Home
Latest images
Register
Log inZivo wrote:
It looks well armed.
with 40mm gun and it's very well protected with 32 ton.
+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
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
https://i.imgur.com/Byg0QSM.gif
Not so huge at all.
Not so huge at all.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
ult wrote:
What do those Stars and Stripes represent
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
St. George Ribbon.
Russia has been obsessed with it again for a few years now.
The star is the new star of the armed forces.
All looks like shit compared to the old Red Star IMO, or the Guards badge + white outline that used to be the parade norm.
Russia has been obsessed with it again for a few years now.
The star is the new star of the armed forces.
All looks like shit compared to the old Red Star IMO, or the Guards badge + white outline that used to be the parade norm.
2SPOOKY4U- Posts : 276
Points : 287
Join date : 2014-09-20
TR1 wrote:St. George Ribbon.
Russia has been obsessed with it again for a few years now.
The star is the new star of the armed forces.
All looks like shit compared to the old Red Star IMO, or the Guards badge + white outline that used to be the parade norm.
Nothing looks as good as the old Red Star,
But St. George's Ribbon actually looks good on the sides of vehicles, especially with the horizontal orange stripes.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
The colors themselves are not awful, but the huge stripe just looks tacky IMO.
A more subtle insignia is much better.
http://www.wallpaperup.com/uploads/wallpapers/2014/05/11/351809/1e2b85dfe19332c5b41ffcc42834350e.jpg
For example, that just looks dumb.
The new star looks alright when its just in dark outline, but in color looks bad.
A more subtle insignia is much better.
http://www.wallpaperup.com/uploads/wallpapers/2014/05/11/351809/1e2b85dfe19332c5b41ffcc42834350e.jpg
For example, that just looks dumb.
The new star looks alright when its just in dark outline, but in color looks bad.
Werewolf- Posts : 5921
Points : 6110
Join date : 2012-10-24
TR1 wrote:St. George Ribbon.
Russia has been obsessed with it again for a few years now.
The star is the new star of the armed forces.
All looks like shit compared to the old Red Star IMO, or the Guards badge + white outline that used to be the parade norm.
Really obsessed with St. George Ribbon out of the blue when we would listen to people like you.
Not the fact that a nazi junta was installed by US and their vassal boot lickers and pushed against russia which makes nazi backers shit themselfs.
But of course there are no nazis in Ukraine, running military operations against own population, nazis running parties, IMF subhumans running as Prime Minister and illegal president.
That all is just imagination and the russians are just stupiditly obsessed with enemies that do not exist, just like the americans seeing everywhere communists, socialists, terrorists and whatever buggyman they can justify to protect their hegemony to be used as fear mongering medium for the stupid western people.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Seek mental help, as soon as possible.
Your rant is worrysome.
Your rant is worrysome.
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
The St George stripes have historical significance and shows respect towards the vets. Personally I like them. Those that are irritated by them obviously have unresolved personal issues and feel the compulsive need to remind us again and again and again....into infinity 
Cpt Caz- Posts : 86
Points : 95
Join date : 2013-09-08
Boomerang hi-res:
KoTeMoRe- Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-21
Location : Krankhaus Central.
AJ-47 wrote:KoTeMoRe wrote:cracker wrote:
VBCI will get Jaguar update with 40mm chaingun+ATGM probably a Spike variation since the MMP isn't yet issue free.
Yoy right about the ATGM, but the 40mm is not a chaine gun. It has telescopic ammo.
Entirely true for the T40 turret my bad. However, while that's true for the demonstrator, we still don't know what the final ECPA/EBRC turret will incorporate. THE AMX 56 was designed with 20mm in mind, it ended up with a .50 cal. Same for the T40 ATMG's. Started MMP, now France's looking for Spike solution. I hope they can keep the cost down and have the telescopic solution. Because when all the current problems die out, France will be yet again a great shopping place and cooperation partner.
BTW the engine placement is fairly conservative.
Oh and this for comparison.
I think the French have sold to Russia FAR more than just a couple of boats. Am pretty sure the T-14 has also more French input that we might believe.
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
Russia test Freccia and Centauro 8x8 vehicles and I think they also test VBCI with their Atom project. I'm sure they take good solutions from them.
KoTeMoRe- Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-21
Location : Krankhaus Central.
medo wrote:Russia test Freccia and Centauro 8x8 vehicles and I think they also test VBCI with their Atom project. I'm sure they take good solutions from them.
Off course, but the the details so far indicate that the VBCI was a far more interesting solution.
Knowing that Russia has had Thales BMS and that the Nexter would organically be more suited to RTD ergonomics, I'm fairly confident that the Boomerang is a Russian special based on those basics. A very sane choice that I salute. Coupled with Russian know-how this might be a hit on so many levels. Iraqi Boomerang at half the price of the Nexter's VBCI? Business just got better.
Acheron- Posts : 114
Points : 118
Join date : 2015-04-22
Location : Hades
This is probably a stupid question with an obvious answer, but does anyone know why the tarp-covered APSs on the Kurganets IFV are asymmetric?
There seem to be 3 of them on the left side and only 2 on the right (one is missing where that strange depression in the add-on NERA/ERA/composite/spaced(?) side skirt is located). That seems strange, since there should be no azimuthal bias of incoming rpgs/atgms, apart from the typical expectation that the majority of threats should come from the frontal ~90 degrees.
To be honest, even the most heavily armoured wheeled IFV (and its crew) is going to have a very bad day if engaged with anything more serious than a KPVT. In fact, the vast majority of wheeled IFVs only have their frontal glacis plates protected from KPVT rounds from a hundred or so meters away. An autocannon or an rpg-7 should have a field day with such a vehicle, especially against the almost vertical sides which the current crop of wheeled IFVs from around the world seem to be sporting. Call me a skeptic, but I was never overly fond of using a wheeled chassis for anything other than an up-armored taxi (i.e. APC). After all, wheeled AFVs were tested and rejected by most major nations prior to WW2 due to their poor firepower, off-road mobility and survivability vis-a-vis tracked AFVs (granted, wheeled AFVs possess merits such as unparalleled mobility on paved roads and inexpensive maintenance/construction costs). Since that time, the spectrum of anti-AFV options and their potency has only increased, with only a marginal improvements in passive armouring with the advent of composites (hence the popularity of NERA/ERA/APS in contemporary MBTs).
Hence, unless someone is actually going to release a wheeled IFV which integrates non-passive armouring options seen on current and prospective MBTs, I am going to treat the protection levels of such vehicles with suspicion, no matter whether they are BTR, VBCI, Boxer or Boomerang.
There seem to be 3 of them on the left side and only 2 on the right (one is missing where that strange depression in the add-on NERA/ERA/composite/spaced(?) side skirt is located). That seems strange, since there should be no azimuthal bias of incoming rpgs/atgms, apart from the typical expectation that the majority of threats should come from the frontal ~90 degrees.
TR1 wrote:cracker wrote:I bet this thing is much more expensive and complex than kurganets. Is it really needed? BTR-82 are good.
Not for the crews inside those BTR-82s when they get blown up or hit with anything serious.
Everyone uses wheeled armored vehicles for a reason, the inherent mobility and deployment advantage.
Plus, much cheaper to run.
To be honest, even the most heavily armoured wheeled IFV (and its crew) is going to have a very bad day if engaged with anything more serious than a KPVT. In fact, the vast majority of wheeled IFVs only have their frontal glacis plates protected from KPVT rounds from a hundred or so meters away. An autocannon or an rpg-7 should have a field day with such a vehicle, especially against the almost vertical sides which the current crop of wheeled IFVs from around the world seem to be sporting. Call me a skeptic, but I was never overly fond of using a wheeled chassis for anything other than an up-armored taxi (i.e. APC). After all, wheeled AFVs were tested and rejected by most major nations prior to WW2 due to their poor firepower, off-road mobility and survivability vis-a-vis tracked AFVs (granted, wheeled AFVs possess merits such as unparalleled mobility on paved roads and inexpensive maintenance/construction costs). Since that time, the spectrum of anti-AFV options and their potency has only increased, with only a marginal improvements in passive armouring with the advent of composites (hence the popularity of NERA/ERA/APS in contemporary MBTs).
Hence, unless someone is actually going to release a wheeled IFV which integrates non-passive armouring options seen on current and prospective MBTs, I am going to treat the protection levels of such vehicles with suspicion, no matter whether they are BTR, VBCI, Boxer or Boomerang.
Last edited by Acheron on Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:54 pm; edited 2 times in total
flamming_python- Posts : 9284
Points : 9346
Join date : 2012-01-30
- Post n°790
Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1
flamming_python Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:15 pm
TR1 wrote:https://i.imgur.com/Byg0QSM.gif
Not so huge at all.
I see it's the same thing as with the T-90 & T-14; in that the hull is higher, but as the turrets are unmanned in the new vehicles - the height at which a critical hit (still requires a 19-20 roll on a D20 mind you) can be dealt to these new vehicles is no higher; in fact slightly lower.
flamming_python- Posts : 9284
Points : 9346
Join date : 2012-01-30
- Post n°791
Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1
flamming_python Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:19 pm
Acheron wrote:This is probably a stupid question with an obvious answer, but does anyone know why the tarp-covered APSs on the Kurganets IFV are asymmetric?
There seem to be 3 of them on the left side and only 2 on the right (one is missing where that strange depression in the add-on NERA/ERA/composite/spaced(?) side skirt is located). That seems strange, since there should be no azimuthal bias of incoming rpgs/atgms, apart from the typical expectation that the majority of threats should come from the frontal ~90 degrees.
If there are 5 of them covering all arcs of the vehicle (and some distance upwards too) - then that means that each launcher will cover exactly 72 degrees; assuming all launchers are uniform.
If so, then putting 3 on one side and on the other is perfectly workable for such a configuration; the ones on the right side will cover a 144 degree arc and the ones on the other side will cover the rest.
It's also possible for instance, that 4 launchers are dedicated to threats along the lateral plane; with each covering 90 degrees; and one is dedicated to hitting top-attack threats. In which case the 5th could be placed pretty much anywhere on the hull
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
TR1 wrote:http://sg.uploads.ru/hu1nf.png
Interesting. Looks like the combat taxi APC Kurganets version does not have APS.
Werewolf wrote:Well it does not really need it.
Werewolf- Posts : 5921
Points : 6110
Join date : 2012-10-24
Mindstorm wrote:TR1 wrote:http://sg.uploads.ru/hu1nf.png
Interesting. Looks like the combat taxi APC Kurganets version does not have APS.Werewolf wrote:Well it does not really need it.
Now i am dead certain they are just teasing and playing us like a damn fiddle, for the giggles..
KoTeMoRe- Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-21
Location : Krankhaus Central.
May 9th is going to be all aaah an oooh's.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Can any one post picture of 30 mm gum module on Kurgnets/Boomerang and the future 45 mm module , I dont seem to find it , Thank You
KoTeMoRe- Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-21
Location : Krankhaus Central.
Page 57 of the Ground Forces thread in. I can't post the link since i'm a newbie... 
Acheron- Posts : 114
Points : 118
Join date : 2015-04-22
Location : Hades
flamming_python wrote:Acheron wrote:This is probably a stupid question with an obvious answer, but does anyone know why the tarp-covered APSs on the Kurganets IFV are asymmetric?
There seem to be 3 of them on the left side and only 2 on the right (one is missing where that strange depression in the add-on NERA/ERA/composite/spaced(?) side skirt is located). That seems strange, since there should be no azimuthal bias of incoming rpgs/atgms, apart from the typical expectation that the majority of threats should come from the frontal ~90 degrees.
If there are 5 of them covering all arcs of the vehicle (and some distance upwards too) - then that means that each launcher will cover exactly 72 degrees; assuming all launchers are uniform.
If so, then putting 3 on one side and 2 on the other is perfectly workable for such a configuration; the ones on the right side will cover a 144 degree arc and the ones on the other side will cover the rest.
It's also possible for instance, that 4 launchers are dedicated to threats along the lateral plane; with each covering 90 degrees; and one is dedicated to hitting top-attack threats. In which case the 5th could be placed pretty much anywhere on the hull
1) I guess that could work. It still offends my aesthetical sensibility. For example, if the designers of a certain tank decide to put an n+1 amount of smoke dispensers on one side of the cannon and n-1 on the other and then state: "That's ok, one of the launchers on one side are inclined in such a manner that it effectively mimics the missing launcher on the other", the obvious question would be: what is stopping you from following the KISS rule and making them symmetric?
2) If the tarp-covered protrusions are actually APS charge dispensers, would it not be better to place the one that is responsible for top-attack munitions on the turret? That way, there would be less interference from the turret and chassis.
xeno- Posts : 253
Points : 256
Join date : 2013-02-04
Austin wrote:Can any one post picture of 30 mm gum module on Kurgnets/Boomerang and the future 45 mm module , I dont seem to find it , Thank You
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Thank You do you have the pictures of the poster on the right
Cpt Caz- Posts : 86
Points : 95
Join date : 2013-09-08
Austin wrote:Thank You do you have the pictures of the poster on the right
|
|
|