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

    marcellogo
    marcellogo

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

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  marcellogo on Sat Jun 20, 2020 11:16 am

    TO GarryB LATEST ONE:

    There are several way to skin a cat, we (italians) as an example introduced both a 76/62mm SAPOMER round i.e. a full size antiship APHE round with a sabot in fore front to optimize aereodinamicity than, in a second time a dedicated VULCANO APHEFSDS round for same role, different by the DART that is instead a guided antimissile one.

    And we decided that AHEAD time fuzed shell are not convenient outside the 30/35mm caliber range so we kept our 40mm PFHE instead.
    Unfoturnately we didn't get to adopt those calibers for Army use as it was decided to not develop further the OTOMATIC SPAAG.
    avatar
    kopyo-21

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

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  kopyo-21 on Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:08 pm

    Hi Garry,

    I agree if they develop the APFSDS round for BMP-3's 100mm gun, they will not need to develop the S-60's based 76mm gun. In that case, should they re-arange the curent complex of 100mm and 30mm guns? I mean they can top the 2A72 30mm gun on the 2A70 100mm gun so both of them are installed right in the central of turret. When firing, the strong recoils will not make the turret spin and effect the ballistic accuracy.  Of course, the turret will need to be taller to accommodate the guns arrangements like that.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26261
    Points : 26807
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 22, 2020 5:41 am


    There are several way to skin a cat

    To be clear, I am just open thinking this myself... when I read they have a 57mm grenade launcher I assume it is because a bigger HE projectile is a useful thing.

    I know they already have experience with 30mm cannons and 73mm calibre rocket launchers and 100mm rifled guns with their BMPs.

    The reason they used the 73mm rocket launcher was because the ATGM they were using couldn't hit a target within 300m at the best of times... often 800m if the remote launch system is used away from the vehicle, so the main gun had to kill tanks to that range. Fortunately at that time the 73mm gun was up against M60 tanks and Chieftan and Leopard I and other vehicles it could actually penetrate.

    The point I am getting at is that in the west they think the 73mm gun is stupid and useless and it was only when they developed the BMP-2 with the 30mm cannon that they actually got it right, but they actually had the 30mm cannon as an option for the original BMP... they chose the 73mm gun which essentially fires a 73mm calibre rocket that looks exactly like an SPG-9 recoilless rocket round... in fact I think they might be interchangable... the main difference is that the 73mm round for the grom gun has slightly less propellent.

    When it came time to arm the BMP-2 there was a higher pressure 85mm rocket launcher weapon with much better range and penetration put forward but it was recognised that the larger gun could not be retro fitted to the BMP because its turret was already recognised as being too small... so they kept the 73mm gun on the BMP and adopted the 30mm cannon on the BMP-2. Problems with fumes inside the vehicle from the 2A42 cannon when fired at the highest firing rate led to the long recoil 2A72 30mm cannon for the BMP-3 with a lower rate of fire but no fume problems. Their attack helos had external gun mounts so fumes were not a problem so they kept the 2A42 for that job. The HE power of the 73mm gun was useful so the BMP-3 had a 100mm rifled gun which made barrel fired ATGMs possible.

    I agree if they develop the APFSDS round for BMP-3's 100mm gun, they will not need to develop the S-60's based 76mm gun

    The thing is that the BMPs need guns that can destroy enemy BMPs and I think even the 57mm grenade launcher round should have enough volume and space for a large heavy projectile penetrator (in comparison to the 30mm APFSDS) and plenty more propellent to achieve much better penetration than any 30 or 35mm round. If you look at the 45mm telescoped rounds they are essentially 45mm diameter rounds that look like straight sided coke cans with a rim at one end. In terms of HE round the 57mm grenade has a much bigger HE projectile than the telescope rounds so in terms of HE potential it is much better for most stationary ground targets. The volume should also allow a much more powerful APFSDS round too because of the increased volume for propellent as long as the chamber and barrel are designed for such high pressure rounds and I presume if they make APFSDS rounds that it is.

    I would say if HATO go for tank level protection for all their vehicles like Armata then rather than going for a 100mm gun with an APFSDS round that they would probably load more Kornet type missiles as a cheaper solution.... the point is that costs and issues of ammo... a 125mm turret basically takes away too many internal seats with a BMP, though I suppose when fighting an enemy with tank based vehicles then you just have more tanks able to take them on in each force so a tank division might have 5 or six tank regiments instead of three, while a motor rifle division might have 2 or 3 tank regiments instead of one.

    The point is that right now their 30mm cannons are becoming marginal... they don't have huge HE payloads, and the standard widely used rounds don't offer amazing penetration performance.... they are very good very useful weapons but HATO IFVs are getting better armoured and they are becoming less useful.

    These new 57mm weapons both likely with APFSDS rounds should comfortably defeat HATO IFVs that are not tank based to 2km or more... and Bulat missiles should defeat them at 3-4 times that distance too if they are moving. A Bulat hit to stop the target and then a burst of four or five APFSDS rounds into the stationary vehicle should be an effective way of taking out the enemy...

    In that case, should they re-arange the curent complex of 100mm and 30mm guns? I mean they can top the 2A72 30mm gun on the 2A70 100mm gun so both of them are installed right in the central of turret. When firing, the strong recoils will not make the turret spin and effect the ballistic accuracy. Of course, the turret will need to be taller to accommodate the guns arrangements like that.

    The original BMP-3 had the 100mm off centre which wasn't really a problem with the original ammo they used with a 4km range... it was very much a low pressure gun. The new 100mm rounds with more propellent that allows targets out to 7kms to be engaged were higher pressure and often cracked the turret ring because the recoil was offset to one side. They fixed that by moving the 100mm gun to the centreline and mounted the 30mm gun next to it... the recoil of the 30mm is nothing like the recoil of the 100mm gun. Neither would make the turret turn during firing but the asymmetric force, as I said cracked the turret ring because the offset gun mount meant the extra recoil was not balanced and did not impact the turret ring evenly.

    Eventually they might experiment with a 100mm APFSDS round... it would be an interesting anti armour round for a light 6 wheel Typhoon vehicle perhaps... the rounds themselves are very small and relatively compact and being one piece could be loaded into an ammo handler and achieve quite a good rate of fire... it has a useful HE capacity and a decent anti armour performance against more heavily armoured targets... it would be very much like the Israeli 60mm or 105mm rounds that would be good in third world countries against a third world enemy... with a wheeled platform it would have good mobility and low operating costs... cheap and simple to maintain... and rely on good optics to see first and shoot first to compensate its lack of armour.

    Of course you could also put it on an Armata chassis for use in places where the enemy does not have any armour... it could probably carry 150 rounds of ammo in the crewless turret and turret bustle... low recoil small compact rounds, and with a good HE round for most targets... increased barrel length and perhaps increased propellent models with smaller HE rounds for targets out to 10-12km or so... which is about as far as most 125mm guns can shoot HE (mainly because their elevation limits) but being a 100mm 2A70 gun it could have high elevation for targets in mountains or tall buildings etc...

    kopyo-21 likes this post

    avatar
    kopyo-21

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

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  kopyo-21 on Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:54 pm

    I think they can easily develop a laser guided Krasnopol 100mm round for 2A70 gun. In that case, the BMP-3 and BMD-4 can fairly face to and cope with all ground targets, both station and moving, including heavy tanks.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26261
    Points : 26807
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:43 am

    They already have guided missiles for the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3... it is related to the 100mm smoothbore MT-12 missile, the 100mm rifled gun of the T-54/55 missile and the missile for the 115mm smoothbore gun of the T-62.
    avatar
    kopyo-21

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

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  kopyo-21 on Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:01 am

    GarryB wrote:They already have guided missiles for the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3... it is related to the 100mm smoothbore MT-12 missile, the 100mm rifled gun of the T-54/55 missile and the missile for the 115mm smoothbore gun of the T-62.
    I know but the curent missile with laser beam riding guidance can not do top-attack so in some cases, it's ineffective to deal with targets behind fortress or heavy tanks.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26261
    Points : 26807
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:07 am

    The Sokol-1 missile had an optical port pointing forwards that could detect moving objects and also see laser spots... so when fired by a tank (125mm calibre) you would loft it in the direction of the target and as the missile approached you lased the target for a period of a second or so so that the seeker in the missile could locate the laser spot and recognise the video image around that spot to be the target... if it was moving that would still work of course.

    The missile would continue to fly towards the target aiming for a point above the target until it was rather close and then changed angle and dived down on the target at an angle from 30 to 60 degrees in a semi top attack mode.

    Russian military videos have also shown missiles that fly line of sight about 2m above the target tank and as they fly over the tank they explode with a HEAT warhead firing directly downwards at the top armour of the tank... considering these are laser target marked guided weapons (fired from tank guns) or laser beam riding missiles looking back and the launchers how hard would it be to set the missiles to fly 2m above the line of sight and with a large HEAT warhead pointing one way from the missile as it rolls and flys over the target the launcher pulses the laser either marking the target or the laser the missile is riding to tell the missile to detonate its warhead when it is pointing 90 degrees down for an easy top attack option...

    Missiles like Javelin and Hellfire that climb and then dive on targets for top attack are vulnerable to detection and interception... with a speed of only about 120m/s I would think teh Javelin missile could actually be shot down by the new Russian airburst 57mm AA cannon shells...

    Putting IIR seekers or some other form of detector on the missile so that it can detect targets on its own that are not line of sight makes them rather expensive and of course there would be no easy way for the missile to tell if that tank is friendly or not... or indeed even if it is a civilian on a tractor plowing his fields...

    In the Kosovo conflict HATO couldn't tell tractors from tanks ( presumably tracked tractors that is)...

    kopyo-21 likes this post

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3255
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Hole on Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:55 am

    Take the proven tube-launched ATGM and make a Grom-ification = skip the engine and put more explosives in. Change a few algorithms and it should be capable of being fired indirectly.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6404
    Points : 6396
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Isos on Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:19 am

    The engine of one boomrang took fire during the parade.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1275870342481874944
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4845
    Points : 4823
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:10 am

    The other boomerang just drives right on by lol.

    Yeah, engine failure. Oh well. Shit happens.


    Twitter comments show how people are stupid. So one engine failure while others drive is not good but these are same morons who praise Tesla which has engine fire issues far more often. Right
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26261
    Points : 26807
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:40 pm

    Usual idiots will pop up soon and demand heads to roll, and it is all quality control and why can't Russia make good stuff any more...

    It is good... there was obviously a problem and it will get the attention it needs to find out what went wrong... the amount of smoke suggests to me that the vehicle fire suppression system probably went off because with that much smoke an actual fire wouldn't last very long from lack of oxygen... It might have been an overheating engine which of course will smoke while it burns all the rubber and plastic fittings inside the engine compartment...

    I love that they think so little of the Russian military because when they are so offensive Russians will realise who the enemy is and not turn to the west like so many love to do...

    This doesn't happen in the west because the west don't have parades like this because they haven't done anything worth celebrating... but Trump promised a parade didn't he.... and it has failed to materialise like most of his campaign promises...
    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1886
    Points : 2037
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  TheArmenian on Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:50 pm

    No engine fire.
    Just oil on exhaust manifold.
    The vehicle is back in service.

    GarryB, dino00, Big_Gazza, mnrck and miketheterrible like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6404
    Points : 6396
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Isos on Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:01 pm

    This doesn't happen in the west because the west don't have parades like this because they haven't done anything worth celebrating... but Trump promised a parade didn't he.... and it has failed to materialise like most of his campaign promises.

    It happens in operation hahah

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4845
    Points : 4823
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:37 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:No engine fire.
    Just oil on exhaust manifold.
    The vehicle is back in service.

    Good to hear.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6202
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:35 pm

    Much ado about nothing: the smokeless Boomerang was quickly put back into operation
    The breakdown of the Boomerang armored personnel carrier, which was involved in the anniversary celebrations in Moscow, was promptly eliminated. Reported by Lenta.ru with reference to the Ministry of Defense.

    The cause of smoke in the engine compartment was oil getting into the exhaust manifold. Currently, the armored personnel carrier is located in a temporary equipment storage park.

    Military experts do not see anything extraordinary in the incident - such incidents occur in many countries of the world, both with armored vehicles undergoing tests and those that have been in service for many years.

    From the long-standing incidents, one can recall the incident that occurred in the 40s with the famous heavy Soviet tank IS-7, which during the march was completely destroyed by fire.

    In January this year, during an exercise in Poland, the American Stryker burned out. The armored personnel carrier was moving along the usual road when the crew heard some suspicious sounds. The automatic fire extinguishing system on board did not work properly, and the fire had to be eliminated by the local firefighter. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

    At the end of March, the M1A2 2nd Cavalry Division flashed in Fort Hood, Texas, in the United States. The soldiers on board managed to leave the emergency vehicle. The damage was so significant that, apparently, this Abrams will be written off.

    It was reported that such misfortunes with American main battle tanks happen regularly, although they have been in service for almost 40 years, and it would seem that all technical problems should have been fixed long ago.

    https://rg.ru/2020/06/26/mnogo-shuma-iz-nichego-zadymivshijsia-bumerang-bystro-vernuli-v-stroj.html

    Big_Gazza and miketheterrible like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26261
    Points : 26807
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:26 am

    Those with an agenda wont let facts get in the way of a good story... all Russian stuff is crap and this is proof... Rolling Eyes

    Big_Gazza, VARGR198 and LMFS like this post

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3255
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Hole on Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:08 pm

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 088310
    back-side

    kopyo-21, Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post

    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1400
    Points : 1441
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 33
    Location : portugal

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  dino00 on Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:51 pm

    Moscow. July 31st. INTERFAX - The export of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers on the Kurganets platform is not yet planned, an informed source told Interfax.

    "There are no such plans yet. The priority is the domestic market
    ," the source said.


    https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=535668&lang=RU
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26261
    Points : 26807
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:53 am

    Kurganets and Boomerang are much lighter cheaper vehicles so it should be much easier to get them into full mass production, but I suspect being lighter and cheaper to buy and operate will mean a much larger percentage of the future Russian Armoured force will be Boomerang, which should offset the higher costs of the Armata divisions to buy and to operate.

    Either way with their improved armour and excellent communications and weapons they will be a dramatic improvement over most existing types.

    Note I am not suggesting a Boomerang 8 wheeled vehicle with a 125mm gun will be superior to a T-90AM, but even in the Tank heavy Tank divisions, there are normally only about 30 tanks in three regiments, with the rest of the vehicles being BMP, BTR, MTLB, and GTSM vehicle based, and the Boomerang should be much better protected than all those vehicles as well as being fully amphibious as well.

    With similar mobility and armour a division of Boomerang based vehicles should be very mobile especially on sealed roads, but even through water obstacles like rivers and lakes they should be excellent... and there will be plenty of vehicles there to help any vehicles that get into trouble... a 30 ton vehicle is easier to recover than a 50 ton one.
    PhSt
    PhSt

    Posts : 237
    Points : 243
    Join date : 2019-04-02

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  PhSt on Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:35 am

    Any plans to arm the Boomerang with a 125mm anti tank gun to compete with the likes of Centauro?
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:56 pm

    PhSt wrote:Any plans to arm the Boomerang with a 125mm anti tank gun to compete with the likes of Centauro?

    This seems to be a possibility indeed:

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5015409
    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5006515


    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26261
    Points : 26807
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:57 pm

    The plan should be eventually that every vehicle in a Boomerang division will be Boomerang based which means every possible vehicle type in a division having a Boomerang based model.

    The turrets should be standardised, so the 125mm gun turret should look a lot like the turret seen on the T-14.

    There will also be a Kurganets vehicle with the T-14s turret too.

    Strangely the Kurganets designation is a B, and Boomerang is a K, so the tanks across the vehicle families might be T-14, K-20, and B-21 or something... being Armata, Boomerang, and Kurganets tank models.

    The BMP turrets will be either with a 57mm high velocity gun or 57mm grenade launcher and both with missiles, while the BTR version might have the 30mm cannon or possibly the Kord Machine gun mini turret.

    There are about 26 or 27 vehicle types in a current division, though sometimes vehicles perform several different jobs... for instance you have T series tanks, plus BMPs and BTRs and BRDMs, but you also have various BTR based engineer and recovery vehicles and BMP based anti tank missile vehicles, T series tank based artillery vehicles (MSTA), and TOS engineer vehicles etc etc.

    The idea of the new vehicle families is that a division will consist of 26-27 different versions of one vehicle so the logistics chain for that division only needs parts for one type of engine... one type of track and wheel if applicable or tire, etc etc. Making the logistics tail smaller and lighter and more mobile.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

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

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  marcellogo on Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:07 pm

    PhSt wrote:Any plans to arm the Boomerang with a 125mm anti tank gun to compete with the likes of Centauro?

    It's a possibility but it not just about putting a standardized fit to all turret on a slightly modified modular hull, a wheeled tank destroyer need a lot of ad hoc solutions to be really effective.

    Wheeled hulls are narrower and taller than tracked ones of the same weight class, so there is the real possibility, in case of firing with the turret turned at about 90 degrees from hull, of a flip over.
    Firing on the move is also problematic, given that the wheels, differently from tracks, give not a sufficient contact space with the ground.

    Centauro resolved the issues adopting an H shaped transmission drive so to lower the overall height of the complex, at the cost of a way greater complexity.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  LMFS on Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:54 am

    GarryB wrote:The turrets should be standardised, so the 125mm gun turret should look a lot like the turret seen on the T-14.

    In those articles I linked they said they developed special recoil dampers for the Spruts and that allowed wheeled vehicles to carry such a weapon. It should be in fact a very similar turret to that, rather than T-14...

    The T-14 and an eventual Bumerang with a bigger cannon I think serve quite different purposes. Those wheeled vehicles are ideal for expeditionary forces, they have enormous advantages for road transport or airlifting but cannot tactically compete with tracked vehicles in high intensity war.

    There will also be a Kurganets vehicle with the T-14s turret too.

    Why?

    It's a possibility but it not just about putting a standardized fit to all turret on a slightly modified modular hull, a wheeled tank destroyer need a lot of ad hoc solutions to be really effective.

    Wheeled hulls are narrower and taller than tracked ones of the same weight class, so there is the real possibility, in case of firing with the turret turned at about 90 degrees from hull, of a flip over.
    Firing on the move is also problematic, given that the wheels, differently from tracks, give not a sufficient contact space with the ground.

    Centauro resolved the issues adopting an H shaped transmission drive so to lower the overall height of the complex, at the cost of a way greater complexity.

    See the links, they seem to be fully aware of the issues. They evaluated the Centauro thoroughly after all...
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 854
    Points : 902
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:26 am

    Regarding the use of Armata turrets on the Kurganets chassis, this would make little sense as you would essentially need to manufacture mosto of the Armatas advanced systems which would drive up the cost and because you are basing it on a Kurganets chassis it would essentially be an Armata with inadequate survivability.

    since the Armata turret equipped Kurgantes would not be much cheaper than the Armata it would be better to just make more Armatas.

    Ofcourse it would be possible to make a simplified version of the Armatas turret.

    Sponsored content

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:27 am