Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

Has this problem shown up on more vehicles by the way? Is it just this vehicle, or can it be some sort of batch problem?

Thermal imager picture shows different Boomerang from different batch than Boomerang from second photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/russia-delays-kurganets-25-production/

 

Think the delay til 2021 was bad? It's getting worse. 

They're saying they need to fix more issues and that the BMP-3 is still a new platform. Not only that but the Russian MoD seems to be stuck in the past by saying the Kurganets-25 are too big.

 

If you can't read it because it requires subscription, just create an email here:

https://emailfake.com/7.fackme.gq/mer.mos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armata firing during demonstration to Rogozin

 

 

Also

Quote

   The army pre-serial production service (field tests) of the Armata tank will be conducted in 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said at a meeting at the UVZ, TASS reported.

affi5414_kopiya-jpg.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mike E said:

Hard to tell how stable T-14 looks while firing thanks to that awful panning. An improvement over the original results, though. 

I think that's pretty enough. It's fairly unstable compared to some 60-ton hulks in the west. Not really surprising given the fact it has so far the highest pressure tank gun in service anywhere, and perhaps the lightest weight 3rd gen MBT in service as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I think that's pretty enough. It's fairly unstable compared to some 60-ton hulks in the west. Not really surprising given the fact it has so far the highest pressure tank gun in service anywhere, and perhaps the lightest weight 3rd gen MBT in service as well. 

Don't forget that gun itself is mounted much higher relatively to the ground compared to older "T" tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurkhan says that Russia failed in development of the Kurganets-25. The factory is bankrupt.

 

Gurkhan's note: the old men and women at KMZ think that something will get better under RosTech's management! Hilarious! Twice as hilarious if you know that KMZ fucked up thanks to the efforts of people close to RosTech. As for the Kurganets, I critiqued it from the beginning for its limitless size and weak armament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I don't trust Google Translate enough to have a strong opinion, but this doesn't look too promising:  http://gurkhan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/blog-post_10.html

 

Hoping the regulars can clarify (and that this is actually the right place to have posted it)?

it is bullshit from what I found. Otvaga forum owner contacted one of Kurganmash friend, Kurganets is in development without big problems. From what I got this claim is internal money-related rivalry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Which companies are in rivalry?

IDK. Kurgamash is now under Rostec, maybe this is related somehow. Factory continue to work as usual, they almost completed BMP-3 order, preparing for production of updated version of it, BMD-4Ms and BTR-MDM full production started or will start soon, it also produce parts as usual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

As for the Kurganets, I critiqued it from the beginning for its limitless size and weak armament.

Armement probleme can be solved by turret change. 

 

Why do you consider Kurganets as limited size ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Serge said:

Armement probleme can be solved by turret change. 

 

Why do you consider Kurganets as limited size ?

"limitless" I guess means "too big". This was Gurkhan's comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zyklon said:

IIRC they wanted to integrate a 57mm autocanon as main armament in the future, though i am not so sure if that is actually true.

57 mm was/is considered for T-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By LoooSeR
      I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
           
           Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
       
      PART 1
       
       
      Object 292
       
         We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
       
       
       
          First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
       
          Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
       
          Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
          Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
          This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
       
          Some nerd made a model of it:
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
       
       
      ........Continue in Part 2
    • By seppo
      Hello,
      this is my first post. Please no bully. :3
       
      Panzerkampfwagen 2000
      In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 


      Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.
       
      Neue Gepanzerte Plattform
      In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998. Wegmann desgin: Turret + autoloader:
      http://www.patent-de.com/pdf/DE19644524A1.pdf
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS


      EGS:
      Hull length = 8,67m
      Full width = 3,98m
      Width between the tracks = 3,5m
      Height = 2,71m
      The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.
      Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?
       
      Thanks for your attention!
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
×
×
  • Create New...