Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

Funny, since I have read accounts by soldiers (including guys on mp.net who are proven vets of Iraq) and they were in many cases quite favorable towards the Stryker.

TR1 wrote:Funny, since I have read accounts by soldiers (including guys on mp.net who are proven vets of Iraq) and they were in many cases quite favorable towards the Stryker.

General dynamics lobbyist koolaid BS=/= actual effectiveness. This slat "armor" has only a 50% effectiveness against SINGLECHARGE heat warheads. Even then it's largely inneffective because the enemy can(and did almost always in Iraq) fire RPG salvos. This almost nonexistent "protection" comes with extreme strain to the transmission of an overweight(22 tons fully loaded, poorly designed and underpowered APC, drastically reduced speed(even without this "armor" 35mph is the max army allowed ROAD speed limit, the mythical 70 mph was the registered speed of the LAV-25, no stryker in any configuration has actually achieved this speed) and higher risk of overturning to an already unstable chassis(extreme chance of rollovers was the reason for the 35mph speed limit).

BTW are you really so gullible believe credentials of US fanboys on MP.net?

If the stryker is so peachy as the fat paycheck meathead lobbyist contractors in the US army claim it be why don't the units in afghanistant dare to use it in combat? With all these supposedly unequaled defences it should be thriving

TR1 wrote:Funny, since I have read accounts by soldiers (including guys on mp.net who are proven vets of Iraq) and they were in many cases quite favorable towards the Stryker.

Those slat armor killed the entire maneuverabilit of those things, several times it was reported that due the slat armor the center of balance was raised higher so they could not stand at any slope anymore without risking to slide or tople over.

The Stryker is hated.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Funny, since I have read accounts by soldiers (including guys on mp.net who are proven vets of Iraq) and they were in many cases quite favorable towards the Stryker.

General dynamics lobbyist koolaid BS=/= actual effectiveness. This slat "armor" has only a 50% effectiveness against SINGLECHARGE heat warheads. Even then it's largely inneffective because the enemy can(and did almost always in Iraq) fire RPG salvos. This almost nonexistent "protection" comes with extreme strain to the transmission of an overweight(22 tons fully loaded, poorly designed and underpowered APC, drastically reduced speed(even without this "armor" 35mph is the max army allowed ROAD speed limit, the mythical 70 mph was the registered speed of the LAV-25, no stryker in any configuration has actually achieved this speed) and higher risk of overturning to an already unstable chassis(extreme chance of rollovers was the reason for the 35mph speed limit).

BTW are you really so gullible believe credentials of US fanboys on MP.net?

If the stryker is so peachy as the fat paycheck  meathead lobbyist contractors in the US army claim it be why don't the units in afghanistant dare to use it in combat? With all these supposedly unequaled defences it should be thriving

Yeah, I'm gonna stick with the opinions of those operating the vehicle in combat over your word, sorry.

TR1, with all due respect. America has many good weapons, but the stryker does not belong to the elite. I personally saw the stryker in iraq in use and have personally sat in one and see/heard more than enough negative opinions. I can give you at least two dozen phone numbers of veterans that would tell you very bad things from stryker, including cell phone recordings with embarassing stuff...

cheesfactory wrote:TR1, with all due respect. America has many good weapons, but the stryker does not belong to the elite. I personally saw the stryker in iraq in use and have personally sat in one and see/heard more than enough negative opinions. I can give you at least two dozen phone numbers of veterans that would tell you very bad things from stryker, including cell phone recordings with embarassing stuff...  

I read some time ago, that in Iraq some US soldiers want to replace Stryker with M-113. How much truth is in those claims?

TR1 wrote:Funny, since I have read accounts by soldiers (including guys on mp.net who are proven vets of Iraq) and they were in many cases quite favorable towards the Stryker.

So now unverifiable operator promotional claims carry more weight than actual performance stats, field test results, and operating restrictions conducted and released by the US army itself?

medo wrote:

cheesfactory wrote:TR1, with all due respect. America has many good weapons, but the stryker does not belong to the elite. I personally saw the stryker in iraq in use and have personally sat in one and see/heard more than enough negative opinions. I can give you at least two dozen phone numbers of veterans that would tell you very bad things from stryker, including cell phone recordings with embarassing stuff...  

I read some time ago, that in Iraq some US soldiers want to replace Stryker with M-113. How much truth is in those claims?

Did you hear that from a guy who goes by Sparky?

Zivo wrote:

medo wrote:

cheesfactory wrote:TR1, with all due respect. America has many good weapons, but the stryker does not belong to the elite. I personally saw the stryker in iraq in use and have personally sat in one and see/heard more than enough negative opinions. I can give you at least two dozen phone numbers of veterans that would tell you very bad things from stryker, including cell phone recordings with embarassing stuff...  

I read some time ago, that in Iraq some US soldiers want to replace Stryker with M-113. How much truth is in those claims?

Did you hear that from a guy who goes by Sparky?

Sparky or not the M113 is far better than the stryker in every concievable category(protection stealth, cost, mobility, logistics, versatility, reliability, etc.) and it's no surprise considering the stryker was DESIGNED to be bad and as expensible as possible. All the supposed advantages carrier by wheeled vehicles don't apply to the stryker because:
a)the stryker is more 15+ times more expensive than its supposedly costlier tracked counterpart
b) the stryker doesn't have better road speed than the M113 due to the 35mph speed restriction while it's markedly worse in every other mobility aspect
c) the advantages of a simpler and cheaper wheel chassis don't apply as well to the stryker because it's components(tires, transmission, engine) are much more expensive than the M113(purposefully so to make general dynamics land systems rake in more cash), purposefully made complicated and very unrealiable because the mostly civilian components of the stryker drivetrain(CAT engine, michelin nonflameproof tires) weren't designed for a vehicle of such weight,22 tons APC, 25(!!!) tons for MGS both comabt weight.

Boomerang-BM with "Epoha"

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Funny, since I have read accounts by soldiers (including guys on mp.net who are proven vets of Iraq) and they were in many cases quite favorable towards the Stryker.

So now unverifiable operator promotional claims carry more weight than actual performance stats, field test results, and operating restrictions conducted and released by the US army itself?

User experience = promotional claims?

lol, no.

Nobody is saying the Stryker is perfect. However claiming all troops hate it in combat is BS.

Hell, I have a buddy who deployed in Ira and spent much of his time around Strykers. His words= you crying about slats.

cheesfactory wrote:TR1, with all due respect. America has many good weapons, but the stryker does not belong to the elite. I personally saw the stryker in iraq in use and have personally sat in one and see/heard more than enough negative opinions. I can give you at least two dozen phone numbers of veterans that would tell you very bad things from stryker, including cell phone recordings with embarassing stuff...  

And there are plenty of veterans who do not share that opinion.

Maybe things are not quite so simply black and white, eh?

Plus, it is all relative.

The BTR-80 by comparison is a complete deathtrap if hit by anything serious.

"The Stryker is th SH*IT...hands down, no questions asked, period.....tires get blown off ALL the time, and it still roles home, terrain, not much of an issue so far. "

By a well known Iraq vet on mp.net
It's too bad he didn't consult Russiadefense before posting that, he could have learned to hate his deathtrap!

"Yah my buddy's striker got hit with an IED and it blew out the two left front tires and it kept on truckin all the way back to the FOB. They later raided the suspected building from which the hajjis detonated the IEDs and found a video recording of them taping the attack.

The Stryker is a damn fine vehicle. "

"had many a tire/axle blown off, and we did just fine. didnt do too much off-roading so i cant comment on that..but we sure as hell could corner chasing down them opals "

So no, American troops are not unified in some hate for the Stryker.
Now I will wait for certain folks to cry how mp.net vets don't count.

TR1 wrote:"The Stryker is th SH*IT...hands down, no questions asked, period.....tires get blown off ALL the time, and it still roles home, terrain, not much of an issue so far. "

By a well known Iraq vet on mp.net
It's too bad he didn't consult Russiadefense before posting that, he could have learned to hate his deathtrap!

"Yah my buddy's striker got hit with an IED and it blew out the two left front tires and it kept on truckin all the way back to the FOB. They later raided the suspected building from which the hajjis detonated the IEDs and found a video recording of them taping the attack.

The Stryker is a damn fine vehicle. "

"had many a tire/axle blown off, and we did just fine. didnt do too much off-roading so i cant comment on that..but we sure as hell could corner chasing down them opals "

So no, American troops are not unified in some hate for the Stryker.
Now I will wait for certain folks to cry how mp.net vets don't count.

Just my 2 cents:
With all due respects, but those are just the opinions of the vets who made it safe home, other Strykers' drivers and passengers might not. Their opinions are valuable, but to get the full picture we need to gather reports from guys, who drove them, ride them, maintenanced them, repaired them in more or less combat environment. AND tried similar vehicles for couple weeks at least on training/testing fields.

On top of that would be great to get those stats of lost Strykers in action, human casualties inside/around this vehicle. Compare $cost / effectiveness of protecting soldiers' lives and succeeding the mission(s) would help too.

To me, Stryker is a fine vehicle, perfectly doing what it was made for, nothing is wrong with it. It's does however  have its strong and weak sides. Like everything else in our life. Sometimes, military engineers gotta compromise $cost with complexity of their toys. Other armored vehicles of the same type recently engineered might push it even further in terms of getting a bit better ratio cost:effectiveness.

Those soviet time BTRs were great machines back in their time, but completely outdated in modern times, it simply was not build for modern powerful RPGs. Time changes, huh. It's good what Russians are updating their gear..

Otherwise we would not have anything interesting to lurk or discuss about.

The Stryker..... is crap no questions asked. There is nothing positive about it, as in, at all. 

I'd add more but you can just go watch BTD's videos on the subject.

Zivo wrote:

medo wrote:

cheesfactory wrote:TR1, with all due respect. America has many good weapons, but the stryker does not belong to the elite. I personally saw the stryker in iraq in use and have personally sat in one and see/heard more than enough negative opinions. I can give you at least two dozen phone numbers of veterans that would tell you very bad things from stryker, including cell phone recordings with embarassing stuff...  

I read some time ago, that in Iraq some US soldiers want to replace Stryker with M-113. How much truth is in those claims?

Did you hear that from a guy who goes by Sparky?

Supa Gavin, Supa Geil

On Stryker topic it was lambasted to the point the Belgian MOD went to MOWAG, despite GDLS offering the Stryker at 30% less, when it ordered its 200 or so 8x8 in 2006. Furthermore the big issue with the Styker is the damn mobility.
Too bad that since in 2010 GDLS bought MOWAG.

As a foot note, the BTR's protection was obsolete since its conception, even the PzrShreck could pierce it, let alone the flurry of AT-weapons produced by the Soviets themselves. BTR's were to offer a modicum of protection, then some firepower for OTT mobility for the time. The OT64c was a better vehicle on its conception, that turned for the worse...because of final product specifications.

TR1: The fact that the Stryker is a better protected vehicle than the BTR-80 (which wasn't a APERS/AV-mine protected vehicle EVER) stems from the fact it is a post cold war vehicle with all the bells and whistles that come from it. The Stryker is a PITA to service, is plagued by typical US contractor gravy train BS (Sheytan that is memeber here could tell you MOAR about the cost of US serviced assets) and overall isn't at any rate better protected that vehicles that come again at a smaller cost as turnkey projects (PAtria/Nexter-10% cheaper on 19ton version, SPF/SEP).

The stryker was milking a long dead cow that was the LAV/Piranha 2/3 family with some lipstick. Was it better protected than the above selcted vehicles? NOPE it has lost all tenders against Patria Sourced vehicles and again it was deemed insufficient by the Brits for their FRES program. EVEN them terrible Belgians wanted nothing to do with the Stryker, well until the Stryker came to them.

TR1 wrote:

cheesfactory wrote:TR1, with all due respect. America has many good weapons, but the stryker does not belong to the elite. I personally saw the stryker in iraq in use and have personally sat in one and see/heard more than enough negative opinions. I can give you at least two dozen phone numbers of veterans that would tell you very bad things from stryker, including cell phone recordings with embarassing stuff...  

And there are plenty of veterans who do not share that opinion.

Maybe things are not quite so simply black and white, eh?

Plus, it is all relative.

The BTR-80 by comparison is a complete deathtrap if hit by anything serious.

To be brutally honest, both BTR-80 and Stryker are deathtraps for their crews. In their default configurations, both vehicles have 14.5 mm protection on the front and 7.62 mm on the sides, which is inadequate for contemporary battlefield conditions. Also, since both vehicles have similar hp/weight and are in the same weight class, I am sure the BTR can also be "pimped out" with similar slat and spaced armour as a Stryker at the cost of making it similarly immobile, while not adding much more survivability (i don't expect that slat armour is terribly effective against modern rpg-7 warheads, not to mention autocannons or atgms). One must not forget that the BTR is a series of Cold War Era vehicles which is at the end of its lifetime, with the BTR-82 effectively being its last upgrade. On the other hand, Stryker is a much more recent development that closely parallels the BTR and is therefore completely outdated and unnecessary from the very start.

To be honest, although I would not want to be the crew/passenger of either the BTR or Stryker during serious combat, as a dismount I would much rather prefer the 30mm of BTR-82 as a support weapon.

The stryker was milking a long dead cow that was the LAV/Piranha 2/3 family with some lipstick.

x2...Could not have put it more succinctly and eloquently myself

GarryB wrote:

No, actually Epocha should have 45mm, that is why it will be ready in 2020. Now what you will see in this parade is Epocha-lite(30mm gun).

I should clarify... all in the poster have 30mm because they likely didn't know whether it would have a 45mm or a 57mm gun when they made the poster.

The assumption is that Kurganetz-25 advertized weight is for blank model and with all that fancy protective NERA/ERA/APS it probably weights more than 25 tons. While the boomerang has already disadvantage in weight from its big wheels and fairly thin looking armor.

The Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25 are in the same weight class... the main difference is the wheeled or tracked means of moving around the battlefield.

Why do you think the Boomerang has thin looking armour... operationally it will likely be fitted with cage armour to stop stand off missiles, and will likely have other armour options depending on the situation.

I do expect that Boomerang will get NERA more likely over ERA, but the sideskirts will never extent over the wheels to protect wheels and therefore the lower chassis sides. It probably will get NERA plates nailed to it like Kamaz has, but that's it.

And you are entitled to your opinion... NERA is already developed for it.

The same file showed that they found a solution with lighter ERA packages, that do not damage light armored vehicles and also do not rip apart ERA tiles next to the one that is detonating.

Indeed, they reduced the explosive content to the point where it was NERA and therefore no longer ERA... isn't that what I said?

and extending side armor over the wheels is unwanted for the reason that it also sacrifices mobility and debris or anything could stuck in between sideskirts and wheels and led to ripped apart sideskirts or cut wheels if not right out jam the entire wheel and leave it sitting.

Add on Side armour does not need to be hard against the wheels... having it stick out maybe half a metre and perhaps even hinged so it can be raised 90 degrees to allow access to the wheels for maintainence should be fairly straight forward to design...

BTW are you really so gullible believe credentials of US fanboys on MP.net?

My nephew was a Major in command of a LAVIII unit in the New Zealand Army... he seemed to think they were great fun with a fully stabilised 25mm cannon and thermals to detect targets at extended ranges.

"The Stryker is th SH*IT...hands down, no questions asked, period.....tires get blown off ALL the time, and it still roles home, terrain, not much of an issue so far. "

The BTR-80 has the same feature...

You have to ask yourself if Stryker is a total failure why are they still in service and why is Russia about to introduce wheeled vehicles of similar design... though rather heavier and likely rather better armoured.

As I have been saying... Boomerang is a 25 ton class vehicle... 11 tons heavier than the BTR-80 and 5 tons heavier than the Stryker and it will have been designed from the outset for vehicle weight growth and will have the same engine as the Kurganets so it will have plenty of reserve engine power.

The Russians have plenty of experience with wheeled armoured vehicles... they know what they are doing.

BTW slat armour is widely misunderstood... at the worst it detonates the enemy HEAT warhead a few metres short of the armour which can greatly reduce its penetration. At best... and what it is designed to do is to damage the nose of an RPG rocket.

The RPG-7 rocket... whether a single warhead or dual warhead rocket has a peizio electric fuse in the nose... in other words when the nose of the rocket hits the armour plate it is crushed which generates an electrical current which goes down the outside and inside of the nose cone of the rocket to the fuse in the base of the warhead. If the nose of the rocket goes between the slats the nose mounted fuse is not crushed and generates no electric pulse to the main fuse in the warhead... the slats crush the nosecone so even if the nose fuse hits the armour the two channels for the electric current are likely touching which short circuits the entire fuse system... the result is the rocket duds.

Against HMG rounds a full calibre round hitting the slat full on will likely start to yaw before it hits the  main armour which seriously reduces penetration... if it clips a slat the effect will be more pronounced.

I'll add only one correction. IT ISN'T the same design. At all. And probably not even the same HP/ton league, let alone basic protection. We're talking a 6-ton difference on Slat + Era configuration Iraqi version. The Stryker+Era done inhouse put the said vehicle at 26 tons with general stiffening of the vehicle (which the B-25 has already). With Rafael Srat-2 it went to 22 tons. The design of the B-25 is clearly aimed at the new gen Euro-Products that are all going towards the 30+ ton class with up-armouring. And surprie, GDLS is also pointing towards that with the Piranha 5.

As said, the Stryker was just the dying growl of the Piranha family.

GarryB wrote:
BTW slat armour is widely misunderstood... at the worst it detonates the enemy HEAT warhead a few metres short of the armour which can greatly reduce its penetration. At best... and what it is designed to do is to damage the nose of an RPG rocket.

The RPG-7 rocket... whether a single warhead or dual warhead rocket has a peizio electric fuse in the nose... in other words when the nose of the rocket hits the armour plate it is crushed which generates an electrical current which goes down the outside and inside of the nose cone of the rocket to the fuse in the base of the warhead. If the nose of the rocket goes between the slats the nose mounted fuse is not crushed and generates no electric pulse to the main fuse in the warhead... the slats crush the nosecone so even if the nose fuse hits the armour the two channels for the electric current are likely touching which short circuits the entire fuse system... the result is the rocket duds.

You are partially correct. There are four complementary methods by which slat armour can help to defeat the rpg warhead and/or decrease its effective penetration potential, each of them with varying efficacy.

Sorted from least effective to most effective.
1) When the rpg warhead hits the slat armour head on and explodes 20-40 cm from the vehicle. This is ineffective due to the fact that the cumulative jet of an rpg remains tightly collimated for meters after explosion point and therefore loses only insignificant penetrative powers.
2) When an rpg warhead hits just off to the side of one of the slats, it will induce a small yaw to the warhead and the subsequent jet will have to penetrate through more effective armour.
3) When an rpg warhead hits between the slats, this will short the piezoelectric fuze on the nose of the warhead, effectively making it a dud. This, however, only works on antiquated warheads equipped by durka durkas in afghanistan, since engineers solved this fuze-shorting problem starting with pg-7v or pg-7m ages ago.
4) When an rpg warhead hits between the slats, this can also partially deform the copper cone which is responsible for creating the cumulative jet (located at the back of the warhead). This is arguably the most effective method since the resultant deformation might cause the formation of an imperfect cumulative jet with lesser penetrative capabilities. However, if the armour behind the slat is 5-10 mm in thickness (Stryker, BTR, etc) and not 200 - 800 mm (MBTs), this might not be much of a consolation to the crew and passengers inside such a soft-skinned vehicle.

Either way, there are better (and more expensive) methods to combat HEAT warheads than the bulky, heavy, and anachronistic (harking back to WW2) slat armour. Applique plates of NERA sandwiched b/w composites should do a better job.

GarryB wrote:

Sorted from least effective to most effective.
1) When the rpg warhead hits the slat armour head on and explodes 20-40 cm from the vehicle. This is ineffective due to the fact that the cumulative jet of an rpg remains tightly collimated for meters after explosion point and therefore loses only insignificant penetrative powers.

You can't talk about RPG warheads like there is only one.

Standard commonly seen older RPG-7 warheads with simple copper cones are less effected by standoff distances, but the newer more capable warheads and the warheads on most sophisticated western missiles require a standoff distance for the penetrator plasma beam to actually form properly, and slat armour messes with that to degrade performance.

Yes, I know there are a multitude of RPG warheads. However, most of the non-tandem HEAT designs work according to exactly the same principles, with major differences being in the fuzing systems and warhead diameter/explosive content.

Which warheads are you talking about? One of the few Western ATGMS that seems to require a proper "standoff distance" is the I-TOW, but this missile is not going to be hitting the slat armour but going above it.
In terms of RPGs, have you ever thought about why it was necessary to have the almost hollow frontal cone in front of the copper cone? Apart from decreasing the aerodynamic drag on the warhead and being the mounting point for the fuze, it is primarily required to provide the space for the cumulative jet to coalesce properly. In fact, if you look at the cross-sections of all HEAT warheads, you will be able to see that requisite distance taken into account in all of them. Hence, I cannot see how the penetrative power of a cumulative jet is going to be affected by the slat since there will always be the minimum requisite distance for effective jet formation (ie. the frontal cone) present.

GarryB wrote:

2) When an rpg warhead hits just off to the side of one of the slats, it will induce a small yaw to the warhead and the subsequent jet will have to penetrate through more effective armour.

The RPG warhead is not solid metal... the front of the nose... an inverted cone is two layers of sheet metal... if it hit a slat offset then the front cone would be crushed without the fuse being set off and the round would be a dud... because even if the nose mounted fuse was crushed the collapsed  nose would short circuit the fusing system and the base mounted detonator would not set off the warhead.

I have read/seen enough about the development of the RPG family to know their construction by heart.
You treat the slat armour as if it is made out of inches thick steel and an incoming rpg round made out of paper. In reality, the warhead, although heavily distorted around the edges, is likely to push it through the slat mesh (like here: first image in google image search for warriorramtafrpgli3). If the fuze system happens to be undamaged (also, I already addressed the issue with the fuzes: the shorting of the fuze only works on ancient rpg warheads.), say goodbye to the Stryker.

GarryB wrote:

3) When an rpg warhead hits between the slats, this will short the piezoelectric fuze on the nose of the warhead, effectively making it a dud. This, however, only works on antiquated warheads equipped by durka durkas in afghanistan, since engineers solved this fuze-shorting problem starting with pg-7v or pg-7m ages ago.

So it only works against the most common and widely produced threat... OK.

If all you plan to use the Strykers+slat for is to crush piss-poor durka durkas during policing duties in third world shitholes, be my guest. Just don't expect to bring them out on a modern battlefield against a peer-power and expect them+crew to survive without a healthy investment into NERA/ERA/composite/APS protection.
This is why I call slat armour "anachronistic", and with good reasons.

GarryB wrote:

4) When an rpg warhead hits between the slats, this can also partially deform the copper cone which is responsible for creating the cumulative jet (located at the back of the warhead). This is arguably the most effective method since the resultant deformation might cause the formation of an imperfect cumulative jet with lesser penetrative capabilities. However, if the armour behind the slat is 5-10 mm in thickness (Stryker, BTR, etc) and not 200 - 800 mm (MBTs), this might not be much of a consolation to the crew and passengers inside such a soft-skinned vehicle.

Two comments... by the time the rear copper cone has a chance to be deformed by the impact... the rest of the nose will be squashed like an aluminium drinks can so the warhead is likely not going to go bang anyway and even if it did that slat armour element is now hard against the cone which is going to totally destroy any change of a plasma jet forming properly.

Against a soft skin vehicle like a BTR a few mms of armour means an RPG penetration will likely go right through the vehicle.... but if it doesn't hit ammo or fuel or people it will just punch a hole straight through and will not kill the entire crew as some seem to think. If the sides are 300mm each like the sides of a tank there will be all the material that was defeated on the impact side that will be blown through into the vehicle and it will be unlikely to make it out the other side, so would likely have a worse effect on the crew and any troops inside.

There was an excellent documentary on Stalingrad on the History channel... yes... I know... a very rare occurrence I agree. There was an English explosives expert who used small explosive charges to show how a shaped charge works... first a basic lump of HE on a steel armour plate and no penetration. Second a small lump of HE with a cone dug into its surface facing the armour and there was a small depression burned into the armour plate. third attempt had a copper cone shape pushed into the HE lump and a small wire stand that raised it a few cms above the armour plate and this created a pencil wide hole through the armour plate and as measured by poking a stick down into the ground a 2 metre hole.

The shaped charge and metal liner is not enough... you need space for the plasma beam to form and some older warheads created rough beams that could penetrate even with a standoff distance, newer better penetrating warheads need a very specific standoff distance to properly form the penetrator beam.

equally with a design that is designed from scratch instead of adding on cages that were not designed with the original design in mind... or as they did in WwII with the T-34 in Berlin an old inner spring from a mattress tied on with rope, you can get a much better performance with a properly design system of what is essentially just stand off armour. Slat armour was available for BTRs and was used in certain situations but there are not that many photos of it in actual use... leaving things off in peace time made operations easier and simpler, though as found if you get short notice and lack funds you can find yourself going into combat with no e in your era... which drastically effects its performance.

1) Once again, and rpg warhead is not made out of paper and the slat is not an impervious slab of steel. If the warhead is of old design and the slat managed to prevent the fuze from triggering, this is the best possible outcome. The other possibility is not to "totally destroy any chance of plasma jet forming properly". There will be an explosion, the jet will be formed due to the minimum requisite standoff distance provided by the frontal cone, and your best chance then is to induce a yaw in the warhead so the jet has to go through more effective armour and/or to induce assymetries/deformations in the copper cone which will affect the cohesion of the formed jet. That is it. Either way, if there is not enough convenient armour behind the slat to "absorb" the kinetic energy of the jet, you are guaranteed a penetration. Let's not start treating slat armour as some kind of a wunderwaffe against rpgs.

2) Yes, you are right, when a cumulative jet penetrates the side of an APC with passenger, this does not generally result in the death of all the crew/passengers (this is a widely propagated myth). Generally, the jet will go through one or more passengers, possibly causing death (or severe trauma requiring amputations if lucky) to several passengers/crew. Also, you are quite right in assuming that the after-armour effect of a cumulative jet will be greater in a MBT than an APC. However, my point was not to demonstrate what happens after a jet penetrates an AFV, but to show that heavy armour is still required to absorb the kinetic energy of the jet that does manage to form in the case that the warhead ( via its fuzing system) is not completely defeated by the slat armour.

3) Oh God no, not the History Channel  
I have seen something similar in one of the Russian documentaries on the RPG. It can be found in four parts on youtube if you search for: Отечественные гранатомёты. История и современность
If you don't understand russian, then the russian to english caption translation, although not stellar, is quite adequate.
Either way, I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, however the RPG design already has that minimum standoff distance built in so your point is rendered moot.

GarryB wrote:

Either way, there are better (and more expensive) methods to combat HEAT warheads than the bulky, heavy, and anachronistic (harking back to WW2) slat armour. Applique plates of NERA sandwiched b/w composites should do a better job.

I was suggesting no more than the standoff side plate armour we have already seen on the Armata and Kurganets prototypes... all this BS reaction about how crap Striker and the BTRs is amusing and I don't see how it is relevant as the same criticism should be leveled at Boomerang as it is in the same weight class... why does everyone assume that the kurganets will be some super BMP with heavy armour and boomerang will be a btr death trap...

Because, as experience has shown, conventional passive armour solutions of AFVs are not up to scratch against modern anti-AFV weaponry. This is exactly the reason why APS and ERA/NERA system developments have historically occurred. Heck, even the Americans (and the Brits), who have not been known to field dynamic armour during the Cold War, have relatively recently started to heavily invest in ERA research to the extent that they already have ERA solutions for M1 tanks, Challengers, Bradleys, etc...
It is rather obvious where the proverbial "wind blows", and most AFV hobbyists/analysts agree. (BTW: Did you know that apparently even Chobham armour is a variant of NERA. I think Damian on tank-net managed to dig up some information on that...)
To this end, if the new armour packages on the sides of Kurganets are indeed and amalgamation of NERA/ERA/Composite solutions (this is what I have been hearing), this is most certainly going to be more effective than the composite applique armour plates (from what I hear) for the Boomerang. I am not going to even mention the very obvious vulnerable section around the wheels.

Still can't post links... Bigger size:
uploads.ru/hlU68.jpg
uploads.ru/khE2f.jpg

Original: 77rus.smugmug.com/Military/April-22th-Alabino/i-QLBTv25/0/O/Alabino220415part2-51.jpg

Green - ramp, blue - armor "capsule", yellow - body, red - body + armor plates.




Size speculations. From otvaga. By user Su50. Almost literal translation, whatever he means by those words. However, I tried to keep his wording.

Tire height (diameter)    1343     According to Belshina factory.
Tire profile width            438
Boomerang body height       2375    (To the top corner, approximately)
Boomerang body width        3084    
Axis length from wheel to wheel (outside)     2646

Door height      1030
Door width        736
Height to bottom of the ramp       1411
Ramp height 1337

Top  plate thickness (from top of the apparel to top of body)  101
Height of the door from the ground  1072
From the step shelf to the op cover  1468
From the ground to the step shelf     907

Thickness of the side armor plate     85
Height of the side = height of the armor plate    701

Bigger size: uploads.ru/zNCow.jpg



[i tried to preserve original wording of the original poster]

All length sizes are measured/compared to size of concrete slab - 6000mm + 50mm (seam)
Overall length - 8250 mm
Base length - 4800 mm
All 7 side armor plates have approximately equal dimensions 900 mm х 690 mm
Height of the body (from the ground & according to this picture) - 2353 mm

Moment of truth.  
Comparing to Stryker.

Original: uploads.ru/X9Zhx.jpg