Jump to content

Boomerang and T15


Stuart Galbraith

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think The prospects for Bumerang are good. They need something to fill out the Brigades, and BTR82 really is long in the tooth. I did read somewhere Kurganets 25 has been delayed, it seemed to be a fiscal decision than one based on it not being any good.

 

The Kurganets is absolutely fine. It was deemed not good by the BMP-3 lobbyists, even though it's made by the same manufacturer. So I assume not industry lobbyists but army lobbyists, who can't see beyond the norms of the 1980's.

I don't know if there are specific technical issues, but the Kurganets is a perfectly fine AFV that finally achieves what the BMP-3 never could - an actual modern design that gives a shit about the dismounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BMP-3 dismounts have pretty decent place, space per dismount was increased significantly compared to BMP-1/2, problem is... dismounting. :)

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bojan said:

BMP-3 dismounts have pretty decent place, space per dismount was increased significantly compared to BMP-1/2, problem is... dismounting. :)

The full size rear hatch on the Boomerang should make things better there as well.  Obviously the side doors introduced with the BTR-80 was a vast improvement to the roof hatches on the BTR-60, are the side doors easy to exit from in a hurry with full combat kit?

Yes the BMP-3 hull being based on the design of a cancelled light amphibious tank seems to have had that main drawback.  Shame about the cancellation of the amphibious tank though, that might have been something particularly interesting and perhaps even comparable to what the PLA field these days with their plethora of amphibious IFV/SPG/light tank too.  But I digress...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a very alarming article written by Steve Zaloga talking about the BMP-3's problems,but it seems to work fine. Yes,the armour is a little thin, but you can say that about most western IFV's. The firepower is excellent.

Ive beenreading reports that the BRM3K might be getting a 57mm turret as well. It would be interestingto see if that will incorporate the radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There was a very alarming article written by Steve Zaloga talking about the BMP-3's problems,but it seems to work fine. Yes,the armour is a little thin, but you can say that about most western IFV's. The firepower is excellent.

If the biggest problem it has is the dismounting method, that's not saying much. There are even some rather less obvious upsides to the layout, such as the fact that you can put two stretchers on the walkways over the engine deck, while still carrying a full load of seated dismounts. I think it might be the only IFV capable of doing this.

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/607252542866456603/714608818805407835/Cwv4PbTWgAAAXdn.jpg

Protection is basic but the armour is not particularly thin. Like any other IFV, it can be increased with add-on armour kits.

 

Quote

Ive beenreading reports that the BRM3K might be getting a 57mm turret as well. It would be interestingto see if that will incorporate the radar.

I can't say there isn't any such project, but you may be confusing something with the fact that the 2S38 is based on a BRM-3K hull.

Edited by Interlinked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it was definately said BRM3K, although TBH, ive really no idea how many of those they have. They dont seem to be advertised much.

The BMP3 debussing looks odd to us, because we tend to have vehicles with 3 squads or sections and a platoon HQ vehicle. As you know, the Soviets and the Russians prefer to crossload the Platoon HQ between the 3 vehicles. Which probably explains why T15 can carry up to 9 people, and may partially explain the somewhat unusual layout in BMP3.

a137e0_7c9cceadbaef41d5b9757b9607e12144~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Interlinked said:

If the biggest problem it has is the dismounting method, that's not saying much. There are even some rather less obvious upsides to the layout, such as the fact that you can put two stretchers on the walkways over the engine deck, while still carrying a full load of seated dismounts. I think it might be the only IFV capable of doing this.

You can put two stretchers there, if you don't mind breaking someone's back. A safer method would be to keep the doors open, fasten all the personal gear barring the firearms to those walkways, and have the stretchers fit in the middle.

Still, the BMP-3 seems to have quite a convoluted concept of operation, with less than ideal layout.

First, its dismounting method is okay-ish for scenarios where you dismount in un-contested territory, but in urban territory for example it's just horrible. An opportunistic machine gunner or marksman could easily pick off a few if not all dismounts when they're leaving the vehicle. They're entirely exposed for the entire dismounting period, which for example limited the way infantry had to dismount from Achzarit APCs in previous conflicts, even though they're less exposed.

Second, the BMP-3 loses half its scanning eyes when the squad commander dismounts and is replaced by the gunner. It only leaves 2 crewmembers to deal with a lot of tasks, a burden considered reasonable for 3 men. 

Kurganmashzavod have ratified this by introducing a BMP-3M version with a front mounted engine, but it's unknown how much such work would cost per vehicle and whether it would be worth delaying the Kurganets 25 further because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

You can put two stretchers there, if you don't mind breaking someone's back. A safer method would be to keep the doors open, fasten all the personal gear barring the firearms to those walkways, and have the stretchers fit in the middle.

Why would any backs be broken?

17 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Still, the BMP-3 seems to have quite a convoluted concept of operation, with less than ideal layout.

First, its dismounting method is okay-ish for scenarios where you dismount in un-contested territory, but in urban territory for example it's just horrible. An opportunistic machine gunner or marksman could easily pick off a few if not all dismounts when they're leaving the vehicle. They're entirely exposed for the entire dismounting period, which for example limited the way infantry had to dismount from Achzarit APCs in previous conflicts, even though they're less exposed.

Exposed? The opened top panels cover the dismounts from the sides, and the turret covers them from the front. If you are worried about getting shot from above and behind, you aren't going to do better in any other vehicle and it's probably not the best situation for you to be dismounting.

17 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Second, the BMP-3 loses half its scanning eyes when the squad commander dismounts and is replaced by the gunner. It only leaves 2 crewmembers to deal with a lot of tasks, a burden considered reasonable for 3 men. 

That's true, but that's not an issue with the vehicle, just how they prefer to use them. 

17 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Kurganmashzavod have ratified this by introducing a BMP-3M version with a front mounted engine, but it's unknown how much such work would cost per vehicle and whether it would be worth delaying the Kurganets 25 further because of this.

That's pretty much nothing more than a demonstrator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Interlinked said:

Why would any backs be broken?

Jumping with every vibration of the vehicle, and the engine bay is not actually long enough to cover your entire body, so you might be half hanging.

1 hour ago, Interlinked said:

Exposed? The opened top panels cover the dismounts from the sides, and the turret covers them from the front. If you are worried about getting shot from above and behind, you aren't going to do better in any other vehicle and it's probably not the best situation for you to be dismounting.

They provide very minimal protection. The dismounts are still very much exposed from many angles. Of course, if the vehicle is under fire the dismounts could just choose to sort of crawl out of the vehicle to avoid exposure, but then that takes longer to dismount that way, and more disorienting.

1 hour ago, Interlinked said:

That's true, but that's not an issue with the vehicle, just how they prefer to use them. 

How they wish to use it eventually translates to how they design it, and that was a flawed way to use it.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

How they wish to use it eventually translates to how they design it

Yes, but whatever vehicle commander dismounts or not is not a primary requirement in design.

 

Locally, vehicle crew (commander, gunner/ATGM operator and driver) stay with vehicle. In addition there are 7 dismounts. Plt Cmd and 2inC are however handled different depending on the timeframe.

In '80s org and also current one Platoon commander rides in 1st IFV instead of one of the riflemen (so 1st rifle section has 6 men instead of 7) and 1st IFV commander is also Plt 2inC and stays mounted. He is responsible for commanding all Plt vehicles when dismounts are not inside.

In the org used during '90s both Plt Cmd and Plt 2inC dismounted. Plt Cmd rode in 1st IFV, 2inC in 2nd (3-vehicle plt) or 3rd (4-vehicle plt). As a consequence 2 out of 3 or 4 (depending if plt had 3 or 4 vehicles) rifle sections were 6 men strong.

While a M-80A is not exactly BMP there is no reason you could not operate BMP-1/2/3 same way with crew staying mounted.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Yes, but whatever vehicle commander dismounts or not is not a primary requirement in design.

 

Locally, vehicle crew (commander, gunner/ATGM operator and driver) stay with vehicle. In addition there are 7 dismounts. Plt Cmd and 2inC are however handled different depending on the timeframe.

In '80s org and also current one Platoon commander rides in 1st IFV instead of one of the riflemen (so 1st rifle section has 6 men instead of 7) and 1st IFV commander is also Plt 2inC and stays mounted. He is responsible for commanding all Plt vehicles when dismounts are not inside.

In the org used during '90s both Plt Cmd and Plt 2inC dismounted. Plt Cmd rode in 1st IFV, 2inC in 2nd (3-vehicle plt) or 3rd (4-vehicle plt). As a consequence 2 out of 3 or 4 (depending if plt had 3 or 4 vehicles) rifle sections were 6 men strong.

While a M-80A is not exactly BMP there is no reason you could not operate BMP-1/2/3 same way with crew staying mounted.

From what I can tell, they would have had a man with an extra MG, a support gunner, and a guy with a Dragunov, is that right? They seem to have 7 man sections now,and have lost the SVD, so I'm guessing the command section can only have about 3 or 4 men at most.

There is some interesting stuff about the Motor Rifle Battalion here, though he was clearly off base about BMP2M I found the but about the surveillance radar at company level interesting. 

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/121355-modern-russian-infantry-battalion-structure/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about Yugoslav/Serbian org. It looks superficially the same as Soviet (3-IFV plt, 7 dismounts etc) but is quite different in lot other ways.

Here is the 1980s and 1990s org.

 

 

Soviets in the 1980s had two different orgs for BMP equipped motor-rifle companies, one was for companies from brigade, other was from regiments. I have plt org for those somewhere, + org from Afghanistan.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Examples from Afghanistan of the actual plt orgs on the ground. In both cases 3rd section is used as a Plt base of fire, while 1st and 2nd are used as maneuver elements. In both cases due the personal shortages squads are understrength and 1st rifle section leader is also Plt 2inC. In 1st one there is no dedicated medic. In 2nd one PKM was assigned to 3rd rifle section instead RPK-74. Note increased amount of SVDs vs standard org (next post). Additional GP-25 are also used in 1st and 2nd rifle sections. In both cases sections ditched some of the heavier weapons (in first case RPK-74, in second case RPG-7) in 1st and 2nd rifle section in order to make them more mobile.

1st - 26 men - 1 x PKM, 3 x RPG-7, 1 x RPK-74, 3 x SVD, 5 x GP-25, 12 x AK-74, 9 x AKS-74U

Command group - 2 men - 1 x AK-74, 1 x PKM

1st and 2nd Motor-rifle sections - 8 men - 1 x BMP-2, 1 x SVD, 2 x GP-25, 3 x AKS-74U, 1 x RPG-7, 4 x AK-74

3rd Motor-rifle section - 8 men - 1 x BMP-2, 1 x SVD, 1 x GP-25, 3 x AKS-74U, 1 x RPG-7, 3 x AK-74, 1 x RPK-74

 

2nd - 26 men - 1 x PKM, 1 x RPG-7, 4 x RPG-18, 2 x RPK-74, 3 x SVD, 5 x GP-74, 13 x AK-74, 7 x AKS-74U

Command group - 2 men - 2 x AK-74

1st and 2nd Motor-rifle sections - 8 men - 1 x BMP-2, 1 x SVD, 2 x GP-25, 2 x AKS-74U, 4 x AK-74, 1 x RPK-74, 2 x RPG-18

3rd Motor-rifle section - 8 men - 1 x BMP-2, 1 x SVD, 1 x GP-25, 3 x AKS-74U, 1 x RPG-7, 3 x AK-74, 1 x PKM

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And regiment vs brigade org BMP motor-rifle bn and co + BTR motor-rifle bn and co from:

http://samlib.ru/l/loginow_a_a/armyrfdef.shtml

Table:

http://samlib.ru/img/l/loginow_a_a/armyrfdef/d16ab61789df.jpg

 

BMP motor-rifle Bn from brigade/ BMP motor rifle Bn from regiment / BTR motor rifle Bn

Personal - 571/461/539

BMP/BTR - 46/37/42

BRM-1K - 1/0/0

BMP-1KSh - 1/1/0

BMP-1K/BTR-K - 1/1/1

82mm mortar - 6/6/6

82mm Vasylek - 3/3/3

Fagot (AT-4) ATGM - 6/0/6

Metis (AT-7) ATGM - 0/0/9

SPG-9M RCL - 0/0/3

RPG-7 - 32/34/34

AGS-17 - 18/6/6

PK/PKM - 0/9/9

RPK - 64/27/27

SVD - 9/9/36

 

BMP motor-rifle Co from brigade/ BMP motor rifle Co from regiment / BTR motor rifle Co

Personal - 133/101/113

BMP/BTR - 14/11/11

Metis (AT-7) ATGM - 0/0/3

RPG-7 - 9/9/9

AGS-17 - 6/0/0

PK/PKM - 0/3/3

RPK - 21/9/9

SVD - 3/3/12

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2021 at 12:11 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The Kurganets is absolutely fine. It was deemed not good by the BMP-3 lobbyists, even though it's made by the same manufacturer. So I assume not industry lobbyists but army lobbyists, who can't see beyond the norms of the 1980's.

I don't know if there are specific technical issues, but the Kurganets is a perfectly fine AFV that finally achieves what the BMP-3 never could - an actual modern design that gives a shit about the dismounts.

What makes you so sure it was "BMP-3 lobbyists" and not the serious rumors that the powerplant situation is still being figured out? For that matter, why did the Army stop buying the BMP-3 a decade ago, just to pickup ~5 years later....probably because the Kurganets was obviously not going to be ready for mass introduction for years to come.

 

IMO the purchase and production of all the new gen vehicle has been pushed back since 2014 by desire to use domestic elements instead of imports, as well.

Edited by TR1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Jumping with every vibration of the vehicle, and the engine bay is not actually long enough to cover your entire body, so you might be half hanging.

These seem like extremely trivial issues. From the way the Venezuelans practice it, the stretchers go in feet-first, and presumably they strap the stretchers to the ceiling.

19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

They provide very minimal protection. The dismounts are still very much exposed from many angles.

When you get out the back of any IFV, you become exposed from every angle except the front...

19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Of course, if the vehicle is under fire the dismounts could just choose to sort of crawl out of the vehicle to avoid exposure, but then that takes longer to dismount that way, and more disorienting.

And in such a dire situation, what could be done on any other vehicle, barring a BTR with side doors? Jump out into machine gun fire and run around the side to take cover?

19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

How they wish to use it eventually translates to how they design it, and that was a flawed way to use it.

Obviously the connection is not nearly that strong, or the design of all BTRs would still have a one-man turret like the BMP-1. Commander has been in the turret since the BMP-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Interlinked said:

These seem like extremely trivial issues. From the way the Venezuelans practice it, the stretchers go in feet-first, and presumably they strap the stretchers to the ceiling.

I'm all for on the field innovations. But it speaks more about its users than the machine.

A 9 man IFV can accommodate a Russian squad plus either stretchers or more special equipment. And now we're in an endless loop.

The BMP-3 has parasitic length at the rear, that can be used to transport extra stuff, but not to accommodate more infantrymen. So you basically block options here with this design, not vice versa.

25 minutes ago, Interlinked said:

When you get out the back of any IFV, you become exposed from every angle except the front...

And depending on the design, a wide arc over the front. Modern vehicles store modules or equipment in boxes attached to the sides of the ramp, to give dismounts physical shelter. 

Indeed dismounts are universally vulnerable, but there are ways to mitigate this vulnerability, and that is why the rear floor level ramp with modules beside it is considered the best form. And that is why the heavily modernized BMP-3M was presented as such, and why the Kurganets 25 is designed that way as well.

As I've said before, the IDF still uses the Achzarit in the same capacity it did 20 years ago, and they have expressed real concern about the dismounting method.

For example, in Protective Edge (2014), field commanders who operated with those vehicles, had to change procedures to ensure safe dismount, in a way that eventually hindered their combat capability. They could not dismount as fast.

The concerns over safety were significant enough to have an impact on their efficiency.

On the other hand, nearby units operated with Namer vehicles, that could use a somewhat unique procedure - ram a wall to create a hole in it, turn around and reverse into it, and have the soldiers dismount in safety into a building. This is allowed because there is no height difference between the front and rear in the way the Achzarit has or BMP-3 has.

38 minutes ago, Interlinked said:

And in such a dire situation, what could be done on any other vehicle, barring a BTR with side doors? Jump out into machine gun fire and run around the side to take cover?

Better to be exposed only from the sides than to be exposed from the front as well. APCs should not be designed in a way that to gain equal protection to contemporaries, soldiers must crawl. 

After all, armies are investing a good amount of money into improving situational awareness and orientation for dismounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TR1 said:

What makes you so sure it was "BMP-3 lobbyists" and not the serious rumors that the powerplant situation is still being figured out? For that matter, why did the Army stop buying the BMP-3 a decade ago, just to pickup ~5 years later....probably because the Kurganets was obviously not going to be ready for mass introduction for years to come.

 

IMO the purchase and production of all the new gen vehicle has been pushed back since 2014 by desire to use domestic elements instead of imports, as well.

There is a narrative, Im not sure how true it is,that the BMP-3 production plant was going to fold unless it got orders,which might have been an incentive to reopen production.

9 hours ago, bojan said:

And regiment vs brigade org BMP motor-rifle bn and co + BTR motor-rifle bn and co from:

http://samlib.ru/l/loginow_a_a/armyrfdef.shtml

Table:

http://samlib.ru/img/l/loginow_a_a/armyrfdef/d16ab61789df.jpg

 

BMP motor-rifle Bn from brigade/ BMP motor rifle Bn from regiment / BTR motor rifle Bn

Personal - 571/461/539

BMP/BTR - 46/37/42

BRM-1K - 1/0/0

BMP-1KSh - 1/1/0

BMP-1K/BTR-K - 1/1/1

82mm mortar - 6/6/6

82mm Vasylek - 3/3/3

Fagot (AT-4) ATGM - 6/0/6

Metis (AT-7) ATGM - 0/0/9

SPG-9M RCL - 0/0/3

RPG-7 - 32/34/34

AGS-17 - 18/6/6

PK/PKM - 0/9/9

RPK - 64/27/27

SVD - 9/9/36

 

BMP motor-rifle Co from brigade/ BMP motor rifle Co from regiment / BTR motor rifle Co

Personal - 133/101/113

BMP/BTR - 14/11/11

Metis (AT-7) ATGM - 0/0/3

RPG-7 - 9/9/9

AGS-17 - 6/0/0

PK/PKM - 0/3/3

RPK - 21/9/9

SVD - 3/3/12

Thats some really useful stuff, thank you for that.

Im guessing this is historic, rather than current? Im told the two BMPs/BTR's in the Company HQ have been cut to one now. Still very useful though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know if this is any interest, I bought a book some years ago called Strategic Order of Battle, Russian Airborne Forces by Rob O Gordon. Its not available as an Ebook as far as I know, and copies were exchanging hands for the most part at silly prices. But there is still a preview of it up on the site that gives an interesting overview of what a Russian VDV Regiment looked like in 2012-14. 

https://www.openbriefing.org/docs/PartC_76GAAD_Sample.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...Im guessing this is historic, rather than current? Im told the two BMPs/BTR's in the Company HQ have been cut to one now. Still very useful though.

'80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...