Talk:Kurganets-25

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1954916?page=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.95 (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kurganets-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150514122922/http://www.military-informant.com/army/bmp/8846-kurganets-25-ob-ekt-695-boevaya-mashina-pekhoty.html to http://www.military-informant.com/army/bmp/8846-kurganets-25-ob-ekt-695-boevaya-mashina-pekhoty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150503222407/http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/kurganets-25_kurganets_aifv_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_pictures_video.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/kurganets-25_kurganets_aifv_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_pictures_video.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

According to whom?

Datasheets? Not that an comparison between M2 and BMP-3 is really necessary in this article, but for the sake of argument: the M2 is outgunned, overweight, arguably less mobile (heavier, but more power, so maybe a tie, but overall we have to consider the amphibious performance of the two), has an much broader silhouette and shorter range. Maybe a slight adavantage in fire control and protection for the M2, but if they ever meet 1 vs. 1 both are capable of destroying their oppenent. Crew compartment? No real advantage, both cramped. [1], [2] Markscheider (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

With M2 vs. BMP-3, while the M2 has one or two advantages, most sources seem to consider the BMP-3’s advantages in survivability, firepower, mobility, etc. to be significant.

As far as BMP-3 vs. Warrior, unquestionably the former trounces the latter overall. The Warrior was doctrinally intended to be a battle taxi with an autocannon.

Still, the claim should be sourced to something better than, say, Quora 😏 RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)