Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

I just tried to sum up all the last posts.

57 is a very large caliber for an IFV, I was more a fan of the proposed 45 mm new gun just for the sake of volumes and weights.

Yes, it could be feasible to design an IFV armed with a 57 mm gun, the question is with what amount of ammo, and what advantages it really offers over a 45 mm.

It could not be defeating armor, because no IFV could possibly survive even a Bofors 40L70 APDS, so even a 45 mm gun would be far more potent than any IFV could cope with.

About HE, dumb or air burst shells, yes 57 mm offers more potential, but is it really valuable compared to even a slightly larger ammo numbers?

The only real advamtage offered by a 57 mm caliber that I could see is rrlated to guided shells, up to now 57 mm seems to be the smallest possible caliber t o implement guided shells.

GarryB wrote:

Becuase then your all of your tanks primary weapon systems are easily destroyed.

Easily?

First to destroy the gun you would have to actually hit it... in combat, which tank can post their first round that accurately?

Second if they are firing at your gun they are not firing at your troop compartment... that is a good thing.

That is like the armour is so thick they are trying to hit your tracks... if they get you then you are immobilised and they can move around and shoot you from behind... but dude... while they are shooting your tracks and then trying to get around you... are you asleep?

They are shooting at your turret trying to damage your gun, while you are firing your main 125mm gun against their IFVs and ripping them a new one with every hit... you are an IFV with a tanks gun for fucks sake.

And the Afganit system is a little bit lacking the the infinite amunition department.

It wont stop everything, but unless you are a moron and just roll out into plain view and try to take the entire enemy force on your own that should be plenty... launch a UAV and fire a 125mm guided anti armour missile without even exposing yourself from behind cover if you want to.

These vehicles wont be taking on well equipped enemy, the will be operating in places where the enemy likely wont even have their own armour half the time... and any armour they do have will be picked off by the Kornets carried by the IFV you are operating with, or the Ka-52s and Mi-28NMs...

I was saying that it would take the same amount of effort to lighten the turret of the T-90A.

No, it would not.

The Armatas turret is modular... most of the external features are modular add on armour for the Armata. Take all that stuff off and replace with modular armour developed for the Boomerang family of vehicles.

They are replacing all the vehicles in an armoured division... do you think they are designing 4 complete new families of totally different vehicles even though all the MBTs will have the same or similar weapons and sensors and equipment?  We have seen the 30mm cannon armed turret for all the different APC vehicles... is that a hint or what?

And why so you think the designers of the T-14 would compromise the protection of the tanks main weapon system?

Everything worth protecting from enemy fire is in the crew compartment... everything else like the main gun and ammo and fuel are outside that area.

The main gun and fuel and ammo can be easily replaced... crew cannot.

Here are some pictures:







So the top photo shows Armata... with a 125mm gun turret and an Armata with a 30mm gun turret.

The second photo shows a Kurganets with a 30mm gun turret and a Kurganets with a 12.7mm gun turret.

The third photo shows the 30mm gun turret fitted to Armata, Kurganets, and Boomerang.

None of these are my drawings BTW.

Regarding the turret itself and its vulnerability can I replay this video:



Originally posted by marcellogo in the armata thread...

As you can see the actual gun is a tiny target front on, and no tank turret is well protected from the side or rear anyway...

And where did you hear this?

Rather than reinvent the wheel for every vehicle they were standardising each type of vehicle across the vehicle families... the ground equivalent of avionics... aircraft electronics and sensors... except for armoured vehicles.

Armata's turret will not be installed on the Kurg's....the russians have never said anything like that. You cannot fit the Armata's gun on the kurg.

That is just a big fat lie, they could mount a smaller gun on the Kurg's sure but it ain't going to be the armata's 125mm.

They spent time and money developing the long recoil 125mm gun version for light vehicles... it is currently used on the Sprut 18 ton vehicle... why would they not put that on a 30 ton wheeled vehicle?

The Kurganets is also in the 30 ton weight range and will also get the same gun/turret.

But it will not have a standard T-14 Armata turret although a lightened variant with a modified autoloader is a possibility.

Why lighten it? It is already designed for the job... making it lighter would probably make it vulnerable to anti material rifles...

The sprut uses a smaller 125mm it lacks features of the normal 125mm's , there is also less then 30 of those in service used by the airborne.

The sprut is also not a troop carrier....so it can afford to a degree to mount that bigger gun since it doesn't have to worry much about internal space a Kurg does.

If that is your example god dam you made an utterly stupid one.

you do realize APC and IFV's need space to carry fully armed troops right? you do realize there is no such thing has a troop carrier with a gun that large right? anywhere in the world at that size.

So no Garry it's not going to have the same gun and the fact you used a self propelled TD to try and justify your point shows me you have no understanding on how much internals 125mm guns even lowered ones require.

so you failed here buddy you failed here bad.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:The sprut uses a smaller 125mm it lacks features of the normal 125mm's , there is also less then 30 of those in service used by the airborne.

The sprut is also not a troop carrier....so it can afford to a degree to mount that bigger gun since it doesn't have to worry much about internal space a Kurg does.

If that is your example god dam you made an utterly stupid one.

you do realize APC and IFV's need space to carry fully armed troops right? you do realize there is no such thing has a troop carrier with a gun that large right? anywhere in the world at that size.

So no Garry it's not going to have the same gun and the fact you used a self propelled TD to try and justify your point shows me you have no understanding on how much internals 125mm guns even lowered ones require.

so you failed here buddy you failed here bad.

Not sure why you think a Kurg or Boom fitted with a 125mm gun would ever need to carry a squad? A Sprut-SD is designed to provide mobile AT support to airborne/amphibious amour comprised of BMDs, so why shouldn't a force of Kurg or Boom similarly include a few units upgraded with heavy anti-tank cannon?

Big_Gazza wrote:

Not sure why you think a Kurg or Boom fitted with a 125mm gun would ever need to carry a squad?  A Sprut-SD is designed to provide mobile AT support to airborne/amphibious amour comprised of BMDs, so why shouldn't a force of Kurg or Boom similarly include a few units upgraded with heavy anti-tank cannon?

Exactly. Altough the focus has been on the IFV and APC variants, which both have accomodations for dismounts, the idea behind Kurganets is and has always been a unified family of vehicles. The area configured as a crew compartment for one version, can be modified in later desings as is required for the application.

To think of Kurganets simply in terms of one or two general types of vehicle would be a mistake. Simply look at the history of the BMP-3. It was designed at first as the most heavely armed IFV, but today we can see it in dozens of configurations, including those that repurpose the crew compartment competely, such as the 2S31 Vena for example. The Kurganets family will fill on the role of the BMP-2, BMD and MT-LB platforms, which have never carried such heavy weaponry before. Altough it is certainly possible to equip the Kurganets with such a weapon, i dont think they will, as it would be a significant change in doctrine.

My opinion is that we will see a 125mm cannon on the Armata Platform and on the Bumerang platform (already confirmed). The Russian Army does not need a light tank, which is essentially what a Kurganets with a 125mm gun is. It already has the Bumerang which is in the same weight and protection class, and which offers specific advantages. In a situation where it loses those advantages, either the Armata picks up the slack, or other assets provide the required firepower (helicopters, UAV's...). Sprut serves a much more specific purpose, brought on by the limited capabilities of the other vehicles it operates with within the VDV. This would be a different story with the Army. An intermediate class would imho only makes sense for export. The only exception i could think of is a modified Kurganets for operation in the Arctic, (or as pointed out below, the Marines).

One could argue there is a need for an amphibious vehicle which has better mobility than a 125mm Bumerang, but this is already becoming somewhat of a niche weapon. If the 125mm platform can not keep up due to the environment, then it likely is an evironment where it would not be able to operate with advantages, regardless of its mobility.

In short : Could the Kurganets mount a 125mm gun ? yes.
Will we see the Kurganets with a 125mm gun in service with the Russian Army ? I dont think so.

"Edit" : ive added some afterthoughts to my initial comment

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:The sprut uses a smaller 125mm it lacks features of the normal 125mm's , there is also less then 30 of those in service used by the airborne.

The sprut is also not a troop carrier....so it can afford to a degree to mount that bigger gun since it doesn't have to worry much about internal space a Kurg does.

If that is your example god dam you made an utterly stupid one.

you do realize APC and IFV's need space to carry fully armed troops right? you do realize there is no such thing has a troop carrier with a gun that large right? anywhere in the world at that size.

So no Garry it's not going to have the same gun and the fact you used a self propelled TD to try and justify your point shows me you have no understanding on how much internals 125mm guns even lowered ones require.

so you failed here buddy you failed here bad.

Not sure why you think a Kurg or Boom fitted with a 125mm gun would ever need to carry a squad?  A Sprut-SD is designed to provide mobile AT support to airborne/amphibious amour comprised of BMDs, so why shouldn't a force of Kurg or Boom similarly include a few units upgraded with heavy anti-tank cannon?

Because sieg cannot handle the concept of Russia making a wheeled fire support vehicle that unlike its us counterpart can actually engage modern MBTs effectively.

As for the 125mm kurg well the only group it would really benefit is the Russian marines as the army will be supported by T-14 Armatas and therefore would have no need for them.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:The sprut uses a smaller 125mm it lacks features of the normal 125mm's , there is also less then 30 of those in service used by the airborne.

The sprut is also not a troop carrier....so it can afford to a degree to mount that bigger gun since it doesn't have to worry much about internal space a Kurg does.

If that is your example god dam you made an utterly stupid one.

you do realize APC and IFV's need space to carry fully armed troops right? you do realize there is no such thing has a troop carrier with a gun that large right? anywhere in the world at that size.

So no Garry it's not going to have the same gun and the fact you used a self propelled TD to try and justify your point shows me you have no understanding on how much internals 125mm guns even lowered ones require.

so you failed here buddy you failed here bad.

Not sure why you think a Kurg or Boom fitted with a 125mm gun would ever need to carry a squad?  A Sprut-SD is designed to provide mobile AT support to airborne/amphibious amour comprised of BMDs, so why shouldn't a force of Kurg or Boom similarly include a few units upgraded with heavy anti-tank cannon?

Because sieg cannot handle the concept of Russia making a wheeled fire support vehicle that unlike its us counterpart can actually engage modern MBTs effectively.

As for the 125mm kurg well the only group it would really benefit is the Russian marines as the army will be supported by T-14 Armatas and therefore would have no need for them.

You clearly do not understand what I said, the Kurg cannot fit a gun that big without giving up it's troop carrying ability, the Russians also have never said they are going to replace every single vehicle they used with a Kurg variant.

They would need to build a kurg hull from the ground up based around such a gun,  spruts weren't converted they where built from the ground up. You cANNOT remove a tank gun that big off a vehicle and put it back without massively compromising the vehicle, so spare me.

It's ring will not support the Armata's 125mm.

Also the type of vehicle you state isn't in use currently by the russians anywhere else but airborne, WHY because a tank does that job.

The spruts where made to provide airborne forces with a measure of self-propelled anti-tank, they could drop out of planes. that was the point of mounting that gun on a sprut that's why no other branch uses a vehicle like that.

I also said the kurg can mount a bigger gun just that it will not be the Armata's gun.

So yeah, don't try and put words in my mouth.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:The sprut uses a smaller 125mm it lacks features of the normal 125mm's , there is also less then 30 of those in service used by the airborne.

The sprut is also not a troop carrier....so it can afford to a degree to mount that bigger gun since it doesn't have to worry much about internal space a Kurg does.

If that is your example god dam you made an utterly stupid one.

you do realize APC and IFV's need space to carry fully armed troops right? you do realize there is no such thing has a troop carrier with a gun that large right? anywhere in the world at that size.

So no Garry it's not going to have the same gun and the fact you used a self propelled TD to try and justify your point shows me you have no understanding on how much internals 125mm guns even lowered ones require.

so you failed here buddy you failed here bad.

Not sure why you think a Kurg or Boom fitted with a 125mm gun would ever need to carry a squad?  A Sprut-SD is designed to provide mobile AT support to airborne/amphibious amour comprised of BMDs, so why shouldn't a force of Kurg or Boom similarly include a few units upgraded with heavy anti-tank cannon?

Because sieg cannot handle the concept of Russia making a wheeled fire support vehicle that unlike its us counterpart can actually engage modern MBTs effectively.

As for the 125mm kurg well the only group it would really benefit is the Russian marines as the army will be supported by T-14 Armatas and therefore would have no need for them.

You clearly do not understand what I said, the Kurg cannot fit a gun that big without giving up it's troop carrying ability, the Russians also have never said they are going to replace every single vehicle they used with a Kurg variant.

They would need to build a kurg hull from the ground up based around such a gun,  spruts weren't converted they where built from the ground up. You cANNOT remove a tank gun that big off a vehicle and put it back without massively compromising the vehicle, so spare me.

It's ring will not support the Armata's 125mm.

Also the type of vehicle you state isn't in use currently by the russians anywhere else but airborne, WHY because a tank does that job.

The spruts where made to provide airborne forces with a measure of self-propelled anti-tank, they could drop out of planes. that was the point of mounting that gun on a sprut that's why no other branch uses a vehicle like that.

I also said the kurg can mount a bigger gun just that it will not be the Armata's gun.

So yeah, don't try and put words in my mouth.

That logic would only work if its supposed that the T-14 Armata's turret was designed specifically for it in the first place, as opposed to being a module that can be fit on vehicles of 60t weight, 30t weight, tracked or wheeled.
I think the later possibility is more likely. The turret itself is not even that big; it just has that steel sheath around it that hides its true size.
But even if the Kurganets requires a more compact turret; most of the parts - such as the gun itself - should be common between the 2 designs.

No, that would be nearly impossible.

A standard recoil 125 mm gun would most likely inflict destructive damage to the hull in medium to long term.

To employ a high pressure gun such a MBT gun, it shall have to be a long recoil one, in order to lessen the impulse transmitted to the hull.

It is almost the same as in a firegun's chamber: more than the overall pressure generated by a cartridge, the critical point is how fast chamber's pressure rises up, and what are peak pressures.

A Kurganet or a Bumerang are unlikely to be able to withstand the short and violent recoil of a standard 125 mm.

So if a long recoil gun should be chosen, the Armata turret won't be able to host such a gun.

As far as a 125mm kurg well it would be the Russian equivilent of the CV-90-120 also a vehicle based on a modular IFV chasis.

It is clearly possible to convert the kurg into a light tank although weather or not it will enter service is another question entirely.

Yes the vehicle who is only in service with Sweden (that type anyway) and was rejected by the polish due to the problem they found when they mounted that gun on it let me tell you a secret....

the gun RUAG 120 mm Compact Tank Gun, had to be made smaller to fit onto that thing.

There is a reason they called a Compact Tank gun.

So that's a very bad example

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Yes the vehicle who is only in service with Sweden (that type anyway) and was rejected by the polish due to the problem they found when they mounted that gun on it let me tell you a secret....

the gun RUAG 120 mm Compact Tank Gun, had to be made smaller to fit onto that thing.

There is a reason they called a Compact Tank gun.

So that's a very bad example

And do you think Russian designers don't have a clue what size their tank guns are or lack any typr of foresight?

If you need to modify the gun to fit into the turret you designed for it then you are clearly incompetent and need to go back to primary school to learn basic measurments.

According to Fofanov's data, the 125mm 2A75 gun of Sprut-SD tank is the same with 2A46M gun in all parameters but recoil lenghth.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html

I find quite hard to believe you can design a turret armed with a 125 mm gun the is all external to the hull.

Obviously an error... if you are carrying a 125mm gun then it makes more sense to use the hull to carry more ammo for it, than to waste internal space on troops.

The Armata turret itself would prove to be too heavy for the Bumerang,

Why. Look at the video posted above... most of the visible turret is empty space and sheet metal... sensors and APS components.

There is no heavy armour... just a gun and a loading mechanism with all the ammo below the turret ring.

They already rejected the Burlak turret upgrade of the T-72 because the ammo stored in the rear turret bustle was too exposed to enemy fire...

The Armata turret has rather less protection than the T-72 turret... because there is nothing to protect... no crew, no ammo, no fuel... just the gun.

Gunner and commander could have their seats place just behind the driver, and the turret could replace most of the infantry compartment.

The engine is just behind the driver...

I mentioned about 57mm, not 125mm gun. Boomerangs with 125mm gun become a tank definitely, not BTR so do not need to carry 8 troops anymore.

So the IFV will have troops and a main gun able to kill enemy (NATO) IFVS. That makes rather more sense... but I suspect it will only carry 4-6 troops...

The only real advamtage offered by a 57 mm caliber that I could see is rrlated to guided shells, up to now 57 mm seems to be the smallest possible caliber t o implement guided shells.

The arguments I read were viable guided shells and room for smart airburst fuses and a decent amount of HE and fragments to make them more effective.

Sounds to me like they went for slightly fewer rounds that would be more effective.

Especially that this gun is not going to fight tanks but be a support for infantry and eventually used in assault gun roles

The 125mm gun will be used like Russian tanks use them... lots of HE rounds for fixed positions, but also anti armour rounds for use against tanks and IFVs.

Obviously they wont use Boomerang 125mm gun armed tanks against front line NATO forces, but against second line forces or third line forces the boomerang forces will be very mobile and very fast and with full power 125mm guns and of course guided missiles all over the place they will be very powerfully armed forces...

In a third world country M60s and T-55s and even early model T-72s would be in trouble against a boomerang armed with a 125mm gun and modern thermal optics and radar and all the other shit the Armata tank is supposed to be equipped with... the reality is that a third world country level of training and equipment they probably wont even see what hit them.

The sprut uses a smaller 125mm it lacks features of the normal 125mm's , there is also less then 30 of those in service used by the airborne.

All the descriptions by the manufacturer state that the 125mm gun uses a long recoil mechanism and is otherwise exactly the same as the other 125mm guns fitted to Russian tanks. The length of the rounds used is determined by the autoloader and if it uses the armatas turret it will also use the armatas autoloader and therefore also be compatible with all the new ammo... as would the armata and the kurganets.

The sprut is also not a troop carrier....so it can afford to a degree to mount that bigger gun since it doesn't have to worry much about internal space a Kurg does.

The boomerang vehicle with a 125mm gun will not have troops either and all the 125mm ammo will be stored below the turret ring in the hull.

If that is your example god dam you made an utterly stupid one.

Was going to ask why you reposted my entire post like that... if you haven't been paying attention that is currently against the rules and I have given several warnings about it... please do not do this again...

you do realize APC and IFV's need space to carry fully armed troops right? you do realize there is no such thing has a troop carrier with a gun that large right? anywhere in the world at that size.

You do realise that the 125mm gun armed armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon don't carry troops and are not IFVS or APCs?

The 30mm turret with all the ATGMs are for the APC versions of armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon, while the as yet not widely seen 57mm gun turret with missiles will be the IFV turret for the armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon.

So no Garry it's not going to have the same gun and the fact you used a self propelled TD to try and justify your point shows me you have no understanding on how much internals 125mm guns even lowered ones require.

Boomerang divisions are going to need a platform with a 125mm gun to perform all the other roles a MBT tank would do within a division... a 125mm gun armed Boomerang will perform that gun platform mission.

The fact that you talk about tank destroyer suggests you are thinking of WWII perhaps, or maybe world of tanks...

Most of the ammo in a Russian tank is HE frag... of the other half it generally has a mix of HEAT and APFSDS rounds... which just shows that half the time the tank wont be firing on enemy tanks... other threats on the battlefield are not efficiently dealt with using APFSDS rounds, or even HEAT rounds just punch neat little holes in things.

A Sprut is a great example actually... it is used by the VDV and its main feature is its gun and its mobility... with heavier armour you couldn't air drop it so it would not matter how well armoured it is because they couldn't take it with them.

A key mission would be to be air dropped well behind enemy lines... they would have almost no ground forces there to speak of because it would be 100km from a rear area airfield... that airfield might have a few squads and lots of air defence systems to protect it from air attack but its ground defences would be weak... they are thousands of kms behind the front line.

Drop a VDV force 100km away from the airfield and what is the enemy going to do?

They wont know what the target is for quite a bit, and there were no air defences 100km away from the airfield... no country... not even Russia has SAMs over every square metre of land... and they will have picked the landing area specifically because there was nothing there... once on the ground however their high mobility and fire power means they can move rapidly in the enemies rear to find soft targets... supply lines... comms centres.... HQs... airfields... all in the deep enemy rear so they might have air defence units to protect from air attack but they wont have significant ground forces to fight off a ground assault.

With a fully mechanised force like the VDV they cover the 100km in a couple of hours and mount an attack on the airfield which has strong air defences but weak ground defences... all SAMs and no big guns any more so those BMD-4Ms and Spruts rip them to pieces... mobility and fire power is key.

Once they have captured the air base however they can fly in reinforcements and heavier vehicles and equipment and all of a sudden the enemy has a real problem on their hands...

But no... according to your theory they will send all their Spruts to the front line looking for tanks to fight....

Altough it is certainly possible to equip the Kurganets with such a weapon, i dont think they will, as it would be a significant change in doctrine.

There were a range of different roles the BMP chassis was used for... the MTLB, the BTR chassis, the BRDM, even the T-80 chassis is used for the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle.

The point is that even with such reuse there are dozens of different vehicle types in a brigade or a division... despite the BMP being used for a range of roles they still have different vehicle platforms for Tunguska and for ACRVs and other vehicle roles.

The purpose of the new vehicle families is to unify the practise... a boomerang division will have only boomerang vehicles so if there is a vehicle with a 125mm gun it will be a boomerang that carries it. That means in the division there is one engine... one type of transmission... one size and type of tyre... all the vehicles will have a similar level of mobility... a similar level of protection... a similar speed and range... if one vehicle is amphibious then they should all be... in the armata brigade they wont be amphibious so they will all need bridging vehicles... but that bridging equipment will be able to take the weight of all the vehicles in the force... roughly 50-65 tons depending upon the model. (most vehicles about 50 tons and the 152mm coalition artillery vehicle and the rocket artillery version with two pallets of 300mm rockets and the pantsir air defence vehicle will all likely be closer to the 65 tons.)

My opinion is that we will see a 125mm cannon on the Armata Platform and on the Bumerang platform (already confirmed). The Russian Army does not need a light tank, which is essentially what a Kurganets with a 125mm gun is.

It will have kurganets based divisions... are they supposed to slow down for Armata vehicles with 125mm guns? Carry the engine parts and transmission parts and wheels and tracks for a few armata vehicles? They will also need bridging equipment or when they come to a river the armata will have to stay behind or go miles up or down stream looking for a good place to ford the river...

The idea is vehicle families... if you break that you make it all pointless... you might as well have armata MBTs, kurganets IFVs, boomerang APCs and Typhoon BRDMs.

One could argue there is a need for an amphibious vehicle which has better mobility than a 125mm Bumerang, but this is already becoming somewhat of a niche weapon. If the 125mm platform can not keep up due to the environment, then it likely is an evironment where it would not be able to operate with advantages, regardless of its mobility.

The enormous value of having a 125mm gun armed vehicle in the same vehicle chassis as the other vehicles it is operating is that if you can only have a kurganets MBT because Armata is too heavy then the enemy probably wont have any 120mm gun armed vehicles at all so your 125mm gun armed boomerang or kurganets is going to rule...

As for the 125mm kurg well the only group it would really benefit is the Russian marines as the army will be supported by T-14 Armatas and therefore would have no need for them.

Well actually a 125mm gun armed kurganets would benefit that kurganets division that without it has no heavy gun armed vehicle... a wheeled vehicle might not keep up and a heavy vehicle would need bridging equipment or to piss around looking for a place to ford a big river or soft ground, while the kurganets can just raise their bow plates and turn on their bilge pumps and their water jets.

I wonder if 125mm Krug will be still able to swim

That is the point... similar protection, similar mobility, all the same components...

A standard recoil 125 mm gun would most likely inflict destructive damage to the hull in medium to long term.

Yeah, they are fucking idiots and spent money and time developing a 125mm gun for light vehicles but they wont put it on a light vehicle...

They will just force the standard gun on there because they don't know anything about armour... remember they defeated Germany in WWII by just building more tanks than the Germans did... it had nothing to do with quality or skill...

To employ a high pressure gun such a MBT gun, it shall have to be a long recoil one, in order to lessen the impulse transmitted to the hull.

Already developed and in service on a much lighter vehicle than boomerang.

It is almost the same as in a firegun's chamber: more than the overall pressure generated by a cartridge, the critical point is how fast chamber's pressure rises up, and what are peak pressures.

Rubbish. The full power tank guns and the long recoil Sprut gun use the same ammo to the same pressure and the same velocities and same performance.

the difference is that the gun in the lighter vehicles has a much longer recoil stroke to spread the recoil over time...

Yes the vehicle who is only in service with Sweden (that type anyway) and was rejected by the polish due to the problem they found when they mounted that gun on it let me tell you a secret....

the gun RUAG 120 mm Compact Tank Gun, had to be made smaller to fit onto that thing.

There is a reason they called a Compact Tank gun.

So that's a very bad example

Well let me tell you about another gun that is in service... it is mounted on the 2S25, which weighs 18 tons.

Tell me again why the Russians can't put it on another tracked vehicle that weighs 30 tons (Kurganets) or a wheeled vehicle that also weighs about 30 tons (Boomerang).

Oh, yes, because they don't know how to modify a tank turret for a longer recoil gun... fucking morons.

Or maybe they aren't morons, and they actually know a bit about making tanks and have actually come up with a clever idea and are in the process of implementing it right now.

I mean standardisation is bloody stupid... the UK should go back to their 303 ammo, and japan should go back to their different 303 ammo, and of course the French and Americans and Germans and all those other different calibres used in WWII by all those different countries... that was so much better...

Having 50 different vehicle types in each division is also great... different engines, different transmissions, different wheels, different track types, everything different... it just makes everything more complicated... and of course operationally you will find some vehicles can go through that mud but other types can't... half the vehicles can go over that bridge, but these vehicles can float over the river and this vehicle is too heavy for the bridge but we need to add a scouting force and lots of extra vehicles to find shallow fords in rivers for the tanks to cross...

A boomerang force can float... all the vehicles can... one type of spare tires to carry and you can take them off destroyed vehicles too because they fit all the vehicles... engine spare parts, transmission spare parts... all the vehicles have the same engine... higher ratings for the heavier vehicles so they can all move at similar speeds across similar terrain...

it is funny how it is westerners that are not getting the concept... I guess once you think what the west does is perfect then there is no other way of thinking that you could respect... stupid russians for not waiting for the west to come up with the idea first... but of course they did... in 5 years time we will find out some plan for the west to do this in the 1960s... it was all their idea all along you silly billies.

According to Fofanov's data, the 125mm 2A75 gun of Sprut-SD tank is the same with 2A46M gun in all parameters but recoil lenghth.

sarcasm mode on.

Lets not let facts get in the way... obviously this gun was developed to provide tank level fire power to light vehicles... only a madman would even think of fitting this gun that provides tank level fire power to light vehicles onto two light vehicles that need tank level fire power... it is crazy...

sarcasm mode off.

First, the inner structure of Armata's turret seems to be heavily armored.

That would be only logical, a MBT with the whole of its main armament exposed to even medium caliber shell could prove to be just too extreme as a design.

Second, first prototypes have just thin plating on the outside, but because a lot of sensors and related electronics seem to be hosted just between the external plating and the inner armour, I have the opinion those thin plates will be replaced by proper, modular armour in the final product.

So the Armata's turret would not be all that lightweight in the end.

Add to that Bumerang will need a long recoil gun (by the way, I spoke of chamber pressures like an example, but the focus was recoil stroke. A short recoil gun would too much for an IFV hull).

So you'll have to modify the Armata's turret to be able to host a long recoil gun.

In the end, it will be better to design a brand new turret specific to Bumerang's hull and to a long recoil gun.

And to grant electronics better protection without too much weight added, most of it could be moved inside the hull.

First, the inner structure of Armata's turret seems to be heavily armored.

Why do you think that?

Armoured to protect what from what?

Keep in mind that a normal MBT is armoured from the front to prevent enemy rounds penetrating and killing the gunner or the commander... in the armata there is not gunner and no commander to protect.

No modern tank has extra armour to protect the main gun... the main gun on any tank is a weak point if you can hit it.

With that being the case why waste weight protecting the gun on the Kurganets or Armata or Boomerang?

That would be only logical, a MBT with the whole of its main armament exposed to even medium caliber shell could prove to be just too extreme as a design.

Medium calibre rounds could already smash optics and destroy the main gun without penetrating the front turret armour of a MBT... if you want to go head to head with a 125mm gun armed vehicle hoping you can knock out its gun then good on you mate because while you are trying to hit the gun, he will be smashing your vehicle to bits with 125mm rounds and he wont need to aim for weak spots in your IFV armour.

Second, first prototypes have just thin plating on the outside, but because a lot of sensors and related electronics seem to be hosted just between the external plating and the inner armour, I have the opinion those thin plates will be replaced by proper, modular armour in the final product.

So lets assume you are right and those thin plates are replaced by super thick super heavy plates that add a few tonnes to the tank but don't make the vehicle any safer for the crew... even if they do do something that stupid for the armata turret what makes you think they will add unnecessary weight to the Kurganets and Boomerang vehicles as well?

So the Armata's turret would not be all that lightweight in the end.

So now it isn't too heavy... it is it will be too heavy when they add weight to it.

Add to that Bumerang will need a long recoil gun (by the way, I spoke of chamber pressures like an example, but the focus was recoil stroke. A short recoil gun would too much for an IFV hull).

So you'll have to modify the Armata's turret to be able to host a long recoil gun.

In the end, it will be better to design a brand new turret specific to Bumerang's hull and to a long recoil gun.

Of course... completely design a totally new turret because the gun recoils an extra half metre... are you serious?

Spend money developing a new standard turret for four vehicle families and then suddenly think despite all our design ideas of protecting the crew, lets make our tanks heavier and put extra armour on the turret... to protect nothing... and that will make it too heavy for the other three vehicle designs we are making so we will have to make another new unmanned turret design that will need all the same sensors and aps systems the turret we already designed uses... but it just needs a bit of space for the gun to recoil back a little bit further...

No wonder western tanks are 70 ton expensive bits of junk... why not build armour around the tracks too and add 10 tons in weight... well I mean if the enemy shoot out the gun then the vehicle can always drive back to a rear area and get a replacement turret but if they use their medium calibre guns and shoot up the wheels or tracks then the vehicle is immobilised and would need at least another vehicle to come and rescue it... putting more lives and vehicles in danger... obviously if you put another five tons of armour to protect nothing in the turret then an extra ten tons to protect the tracks is well worth it... 50 tons for armata plus 15 tons makes it the same fat overweight clunky 65 tons as the Abrams... congrats you just turned a state of the art new generation tank into a clunky old 1980s piece of shit. The only way you could fuck the design up more would be with a 2,000hp gas turbine engine...

And to grant electronics better protection without too much weight added, most of it could be moved inside the hull.

Why?

If the sensors get damaged you move back to a rear area and get them dealt with, but if the enemy is wasting ammo shooting out your night vision equipment you should be dancing in the streets because your return fire will be into the front hull of his vehicle penetrating through into the guts of the commander or loader and out the back through the engine... all the while he is trying to damage your gun... from the front a helmet sized target... good luck with that...

Remember a penetrating hit in the front turret of a tank means both turret crew bail out if they are still alive, so the driver will also bail out because WTF is the use of a tank with no commander or gunner?

A penetrating hit in the front of the turret of the Armata or boomerang or Kurganets... means about a 40mm calibre hole punched in the outer plate that will probably go right through... it might hit a sensor block or something else... from the front on it probably wont hit the gun or the autoloader which sits behind the gun... you could probably hit the turret ten times and enough still functions on the vehicle to keep it hunting and killing... even if the gunners sight is destroyed the commander can aim and fire the gun with his periscopic sight... not ideal but certainly not bailing out on the first hit either.

If you are going to put frontal turret armour on it to protect the gunners sight what is to stop enemy fire from destroying the optical ports that the gunners sight looks through.. you can't armour those to stop medium calibre cannon fire...

About Armata's turret inner armour, renderings published seem to depict a very thick encasing for the gun and the autoloader.

Why it could be a sensible choice to heavily armor gun and autoloader, I would say it is because while the barrel is an elusive target, being a thin straight line from a enemy's gunner point of view, the bulk of the gun and connected autoloader is an hefty, squared target.

Armouring the gun and its autoloader would add few in terms of weight to the turret, in the order of very few tons, but it will prevent many cases of possible mission kills.

The same applies for the outer shell: if the electronics are actually located between outer and inner shells, you don't want them to be taken out by any shrapnel or 12,7 round hit the turret.

In my opinion the inner armour could be thick and strong enough to grant immunity at least against 40 mm Bofors APFSDS whatever the distance of engagement, and the outer armour will grant immunity against typical 20mm APDS in its base layout, with the option open to increase outer armour depending on specific theater of operations' conditions.

That said, I think it will be more sensible to design a turret tailored to Bumerang than slapping on an underarmored version of the Armata's turret.

Electronics, that would made more of 50% of a modern turret, would be the same, but the layout would be tailored to actual charachteristics and needs of Bumerang.

GarryB wrote:
Armoured to protect what from what?

You need to armor all of the empty spaces of your vehicle to protect its hit points because if thoes run out your tank is finnished.

GarryB wrote:No wonder western tanks are 70 ton expensive bits of junk... why not build armour around the tracks too and add 10 tons in weight... well I mean if the enemy shoot out the gun then the vehicle can always drive back to a rear area and get a replacement turret but if they use their medium calibre guns and shoot up the wheels or tracks then the vehicle is immobilised and would need at least another vehicle to come and rescue it... putting more lives and vehicles in danger... obviously if you put another five tons of armour to protect nothing in the turret then an extra ten tons to protect the tracks is well worth it... 50 tons for armata plus 15 tons makes it the same fat overweight clunky 65 tons as the Abrams... congrats you just turned a state of the art new generation tank into a clunky old 1980s piece of shit. The only way you could fuck the design up more would be with a 2,000hp gas turbine engine...

I fail to see how the T-14 Armata would be dragged al the way down to the primitive level of an abrams from the 1980s by a 15 ton armor package.

It would still have vastly superior firepower vastly superior FCS and ofcourse vastly superior survivability.

Althoug as far as the turbine engine goes why not add 3 and replace the transmission with a Porsche style electric drive

About Armata's turret inner armour, renderings published seem to depict a very thick encasing for the gun and the autoloader.

What makes you think that?

All tank turrets are armoured against attacks from the front only... look at the armata turret with the extra bits removed and try to think about what sort of frontal target it offers... adding armour would make it a bigger target and not any safer... but it would make it heavier.







The items outside the actual turret which encloses the gun, the autoloader and the gunners optics at the front, include all sorts of things that would not be protected by the frontal armour of the turret anyway. APS systems on a T-90 can be engaged directly and are not protected by frontal armour. The optical ports have armour to protect from small arms fire and nothing more. Wind sensors and commanders optics are also exposed to enemy fire too on both vehicles.

Why it could be a sensible choice to heavily armor gun and autoloader, I would say it is because while the barrel is an elusive target, being a thin straight line from a enemy's gunner point of view, the bulk of the gun and connected autoloader is an hefty, squared target.

It is only a big target from the side... and very few MBTs have heavy armour on the sides or rear of their turrets anyway.

Armouring the gun and its autoloader would add few in terms of weight to the turret, in the order of very few tons, but it will prevent many cases of possible mission kills.

A 30mm cannon shell could blow off a track on any 50+ ton tank and get a mission kill.

No doubt a tin of petrol could start a fire that destroys all of the Boomerangs wheels... another mission kill even with run flat tires.

The same applies for the outer shell: if the electronics are actually located between outer and inner shells, you don't want them to be taken out by any shrapnel or 12,7 round hit the turret.

The only electronics there would be part of the APS system or the optical ports... which on any other tank would not be inside under full armour protection either.

In my opinion the inner armour could be thick and strong enough to grant immunity at least against 40 mm Bofors APFSDS whatever the distance of engagement, and the outer armour will grant immunity against typical 20mm APDS in its base layout, with the option open to increase outer armour depending on specific theater of operations' conditions.

You think a Sprut turret will stop 40mm rounds?

That said, I think it will be more sensible to design a turret tailored to Bumerang than slapping on an underarmored version of the Armata's turret.

They are both the same, with the same requirements for features and sensors and systems... the only difference is the level of enemy they will likely come up against.

When you take the added armour off an armata turret... there is nothing there...

You need to armor all of the empty spaces of your vehicle to protect its hit points because if thoes run out your tank is finnished.

Really?

Lets look at this image again:



That front plate seems thick enough, yet remains a relatively small target from the front.

The optical system for the gunner also seems to have armour but then it has the backup of the commanders sight which can also be used to aim and fire the main gun too.

If you hit the front of the turret anywhere other than these places the armour is likely not very heavy and the round will likely go right through... but who cares?

It wont damage the gun or the autoloader and even if it damages the gunners sight the commander can still see and shoot you.

If anything gets damaged the vehicle can move back to a rear area and get the damaged item replaced... they can do that at any rear depot because even if it is a depot for armatas the modules are the same for tanks... so it can borrow from other units if needed.

I fail to see how the T-14 Armata would be dragged al the way down to the primitive level of an abrams from the 1980s by a 15 ton armor package.

Really?

15 tons means a totally different engine is needed to move it... and it would have to be a gas turbine to get more than 2,000hp... you would also have to replace the transmission with all that extra weight and all that extra power... oh, and by the way all those tank transport options just got smaller because things designed to carry 50 ton tanks don't always work with 65 ton tanks... and indeed if the armata needs more armour then the cost in weight of up armouring the enormous turret of a Koalition means 50 tons weight increase to 110 tons plus... WTF can you use to power that? I wonder if they have some spare Angaras...

It would still have vastly superior firepower vastly superior FCS and ofcourse vastly superior survivability.

It already does... so why make it fat like an American tank?

Althoug as far as the turbine engine goes why not add 3 and replace the transmission with a Porsche style electric drive

Why not four and have direct drive on both drive sprockets and the two idlers...

99% of times you do not get line of sight of enemy's tank tracks.

Even the slightest bending of the landscape makes vehicles appearing and disappearing behind terrain contour, it is a myth that tanks could be easily taken out disabling tracks and rollers.

If you happen to have an open line of sight to the hull, you aim and shot at the hull, not at the tracks.

This whatever kind of gun you are firing with, provided it has the potential to inflict some significant damage.

On the other hand, tanks often happen to operate under artillery indirect fire and sometimes even amidst stray shots.

It is just too easy that shrapnels and small to medium caliber shot hit the broad target, and gun plus autoloader are just a broad target. The same applies for the whole of the sensors and electronics package.

In present MBTs optics are armored, are small, and only the window is actually vulnerable to almost whatever could hit it. The surrounding casing is armored enough to withstand direct hit from small to medium calibers, and like for tracks, good luck at risking your life with the hope to exactly hit those 40 by 40 cm (or even less) target and accomplish a mission killing.

You are arguing that Armata is stated to weight around 48 tons having an almost unarmored turret, I am telling that I believe those 48 tons already include an armor package for the turret, and the Armata prototypes that rolled on the Red Square weighted something less than the stated mass.

Obviously the turret won't be armored to withstand a 120 mm APFSDS, but between being unarmored, and trying to defy an 80 cm long flechette coming at you at over 1800 m/s. there is ample margin to provide with enough passive protection against 90% of all the metal parts that usually fly across the battlefields, without adding several tons to the turret.

Peŕrier wrote:99% of times you do not get line of sight of enemy's tank tracks.

Even the slightest bending of the landscape makes vehicles appearing and disappearing behind terrain contour, it is a myth that tanks could be easily taken out disabling tracks and rollers.

If you happen to have an open line of sight to the hull, you aim and shot at the hull, not at the tracks.

This whatever kind of gun you are firing with, provided it has the potential to inflict some significant damage.

On the other hand, tanks often happen to operate under artillery indirect fire and sometimes even amidst stray shots.

It is just too easy that shrapnels and small to medium caliber shot hit the broad target, and gun plus autoloader are just a broad target. The same applies for the whole of the sensors and electronics package.

In present MBTs optics are armored, are small, and only the window is actually vulnerable to almost whatever could hit it. The surrounding casing is armored enough to withstand direct hit from small to medium calibers, and like for tracks, good luck at risking your life with the hope to exactly hit those 40 by 40 cm (or even less) target and accomplish a mission killing.

You are arguing that Armata is stated to weight around 48 tons having an almost unarmored turret, I am telling that I believe those 48 tons already include an armor package for the turret, and the Armata prototypes that rolled on the Red Square weighted something less than the stated mass.

Obviously the turret won't be armored to withstand a 120 mm APFSDS, but between being unarmored, and trying to defy an 80 cm long flechette coming at you at over 1800 m/s. there is ample margin to provide with enough passive protection against 90% of all the metal parts that usually fly across the battlefields, without adding several tons to the turret.

I think the turret protection levels will be fully modular, catering to various battlefield conditions.
Default setup will however by rather lightweight.

GarryB wrote:

Really?

Lets look at this image again:



That front plate seems thick enough, yet remains a relatively small target from the front.

The optical system for the gunner also seems to have armour but then it has the backup of the commanders sight which can also be used to aim and fire the main gun too.

If you hit the front of the turret anywhere other than these places the armour is likely not very heavy and the round will likely go right through... but who cares?

It wont damage the gun or the autoloader and even if it damages the gunners sight the commander can still see and shoot you.

If anything gets damaged the vehicle can move back to a rear area and get the damaged item replaced... they can do that at any rear depot because even if it is a depot for armatas the modules are the same for tanks... so it can borrow from other units if needed.

Why do you keep reposting this video as if it is absolute fact?

Unless I see Uralvagonzavod oficailly confirm it is just speculation and does not count as evidence.

GarryB wrote:Really?

15 tons means a totally different engine is needed to move it... and it would have to be a gas turbine to get more than 2,000hp... you would also have to replace the transmission with all that extra weight and all that extra power... oh, and by the way all those tank transport options just got smaller because things designed to carry 50 ton tanks don't always work with 65 ton tanks... and indeed if the armata needs more armour then the cost in weight of up armouring the enormous turret of a Koalition means 50 tons weight increase to 110 tons plus... WTF can you use to power that? I wonder if they have some spare Angaras...

Why do you hate anything that has a weight of more than 55 tons?

And who said that the Koalitsiya would need haevy armor?

Your arguments about this simply make no sense.

99% of times you do not get line of sight of enemy's tank tracks.

Even the slightest bending of the landscape makes vehicles appearing and disappearing behind terrain contour, it is a myth that tanks could be easily taken out disabling tracks and rollers.

If you happen to have an open line of sight to the hull, you aim and shot at the hull, not at the tracks.

I totally agree... but even more so the idea that you can just shoot the gun off it is equally absurd... even if they aim dead on at the gun odds are they will hit something else...

It is just too easy that shrapnels and small to medium caliber shot hit the broad target, and gun plus autoloader are just a broad target. The same applies for the whole of the sensors and electronics package.

Do you think western tanks don't have sensors and electronics that can be taken out if hit?

In present MBTs optics are armored, are small, and only the window is actually vulnerable to almost whatever could hit it. The surrounding casing is armored enough to withstand direct hit from small to medium calibers, and like for tracks, good luck at risking your life with the hope to exactly hit those 40 by 40 cm (or even less) target and accomplish a mission killing.

And how big are those electronic boxes on the sides of the turret?

Most of the critical systems and electronics are inside the hull.

You are arguing that Armata is stated to weight around 48 tons having an almost unarmored turret, I am telling that I believe those 48 tons already include an armor package for the turret, and the Armata prototypes that rolled on the Red Square weighted something less than the stated mass.

Armata has a chassis significantly longer and more heavily armoured than the T-90... and the T-90 is 48 tons plus... the whole idea of putting the crew in the hull is to use the heaviest armour to protect them. Why waste weight protecting the gun from everything?

Obviously the turret won't be armored to withstand a 120 mm APFSDS, but between being unarmored, and trying to defy an 80 cm long flechette coming at you at over 1800 m/s. there is ample margin to provide with enough passive protection against 90% of all the metal parts that usually fly across the battlefields, without adding several tons to the turret.

Most of the material flying around the average battlefield is HEAT warheads from rockets or missiles and they have an APS system for that...

Why do you keep reposting this video as if it is absolute fact?

Unless I see Uralvagonzavod oficailly confirm it is just speculation and does not count as evidence.

Why do you think it is wrong?

Do you think they will put heavy armour in the turret... when they moved the crew into the hull so the turret didn't need heavy protection...

Why do you hate anything that has a weight of more than 55 tons?

Because extra weight is bad... why do heavy weight boxers not look like Sumo wrestlers?

Extra weight makes your tank slower.

You burn more energy moving around the place... which is inclined to make you move less if you can.

It makes you a bigger target.

It means there are places you cannot go and things you cannot use like some bridges or roads, or soft ground... which limits your options.

It means you can't be transported easily and in numbers.

It means that big powerful engine they developed is only going to make you adequately mobile, instead of zippy and fast... and it means you always have to worry about where you can get more fuel...

And who said that the Koalitsiya would need haevy armor?

Why would it not need more armour... if you need to protect your gun then the Coalition has a huge one and all the ammo in the rear of the turret needs protecting too...

Your arguments about this simply make no sense.

Look at Germanys experience in WWII with super heavy tanks... you could say it lost them the war... but they don't because that is where the US went too.

The whole concept of the MBT was to have a medium sized vehicle with huge fire power and good protection and good mobility.

Light tanks were too thin and easily defeated, and heavy tanks were too slow and heavy and expensive.

It was medium tanks that had the best of everything.... now tell me again why Russia needs 65 ton tanks so the enemy wont be able to shoot out their smoke grenade launchers...