Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 189
    Points : 192
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Sat May 02, 2020 7:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    The introduction of the vehicle families will certainly not happen over night... we are talking about 26-27 different vehicle types/roles needed, but the huge positive is that the three families will all use those 26-27 different vehicle types too, so for instance the 57mm HC equipped BMP turret will be the same for the four vehicle families.... armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon.

    I think the Typhoon family will be a light recon like family used in COIN type ops or high mobility ops and might not include all 26-27 different platform types... being a four and six wheel light vehicle family it probably wont have MBT type models or artillery type platforms and might carry lighter air defense options like one vehicle with a 2S38 turret (57mm AA gun) and perhaps the missile vehicle might have Pine or 9M100 missiles instead of Pantsir or TOR.

    The wheeled vehicles will probably be ready first being much cheaper to buy and to operate and to move around... they have made some design changes so serial production might need to wait to ensure the tests go as expected and there are no other problems, but in terms of production the Boomerang and Typhoon should be the quickest and easiest to mass produce.

    There are 3 types of vehicle in the Typhoon family as far as I know. One is the Kamaz 63968 6x6 that we saw in the 2019 parade. The second is the Kamaz 63969 6x6 and the third is the Kamaz 53949 4x4. I know the 63968 and the 53949 are in production, do you know if the 63969 is in production too? The 63968 is a big vehicle that can carry 16 foot soldiers and weight up to 24 tons. The 63969 weight 20 tons, carry RCWS and carry 10 foot soldiers; this one can replace the BTR 80/82 with no problem. The 53949 is 4x4 vehicle that will be perfect to ops operation and recon groups.

    The core of the BMPT is that it is a tank support vehicle that operates together side by side with tanks so it needs tank level protection to make sense.
    I would also suggest you are not understanding the concept... if this vehicle is going to be operating with tanks then anti armor performance is not that important.
    You right, BMPT base on tank is the best option, but unfortunately it’s not in the stock right now. So we need to start transform T-72B to BMPT in high numbers for the tank and Infantry brigades, or transform the BMP-3 to BMPT for the Infantry, In any case we should replace the 30mm guns with 57mm HC gun.

    I understand the concept very well, but some time the theory just doesn’t work.
    War is the kingdom of the uncertainty, and you can find yourself in a situation that you didn’t expect. The meaning is that you have to fight with what you get in your hands. So the ATGMs are mainly for self defense and it’s not important if you around tanks or not, look on the BMPT it has 4 ATGM. Those vehicles can work side by side with tanks while take the fight against IFVs and let the tanks fight against enemy tanks. They can also defend the flanks from infantry equipped with ATGM and RPGs. The long range and high velocity 57mm HC gun will be very handy in this type of fight.

    Being able to take out softer targets becomes more important... why do you think high velocity 57mm rounds would be needed within a group of tanks with much higher velocity 125mm guns? It makes more sense to arm the BMPT with the 57mm LC grenade launcher instead.
    There is noting that the LC gun can do that the HC can’t do, even if some time it will need two rounds instead of one, so way to have 2 types of guns?

    If you want a light vehicle like the Israelis were going for and Chile too, then I would probably modify a T-72 with a high velocity 57mm HC  gun in the Armata turret replacing the 125mm gun. On the back of the turret I would mount two 40mm grenade launchers similar to the mounts on the upgraded BMP-2s where they are fixed pointing in the same direction as the main gun but can elevate independently and have their ammo in the rear turret bustle area...  6-700 rounds each weapon.
    I would probably add the twin barrel 23mm gun from the Hind for area targets and soft targets...
    The Israeli didn’t put the 60mm into service because they have the 105mm. I like the idea with the Armata turret, but I think that the Armata is to far away right now. So I will stay with the AU-220M turret instead. As for the 40mm AGL we also need 7.62mm MG so it will be better to get one RCWS that has 40mm AGL and 7.62mm MG. As for the 23mm I love this gun, but we need to reduce the rate of fire, or limit the number of rounds in every squeeze of the trigger, to fire a burst of 10/20 rounds.
    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Israel13
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26274
    Points : 26820
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 03, 2020 11:48 am

    There are 3 types of vehicle in the Typhoon family as far as I know. One is the Kamaz 63968 6x6 that we saw in the 2019 parade. The second is the Kamaz 63969 6x6 and the third is the Kamaz 53949 4x4. I know the 63968 and the 53949 are in production, do you know if the 63969 is in production too? The 63968 is a big vehicle that can carry 16 foot soldiers and weight up to 24 tons. The 63969 weight 20 tons, carry RCWS and carry 10 foot soldiers; this one can replace the BTR 80/82 with no problem. The 53949 is 4x4 vehicle that will be perfect to ops operation and recon groups.

    My understanding is that there are a couple of programmes called Typhoon which are not related and therefore several makers have Typhoon vehicles.

    The Typhoon I am talking about is a range of four and six wheeled light armoured vehicles almost like MRAPs that are more likely paramilitary vehicles rather than army vehicles.

    They are a lighter weight range family of vehicles specifically for recon and might form part of a range of airborne or naval or just light mobile ground forces vehicles... they might be FSB and MVD and other special units vehicles.

    The main army vehicle families however are the three... armata, kurganets, and boomerang.

    You right, BMPT base on tank is the best option, but unfortunately it’s not in the stock right now. So we need to start transform T-72B to BMPT in high numbers for the tank and Infantry brigades, or transform the BMP-3 to BMPT for the Infantry, In any case we should replace the 30mm guns with 57mm HC gun.

    Right now they have tanks with 125mm guns and BMPs with 73mm guns and 100mm guns and 30mm cannon... they also have 152mm support artillery and 120mm mortar support. They have 122mm and 220mm and 300mm rocket support plus of course Iskander missile support out to 500km plus. They have attack helos and CAS aircraft... there is no shortage of fire power at all.

    A conflict with HATO would likely start with a devastating tactical nuclear strike on HATO units formed up in Poland or the Baltic States as they prepare to cross the border into Russia or Kaliningrad (which is also Russia).

    They are developing an enormous range of new vehicles and weapons and systems to go in to service and that is going to take time... there is less benefit to speeding that up than there is taking the time to get it done properly. Russia is a huge country... there are places where Shilkas are still operational and actually doing a rather good job. It is not just a case of replacing this with that... it needs to be staged and managed so things aren't wasted. Which units need what replacement vehicle first and how is it all going to work while things are changing...

    I understand the concept very well, but some time the theory just doesn’t work.

    In many ways the concept of the BMPT is the original concept of the BMP, where in situations where the enemy is well equipped with lots of fire power like sniper rifles and machine guns that the troops just stay on board and shoot through firing ports while the vehicles move quickly through the danger zone engaging targets with main gun weapons and mounted machine guns.

    The problem of course is that a BMP is a relatively easy target for anti armour weapons and concentrates all your troops into one nice big juicy target that might be protected from small arms fire but can't be protected from everything.

    The vehicles they had been using for fire support operating with tanks were air defence vehicles like Shilka and BTR-40 with twin 14.5mm HMGs or twin 23mm cannon and of course the ZSU-57-2. The problem is their fragility on the battlefield meant they could get picked off early on... dramatically reducing the fire power of the force.

    In many ways the BMPT is supposed to engage pretty much all the targets the BMP is supposed to engage while supporting its dismounted troops.

    The difference is that instead of supporting troops the BMPT is supposed to be supporting the tanks against targets tanks have problems engaging efficiently... like enemy troops in the open and of course ATGM teams as well as drones. Bunkers and vehicles are easier for tanks to deal with...

    War is the kingdom of the uncertainty, and you can find yourself in a situation that you didn’t expect. The meaning is that you have to fight with what you get in your hands.

    Agree.

    So the ATGMs are mainly for self defense and it’s not important if you around tanks or not, look on the BMPT it has 4 ATGM.

    Actually I suspect the ATGMs will be equipped with HE Frag warheads and will be primarily used against helicopters and point targets beyond the 4km range of the 30mm cannon.

    Note the BMPT you are referring to is pre Bulat, so expect the new model BMPTs to have perhaps an enlarged turret with maybe two or perhaps even four mounts with 8 Bulat missiles each...

    Those vehicles can work side by side with tanks while take the fight against IFVs and let the tanks fight against enemy tanks.

    I suspect the tanks would be rather more capable of dealing with all the enemy armour than the BMPT would and it would be better use of the BMPTs time to engage infantry targets first and foremost... unless of course an enemy IFV is lining up the vehicle with a missile, but as I said I suspect the ATGMs are HE Frags rather than HEATs...

    They can also defend the flanks from infantry equipped with ATGM and RPGs. The long range and high velocity 57mm HC gun will be very handy in this type of fight.

    AFAIK the concept of the BMPT does not preclude the use of BMPs... in other words the BMPT could operate with the tank while the infantry could be delivered and transported around by the BMP, which might have HC and LC 57mm guns fitted for a selection of fire power options.

    I personally think the BMPT would have been better if the two 30mm cannon were replaced with a BMP-3 setup, though with the 2A72 cannon replaced with a twin barrel 30mm cannon for higher rate of fire bursts. The 100mm gun would be more effective and useful against a range of targets than just four ATGMs and against IFV targets and aircraft the 100mm rounds and missiles would be superior with 8 ready to launch plus 32 conventional rounds in the autoloader and a further 8 HE rounds in the rear.

    There is noting that the LC gun can do that the HC can’t do, even if some time it will need two rounds instead of one, so way to have 2 types of guns?

    The LC means more ammo can be carried in the same space and the HE round should be very very effective. The low velocity should allow the engagement of targets behind front cover, while the high velocity of the HC round means hitting the front cover... imagine in an urban setting... fire is coming from behind a row of houses... the HC can't get them because it wont penetrate through an entire house and then explode... the LC can be lobbed over top and land on their heads... drones can confirm targets before you open fire to make sure they are badguys.

    It is the same reason the upgraded BMP-2s have two 30mm guns... the 2A42 cannon and the 30mm grenade launcher mounted on the back of the turret. The turrets capacity is about 500 rounds of 30 x 165mm ammo, but the rear turret mounted 30mm grenade launcher can add another 400 30mm grenades... there is no way they could fit another 400 30 x 165mm rounds in that space...

    The point is that while they are the same calibre they have different performance and different capabilities.

    The Israeli didn’t put the 60mm into service because they have the 105mm.

    The 105 probably has a better HE shell and the anti tank ammo is already in production and stock.

    If they wanted a round to deal with BMPs however the 60mm would have made more sense...

    I like the idea with the Armata turret, but I think that the Armata is to far away right now. So I will stay with the AU-220M turret instead.

    I disagree... the Armata tank turret already comes with APS and modern optics and systems and fitting a 57mm gun to it would be really easy...

    The Armata tank turret is the new tank turret so the Boomerang and Kurganets will be using it too... hell... with a 57mm gun they could probably put it on a 6 wheel Typhoon and a gun platform support vehicle... with software to engage ground, air and sea targets it would be a potent convoy protection vehicle... coastal support vehicle... airfield defence vehicle... imagine trying to land on a beach and 10 wheeled vehicles with 57mm guns roll up and start blasting away... especially 6 wheeled troop transports with the rear troop area with the seats removed and an automated ammo handling system with an extra 300 rounds is loaded in the back...

    As for the 40mm AGL we also need 7.62mm MG so it will be better to get one RCWS that has 40mm AGL and 7.62mm MG.

    The thinking behind the 40mm grenade launcher mounted on the top of the turret facing in the direction of the main armament but independently elevating means the gunner has a light alternative to firing the main gun ammo at a target that might not require a full power heavy round. Instead of firing a 57mm HC round at a target or group of targets... firing a burst of 4-5 40mm grenades to land all round the point of aim might be more effective.

    In that sense those two 40mm grenade launchers already have the coaxial machine gun, so if I were to modify it I would probably have two dual mounts for the Balkan 40mm grenade launcher and a PKT rifle calibre machine gun together... one at the back of the turret facing forward and controled by the gunner as an alternative to the main 57mm gun and perhaps a Kord 12.7mm HMG as a coaxial weapon, with a roof mounted 40mm Balkan grenade launcher and PKT machine gun that turns with the main gun and turret but has independent elevation to hit low or high targets... raised 50cm above the turret so it can depress down 20 degrees and elevate to vertical. I would have the second dual mount with a PKT and Balkan mounted on the commanders panoramic sight so wherever he looks he can fire either rifle calibre machine gun fire or 40mm grenade rounds. I would make the gunner controlled models with extended barrels to maximise range...

    As for the 23mm I love this gun, but we need to reduce the rate of fire, or limit the number of rounds in every squeeze of the trigger, to fire a burst of 10/20 rounds.

    I like it too, and think burst rate limiters would be ideal... keep the rate of fire high, but offer burst options of single fire, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 20 round bursts and continuous...


    Last edited by GarryB on Sat May 30, 2020 7:42 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : error correction.)
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 312
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  RTN on Tue May 05, 2020 7:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Right now they have tanks with 125mm guns and BMPs with 73mm guns and 100mm guns and 30mm cannon... they also have 152mm support artillery and 120mm mortar support. They have 122mm and 220mm and 300mm rocket support plus of course Iskander missile support out to 500km plus. They have attack helos and CAS aircraft... there is no shortage of fire power at all.
    The U.S Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) will have a 50 x 228 mm cannon. US ARDEC's new tungsten APFSDS penetrator will enable it to cut through 180-200 mm of RHA steel at 1,000 metres at 0 degrees. Which means it will destroy 80% of all threat vehicle types. M1 Abrams will take care of the rest.

    GarryB wrote:A conflict with HATO would likely start with a devastating tactical nuclear strike on HATO units formed up in Poland or the Baltic States as they prepare to cross the border into Russia or Kaliningrad (which is also Russia).
    Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons is low..I get that. But if Russia starts the opening phase of a war with nukes then NATO will have to do the same.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 426
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Azi on Wed May 06, 2020 1:18 am

    RTN wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Right now they have tanks with 125mm guns and BMPs with 73mm guns and 100mm guns and 30mm cannon... they also have 152mm support artillery and 120mm mortar support. They have 122mm and 220mm and 300mm rocket support plus of course Iskander missile support out to 500km plus. They have attack helos and CAS aircraft... there is no shortage of fire power at all.
    The U.S Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) will have a 50 x 228 mm cannon. US ARDEC's new tungsten APFSDS penetrator will enable it to cut through 180-200 mm of RHA steel at 1,000 metres at 0 degrees. Which means it will destroy 80% of all threat vehicle types. M1 Abrams will take care of the rest.
    The OMFV will be operational between 2028 and 2030...till this date the earth spins a few times....

    Till this date the M1 is 50 years old and complete outdated! They try to keep it up to date with an APS, that's a really good approach for the future. They will invest in other systems too, but....the Abrams is a 50 year old concept, even the europeans are planning a new MBT. We will see...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26274
    Points : 26820
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 06, 2020 4:10 am

    The U.S Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) will have a 50 x 228 mm cannon. US ARDEC's new tungsten APFSDS penetrator will enable it to cut through 180-200 mm of RHA steel at 1,000 metres at 0 degrees. Which means it will destroy 80% of all threat vehicle types. M1 Abrams will take care of the rest.

    Against the third world countries they like to fight that will be great but how will those Abrams tanks move without a constant fuel supply, and the APS systems fitted to the new generation Russian vehicles can stop APFSDS rounds too.

    Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons is low..I get that. But if Russia starts the opening phase of a war with nukes then NATO will have to do the same.

    Russia wont be starting any phase of the war... as usual she will be reacting to aggression from HATO, and Russia fully expects escalation and is likely fully prepared for that.

    Till this date the M1 is 50 years old and complete outdated! They try to keep it up to date with an APS, that's a really good approach for the future. They will invest in other systems too, but....the Abrams is a 50 year old concept, even the europeans are planning a new MBT. We will see...

    The rate it burns fuel at the best way to defeat the Abrams is to blow up all the fuel trucks you detect...
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1402
    Points : 1443
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 33
    Location : portugal

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  dino00 on Thu May 07, 2020 11:34 am

    State tests of the latest Bumerang BTR will be completed in 2021

    Now at the production facilities of the military-industrial complex, new Boomerang prototypes are being assembled for state tests, which are planned to be completed next year," Krasovitsky said

    Krasovitsky recalled that based on the preliminary tests of the Boomerang, which ended in 2019, it was decided to amend the armored corps, as a result of which the conditions for the placement of soldiers in the airborne squad will be improved, and the stock of buoyancy of the vehicle will increase.

    https://ria.ru/20200507/1571062165.html
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 348
    Points : 354
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  marcellogo on Thu May 07, 2020 7:38 pm

    dino00 wrote:State tests of the latest Bumerang BTR will be completed in 2021

    Now at the production facilities of the military-industrial complex, new Boomerang prototypes are being assembled for state tests, which are planned to be completed next year," Krasovitsky said

    Krasovitsky recalled that based on the preliminary tests of the Boomerang, which ended in 2019, it was decided to amend the armored corps, as a result of which the conditions for the placement of soldiers in the airborne squad will be improved, and the stock of buoyancy of the vehicle will increase.

    https://ria.ru/20200507/1571062165.html

    THE EMP... Ahem THE TRANSLATOR STRIKES BACK!

    It was decided to modify the armored compartment, as a result of which sitting places spaces between the carried squad's members would be improved.
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 189
    Points : 192
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu May 07, 2020 8:27 pm

    RTN wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Right now they have tanks with 125mm guns and BMPs with 73mm guns and 100mm guns and 30mm cannon... they also have 152mm support artillery and 120mm mortar support. They have 122mm and 220mm and 300mm rocket support plus of course Iskander missile support out to 500km plus. They have attack helos and CAS aircraft... there is no shortage of fire power at all.
    The U.S Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) will have a 50 x 228 mm cannon.
    No its not, the round is 50/330, the 35mm is 35/228.

    US ARDEC's new tungsten APFSDS penetrator will enable it to cut through 180-200 mm of RHA steel at 1,000 metres at 0 degrees. Which means it will destroy 80% of all threat vehicle types. M1 Abrams will take care of the rest.

    GarryB wrote:A conflict with HATO would likely start with a devastating tactical nuclear strike on HATO units formed up in Poland or the Baltic States as they prepare to cross the border into Russia or Kaliningrad (which is also Russia).
    Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons is low..I get that. But if Russia starts the opening phase of a war with nukes then NATO will have to do the same.[/quote]
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 189
    Points : 192
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu May 07, 2020 11:05 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    There are 3 types of vehicle in the Typhoon family as far as I know. One is the Kamaz 63968 6x6 that we saw in the 2019 parade. The second is the Kamaz 63969 6x6 and the third is the Kamaz 53949 4x4. I know the 63968 and the 53949 are in production, do you know if the 63969 is in production too? The 63968 is a big vehicle that can carry 16 foot soldiers and weight up to 24 tons. The 63969 weight 20 tons, carry RCWS and carry 10 foot soldiers; this one can replace the BTR 80/82 with no problem. The 53949 is 4x4 vehicle that will be perfect to ops operation and recon groups.

    My understanding is that there are a couple of programmes called Typhoon which are not related and therefore several makers have Typhoon vehicles.
    The Typhoon I am talking about is a range of four and six wheeled light armored vehicles almost like MRAPs that are more likely paramilitary vehicles rather than army vehicles.
    There are 2 factories for the Typhoon family, one is Kamaz and the other is Ural, both have armored truck that call Taifun/Typhoon. Below Pictures of these vehicles:

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Russia28
    Ural-Taifun
    Link for the vehicle: http://www.military-today.com/apc/ural_taifun.htm

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Russia29
    Kamaz-63968 on the left and 63969 on the right
    Link for the Vehicle: http://www.military-today.com/apc/kamaz_taifun.htm

    A conflict with NATO would likely start with a devastating tactical nuclear strike on NATO units formed up in Poland or the Baltic States as they prepare to cross the border into Russia or Kaliningrad (which is also Russia).
    It will never happen. The west will never try to take on Russia; even USA will not do that. My fear is only from China and if Russia will fight in Europe, the Chinese will take the opportunity and invade Russia. What Russia can do is to move from West Belarus to Lithuania take Vilnius trough Kaunas and join Kaliningrad so the 3 nations will separate from Europe.

    They are developing an enormous range of new vehicles and weapons and systems to go in to service and that is going to take time... there is less benefit to speeding that up than there is taking the time to get it done properly. Russia is a huge country... there are places where Shilkas are still operational and actually doing a rather good job. It is not just a case of replacing this with that... it needs to be staged and managed so things aren't wasted. Which units need what replacement vehicle first and how is it all going to work while things are changing...
    I agree with you 100%, we have a say “the rush is from the devil”. I guess the new units will come slowly and they will be expensive, so upgrade whatever you can now at least as a stop gap solution.

    Actually I suspect the ATGMs will be equipped with HE Frag warheads and will be primarily used against helicopters and point targets beyond the 4km range of the 30mm cannon
    The Ataka missile family has 3 types of warhead:
    1. 9M120 has tandem HEAT warhead against tanks.
    2. 9M120F has Thermobaric warhead against bunkers and light armor vehicles.
    3. 9M220O has HE Frag warhead against helicopters.
    I guess the type of missile will be determined by the type of the enemy.

    Note the BMPT you are referring to is pre Bulat, so expect the new model BMPTs to have perhaps an enlarged turret with maybe two or perhaps even four mounts with 8 Bulat missiles each..
    .
    If we will put 4 Bulat systems on the vehicles it will get to much attention from the enemy that will try to destroy it, so I prefer to have more vehicles with one Bulat system than less with more Bulat system. One more thing, every hole in the turret makes it weaker and easy to penetrate.

    The 100mm gun would be more effective and useful against a range of targets than just four ATGMs and against IFV targets and aircraft the 100mm rounds and missiles would be superior with 8 ready to launch plus 32 conventional rounds in the autoloader and a further 8 HE rounds in the rear.
    It will be better than the 57mm LC gun that’s for sure, but the difference between the rte of fire between the two guns might change the outcome.

    The thinking behind the 40mm grenade launcher mounted on the top of the turret facing in the direction of the main armament but independently elevating. Its means the gunner has a light alternative to firing the main gun ammo at a target that might not require a full power heavy round. Instead of firing a 57mm HC round at a target or group of targets... firing a burst of 4-5 40mm grenades to land all round the point of aim might be more effective. In that sense these two 40mm grenade launchers already have the coaxial machine gun, so if I were to modify it I would probably have two dual mounts for the Balkan 40mm grenade launcher and a PKT rifle caliber machine gun together... one at the back of the turret facing forward and controlled by the gunner as an alternative to the main 57mm gun and perhaps a Kord 12.7mm HMG as a coaxial weapon, with a roof mounted 40mm Balkan grenade launcher and PKT machine gun that turns with the main gun and turret but has independent elevation to hit low or high targets... raised 50cm above the turret so it can depress down 20 degrees and elevate to vertical. I would have the second dual mount with a PKT and Balkan mounted on the commander’s panoramic sight so wherever he looks he can fire either rifle caliber machine gun fire or 40mm grenade rounds. I would make the gunner controlled models with extended barrels to maximize range...
     
    I agree with that, but only if you have the HV 57mm gun. With the 57mm LC we don’t need another AGL. RCWS with one Balkan 40mm AGL and one PKT 7.62mm, would be a good combination.  

    I like it too, and think burst rate limiters would be ideal... keep the rate of fire high, but offer burst options of single fire, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 20 round bursts and continuous.
    Hope somebody will lesson to you.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26274
    Points : 26820
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 09, 2020 7:49 am

    Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons is low..I get that. But if Russia starts the opening phase of a war with nukes then NATO will have to do the same.

    I wouldn't call that low... a Soviet Invasion of Hawaii or Alaska would result in the US considering nukes at the very least.

    If HATO thinks they can get what they want by using conventional forces then HATO is wrong.

    There are 2 factories for the Typhoon family, one is Kamaz and the other is Ural, both have armored truck that call Taifun/Typhoon. Below Pictures of these vehicles:

    Yup. Those are the ones... there is also a a four wheeled model in that taifun and typhoon family and the mix of four and six wheeled models in each family makes up the vehicle family I am talking about... they might or might not get in to service as such.

    Clearly there was little competition for Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang familes but there are a few truck/light vehicle companies to fairly compete in that class of vehicle. That is why they are still changing the boomerang design to make it bigger inside for infantry and their kit...

    It will never happen. The west will never try to take on Russia; even USA will not do that.

    It wont happen because Putin is clear about the likely response.

    My fear is only from China and if Russia will fight in Europe, the Chinese will take the opportunity and invade Russia.

    I think that is even less likely than HATO attacking a part of Russia, but even if they did the Eastern district wont send forces or equipment anywhere during a conflict in Europe so while the leadership might be distracted by such an attack the forces on the ground would be ready to respond, and I think such a stab in the back would be responded to rather harshly and quickly.

    I would think a conflict between Russia and China and Europe would be an American wet dream if they could weasel out of being involved, but then what are China and Europe going to do about energy in future when Russia stops the gas and starts sending it via ship elsewhere?

    What Russia can do is to move from West Belarus to Lithuania take Vilnius trough Kaunas and join Kaliningrad so the 3 nations will separate from Europe.

    Or irradiate them with tactical nuclear weapons and then develop transport trucks to drive through the radiation to supply Kaliningrad via the land... and build walls to prevent the mutants from coming into Russian territory.

    Taking and occupying the Baltic states would be a nightmare for Russia and of no benefit at all.

    I agree with you 100%, we have a say “the rush is from the devil”. I guess the new units will come slowly and they will be expensive, so upgrade whatever you can now at least as a stop gap solution.

    A lot of the new equipment that makes the new vehicles special will be included in the upgraded older stuff, so for example night vision sensor equipment and communications equipment as well as laser range finding and targeting equipment will be added to older vehicles so they will be able to work out the kinks in that stuff and make it more infantry friendly. I think the Armata divisions will be expensive because essentially every vehicle is a tank, but conversely the Boomerang divisions will actually be cheaper to buy and to operate than heavier forces and will have better mobility and not actually be that less well off in terms of protection from heavier current units.

    Remember that apart from the BMPs and T series tanks in current armoured and motor rifle divisions the vast majority of other vehicles don't have good armour... they are BTR and MTLB and old BMP based vehicles or even jeeps or trucks and BRDM-2 based.

    The Boomerang has BMP level protection or better so a Boomerang based Div is going to have better protection for every vehicle except the 125mm gun platforms operating as tanks.

    The Kurganets probably has even better protection and the Armata every vehicle will have tank level protection for the crew at least.

    The Ataka missile family has 3 types of warhead:
    1. 9M120 has tandem HEAT warhead against tanks.
    2. 9M120F has Thermobaric warhead against bunkers and light armor vehicles.
    3. 9M220O has HE Frag warhead against helicopters.
    I guess the type of missile will be determined by the type of the enemy.

    The previous Shturm missile has a single HEAT and a HE. The Ataka has tandem HEAT for armour and bunkers and ships, HE for soft targets, and a rod warhead for aircraft.

    The rod warhead for aircraft is sometimes called an expanding rod warhead... if you think of getting some metal rods 50cm long and wielding one end to the rod on one side and the other end to the rod on the other side. You then put a large HE charge down the middle. When the charge goes off the rods are spread out but they rotate because their ends are stuck together... obviously the force of the explosion breaks the wields but you end up with lengths of metal spinning like sword blades. They cut wings and propellers and other parts of aircraft or helicopters or drones and are very good at bringing down aircraft of all types.

    They would probably make a real mess of infantry in the open but are primarily intended for use against air targets.

    The primary problem with Ataka is the warhead is fixed. You wouldn't bother with the anti tank version on BMPT or IFV if the enemy had no tank level armour to justify it. A great way to take out a sniper or MG position, but most Russian BMPs have 73mm or 100mm guns that can do the same or better, while their T series tanks also have 125mm HE rounds for the job.

    If we will put 4 Bulat systems on the vehicles it will get to much attention from the enemy that will try to destroy it, so I prefer to have more vehicles with one Bulat system than less with more Bulat system. One more thing, every hole in the turret makes it weaker and easy to penetrate.

    The Bulat we are seeing is on a BMP turret, whose purpose is to support the troops it is carrying. The suggestion of a four launcher turret would be for a replacement for the Shturm-M or Kornet-M vehicles based on the MTLB and BMP-3 respectively as armoured ATGM platforms. Having a vehicle with four retractable launchers on such a vehicle would be rather like the two retractable launchers on the Tigr-M ATGM Kornet launcher... just pretty normal.

    Having 32 Bulats ready to launch, or perhaps 24 ready to launch in three launchers with the other launcher with 4 Kornets for more difficult targets would make the vehicle better armed than the Shturm (12 missiles) and Kornet (15 missiles) and Kristantema (15 missiles).

    These are retractable turrets so penetration of the turret is not so important.

    It will be better than the 57mm LC gun that’s for sure, but the difference between the rte of fire between the two guns might change the outcome.

    It might or it might not... it is very hard to say. What I would say that you will quickly find that if a round wont penetrate or be powerful enough to defeat a structure then lots of them in quick succession is not often a good solution. Calling for support by bigger heavier weapons often is the better solution, while you keep using your lighter faster firing weapon on other targets.

    With the 57mm LC we don’t need another AGL.

    It is about round size and capacity. The 57mm LC gun combines a heavy HE round that is slow moving but if you wanted to battery in the front of a house with it the increased HE charge would actually make it more effective than the faster smaller lighter 57mm HE round from the HC round.

    If you need to punch through the front you could still batter through with LC HE or lob over with HE... if it wasn't that heavy you could punch into it with APFSDS rounds from the LC gun.

    The complimentary nature of the 30mm auto cannon shell and the 30mm grenade launcher shell is not just that the 30 x 165mm is flat shooting high velocity and that the 30 x 29mm grenade launcher round lobs at low velocity over obstacles. The 30 x 165mm shells are huge and take up a lot of space and cause lots of recoil when fired. The 30 x 29mm is a much smaller more compact round of lower recoil for delivering a small HE charge to the area of the target.

    In the case of the new 40mm grenades there is no case to eject and it is even simpler, but has better range and a much more powerful payload than the 30mm grenade.

    With a rifle calibre machine gun a burst at 2,000 metres is not going to be very accurate, but if you are firing it against a group of enemy troops you might get a few hits and maybe one or two kills, because the bullets need to make contact and an area 10-15 metres wide by 5-6 metres high... if you put 50 bullet holes randomly the odds are zero that every bullet is going to hit someone unless it is a tight group of people standing shoulder to shoulder.

    If you replace those 50 bullet projectiles with 5-10 40mm grenades which on impact convert those 5 to ten 4cm wide projectiles into thousands of small metal fragments moving very fast then the chances for wounding a lot of people in that area become really rather good.

    It is a bit like firing a 57mm HE shell but much cheaper and better able to cover a wider area because with HE against soft targets it is much more efficient to have lots of little bombs spread out exploding than one really big one.

    RCWS with one Balkan 40mm AGL and one PKT 7.62mm, would be a good combination.

    I totally agree... both are relatively long slim weapons that should be pretty easy to mount together with their own ammo bins...

    For a special turret rear model they could extend the barrel length and firing/locking time to get better range at the cost of a lower rate of fire...

    Hope somebody will lesson to you.

    I remember after the conflict in Georgia that the Su-25 pilots mentioned the twin barrel 30mm cannons rate of fire was too high and that targets were being destroyed but it was using up too many rounds... being an aircraft gun I would assume the ammo is electric fired and the twin barrel guns are recoil operated... the recoil from one barrel reloads the other barrel for firing, and with electric ignition the rate of fire and burst size should be straight forward to control...

    The side mounted twin barrel 30mm cannon on the Hind uses the same gun but with muzzle mounted flash hiders to reduce the flash next to the weapon operators position.

    Very potent weapons.
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 189
    Points : 192
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Wed May 13, 2020 9:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Clearly there was little competition for Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang familes but there are a few truck/light vehicle companies to fairly compete in that class of vehicle. That is why they are still changing the boomerang design to make it bigger inside for infantry and their kit...
    There are several manufactures for these vehicles and below 3 pictures of some of them.

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Russia30
    Gaz Tiger with 8 Kornet Missiles
    Link: http://www.military-today.com/missiles/kornet_d.htm

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Russia31
    Kamaz 4x4 K-53949 Typhoon
    Link: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/kamaz-53949-typhoon-k-armoured-vehicle/

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Russia32
    Kamaz 4x4 K-4386 Typhoon VDV
    Link: http://www.military-today.com/missiles/kornet_d.htm

    It won’t happen because Putin is clear about the likely response.
    Hope they all saw the video that Putin showed the world on March 2018. I think the Poseidon is the dangerous of all.
    Taking and occupying the Baltic States would be a nightmare for Russia and of no benefit at all.
    Russia shouldn’t occupy the Baltic State, Russia just need to force them out of NATO.

    A lot of the new equipment that makes the new vehicles special will be included in the upgraded older stuff, so for example night vision sensor equipment and communications equipment as well as laser range finding and targeting equipment will be added to older vehicles so they will be able to work out the kinks in that stuff and make it more infantry friendly.
    Commonality is the name of the game. It will cut the learning time of soldiers that might find themselves not in the vehicle that they use to (it’s happen in war situation) and it will cost less if the item will be in mass production.

    I think the Armata divisions will be expensive because essentially every vehicle is a tank, but conversely the Boomerang divisions will actually be cheaper to buy and to operate than heavier forces and will have better mobility and not actually be that less well off in terms of protection from heavier current units.
    Remember that apart from the BMPs and T series tanks in current armored and motor rifle divisions the vast majority of other vehicles don't have good armor... they are BTR and MTLB and old BMP based vehicles or even jeeps or trucks and BRDM-2 based.
    The Boomerang has BMP level protection or better so a Boomerang based Div is going to have better protection for every vehicle except the 125mm gun platforms operating as tanks.
    The Kurganets probably has even better protection and the Armata every vehicle will have tank level protection for the crew at least.
    No doubt about that, but they must have Hard Kill APS Probably the Afganit. But the T-72 can get the new Arena APS and the same one can be mounted on the Boomerang family vehicles.
    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Russia33

    From the picture above we can see the double deck box. In the lower deck it has the radar antennas and sensors; the upper box has 6 interceptors in 2 boxes of 3 in each that mount in 90 degrees from each other so they can have pretty good coverage. The same unit mounts on the other side of the turret.  
    Link: https://defense-update.com/20130925_a-new-arena-aps-debut-at-rae-2013.html

    the primary problem with Ataka is that the warhead is fixed. You wouldn't bother with the anti tank version on BMPT or IFV if the enemy had no tank level armor to justify it. A great way to take out a sniper or MG position, but most Russian BMPs have 73mm or 100mm guns that can do the same or better, while their T series tanks also have 125mm HE rounds for the job.
    The missile is coming in a canister that is sealed and has a long shelf life; when you need it just pick the right one and you good to go.

    The Bulat system is unkown to me, I don’t know its range, its muzzle velocity and it’s penetration capability, but we are more familiar with the Kornet missile, so before I’ll have more info about it I’ll put my money on the Kornet, the Tiger has 8 missiles ready to fire and 8 missiles inside the vehicle and that’s good enough for me and as we say “better one bird in hand than two on the tree”.

    As for the 57mm gun, the HC gun as double the range and maybe 3 time the speed, so even if the LC might has more HE, it’s not make up for less speed and range. So I’ll choose the HC over the LC any time.

    As for the GSh-23 gun, if you have the way to control the rate of fire of this gun it will be the best pick for RCWS. We can upgrade the T-72 with new engine, new transmission, and new tracks; replace the 125mm gun and his carousal with 57mm HC gun with 100 rounds carousal and 7.62mm coax. On top of the roof we can put a RCWS with 23mm gun and 7.62mm MG.
    On side of the turret we’ll put 2 Kornet ATGM so on both side we will have 4 Kornet ATGM.
    This arrangement will allow the T-72 to fight with tanks and HIFVs with the Kornet ATGM, against IFVs and BTRs with the 57mm HC, against building with 23mm gun and against soldiers with 7.62mm MG.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26274
    Points : 26820
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 14, 2020 5:08 pm

    Russia shouldn’t occupy the Baltic State, Russia just need to force them out of NATO.

    I disagree... even assuming Russia could get them to leave HATO they would demand something in return... and that would probably be a return to Russia using their ports again and trading with them in their favour... in other words the blood sucking tick would switch from sucking blood from HATO to sucking blood from Russia... Russia does not benefit from that at all.

    Give it time... the EU and HATO will come to realise these countries are more harm than value to the countries that allow them to latch on...

    As EU rules get sillier, the people in these countries are going to realise they have rather more in common with Russians than with Germans or French people and those civilised europeans will only ever look down on them culturally... I doubt they will enjoy that for long.

    Russia was an easy target to blame for all their problems, but as Russia pulls itself up and does not drag them up with it they will realise they chose the wrong ship to jump to...

    When you clear rough weather you would be silly to allow the ballast you dumped to get back on board... especially when they cut holes in your sails when they got off to make nice white flags to hold up to the circling enemy ships...

    Commonality is the name of the game. It will cut the learning time of soldiers that might find themselves not in the vehicle that they use to (it’s happen in war situation) and it will cost less if the item will be in mass production.

    Exactly... it will be good for training, it will be good for production numbers, it will be good for upgrades, because you can upgrade them all at once without having to worry about different versions for different vehicles... and it also means lighter vehicles getting good quality systems along with heavy vehicles.

    It also means maintenance and replacement parts that are common to all vehciles can come from any unit nearby whether they have the same vehicles or not.

    Obviously the wheels and transmissions and engines will be different between different vehicle families, but that means the logistics tail of a division only needs to support one type of engine, one type of transmission, one type of wheel and or track etc...

    No doubt about that, but they must have Hard Kill APS Probably the Afganit. But the T-72 can get the new Arena APS and the same one can be mounted on the Boomerang family vehicles.

    My understanding was that the Armata would have Afghanit, and also a system like Drozd... with Afghanit being a box of upward pointing small rockets, and Drozd being nearly horizontal large calibre tubes... though of course those latter might be smoke grenade launchers of course. The other vehicle families will use a new APS system called Standard. I suspect Arena 2 or what ever it is called is for older model vehicles and also for export...

    From the picture above we can see the double deck box. In the lower deck it has the radar antennas and sensors; the upper box has 6 interceptors in 2 boxes of 3 in each that mount in 90 degrees from each other so they can have pretty good coverage. The same unit mounts on the other side of the turret.

    Yes, that is ARENA 3... it seems to be better organised... the set up on one side has three munitions that can fire forward and three out to the side and on the other side it has three more that can fire out to the side and three that can fire to the rear. Together you have 360 degree coverage. I seem to remember the ARENA 2 model had about three bins with munitions placed around the turret and it had also gotten rid of the tower structure for the radar sensors too.

    The Bulat system is unkown to me, I don’t know its range, its muzzle velocity and it’s penetration capability, but we are more familiar with the Kornet missile, so before I’ll have more info about it I’ll put my money on the Kornet, the Tiger has 8 missiles ready to fire and 8 missiles inside the vehicle and that’s good enough for me and as we say “better one bird in hand than two on the tree”.

    The Bulat is developed on the design of the Kornet for targets that are not 8.5km away and don't have MBT level armour. It offers the possibility of carrying 8 guided missiles in the space that would normally fit only four Kornets, so potentially it doubles the number of targets you can take on if you know there are not going to be tanks with 1m armour protection you are fighting against.

    They are most useful against manouvering moving targets because I have only seen them on turrets with 57mm high velocity guns or 57mm grenade launchers that can fire an APFSDS round.... so if you spot a Bradley IFV at 1,500m but it is stationary then firing off a few 57mm armour piercing shells would be your first option. If, however, the target is moving at full speed and zig zagging around the place and you might need to fire off a dozen rounds to get a hit then instead you would fire a Bulat... at worst it might stop the vehicle so you can then pump some 57mm rounds into it...

    As for the 57mm gun, the HC gun as double the range and maybe 3 time the speed, so even if the LC might has more HE, it’s not make up for less speed and range. So I’ll choose the HC over the LC any time.

    But like the Bulet we really don't know enough about it to make sensible decisions... I would say that the APFSDS round for the grenade launcher will likely have at least a muzzle velocity of 1,300m/s to 1,400m/s to be effective, and I would expect a new APFSDS round for the 57 x 384mm HC round probably wont have a projectile moving much faster than 1,500-1,600m/s simply because when you are making penetrators when the speed approaches 2km/s then penetration performance stops increasing so rapidly with velocity increases and becomes more effective with projectile weight increases.

    At the end of the day I don't think the armour piercing HC 57mm round will be travelling a huge amount faster than the armour piercing LC 57mm round... the real difference will be in the HE rounds with the HC HE round moving faster but carrying a lot less HE, and the LC round moving a lot slower but packing the power of a much larger round. Note the guided round for the HC 57mm runs the full length of the shell case and has a muzzle velocity that is still pretty good... something like 700m/s, which is rather good considering how little space there is left for propellent.

    Of course it will be rather more expensive than normal rounds but will have much better capacity to chase manouvering targets... so it might cost 20 times more than a standard round but you might only need one or two of them to hit a target, whereas with standard rounds you might need to bracket the target with 50 rounds to bring down the target so it actually works out cheaper...

    As for the GSh-23 gun, if you have the way to control the rate of fire of this gun it will be the best pick for RCWS. We can upgrade the T-72 with new engine, new transmission, and new tracks; replace the 125mm gun and his carousal with 57mm HC gun with 100 rounds carousal and 7.62mm coax. On top of the roof we can put a RCWS with 23mm gun and 7.62mm MG.

    I agree, but I think the space under the turret ring for the 57mm ammo should allow double that sort of load to be carried... and the coaxial rifle calibre machine gun should be able to carry about 3,000 rounds easily. Fitting a twin 23mm cannon with a coaxial machine gun on the roof... I would set it up with a turret bustle mount for ammo for both weapons and a fixed forward firing 40mm grenade launcher that can be elevated by the gunner.

    The 23mm gun and the PKT on a remote weapon mount at the rear of the turret should be pretty straight forward... the recoil of the 23mm would be comparable to the recoil of a 57 cal HMG (ie 14.5mm).

    Limiting burst fire rate would be easy... with electric firing... the firing is electronically controlled so effectively have the trigger computer controlled to select the burst length to anything you like.

    The rear turret bustle would allow thousands of rounds for the 23mm gun and the machine gun and perhaps 600 rounds for the 40mm grenade launcher... honestly I would be tempted to use a single barrel 23mm KPB coaxial with the 57mm gun too...

    On side of the turret we’ll put 2 Kornet ATGM so on both side we will have 4 Kornet ATGM.
    This arrangement will allow the T-72 to fight with tanks and HIFVs with the Kornet ATGM, against IFVs and BTRs with the 57mm HC, against building with 23mm gun and against soldiers with 7.62mm MG.

    I would also agree with the missiles... it certainly would not hurt to mount them, but I would extend the front of the hull forward a little and have the entire three man crew in the front hull and have an unmanned turret full of ammo to the turret ring with 57mm HC rounds, and 23mm rifle calibre machine gun coaxial rounds above the turret ring, and of course 23mm shells and rifle calibre machine gun rounds in a large turret bustle to half the height of the turret and 40mm grenades in a separate ammo bin on top for the rear turret mounted forward firing 40mm grenade launcher.

    The twin 23mm gun and rifle calibre machine gun could be attached to the commanders panoramic sight so wherever he looks he has a 23mm cannon and rifle calibre machine gun aimed to fire there. For the gunner when the turret is turned he has the ability to fire a 57mm HC gun, a 40mm grenade launcher and a single barrel 600 rpm HMG based on the KPV in 23mm calibre for targets... or of course up to four Kornets to 10km range.

    The reason for this is that if you see a group of enemy troops in the open 1.5km away a burst of 20 rounds from a PKT will stir them up... but not likely injure many of them. A 10 round burst of 40mm grenades on the other hand will spread thousands of fragments in seconds around the area and would be vastly more effective out to a max range of perhaps 2,500m.

    It means you can engage light targets that don't warrant 57mm shells but are still worth engaging.
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 189
    Points : 192
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Tue May 19, 2020 6:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Russia shouldn’t occupy the Baltic State, Russia just need to force them out of NATO.

    I disagree... even assuming Russia could get them to leave HATO they would demand something in return... and that would probably be a return to Russia using their ports again and trading with them in their favor... in other words the blood sucking tick would switch from sucking blood from HATO to sucking blood from Russia... Russia does not benefit from that at all.
    I thought that the important issue for Russia is to keep NATO far away from the border. I think that the East Europe Country shouldn’t join NATO, instead they should create there own Union for there economy and security.

    My understanding was that the Armata would have Afghanit, and also a system like Drozd... with Afghanit being a box of upward pointing small rockets, and Drozd being nearly horizontal large caliber tubes... though of course those latter might be smoke grenade launchers of course. The other vehicle families will use a new APS system called Standard. I suspect Arena 2 or what ever it is called is for older model vehicles and also for export...
    I think the Drozd is the hard kill of the Afghanit system and the 2 boxes on top are the smoke grenades of the soft kill system.

    Yes, that is ARENA 3... it seems to be better organized... the set up on one side has three munitions that can fire forward and three out to the side and on the other side it has three more that can fire out to the side and three that can fire to the rear. Together you have 360 degree coverage. I seem to remember the ARENA 2 model had about three bins with munitions placed around the turret and it had also gotten rid of the tower structure for the radar sensors too.
    Yes, and it can be added to exciting turret of tanks and BMPs and BTRs without put a new turret on them.

    The Bulat is developed on the design of the Kornet for targets that are not 8.5km away and don't have MBT level armour. It offers the possibility of carrying 8 guided missiles in the space that would normally fit only four Kornets, so potentially it doubles the number of targets you can take on if you know there are not going to be tanks with 1m armour protection you are fighting against.
    The Bulat is unknown object and I don’t know anything on its performance, so I'll use the Kornet over the Bulat anytime.

    Of course it will be rather more expensive than normal rounds but will have much better capacity to chase maneuvering targets... so it might cost 20 times more than a standard round but you might only need one or two of them to hit a target, whereas with standard rounds you might need to bracket the target with 50 rounds to bring down the target so it actually works out cheaper...
    It’s all correct but if you use the Kornet the target will be destroyed and that more important.  

    Allow me to put it in my English: The main gun will be 57mm HC, with coax 14.5/23mm HMG and 7.62mm MG. On top of the turret we will mount the Balkan 40mm AGL like on the Berezhok turret that mount on the upgrade BMP-2, with that I’ll mount RCWS with 14.5/23mm HMG and 7.62mm MG. These guns can be connected to the Pano. Sight but only if the vibration from the fire will not interfere with the picture from the Pano, there will be also 4 Kornet ATGM on the sides of the turret. The guns in the turret and the 40mm AGL will be operate by the gunner, the RCWS and the ATGMs will be operated by the commander.

    I would also agree with the missiles... it certainly would not hurt to mount them, but I would extend the front of the hull forward a little and have the entire three man crew in the front hull.
    That’s a good idea and I think the Armata family shows us the way for this concept.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26274
    Points : 26820
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 20, 2020 12:42 pm

    As per photos above there is a Typhoon vehicle from Kamaz and a Taifun vehicle from Ural... I would expect Gaz probably has a Typhoon vehicle in the race too... which would be two vehicles each in the four and six wheel format for the competition for the new Typhoon vehicle family.

    There are also two vehicle types in the heaviest family... the Armata comes in two types... the tank model with the rear mounted engine and the IFV/APC and artillery models with a front mounted engine and large rear door.

    Will be interesting to see which Typhoon types get selected... I suspect the utility of such relatively light vehicles would make them appeal to other branches like the FSB and MVD etc etc.

    I thought that the important issue for Russia is to keep NATO far away from the border. I think that the East Europe Country shouldn’t join NATO, instead they should create there own Union for there economy and security.

    The problem is that the Baltic states are already part of HATO, and I doubt they would leave voluntarily...

    For Russia they really have no way of forcing them to leave short of military action, which would be more trouble than it is worth... they are not valuable countries that Russia would benefit from absorbing and Russianising...

    For HATO they are on Russian borders to useful for putting intel stations, but in terms of military value they will be lost in a few hours and the forces there would have no chance because the only places that could support or resupply will be having their own problems...

    I think the Drozd is the hard kill of the Afghanit system and the 2 boxes on top are the smoke grenades of the soft kill system.

    That sounds quite reasonable, but smoke grenades for Russian systems tend to be angled down to rather shallow angles so that higher velocity launches make the grenades launch much further away from the vehicle and the higher speed means they set up aerosol screens much faster and much further away... making it more effective.

    Besides... Drozd I and Drozd II should mean an upgrade becomes Drozd III, like the Arena went from Arena to Arena 2 and now Arena 3.

    But then Ratnik 3 has a new name now too so who knows...

    Yes, and it can be added to exciting turret of tanks and BMPs and BTRs without put a new turret on them.

    Exactly, and means you can continue to use extra armour panels and ERA modules... this just adds an extra layer of defence with little extra weight...

    The Bulat is unknown object and I don’t know anything on its performance, so I'll use the Kornet over the Bulat anytime.

    In combat ATGMs get used against all sorts of things, including light vehicles and bunkers. The Bulet is based on the Kornet... it looks like a scaled down model... that is intended for use against targets that don't have the protection of the front of a Main Battle Tank. Bulet could probably work against the side or rear of tank and pretty much anything else, but its reduced size and weight means you can carry four times more.

    Being smaller and lighter it is probably faster and would certainly be rather more useful against manouvering targets like IFVs than an unguided round would.

    Allow me to put it in my English: The main gun will be 57mm HC, with coax 14.5/23mm HMG and 7.62mm MG. On top of the turret we will mount the Balkan 40mm AGL like on the Berezhok turret that mount on the upgrade BMP-2, with that I’ll mount RCWS with 14.5/23mm HMG and 7.62mm MG. These guns can be connected to the Pano. Sight but only if the vibration from the fire will not interfere with the picture from the Pano, there will be also 4 Kornet ATGM on the sides of the turret. The guns in the turret and the 40mm AGL will be operate by the gunner, the RCWS and the ATGMs will be operated by the commander.

    Sounds good to me.

    The only land vehicle I have seen with the single barrel KPB 23mm cannon and the GSh-23 twin barrel cannon were two versions of an upgraded MTLB... sadly more recent models showing upgraded MTLBs have the 30mm cannon armed turret of the BTR-82A fitted instead of more exotic types...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26274
    Points : 26820
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 24, 2020 4:24 pm

    Actually I just realised that if the Russians want to create a decent light tank gun nice and fast they could do to the 100mm 2A82 gun of the BMP-3 what they did to the 57mm grenade launcher and develop a heavier barrel high pressure version and APFSDS ammo.

    The current 100mm HE rounds have an enormous projectile and a short stub propellent case. Replace the large heavy HE round with a fin stabilised penetrator of perhaps 2-3kgs and fill the rest of the space with propellent and you could probably get a round with a reasonable performance against armour...

    For a vehicle like a BMP-3 sized vehicle I would probably still keep the 30mm cannon for use against aircraft or lighter armour, and perhaps I would extend the propellent case a little on the original round to improve range and make the trajectory a bit flatter with the HE rounds to improve accuracy a little and prevent the new ammo from being used in older guns that they would damage...

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Bah_ro10

    As you can see above the 100mm round is mostly HE shell, but for an APFSDS round that can be replaced with a Sabot and a tiny penetrator and lots of propellent...

    Keep in mind that the 125mm APFSDS round has a short stub case and a projectile covered in more propellent so the HV round could include propellent in front of the case right to the front of the round...
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 189
    Points : 192
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Fri May 29, 2020 9:14 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    As per photos above there is a Typhoon vehicle from Kamaz and a Taifun vehicle from Ural... I would expect Gaz probably has a Typhoon vehicle in the race too... which would be two vehicles each in the four and six wheel format for the competition for the new Typhoon vehicle family.
    Will be interesting to see which Typhoon types get selected... I suspect the utility of such relatively light vehicles would make them appeal to other branches like the FSB and MVD etc etc.
    As far as I remember last year in the parade we saw the Kamaz Typhoon, and I think there are 300 Kamaz in stock so, I guess Kamaz is the winner in the 6 wheel fight.

    The problem is that the Baltic states are already part of HATO, and I doubt they would leave voluntarily...
    For Russia they really have no way of forcing them to leave short of military action, which would be more trouble than it is worth... they are not valuable countries that Russia would benefit from absorbing and Russianising...
    For HATO they are on Russian borders to useful for putting intel stations, but in terms of military value they will be lost in a few hours and the forces there would have no chance because the only places that could support or resupply will be having their own problems...
    and more than that I'm not sure if USA with all the problems they have now with the Covid-19 Virus and all the problems with NATO Countries will get involve in any war outside USA.

    That sounds quite reasonable, but smoke grenades for Russian systems tend to be angled down to rather shallow angles so that higher velocity launches make the grenades launch much further away from the vehicle and the higher speed means they set up aerosol screens much faster and much further away... making it more effective.
    Besides... Drozd I and Drozd II should mean an upgrade becomes Drozd III, like the Arena went from Arena to Arena 2 and now Arena 3..

    I'm not sure about the name Arena-3 I think the "3" is the krill word for "E" export.

    In combat ATGMs get used against all sorts of things, including light vehicles and bunkers. The Bulet is based on the Kornet... it looks like a scaled down model... that is intended for use against targets that don't have the protection of the front of a Main Battle Tank. Bulet could probably work against the side or rear of tank and pretty much anything else, but its reduced size and weight means you can carry four times more.
    Being smaller and lighter it is probably faster and would certainly be rather more useful against maneuvering targets like IFVs than an unguided round would.

    I will use the Kornet any time I need ATGM

    Allow me to put it in my English: The main gun will be 57mm HC, with coax 14.5/23mm HMG and 7.62mm MG. On top of the turret we will mount the Balkan 40mm AGL like on the Berezhok turret that mount on the upgrade BMP-2, with that I’ll mount RCWS with 14.5/23mm HMG and 7.62mm MG. These guns can be connected to the Pano. Sight but only if the vibration from the fire will not interfere with the picture from the Pano, there will be also 4 Kornet ATGM on the sides of the turret. The guns in the turret and the 40mm AGL will be operate by the gunner, the RCWS and the ATGMs will be operated by the commander.

    Sounds good to me.

    The only land vehicle I have seen with the single barrel KPB 23mm cannon and the GSh-23 twin barrel cannon were two versions of an upgraded MTLB... sadly more recent models showing upgraded MTLBs have the 30mm cannon armed turret of the BTR-82A fitted instead of more exotic types...
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 189
    Points : 192
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Fri May 29, 2020 10:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Actually I just realized that if the Russians want to create a decent light tank gun nice and fast they could do to the 100mm 2A82 gun of the BMP-3 what they did to the 57mm grenade launcher and develop a heavier barrel high pressure version and APFSDS ammo.
    The current 100mm HE rounds have an enormous projectile and a short stub propellent case. Replace the large heavy HE round with a fin stabilize penetrator of perhaps 2-3kgs and fill the rest of the space with propellent and you could probably get a round with a reasonable performance against armour...
    For a vehicle like a BMP-3 sized vehicle I would probably still keep the 30mm cannon for use against aircraft or lighter armour, and perhaps I would extend the propellent case a little on the original round to improve range and make the trajectory a bit flatter with the HE rounds to improve accuracy a little and prevent the new ammo from being used in older guns that they would damage...
    If the BMP-3 will save it's 30mm gun it should have the 30mm mounts on the side of the turret like we see on the T-72M2.
    It's might be a good idea if the gun will keep the range and the Muzzle Velocity of the 57mm HC gun, for sure it will get better HE/freg round, and if it can get 50 rounds carousal it will be great.

    As you can see above the 100mm round is mostly HE shell, but for an APFSDS round that can be replaced with a Sabot and a tiny penetrator and lots of propellent...
    Keep in mind that the 125mm APFSDS round has a short stub case and a projectile covered in more propellent so the HV round could include propellent in front of the case right to the front of the round...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26274
    Points : 26820
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 30, 2020 8:33 am


    As far as I remember last year in the parade we saw the Kamaz Typhoon, and I think there are 300 Kamaz in stock so, I guess Kamaz is the winner in the 6 wheel fight.

    Interesting.... but beware... like anyone else the Russians hold competitions for programmes so for the Typhoon light vehicle programme it seems three well established companies have put forward designs... Kamaz, Gaz, and Ural. In the 1990s there was a programme to replace the Hind attack helicopter and the two main helicopter making design bureaus put forward designs too... Mil put forward the Mi-28A and the Kamov design bureau put forward the Ka-50... and the latter won and the immediate result of that was that the Mi-28 was revealed to the world in the hopes that some other customer would buy it... analysis from Desert Storm however showed that helicopters are much safer when operating at night... they are not such easy targets and their night vision equipment makes them more effective hunters at night and in bad weather... being a single seat helicopter this was bad for the Ka-50 because despite being easy to fly flying at low level at night or in bad weather is a full time job so they restarted the programme with a two seat requirement and eventually both the Mi-28N and Ka-52 were accepted but for slightly different roles... attack and recon respectively...

    A lot of money goes in to development and design of these things so if your product gets rejected by the customer who was asking for the product then in Russia there are other paramilitary users of light armoured vehicles that might think your product suits them better than the one chosen...

    Basically what I am saying is that even the failures could still be made in numbers... the strategic nuclear forces need convoy vehicles that are armoured and mine and IED resistant... the Air Force has airfields and facilities that are huge and need to be patrolled... naval bases need mobile forces to watch areas for enemy activity... using army IFVs is more expensive to buy and operate... wheeled armoured vehicles are much much cheaper to buy and operate yet can have sophisticated sensors and quite powerful weapons mounted...

    and more than that I'm not sure if USA with all the problems they have now with the Covid-19 Virus and all the problems with NATO Countries will get involve in any war outside USA.

    For all their bravado at the end of the day the US will encourage Georgia or Ukraine or any other country to fight Russia... including providing weapons and training and money... but they are not going to directly intervene...

    Wouldn't it be nice if America and HATO realised they are not making themselves safer with their interference in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Libya and lots of other places we don't see on the news and they started to roll back their colonialism and save themselves some money and reduce blood spilled on both sides... but the people funding their campaigns make their money from wars so it wont stop no matter what the cost sadly.

    I'm not sure about the name Arena-3 I think the "3" is the krill word for "E" export.

    I thought that as well but there already was an ARENA E based on the first model with the tower with the MMW radar sensors in it.

    The export model of the current version would be ARENA-3E which is going to look funny in cyrillic... APEHA-3E or APEHA-33?

    I will use the Kornet any time I need ATGM

    That is like saying if I am in a tank and I see any target I will always use a 125mm round.... what if you spot an individual enemy soldier 600m away?

    Or it is the same as saying if I was a tank commander I would only carry one type of 125mm tank gun ammo and nothing else because it has the best penetration... say an APFSDS round with 800mm of penetration at 2000m... but what do you do to soft targets that an APFSDS round will just punch a neat hole through and not actually do much else to?

    The point is that if you only carry Kornets you will have 4 plus maybe 2 internal reloads. With Kornet and Bulat then you have four Kornets and 8 Bulats and you will be well aware of its range and speed and penetration so you will know which targets require which weapons...

    If the BMP-3 will save it's 30mm gun it should have the 30mm mounts on the side of the turret like we see on the T-72M2.

    Separating the guns like that makes it more complex and expensive. Having a centrally located 100mm rifled high velocity version of the BMP-3 gun with a twin barrel GSh-30 cannon mounted attached to it means that under recoil both guns are absorbing the energy of the shots from each weapon which should reduce recoil on the vehicle. It also means elevation systems don't need to be duplicated and of course stabilisation systems don't need to be replicated either and with an unmanned turret the central locations of the weapon breaches means primary ammo can be in the centre below the turret ring and safe from enemy fire penetrating the turret...

    The main guns would be controlled by the gunner so it is not like separating them means one could be used by the gunner and one by the commander so multiple targets could be engaged at the same time as most targets wont be on the same turret traverse bearing... the commander would likely suggest a weapon and ammo type to the gunner... perhaps even rotating the turret to point directly at the target... so for instance the commander might say 231 degrees, 3,000m enemy tank use APFSDS round... and pushes a button so the turret turns to the direction his pano sight is looking at and the target might already have a targeting box over it... the gunner pushes the APFSDS button and a round is loaded... the commanders laser rangefinder has already gotten the range so with that and the ballistic information about the round loaded is used to compute an aim point... the gun adjust and the gunner says ready to fire... the commander then gives the order to fire or he might command the driver to move the vehicle to a less exposed position that is hull down and commands the gunner to fire... the gunner looks at the target and determines if it is a kill or not while the commander has a quick look around with his pano sight to see if anything else pops up because of their shot... they will move to a new position and the commander will look for new targets or threats...

    It's might be a good idea if the gun will keep the range and the Muzzle Velocity of the 57mm HC gun, for sure it will get better HE/freg round, and if it can get 50 rounds carousal it will be great.

    I would suspect better performance and more volume for guided shells and rounds, but I also think to would be more bulky and while having a more effective HE round... the round will be much slower to fire so rather less useful against air targets. Ironically the 57mm HC rounds HE round would be effective to probably 12km but the 100mm round with the bigger heavier HE round would not reach much past 7km... against drones or aircraft that might be significant... a burst of 4-5 airburst 57mm rounds against a helicopter would be devastating, but the 100mm might be too low a velocity to hit anything except a hovering helo and at shorter ranges.

    Of course it makes the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 much more capable so current export customers of the vehicle might see a lot of value in the upgrade.

    Effectively previously the 100mm gun carried about 40 rounds of HE that weren't very effective against armour plus 8 missiles that were not cheap but could kill most armoured vehicles except the heaviest. Carrying perhaps 10 rounds of APFSDS rounds that maybe penetrate 300-400mm of armour makes it rather more interesting and effective against a range of targets... especially for countries facing enemies with T-55s or early model T-72s or M60s and Chieftans...

    It is an interesting new use of technology... it expands the capability of the telescope rounds the west is playing with.

    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1023
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  jhelb on Sat May 30, 2020 11:51 am

    GarryB wrote:For all their bravado at the end of the day the US will encourage Georgia or Ukraine or any other country to fight Russia... including providing weapons and training and money... but they are not going to directly intervene...
    Russia should do the same to the U.S. Arm, train their black, latino, asian minorities so that they can fight the US establishment. Take advantage of the ongoing sectarian strife in Minnesota and help spread this chaos across the US and sustain it for months.

    With the U.S still around world peace is an illusion.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3262
    Points : 3262
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Hole on Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:56 pm

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Parad_13
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6210
    Points : 6363
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Kurganets ifv

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:22 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 103097761_2663158183926921_6273324539065599173_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQk1IVpXANhAcuj5oN-JkkMIt6bMfavzLCM-GtZiaioTv8wrB0hinb7sjX-EquUh-_M&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 EaXugBTU0AApBoB?format=jpg&name=large
    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 EaXue5_UcAAtK4R?format=jpg&name=large
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 15039
    Points : 15542
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  George1 on Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:23 am

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Boomer10
    avatar
    kopyo-21

    Posts : 207
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  kopyo-21 on Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:24 pm

    I just wonder if in the near future, Russia will develop a new gun bases on the current S-60/68 57mm gun equipped on T-15. From the 57x348mm 57mm rounds, they can make super 76.2mm rounds with similar size. The new 76.2mm gun with both HE and APFSDS rounds will have much more power while the same size and rounds stock in gun turret as the 57mm gun on T-15 now.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3262
    Points : 3262
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Hole on Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:56 pm

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Parade10
    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Parade11
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26274
    Points : 26820
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:43 am

    I just wonder if in the near future, Russia will develop a new gun bases on the current S-60/68 57mm gun equipped on T-15. From the 57x348mm 57mm rounds, they can make super 76.2mm rounds with similar size. The new 76.2mm gun with both HE and APFSDS rounds will have much more power while the same size and rounds stock in gun turret as the 57mm gun on T-15 now.

    They will be making all sorts of turrets for all sorts of roles I suspect... the purpose of four standardised vehicle families is that you then develop one turret type that can be fitted to the vehicle bases to form different vehicles for different roles.

    So for instance we have seen the tank turret on the T-14.... it has a 125mm gun and of course sensors for APS etc etc and all the equipment on it necessary for the vehicle chassis it is placed on to be used as a tank, so that turret on boomerang or kurganets becomes the tank version of that vehicle family... it might be a bit too big and heavy for the light Typhoon vehicle family... actually the light typhoon vehicle family might get their own remote weapon station turrets with 82mm mortars and 57mm grenade launchers and 30mm cannon, while the bigger three families get 125mm main guns and 57mm high velocity guns and of course 120mm mortars and 152mm artillery guns...

    I would expect in the big three vehicle families that the Grenade launcher will be the go to round for the APC version as it doesn't penetrate the hull so more troops can be carried and you can still take on heavier armour than the old 30mm could manage and the extra power of the HE shell will make it rather useful. Its problem will be against drones and aircraft and moving enemy vehicles because it has 4 Kornets and 8 Bulat missiles for use against those.

    Therefore having approximately half the vehicles armed with the 57 x 348mm S-60 gun round makes sense because the higher speed HE round with air burst shells would reach further against both ground and air targets. The 57mm grenade has airburst rounds too but most likely a smart fusing system that can airburst or delay penetration fuse so the round would punch into a house before exploding inside doing vastly more damage that if it had exploded on impact. Equally being able to airburst a low velocity bomb over troops with no top cover would also be very effective as well.

    For the S-60 gun a APHE could be used against soft targets like a Humvee... an APFSDS round would just punch a neat hole right through but otherwise might not stop it... an APHE round that punches inside the target and then explodes will kill everyone and destroy the vehicle... an APFSDS with much more penetration will kill any crewman it passes through but wont do much more than punch a hole through the vehicle.

    To be clear Humvees are not armoured... when they first deployed they thought they were armoured and assault rifle calibre ammo passes straight through it. They are very heavy vehicles and the crews just assumed they were bullet proof. So they decided to put armour on them and they couldn't move and the armour was not that great but the mobility which was not good because they are big heavy vehicles anyway got much worse.

    The whole concept of MRAP is a replacement for the Humvee that can survive certain levels of mine damage and is relatively bullet proof...

    I suspect the two new 57mm gun armed turrets will be used together the same as the 30mm and 73mm gun armed BMPs were used together...

    I rather suspect the next step up would be the 100mm gun of the BMP-3... a huge HE round with a small propellent stub with rather compact ammo that works well in an autoloader... replace the tiny propellent stub and the huge HE projectile with a long case and a Sabot and large dart penetrator and fill the internal volume with propellent and you would have a reasonable anti armour gun that should be able to take out any non tank armoured vehicle from any angle and likely tanks from the side or rear.

    That rifle calibre machine gun on the turret above is interesting... the external mounting suggests that perhaps it could be replaced with a 30mm or 40mm grenade launcher or large calibre HMG if needed...

    Sponsored content

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:30 am