T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
Armored Warfare Game T-99 Tank Destroyer
Tank Destroyer T-99 (ingame)
Tank Destroyer T-99 (ingame)
Tank Destroyer T-99 (ingame)
Tank Destroyer T-99 (ingame)
Tank Destroyer T-99 (ingame)
Tank Destroyer T-99 (ingame)
Tank Destroyer T-99 (ingame)
 

paralay

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
346
Reaction score
588
Website
www.paralay.ru
For the meeting of "foreign guests", the 152 mm cannon is currently redundant, and here is a "strange" 180 mm caliber!
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
1,167
Reaction score
1,219
That "T-99" was so wrong... like why does it use Ob-490 turret and why on top of the T-49 chassis while we know the Lider have it's own dedicated one.
 

Marcellogo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
27
Let me get back to the old news about the possible/probable cancellation of Kurganets.

Of the three main families of the new generation of russian armoured vehicles the Kurganets is the weaker one: with its 25 tons is not so different from the actual versions of BMP-3 actually in full production, while the Boomerang wheeled armoured vehicle (seriously, let's find an suitable english equivalent of romance languages (auto)blindo/blindee word, for God's sake) is at 33 tons.
Actually, the ARMATA(both T-14 and T-15) are being tested together with B-19 i.e. a BMP-3 with an Epoch turret so I will not be surprised at all if they will found that the advantages of the new model is not worth the cost of replacing not just the basic IFV but all the support and specialized vehicles already built using the old chassis (that is still in production).
The whole idea behind the new families were to simplify the logistical burden of the actual system by reducing the number of vehicles used in a tactical unit but it could be reached even better by using an already existing one IF their own performances are not too distant from actual requisites, something that BMP-3 line IMHO fit perfectly into.
 
Last edited:

Rubick

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
11
Reaction score
17
Let me get back to the old news about the possible/probable cancellation of Kurganets.

Of the three main families of the new generation of russian armoured vehicles the Kurganets is the weaker one: with its 25 tons is not so different from the actual versions of BMP-3 actually in full production, while the Boomerang wheeled armoured vehicle (seriously, let's find an suitable english equivalent of romance languages (auto)blindo/blindee word, for God's sake) is at 33 tons.
Actually, the ARMATA(both T-14 and T-15) are being tested together with B-19 i.e. a BMP-3 with an Epoch turret so I will not be surprised at all if they will found that the advantages of the new model is not worth the cost of replacing not just the basic IFV but all the support and specialized vehicles already built using the old chassis (that is still in production).
The whole idea behind the new families were to simplify the logistical burden of the actual system by reducing the number of vehicles used in a tactical unit but it could be reached even better by using an already existing one IF their own performances are not too distant from actual requisites, something that BMP-3 line IMHO fit perfectly into.
Better protection and especially against mines and more room inside for the troops makes this very much worth the cost. Additional kurgy weight can go all the way up to 35 tons.
I also expect kurgy to have better buoyancy reserve on water.
 
Last edited:

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
325
Reaction score
520
Does anyone else get the impression that Armata-Kurganets-Bumerang is the US Army's 1980s era "Armored Family of Vehicles Program", with heavy, medium, and light chassis vehicles, put into effect?
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,123
Reaction score
304
What are the main benefits of Kurganets (compared to a T-15 in its minimum armour configuration)? I have a vague impression that Kurganets was more of an APC used in less intense combat roles with the T-15 intended to accompany that tanks as an IFV. But I've always felt like I was missing something.
 

TR1

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
213
Reaction score
687
What are the main benefits of Kurganets (compared to a T-15 in its minimum armour configuration)? I have a vague impression that Kurganets was more of an APC used in less intense combat roles with the T-15 intended to accompany that tanks as an IFV. But I've always felt like I was missing something.

There is an APC and IFV Kurganets, though it remains to be seen which will be bought, and in what numbers.

T-15 is just much heavier and larger (and presumably expensive) so its super unrealistic to replace the massive IFV park with them, plus their deployment mobility is worse.
 

Marcellogo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
27
What are the main benefits of Kurganets (compared to a T-15 in its minimum armour configuration)? I have a vague impression that Kurganets was more of an APC used in less intense combat roles with the T-15 intended to accompany that tanks as an IFV. But I've always felt like I was missing something.
Kurganets is not a vehicle: it's a whole family. T-15 a.t.c. is a vehicle of the Armata family.
The idea was to get rid of the plethora of different vehicles present in a russian great unit (up to 22 in a motor rifle division) to just a single main one + a secondary one for brigade.
And here lies the first problem.
The same term brigade hints clearly that those new families and the operative concept underneath them were conceived as a part of Serdiukov's reform plans that were mainly cancelled by his successor and actual MoD Shoigu.
With the re-introduction of the divisional level of command one of the fundament of the reform immediately went awry: a brigate level unit equipped with a single or a pair of different vehicles would be reasonable, a whole division would be instead just absurd.
Another big problem is instead the fact that the time to develop all the whole array of specialized vehicles already realized on the basis of the main legacy ones would be enormous in any case.
So, a.t.m. the Russian ground forces are at a crossing point: it is better to keep on with the introduction of the new families, all of them in a massive way or it is instead better to further modernize the legacy platform when convenient?
Quite pragmatically, they have decided to explore all possible paths in the same moment instead to choose just one A priori without even testing the alternatives routes: so given the enormous size of their own army they will acquire the new family and equip some units with them. in the same time they would modernize the old models when convenient and equip other units with them.
So they would both have on a side ( I guess near Ukraine) units with the most modern and combat capable fighting vehicles in the world, on the other a great numbers of still efficient and effective fighting units all around in the shortest time possible.
Given that the new families of vehicles would adopt a series of common , modular turrets they are actually installing them also on legacy ones (BMP-2 and BMP-3 above all) and the thing seem to works.
Some commonality was tried, with success, also combining components of different legacy families.
They have re-introducted into services some modernized BMP-1 with engine and transmission of the last series of BMP-2 and the turret of BTR-82A: the units that have tested it ended up preferring them to both of the other.
 

Similar threads

Top