Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Kurganets-25 mock-up with new turret based on BMP-3's turret.

 

 

Hatches on top of this turret suggest that it is/was planned to carry shots for 100 mm gun-launcher, ammunition for 30mm autocannon, and maybe MG too.

 

Seems very Western-looking. And here I am talking about how IFVs are dumb...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Older picture of T-14, from official presentation of programm.

armataa-640x267.jpg

Turret looks very similar to Object 195's turret, active protection system located in the same place (near turret ring), gun mounted in same way, as it was in Object 195, and general looks of turret is close to Object 195's turret minus 30 mm co-axial autocannon. 

 

Possible layout of the T-14 frontal armor:

7gBer.jpg

Blue is crew protected "capsule", while red is additional armor that creates spaced armor effect. T-15 Heavy IFV use that layout, BTW.

 

Koalitsiya-SV, SU-100, T-34-85s, Kurganets IFV, Rakushka APC for VDV, Typhoon-Y MRAPs, etc.

2wcDW.jpg

 

 

wrUiZLrJWQM.jpgKurganets frontal part managed to get into that photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-t-14-is-a-new-russian-tank-plus-a-whole-lot-more-9df3a817c975

 

This article have several mistakes.

 

1)The T-14 use diesel engine, X-shaped, 12-cylinder engine.

2) There is no confirmation that T-14 have 30 mm autocannon, or 12.7 HMG. The Object 195 had 30 mm 2A42 Shipunov's work horse.

3) Export is not very likely to be priority for 5-6 years after this year. Those years would be used to "cure" T-14 from problems, connected to creation of new design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And i thought that leaks are over...

 

 

At second minute of this video Kurganets can be seen moving, at minute 7 - Koalitsiya SPG, and in the end (13:16) you will see a new Boomerang APC!

 

8tXfIe0.jpgKurganets-25 (note a different turret, i don't think it is an IFV) have similar size to the BMP-3. So Kurganets ~= BMP-3 (at least in height). Also those "holes" in frontal part of side armor are just steps for crew to get to their hatches.

 

8a560634712d.png

Different turret? I don't see a 30 mm autocannon. Compare it to that Kurganets:

 

0e2bda00746c.png

Turret is bigger, and there are those active protection system parts (allegedly), mounted on hull roof neat turret (under canvas), which i don't see on previous picture.

 

Answer in simple - there are 2 vehicles on B-11 Kurganets-25 chassis. First is tracked APC, Object 693. Here it is:

1990759_original.jpg

 

And here is IFV based on B-11 Kurganets-25 chassis, Object 695:

1990648_original.jpg

Turret is give away.

 

 

And some new toy:

0bf84ab10957.png

This is not BTR-70/80/90, judging by wheels, hull shape, turret placement and turret size. And no side doors.

 

1989549_original.jpg

Those new wheeled APCs are VPK-7829 "Boomerang" vehicles. Apparently, "spotters" were so bussy with T-14, that they managed to not notice those things until this day. Drivers locations suggest that there is engine compartment right next to them, very similar to BMP-1/2.

 

 

1990273_original.jpg

Rear doors, and note where this guys are siting - if it was old BTR-80, it would be engine compartment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hu1nf.pngSomebody made this, vehicles are roughly at same distance from cameraman.

 

EK21P.jpg

Kurganets-25 hull have very similar height to SU-100, lol.

 

rKjB0.png

 

Those are either cameras for crew, or active protection system parts (launcher and radars), or both.

 

Size comparison between BTR-82A and Boomerang APCs.

52008_original.jpg

52417_original.jpg

 

Of course, it is rough comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

%25D0%2591%25D0%25A0%25D0%259C+%25D0%259Possible looks of the Kurganets-25 APC (Object 693), although this picture shows B-11 Kurganets-25 - based reconnaissance vehicle. 

 

original.jpg 

This is possible unmanned turret of the Object 693 (B-11 Kurganets-25 chassis based APC) and Boomerang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38ce61500a06.jpg

T-14 and Leo 2A6.

 

 

Also, rollers are much more visible at new video, and they are indeed from T-80. You can compare:

T-80_in_SPb.jpg

T-80BV in St. Petersburg.

 

d50c038e67b9.png

 

Even number of bolts is the same - 10 per each roller.

 

      So they are 670 mm rollers, which means that my own previous estimation is wrong, and estimation from BMPD LJ comments by one reader is correct (~8.5-8.6 meters long hull with APU, tracks contact surface is ~5.2 meters long, turret is possibly ~4.5 meters long (without gun, with unknown "box" behind that look like T-90MS-like turret basked). 

 

tZsFH.jpg

142718393665251891.jpg

    For some reason turret of the T-14 from new video looks wider than from "old". I still don't know what is this giant thing on top of this turret, can be combination of RCWS and commander panoramic sight, or it can be a device similar to Object 195's sight system. There are rumors that a "box"/turret rear is T-90MS-like ammunition box. I really hope that it is not true, or it was seriously improved.

 

   Object 195's unknown divece on top of the unmanned turret:

pne1XKS.jpg

     Note size of this thing.

 

     T-90MS turret ammunition compartment:

T-90MS_eng-14.jpg

 

 

 

 

        Yeah, it is just a stupid box with ammunition for a main gun. Reasons why it is there, where crew can't get it from inside of tank? Vodka, of course!

 

T-90MS_04_large.jpg

 

     And here is RCWS with commander panoramic sight. This thing could be mounted on top of the T-14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can see the suspension even better now, and I'm still sure we're looking at some kind of rotary damper on the end wheels of a torsion bar system

2 pages ago i posted a post from otvaga, that says that those are rotary shock absorbers (sort of), they are used to control suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anybody is interested, heavy IFV T-15 would be Russian "version" of that vehicle:

 

675765.1428364033.jpg

 

5675.1428364035.jpg

 

565.1428364035.jpg

 

Namer heavy IFV/APC with Samson RCWS (unmanned turret with 30 mm cannon, 2 ATGMs and external ammunition). Sounds very much like T-15's specs, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting double-layered sideskirt design.  Reminiscent of the old British conqueror heavy tank.  The inner layer looks like it's rubber, but perhaps with some sort of metal sandwiched inside like on the leo 1's sideskirts.

 

Why are there what look like sideways-folding hinges on some of the outer sideskirts?  Surely they haven't brought back the weird folding side armor from the early T-72!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting double-layered sideskirt design.  Reminiscent of the old British conqueror heavy tank.  The inner layer looks like it's rubber, but perhaps with some sort of metal sandwiched inside like on the leo 1's sideskirts.

 

Why are there what look like sideways-folding hinges on some of the outer sideskirts?  Surely they haven't brought back the weird folding side armor from the early T-72!

 

I think it's just rubber to keep the dust down - looking at how it's bending I'd be surprised if there was steel in there. Like on the SPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current side skirts are placeholders IMO. T-90MS side skirts were much more substantial. If you look at side parts of T-14 you will see big amount of shit metal used to improve "looks" of a tank, rather than protection (side skirts don't reach upper part of hull), 

 

IMG_0039.jpg

 

Skirt covers a whole side of the hull height, only less protected at engine compartment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of reasons why unmanned turret have advantages over classical tank designs:

 

31_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%

      In short: those graphics shows increased number of turret hits from 1967 to 1990s. 74% of total hits were turret hits. This pic also shows distribution of those hits by height. "Latest" graphic shows that area of a tank higher between 1.5-1.8 meter and ~2.3-2.5 meter is most likely to be hit, while parts located lower than 1.5-1.8 meters are unlikely to be damaged by enemy fire.

 

danger.jpg

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...