Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Share

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:42 pm

    hi all,

    I was looking to see what peoples views are on the ZSU 23-4.
    designed in 1957-1962
    In service in 1962
    Produced intill 1982
    6,500 built
    adopted by many countries,
    with 1,000's of vehicles still in service,
    upgrades available.
    still in use by Russian armed forces (need to confirm this or if anyone knows any info please share)

    So whats peoples view on upgraded ZSU-23-4 against aircraft on todays battlefields? are they of any use or have they had their day?
    How many does Russia still have in reserve? and should they upgrade and sell them off to other countries?

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  George1 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:56 pm

    I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:16 pm

    George1 wrote:I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe


    i think against fixed wing aircraft they are pretty useless, but against helicopters and slow moving transports they are still pretty useful but i think there more useful in the ground support role, a ZSU 57-2 or a ZSU 23-4 would be pretty devastating against ground troops and APC etc.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:46 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    George1 wrote:I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe


    i think against fixed wing aircraft they are pretty useless, but against helicopters and slow moving transports they are still pretty useful but i think there more useful in the ground support role, a ZSU 57-2 or a ZSU 23-4 would be pretty devastating against ground troops and APC etc.

    There is a modernization of ZSU-23-4 which also includes Igla-S and Igla-S nowdays regulary comes with systems of automation. Venezuela has bought a lots of those and

    this modernizations gives back life in ZSU-23-4 as it makes it capable to deal with much wider range of threats like CM/helicopters/PGM and low flying planes.

    Cheap yet could prove to be very effective.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:20 pm

    Viktor wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:
    George1 wrote:I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe


    i think against fixed wing aircraft they are pretty useless, but against helicopters and slow moving transports they are still pretty useful but i think there more useful in the ground support role, a ZSU 57-2 or a ZSU 23-4 would be pretty devastating against ground troops and APC etc.

    There is a modernization of ZSU-23-4 which also includes Igla-S and Igla-S nowdays regulary comes with systems of automation. Venezuela has bought a lots of those and

    this modernizations gives back life in ZSU-23-4 as it makes it capable to deal with much wider range of threats like CM/helicopters/PGM and low flying planes.

    Cheap yet could prove to be very effective.

    yeah this was the upgrade i was talking about that is available for it. I think it makes sense if you already have the system to have it upgraded, obviously Pansir and Tunguska are better but i think the ZSU 23-4 upgraded is still a good asset. Thanks for replying to thread.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:37 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:Yeah this was the upgrade i was talking about that is available for it. I think it makes sense if you already have the system to have it upgraded, obviously Pansir and Tunguska are better but i think the ZSU 23-4 upgraded is still a good asset. Thanks for replying to thread.

    I have very little time lately but still trying to keep up Very Happy

    Based on what I have read so far about AD systems I think that many even old system with cheap upgrades cab effectively be put back to life but you need to add them

    eyes (radar sets) and brains (command posts). Im not sure how familiar are you with both but just for these small AD systems (as well as for all others Very Happy) Russia has

    already developed and modernized (even new ones in making) radar and command post that can both fit in a single BTR-60 for instance. Giving mmodernized ZSU-23-4

    ability to see well in advance a coming threat and thus command post enough time to analyze and distribute targets according to optimal solutions you are further

    increasing efficiency of the whole system by a factor of 2-3 or even further.

    Airbornewolf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 338
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-02-05
    Location : netherlands

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  Airbornewolf on Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:36 pm

    George1 wrote:I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe

    they are still very effective actually, its their mobility and ease of operation thats their "win" factor.

    the downside of AA missile systems is their ammunition they use...being missiles is very expensive. and they can at most engage an limited number of targets before their crews need to manually reload the system. i guess most AA systems has 4 rounds in their system before they require an timely reload.

    our Dutch Cheeta's, witch is the dutch name for the German Gepard SPAAG (Self Propelled Anti Air Gun) is being sold like hot-cakes by saudi-arabia and Qatar. and these two countries can definatly afford the high-tech expensive missile systems.

    with SPAAG systems its that with modern-day tracking systems are just as deadly as an missile. their 30 MM bullets rattle out an stream of projectiles in an aircraft's predicted path as precise an missile would predict to intercept it. but instead of an one-shot missile attempt at an aircraft an SPAAG keeps engaging the aircraft as long its tracking is active and guns are firing. and usually the gun ammunition is more available and easier to handle than missiles. these SPAAG systems suddenly appear out of an barn or shelter, activate their systems and cause a lot of mayhem for aircraft or helicopters. even their purchase and maintenance costs are a lot lower than missile systems.

    in case of the ZSU-23-4 i wouldnt write it away. its undergone great lengths of modernisation for short-range air defense. and as far i can judge its still worthy of doing its job.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4#Netherlands


    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:42 pm

    Viktor wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:Yeah this was the upgrade i was talking about that is available for it. I think it makes sense if you already have the system to have it upgraded, obviously Pansir and Tunguska are better but i think the ZSU 23-4 upgraded is still a good asset. Thanks for replying to thread.

    I have very little time lately but still trying to keep up Very Happy

    Based on what I have read so far about AD systems I think that many even old system with cheap upgrades cab effectively be put back to life but you need to add them

    eyes (radar sets) and brains (command posts). Im not sure how familiar are you with both but just for these small AD systems (as well as for all others Very Happy) Russia has

    already developed and modernized (even new ones in making) radar and command post that can both fit in a single BTR-60 for instance. Giving mmodernized ZSU-23-4

    ability to see well in advance a coming threat and thus command post enough time to analyze and distribute targets according to optimal solutions you are further

    increasing efficiency of the whole system by a factor of 2-3 or even further.

    To be honest i havent kept up to date with radar and command system for quite a few years, don't get as much time as i would like to read and research info. But i am fully aware its not just a matter of having a AD system that makes a good anti air defence. I think a lot also has to do with a high level of training and continued training. But thanks again for the input, Smile

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:36 am

    The ZSU-23-4 is a very capable system and with upgrades even more so.

    Out to about 2.5km they are very effective with their guns able to put up a wall of ammo that can't be dodged or outmanouvered.

    the modernisation included newer more capable radar systems and EO, but you could probably take out all the radar equipment and replace it with the EO turret of the Pantsir-S1. this would make it a fully passive system that only lacks performance in the absolute worst weather.

    With 4 Igla missiles or now 4 Verba missiles it would still be a very capable system against a wide range of targets and other missile options like SA-13 or even SOSNA-R laser beam riding missiles would further improve performance without making it too expensive.

    Tunguska is a level more capable with longer range harder hitting 30mm cannon and longer range missiles that can kill aircraft outside their ATGM range, but you could use modern datalinks and save money by upgrading Shilkas where you have a unit with 2 or 3 vehicles with radar and optronics and the rest fitted just with optronics and all the vehicles having Igla-S or Verba missiles.

    the sensors would give early warning with minimum emissions so the missiles and guns can be used to best effect.

    Of course it would not take much to take out those four 23mm cannon and replace them with a single twin barrel 30mm 2A38M cannon. 2,500rpm is still a very effective anti aircraft capability to perhaps just under double the effective range (about 4km). Have two quad Igla launchers on the turret roof and you are good to go.

    Fixed wing aircraft would have to treat you with respect and helicopters would have to give you a wide berth too.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:The ZSU-23-4 is a very capable system and with upgrades even more so.

    Out to about 2.5km they are very effective with their guns able to put up a wall of ammo that can't be dodged or outmanouvered.

    the modernisation included newer more capable radar systems and EO, but you could probably take out all the radar equipment and replace it with the EO turret of the Pantsir-S1. this would make it a fully passive system that only lacks performance in the absolute worst weather.

    With 4 Igla missiles or now 4 Verba missiles it would still be a very capable system against a wide range of targets and other missile options like SA-13 or even SOSNA-R laser beam riding missiles would further improve performance without making it too expensive.

    Tunguska is a level more capable with longer range harder hitting 30mm cannon and longer range missiles that can kill aircraft outside their ATGM range, but you could use modern datalinks and save money by upgrading Shilkas where you have a unit with 2 or 3 vehicles with radar and optronics and the rest fitted just with optronics and all the vehicles having Igla-S or Verba missiles.

    the sensors would give early warning with minimum emissions so the missiles and guns can be used to best effect.

    Of course it would not take much to take out those four 23mm cannon and replace them with a single twin barrel 30mm 2A38M cannon. 2,500rpm is still a very effective anti aircraft capability to perhaps just under double the effective range (about 4km). Have two quad Igla launchers on the turret roof and you are good to go.

    Fixed wing aircraft would have to treat you with respect and helicopters would have to give you a wide berth too.

    pretty interesting upgrades to talk of, but the problem i see here is where you start to mention about changing barrels, and addition of SA-13 etc, i think some would they start to become more expensive and would it not be easier buying Tunguskas or pushing the budget to Pantsir-S1. I hear that chinese version for Tunguska FK-1000 is a 1/3 of the price of Pantsir, but how good it is i am not sure.
    but thanks for the input some interesting stuff Very Happy

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:41 am

    Of course it really comes down to your situation.

    For the Russians having Shilka and ZU-23 towed guns means having 23 x 152mm ammo in service.

    This is different from the 23mm rounds used on the cannon armed Hind, which is a 23 x 115mm much lower velocity round.

    As mentioned Shilka is an effective system, but using a 2A38M twin barrel cannon instead of 4 x 23mm cannon barrels it means if you also replace the Zu-23 with a towed single 2A38M twin barrel cannon then you can eliminate an entire calibre from your inventory and also gain the benefits of extended range and hitting power of the more powerful 30 x 165mm cannon round... which is also carried by the BMP-2 and BMP-3.

    Equally a good reason to withdraw the 180 S-23 and other similar weapons is again to reduce the diversity of calibres and support equipment.

    Having T-55s and T-62s and later T series tanks with 100mm, 115mm, and 125mm guns respectively is not really an advantage... I mean you could equip a few units with 100mm guns to take on enemy IFVs for example but really the 125 could also do that and eliminating two other main battle tank calibres would be useful.

    That is not to say all the old tanks need to be scrapped... a new T-72 turret could be fitted... for some countries where the enemy only has light armour you could upgrade their T-55s with a T-72 turret but fitted with a 57mm high velocity main gun with rather more ammo than any 125mm gun armed vehicle could carry.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:Of course it really comes down to your situation.

    For the Russians having Shilka and ZU-23 towed guns means having 23 x 152mm ammo in service.

    This is different from the 23mm rounds used on the cannon armed Hind, which is a 23 x 115mm much lower velocity round.

    As mentioned Shilka is an effective system, but using a 2A38M twin barrel cannon instead of 4 x 23mm cannon barrels it means if you also replace the Zu-23 with a towed single 2A38M twin barrel cannon then you can eliminate an entire calibre from your inventory and also gain the benefits of extended range and hitting power of the more powerful 30 x 165mm cannon round... which is also carried by the BMP-2 and BMP-3.

    Equally a good reason to withdraw the 180 S-23 and other similar weapons is again to reduce the diversity of calibres and support equipment.

    Having T-55s and T-62s and later T series tanks with 100mm, 115mm, and 125mm guns respectively is not really an advantage... I mean you could equip a few units with 100mm guns to take on enemy IFVs for example but really the 125 could also do that and eliminating two other main battle tank calibres would be useful.

    That is not to say all the old tanks need to be scrapped... a new T-72 turret could be fitted... for some countries where the enemy only has light armour you could upgrade their T-55s with a T-72 turret but fitted with a 57mm high velocity main gun with rather more ammo than any 125mm gun armed vehicle could carry.

    I quite agree, its best to get rid of calibre sizes to stream line things, i know going forward 30mm is the way their heading, as well as 125mm, thats why getting rid of the older equipment they could shift some of the ammo in the deal. T-55's with 57mm guns Very Happy sounds like death to AFV's Very Happy


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    [Russian Anti-Aircrafts Guns] The S-60 57 mm AZP, this another forgotten hero

    Post  nemrod on Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:04 pm

    The effectiveness, and success of the S-60 57 mm must be compared with the legends as were AK-47, RPG-7, T-55, T-62, T-72, DSHK, and obviously Mig-15, Mig-17, Mig-21, Mig-29.
    The S-60 is responsible of several hundreds US, and Israeli aircrafts losses. It is still nowadays a nightmare for every aircraft. However, I don't know why, it seems to be despised. Did the SA-6  or SA-8-9 do better ? I doubt.
    If Russia think to upgrade the S-60 with drone radars, modern stelthy IRST, better rpm, better firepower, it could revolutionned the Anti-Aircraft defense. Unfortunetly, Russia is focussing only SAM, and missiles where their effectiveness is doubfull. What a pity!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:10 am

    The S-60 was a very powerful and effective weapon, though I have read that in Vietnam the 14.5mm KPV was particularly respected because it was small and hard to spot until it opened fire.

    The S-60 gun when used with radar was a very effective system that was very dangerous to aircraft, but it was not very mobile.

    It was supposed to be replaced by the ZSU-57-2, but the latters lack of radar and low turret traverse speed meant it had trouble engaging fast low flying targets.

    The SA-8 was initially going to replace both the S-60 AAG and the Shilka but the realisation that a combination of cheap guns and cheap (IR or command guided) missiles was the best option.

    Hense the Tunguska had both command guided missiles for reach and high kill probability per shot, and also cheap multipurpose cannon shells that can be used against a range of air and ground targets.

    Interesting enough there was actually a dedicated anti tank version of the T-34 that was armed with a ZIS-3 57mm cannon. In practise the 57mm gun had better penetration over greater ranges than the 76.2mm gun adopted by most T-34/76 vehicles, but lacked HE power. This led to the choice of the 76.2mm gun as a more versatile option.

    The 57mm gun armed tank had better anti armour performance and carried more ready to use rounds.

    Of course for all the potential power of the new 57mm guns for all the space they would take up on a modern armoured vehicle, you could develop an anti armour version of Kurganets with a two arm launcher for Kornet-EM missiles and Metis-M1 missiles. You could carry 15 Kornets and say 20 Metis-M1s. Targets 2km away that are stationary can be engaged by the Metis-M1 and anything dangerous to the vehicle can be engaged from 6-8km with Kornet, while aircraft can be engaged to 10km with Kornet too.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  nemrod on Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:22 pm


    Interesting enough there was actually a dedicated anti tank version of the T-34 that was armed with a ZIS-3 57mm cannon. In practise the 57mm gun had better penetration over greater ranges than the 76.2mm gun adopted by most T-34/76 vehicles, but lacked HE power. This led to the choice of the 76.2mm gun as a more versatile option.

    The 57mm gun armed tank had better anti armour performance and carried more ready to use rounds.

    Of course for all the potential power of the new 57mm guns for all the space they would take up on a modern armoured vehicle, you could develop an anti armour version of Kurganets with a two arm launcher for Kornet-EM missiles and Metis-M1 missiles. You could carry 15 Kornets and say 20 Metis-M1s. Targets 2km away that are stationary can be engaged by the Metis-M1 and anything dangerous to the vehicle can be engaged from 6-8km with Kornet, while aircraft can be engaged to 10km with Kornet too.
    I think Russia, or Russia's allies does not need another anti tank hardwares, as the very efficients AT-3, AT-5, AT-13, AT-14, AT-15, and RPG-7, 29, 30, 32 are more than enough.

    I talked about the S-60, ZSU-23, and the KS-19 as very efficients hardwares as very, very efficients asymetric hardwares against the most modern US fighter-bombers.
    For example, they said that the A-10 is immunized against 23 mm. Is it true ? Is it only an hoax ? I don't know, if you have more infos please let us know.
    If the A-10 is immunized against 23 mm caliber -?- if it is true, however, against 30, 45, and 57 mm he has none chances. In fact, as I understood the very cheap S-60, and KS-19, DSHK, ZSU, and NSV are very usefull asymetric hardwares.[/quote]

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:51 pm

    Hi some interesting views, as stated earlier the Iranian upgraded their 100mm KS-19 with radar and self loading and i would imagine this would be a nightmare for A10's and AC-130's and any other helicopter or low flying aircraft.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  nemrod on Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:30 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:Hi some interesting views, as stated earlier the Iranian upgraded their 100mm KS-19 with radar and self loading and i would imagine this would be a nightmare for A10's and AC-130's and any other helicopter or low flying aircraft.

    You forgot that the A-10 has never been a real threat at all other than by US hype. During Desert Storm, several A-10 were crushed by the S-60, or by SAM. At least one AC-130 was kicked too during the battle of Khafji. And Americans were no longer able to retaken Khafji themselves, or by their allies. They retook Khafji once the iraqi armoured division retreat, and many other iraqi soldiers -in order to flee Saddam- surrendered to US coalition. Once the vehicles were abandonned they sent their A-10 and Apache to destroy them, after that, they dared to claim they destroyed iraqi armored divisions. S-60, and KS-19 deterred all attempts to send aircrafts at low altitude. US coaltion bombed at middle, or high altitude with limited, if not small impact.

    Staline said "The Cannon is the king of the war", and he was right.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:44 am

    nemrod wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:Hi some interesting views, as stated earlier the Iranian upgraded their 100mm KS-19 with radar and self loading and i would imagine this would be a nightmare for A10's and AC-130's and any other helicopter or low flying aircraft.

    You forgot that the A-10 has never been a real threat at all other than by US hype. During Desert Storm, several A-10 were crushed by the S-60, or by SAM. At least one AC-130 was kicked too during the battle of Khafji. And Americans were no longer able to retaken Khafji themselves, or by their allies. They retook Khafji once the iraqi armoured division retreat, and many other iraqi soldiers -in order to flee Saddam- surrendered to US coalition. Once the vehicles were abandonned they sent their A-10 and Apache to destroy them, after that, they dared to claim they destroyed iraqi armored divisions. S-60, and KS-19 deterred all attempts to send aircrafts at low altitude. US coaltion bombed at middle, or high altitude with limited, if not small impact.

    Staline said "The Cannon is the king of the war", and he was right.

    interesting never knew this and never knew a AC-130 had ever been taken out, I am sure it would be pretty easy for the S-60 to have the same upgrade that the Iranian's did with KS-19 which would be pretty deadly, I remember reading somewhere that the 57mm anti aircraft round would only need one round to take down most aircraft or 1-2 rounds to take down a British Canberra sized aircraft(medium bomber), pretty scary when these S-60 were grouped together spitting 100's or even 1,000's of them into the air.

    thanks for the input

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:45 am

    I think Russia, or Russia's allies does not need another anti tank hardwares, as the very efficients AT-3, AT-5, AT-13, AT-14, AT-15, and RPG-7, 29, 30, 32 are more than enough.

    I was referring to its use in modern vehicles... keep in mind that in a modern IFV the Russians have generally insisted on fire power to allow an IFV to be able to defeat enemy IFVs with its main gun and to have some capacity to engage tanks as well even if as a purely defensive measure (ie it wont go looking for tanks but if one appears it needs some way of engaging it with some chance of success).

    With their first IFV... the BMP known as BMP-1 now their anti tank capability came from the early Falanga ATGM which could not hit a target within about 400m while the guidance system gathered the missile into view after launch... this meant the main gun of the BMP-1 had to have the power to defeat MBTs AND enemy IFVs and in the HEAT version could actually kill an M60 tank at any range it could hit it.

    When the BMP-2 was developed the new Konkurs and Fagot gathered their missiles much faster and could hit targets as close as 75m from the launcher so the main gun of the BMP-2 didn't need to be able to kill MBTs from the front... it just had to kill M113s from the front, which its 30mm cannon could do easily.

    Experience with both vehicles made them realise that the HE fire power of a large calibre gun was useful in some situations but in others a small calibre auto cannon was better, so the BMP-3 took the step of having both a large calibre gun and an auto cannon with a 100mm rifled gun and a 30mm rifled cannon. the anti tank weapon was a laser guided missile fired through the 100mm gun.

    Of course the new IFV will need rather more than a 30mm cannon to deal with enemy IFVs... some western models are heavier than Soviet medium tanks (T-34), so a 57mm gun makes a lot of sense as a standard anti IFV weapon, but no model of 57mm round whether it is APFSDS or laser guided HE shell will penetrate a MBT, so that is what I was talking about... a modern Russian Armata or Boomerang or Kurganets or Typhoon IFV armed with a 57mm gun will still need Kornet-EM or something to defend itself from enemy tanks.

    I talked about the S-60, ZSU-23, and the KS-19 as very efficients hardwares as very, very efficients asymetric hardwares against the most modern US fighter-bombers.

    With guided shells in the case of the larger calibres they would be very dangerous, but most can be evaded simply by flying very high.

    Even the most efficient AA gun firing unguided shells will fire thousands of rounds for each target brought down, but with modern radar and fire control systems and guided shells they could be rather more effective... but in most cases the cost of developing heavy calibre guided shells means missiles start to look more attractive in terms of kill probability.

    For example, they said that the A-10 is immunized against 23 mm. Is it true ? Is it only an hoax ? I don't know, if you have more infos please let us know.

    Many components on the A-10 are designed to withstand 23mm cannon shell hits, but getting hit repeatedly will eventually bring the aircraft down and of course the tunguska fires heavier 30mm shells which do more damage.

    Hits by 57mm or 100mm or 130mm guns would be devastating.

    If the A-10 is immunized against 23 mm caliber -?- if it is true, however, against 30, 45, and 57 mm he has none chances. In fact, as I understood the very cheap S-60, and KS-19, DSHK, ZSU, and NSV are very usefull asymetric hardwares.

    The problem for the AA is that a low flying A-10 is a very elusive target that would be very hard to hit... especially with the larger calibre weapons... remember these guns were originally envisioned to be used against enemy bomber streams that flew in fixed formations with very little manouvering going on and they still fired thousands of rounds per hit.

    I remember reading somewhere that the 57mm anti aircraft round would only need one round to take down most aircraft or 1-2 rounds to take down a British Canberra sized aircraft(medium bomber), pretty scary when these S-60 were grouped together spitting 100's or even 1,000's of them into the air.

    Keep in mind that without the radar guidance the 57mm gun was not very effective against air targets in the ZSU-57-2 and was rapidly replaced by smaller calibre guns firing at a much higher rate of fire to compensate for the ability of the target to manouver. The next change was to step up in calibre with an even higher rate of fire to extend effective range.

    With modern electronics you might be able to revisit the 57mm gun as an anti aircraft weapon with guided shells compensating for low rate of fire and low ready to use ammo supply.

    Once a standard shell is fired any deviation by the target in speed or altitude or heading means it will likely miss... with precise heading, speed and altitude data you can estimate what manouvers the target could perform and send a few extra shells in those directions too and bracket the target with shells from several guns so that the rounds explode near the target nearly simultaneously to increase the chance of a hit or at least damage.

    With high rate of fire guns you can do that with a burst because some rounds will go where you aim and the other rounds will go nearby to places the target might be if it manouvers.

    Obviously the best solution is a guided shell that can compensate after being fired for any manouvers the target makes till impact.

    Obviously if the guided shells are very expensive it makes sense to just use missiles, but guided shells are becoming widespread and make more sense in larger calibre shells because there is more room.

    guided 23mm shells would be ineffective against heavy targets, but heavy rounds have previously been ineffective because the guns firing them haven't been able to put up enough rounds to bracket the target and get hits.

    guided 57mm rounds change this, but you still need detection and tracking systems to find and follow the targets.

    You don't need guided shell 57mm guns to make A-10s dead... it makes rather more sense to use Pantsir-S1 as it can kill A-10s at 40km in the newer versions... well outside the range any A-10 can target them from.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  nemrod on Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Obviously the best solution is a guided shell that can compensate after being fired for any manouvers the target makes till impact.

    The problem with guided shell, it would be easy to detect the source, and easy to destroy by salves of anti radiation missiles, or cruise missile. For an asymetric war, it is not the best solution.


    GarryB wrote:
    With modern electronics you might be able to revisit the 57mm gun as an anti aircraft weapon with guided shells compensating for low rate of fire and low ready to use ammo supply.
    To compensate low RPM, you must deploy a significant quantity of more larger caliber like KS-19, or other more larger caliber like for example 130 mm. They are very cheap, and could be easily mass produced, and  bought by even poor countries. Soviet doctrim, if I recall ask to deploy at least 30-40 unity per bataillon. It means between 30*10 to 40*15 per minute, offers you 300-600 RPM, during the minute where a fighter cross the barrage, it would be a lethal threat for even every modern aircrafts. Iraqis successfully used it in 1991.


    GarryB wrote:

    ...The problem for the AA is that a low flying A-10 is a very elusive target that would be very hard to hit... especially with the larger calibre weapons.....

    Keep in mind that without the radar guidance the 57mm gun was not very effective against air targets in the ZSU-57-2 and was rapidly replaced by smaller calibre guns firing at a much higher rate of fire to compensate for the ability of the target to manouver. The next change was to step up in calibre with an even higher rate of fire to extend effective range.


    Once a standard shell is fired any deviation by the target in speed or altitude or heading means it will likely miss... with precise heading, speed and altitude data you can estimate what manouvers the target could perform and send a few extra shells in those directions too and bracket the target with shells from several guns so that the rounds explode near the target nearly simultaneously to increase the chance of a hit or at least damage.
    With high rate of fire guns you can do that with a burst because some rounds will go where you aim and the other rounds will go nearby to places the target might be if it manouvers.

    The best asymetric asset in a war stay the unguided cannons, especially with 40, 57, 100 mm. If indeed, they have poor RPM, you could compensate with large number of cannons. And it seems to be efficient, when Iraqi used it in 1991. Take a look of this video, after 41'


    Americans pretend that there were SAM that caused the damanges to this Bomber. If there were SAM, the B-52 could not exist, there might be wreckages, as the pilot who speaks might have the same fate. The tracks of these damages seem to be AA guns, and they reached the B-52 at at least 38.000 feet, around 13.000 meters. Seems to be either a Bofors, or a KS-19, if not a more larger caliber. For that reason, after the first hours, -because of heavy losses- during Desert Storm air war, the US air coalition gave up the bombing at low altitude, and bombed at a higher altitude with a mixed results. And, this detail was written off, the level of sorties started to decrease. A tornado bombing at 15.000 meters, is useless, except against fixed targets like bridges, centrals, dams, roads etc...
    A thing is sure, the air bombing campaign in 1991, was quickly hampered, obliging US coalition to fly at higher altitude, and bombed with inaccurate way, or launching expensives tomahawks, contrary to what US claimed. As the SAMs were disabled, and Migs either fled to Iran, or staid in harbor, the only iraqi ways to impede US fighter bombers was anti aircraft guns. And they showed a remarqable behaviour and good results.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:13 am

    The problem with guided shell, it would be easy to detect the source, and easy to destroy by salves of anti radiation missiles, or cruise missile. For an asymetric war, it is not the best solution.

    easy to detect the source how?

    The main armament of the F-117 is laser guided bombs... if detecting laser target markers is so easy why are they still used?

    Why weren't the F-117s shot down in their hundreds?

    Why aren't Russian T series tanks super vulnerable because their ATGMs are laser beam riding...

    The fact is that having a defence system with an EO sight that can detect and track targets and guide shells to those targets is a huge leap forward... a single vehicle with a 120 round capacity for 57mm guided shells that can fire at 120 rpm or faster could easily deal with any anti radiation or cruise missile directed at it and could take out any other type of aircraft that gets close.

    In Assymetric war it is even better because it means you can use cannon shells instead of more expensive missiles for a lot of the targets and when point threats appear you can use slightly more expensive but much more accurate guided rounds to deal with the problem.

    Soviet doctrim, if I recall ask to deploy at least 30-40 unity per bataillon. It means between 30*10 to 40*15 per minute, offers you 300-600 RPM, during the minute where a fighter cross the barrage, it would be a lethal threat for even every modern aircrafts. Iraqis successfully used it in 1991.

    With guided shells it would only need 1 or 2 guns and 2-3 shots should do the job... having to have 300-600 large calibre rounds for each target is ridiculous when a missile would do the same job...

    The best asymetric asset in a war stay the unguided cannons, especially with 40, 57, 100 mm.

    Sorry but that is silly. You admit yourself to be effective they would need to mass large numbers of guns... which becomes an easy target on its own assuming it is effective enough to warrant a separate attack.

    They used guns because guns is what they had... nothing to do with superiority or capability.

    One way a powerful country could make them useful is with guided shells, but poor countries don't have that option...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:34 am

    As far as i know the lasers on a plane just guide the bombs.... discover of the enemy place being another job. But laser targeting can easilly show where the enemy is knowing the angle from which the laser was fired. Anyway i understand a bullet or lanrge shell can penetrate planes but they can do that whit cilindrical spinning missiles?

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:51 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The problem with guided shell, it would be easy to detect the source, and easy to destroy by salves of anti radiation missiles, or cruise missile. For an asymetric war, it is not the best solution.

    easy to detect the source how?

    The main armament of the F-117 is laser guided bombs... if detecting laser target markers is so easy why are they still used?

    Why weren't the F-117s shot down in their hundreds?

    Why aren't Russian T series tanks super vulnerable because their ATGMs are laser beam riding...

    The fact is that having a defence system with an EO sight that can detect and track targets and guide shells to those targets is a huge leap forward... a single vehicle with a 120 round capacity for 57mm guided shells that can fire at 120 rpm or faster could easily deal with any anti radiation or cruise missile directed at it and could take out any other type of aircraft that gets close.

    In Assymetric war it is even better because it means you can use cannon shells instead of more expensive missiles for a lot of the targets and when point threats appear you can use slightly more expensive but much more accurate guided rounds to deal with the problem.

    Soviet doctrim, if I recall ask to deploy at least 30-40 unity per bataillon. It means between 30*10 to 40*15 per minute, offers you 300-600 RPM, during the minute where a fighter cross the barrage, it would be a lethal threat for even every modern aircrafts. Iraqis successfully used it in 1991.

    With guided shells it would only need 1 or 2 guns and 2-3 shots should do the job... having to have 300-600 large calibre rounds for each target is ridiculous when a missile would do the same job...

    The best asymetric asset in a war stay the unguided cannons, especially with 40, 57, 100 mm.

    Sorry but that is silly. You admit yourself to be effective they would need to mass large numbers of guns... which becomes an easy target on its own assuming it is effective enough to warrant a separate attack.

    They used guns because guns is what they had... nothing to do with superiority or capability.

    One way a powerful country could make them useful is with guided shells, but poor countries don't have that option...
    whit that means you must cover a box in all his volume. Means a volume of 10x10x10 km lets say. Means that the round get empty fast. Also need big cannons to operate at different ranges. Means also bigger the rounds or shells bigger the gravitational atraction and friction whit air. Only improve can be adding a radar which will guide cannons fire in a specific zone in this the plane or missiles can be intercept. And in close range the missiles can be finded by every radar or video camera.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:01 am

    nemrod wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Obviously the best solution is a guided shell that can compensate after being fired for any manouvers the target makes till impact.

    The problem with guided shell, it would be easy to detect the source, and easy to destroy by salves of anti radiation missiles, or cruise missile. For an asymetric war, it is not the best solution.


    GarryB wrote:
    With modern electronics you might be able to revisit the 57mm gun as an anti aircraft weapon with guided shells compensating for low rate of fire and low ready to use ammo supply.
    To compensate low RPM, you must deploy a significant quantity of more larger caliber like KS-19, or other more larger caliber like for example 130 mm. They are very cheap, and could be easily mass produced, and  bought by even poor countries. Soviet doctrim, if I recall ask to deploy at least 30-40 unity per bataillon. It means between 30*10 to 40*15 per minute, offers you 300-600 RPM, during the minute where a fighter cross the barrage, it would be a lethal threat for even every modern aircrafts. Iraqis successfully used it in 1991.


    GarryB wrote:

    ...The problem for the AA is that a low flying A-10 is a very elusive target that would be very hard to hit... especially with the larger calibre weapons.....

    Keep in mind that without the radar guidance the 57mm gun was not very effective against air targets in the ZSU-57-2 and was rapidly replaced by smaller calibre guns firing at a much higher rate of fire to compensate for the ability of the target to manouver. The next change was to step up in calibre with an even higher rate of fire to extend effective range.


    Once a standard shell is fired any deviation by the target in speed or altitude or heading means it will likely miss... with precise heading, speed and altitude data you can estimate what manouvers the target could perform and send a few extra shells in those directions too and bracket the target with shells from several guns so that the rounds explode near the target nearly simultaneously to increase the chance of a hit or at least damage.
    With high rate of fire guns you can do that with a burst because some rounds will go where you aim and the other rounds will go nearby to places the target might be if it manouvers.

    The best asymetric asset in a war stay the unguided cannons, especially with 40, 57, 100 mm. If indeed, they have poor RPM, you could compensate with large number of cannons. And it seems to be efficient, when Iraqi used it in 1991. Take a look of this video, after 41'


    Americans pretend that there were SAM that caused the damanges to this Bomber. If there were SAM, the B-52 could not exist, there might be wreckages, as the pilot who speaks might have the same fate. The tracks of these damages seem to be AA guns, and they reached the B-52 at at least 38.000 feet, around 13.000 meters. Seems to be either a Bofors, or a KS-19, if not a more larger caliber. For that reason, after the first hours, -because of heavy losses- during Desert Storm air war, the US air coalition gave up the bombing at low altitude, and bombed at a higher altitude with a mixed results. And, this detail was written off, the level of sorties started to decrease. A tornado bombing at 15.000 meters, is useless, except against fixed targets like bridges, centrals, dams, roads etc...
    A thing is sure, the air bombing campaign in 1991, was quickly hampered, obliging US coalition to fly at higher altitude, and bombed with inaccurate way, or launching expensives tomahawks, contrary to what US claimed. As the SAMs were disabled, and Migs either fled to Iran, or staid in harbor, the only iraqi ways to impede US fighter bombers was anti aircraft guns. And they showed a remarqable behaviour and good results.
    point is if you hit the aviation countryes like USA try hit you whit powerfull naval destroyers whit heavy cannons and also bring ground troops in your area. The aviation is for clearing enemy surface-to-ground missiles stationed inside country. If you have not that a country like USA could simply make a ground invasion. And even if you have that, AAs are covering USAs infantry troops.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  nemrod on Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    easy to detect the source how?

    The main armament of the F-117 is laser guided bombs... if detecting laser target markers is so easy why are they still used?

    Why weren't the F-117s shot down in their hundreds?

    Why aren't Russian T series tanks super vulnerable because their ATGMs are laser beam riding..

    I don't think I know better than you Garry, this is why, I posted my questions. I ignored that a laser target marker is hard to detect, I believed once you switch on your radars, immediatly, US radars, and Elint detect them, and launch salves of anti radiation missiles. But if you tell me that laser is more stealthy, it is really good news. Then, could the Oerlikon -laser guided guns-, or Bofors serie are enough against US air fleet ?

    In fact I have the same interresting Victor's remarq
    victor1985 wrote:As far as i know the lasers on a plane just guide the bombs.... discover of the enemy place being another job. But laser targeting can easilly show where the enemy is knowing the angle from which the laser was fired. Anyway i understand a bullet or lanrge shell can penetrate planes but they can do that whit cilindrical spinning missiles?

    Could you answer us please.

    Victor1985 wrote:
    The fact is that having a defence system with an EO sight that can detect and track targets and guide shells to those targets is a huge leap forward... a single vehicle with a 120 round capacity for 57mm guided shells that can fire at 120 rpm or faster could easily deal with any anti radiation or cruise missile directed at it and could take out any other type of aircraft that gets close.
    Indeed, you are right, many many tomahawks, cruise missiles, and anti radiation missiles -if I recall- were downed either in Iraq or in Serbia, impeding all US air campaign.
    Victor1985 wrote:
    point is if you hit the aviation countryes like USA try hit you whit powerfull naval destroyers whit heavy cannons and also bring ground troops in your area. The aviation is for clearing enemy surface-to-ground missiles stationed inside country. If you have not that a country like USA could simply make a ground invasion. And even if you have that, AAs are covering USAs infantry troops.
    What I mean since the begining, US aircraft, -contrary to, what we were said by US medias- in Iraq, as in Serbia bombed at least 5.000, to 6.000 meters -because of AAA's threats-, if not higher. The results of bombing these US air campaign had a mixed results, as most of iraqi air fleet was in good condition, and survived very well. At 5.000, or 6.000 meters altitude could a bombs -i talk about laser bombs, and other like JDAM- reach their targets ? Could an air campaign be really effective ? For example against DAESH terrorists mafia groups, since september 2014, the result is completly inefective. The great threat for US air planes, as syrian air planes was anti aircraft guns.
    Other question, in order to improve its Tungukska, could Russia apply a laser guided hardware ? Could Russia equip its Pantsir C1 with a kind of IRST ? Is it possible ?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Old AA Guns | S-60 57mm and ZSU 23-4: Views

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:21 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:21 pm