

BAE Systems Unveils the ORKA One Shot One Kill Round for 57mm Gun at Sea-Air-Space 2015
BAE Systems at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea-Air-Space Exposition is showcasing for the first time a new 57mm guided projectile: The Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft or ORKA (technical designation: MK295 MOD 1). The new round is designed to be shot from the 57mm MK110 fitted on both types of US Navy Littoral Combat Ships.



The new ORKA 57mm Guided Projectile on BAE Systems Booth at Sea Air Space 2015
   
Currently at design stage, the ORKA is BAE Systems answer to a US Navy requirement aiming at increasing the accuracy and efficiency of naval rounds. Navy Recognition learned that BAE Systems engineers applied the technology developed and mastered with the 127mm and 155mm to the much smaller 57mm.

ORKA is a "One Shot One Kill" round fitted with an imaging semi-active seeker: It can be guided through laser designation or it can hit its target autonomously by downloading image of the target prior to firing.

BAE Systems confirmed that the ORKA retains the 3P multiple fuzing modes (timed, proximity and point detonation) found on the existing 57mm round.
   
BAE Systems at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea-Air-Space Exposition is showcasing for the first time a new 57mm guided projectile: The Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft or ORKA (technical designation: MK295 MOD 1). The new round is designed to be shot from the 57mm MK110 fitted on both types of US Navy Littoral Combat Ships.57mm MK110 Naval Gun System on BAE Systems booth at Sea Air Space 2015
   
The Mk295 Mod 1 incorporates a reliable and affordable 4-canard actuation systems, to guide the round; a multi-mode imaging seeker and a hihgh explosive warhead to enable single shot defeat of Anti-Surface Warfare and Anti-Aircraft Warfare threats.

Image seeking and SALH, too expensive. It could be used in a top attack profile though.

The LCS's gun is a only a 57mm

Zivo wrote:Image seeking and SALH, too expensive. It could be used in a top attack profile though.

The LCS's gun is a only a 57mm

It’s expensive alright, but we don't have to have more then few rounds, the BMP-3 also have some smart shells.
If you fight in urban area, top attack will not help you. Direct fire is the answer and it’s good to have few smart shells.

AJ-47 wrote:

Zivo wrote:Image seeking and SALH, too expensive. It could be used in a top attack profile though.

The LCS's gun is a only a 57mm

It’s expensive alright, but we don't have to have more then few rounds, the BMP-3 also have some smart shells.
If you fight in urban area, top attack will not help you. Direct fire is the answer and it’s good to have few smart shells.

In an urban area, saturation and suppression is king, smart shells will not help you.

Zivo wrote:Image seeking and SALH, too expensive. It could be used in a top attack profile though.

The LCS's gun is a only a 57mm

That is freaking expensive like making 9mm rounds made of diamonds. Unbelievable to use such guidance for such small rounds, the guidance seeker alone must account for 90% of the costs per round.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:

Zivo wrote:Image seeking and SALH, too expensive. It could be used in a top attack profile though.

The LCS's gun is a only a 57mm

It’s expensive alright, but we don't have to have more then few rounds, the BMP-3 also have some smart shells.
If you fight in urban area, top attack will not help you. Direct fire is the answer and it’s good to have few smart shells.

In an urban area, saturation and suppression is king, smart shells will not help you.

Smart shells is just one more option that the commander can use.

AJ-47 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:

Zivo wrote:Image seeking and SALH, too expensive. It could be used in a top attack profile though.

The LCS's gun is a only a 57mm

It’s expensive alright, but we don't have to have more then few rounds, the BMP-3 also have some smart shells.
If you fight in urban area, top attack will not help you. Direct fire is the answer and it’s good to have few smart shells.

In an urban area, saturation and suppression is king, smart shells will not help you.

Smart shells is just one more option that the commander can use.

To do what? Get himself killed? Waste money? Lose through attrition of resources?

In urban combat, smart shells wont even have time to maneuver.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:

Zivo wrote:Image seeking and SALH, too expensive. It could be used in a top attack profile though.

The LCS's gun is a only a 57mm

It’s expensive alright, but we don't have to have more then few rounds, the BMP-3 also have some smart shells.
If you fight in urban area, top attack will not help you. Direct fire is the answer and it’s good to have few smart shells.

In an urban area, saturation and suppression is king, smart shells will not help you.

Smart shells is just one more option that the commander can use.

To do what? Get himself killed? Waste money? Lose through attrition of resources?

In urban combat, smart shells wont even have time to maneuver.

the smart shells can be used every were, against APCs, IFVs, Bunkers etc. I don't know what the price of it, but it's good to have it.

AJ-47 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:

Zivo wrote:Image seeking and SALH, too expensive. It could be used in a top attack profile though.

The LCS's gun is a only a 57mm

It’s expensive alright, but we don't have to have more then few rounds, the BMP-3 also have some smart shells.
If you fight in urban area, top attack will not help you. Direct fire is the answer and it’s good to have few smart shells.

In an urban area, saturation and suppression is king, smart shells will not help you.

Smart shells is just one more option that the commander can use.

To do what? Get himself killed? Waste money? Lose through attrition of resources?

In urban combat, smart shells wont even have time to maneuver.

the smart shells can be used every were, against APCs, IFVs, Bunkers etc. I don't know what the price of it, but it's good to have it.

Good to have as a waste of space, launched missiles would be far more effective, a quad pack of Kornets mounted left and right of the turret would take care of tanks, IFVs, APCs, low flying aircraft, and regular good old HE and HEAT/APFSDS and maybe HE-FRAG would take care of the rest.

Werewolf wrote:

Zivo wrote:Image seeking and SALH, too expensive. It could be used in a top attack profile though.

The LCS's gun is a only a 57mm

That is freaking expensive like making 9mm rounds made of diamonds. Unbelievable to use such guidance for such small rounds, the guidance seeker alone must account for 90% of the costs per round.

Is one round going to cost like $50k or something absurd like that?