Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18348
    Points : 18908
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:57 am

    It all depends how much time and warning you have to bug out most of the time we had to bug out instantly no time to do anything.

    Quite true, there are as many different responses as their are situations...

    But if sufficient time was available there was a few options but one for this scenario one easily strap a grenade to and use string to pull the pins

    Or indeed booby trap it... have a 23mm round with the primer attached to a detonator and fill the entire shell case with HE and put the projectile back on... one for each barrel should do it...

    Another use for a zu-23-2 mount would be mounted on a boat this would then not only provide some basic AD but would be pretty devastating towards similar sized boats and the ability to target enemy on land and at high elevation.

    Yes, it is quite a handy mount... actually some sort of universal mount would be good that includes wheels for mobility that allows all sorts of weapons to be mounted... from 14.5mm HMG and 12.7mm Kord, as well as 30mm and 40mm grenade launchers and of course 23mm and 30mm guns...

    Cost of selling it things like towed artillery costs less to overhaul than a bmp-1 for instance. And all depends on how they were stored and preparation before going into storage.

    Another factor is that if the customer still has these things in service and already has ammo stocks they could use any ammo stocks deemed safe as exercise ammo or ready to use now combat ammo.

    Although a chunk has been shipped to syria I'd still think quite a bit still remains in storage reserve/storage figures are never accurate

    I suspect a few ammo dump fires covered quite a few sales of ammo and equipment that the paperwork didn't cover... and certainly the Russians have been greatly increasing their exercises recently, so there is that as well.

    Some ammo is just safer to take apart and recycle the chemicals, but for the rest... have fun...

    It's only what they are willing to admit some items will be kept in hidden storage some figures are only as good as those who count them and from experience sometimes guestimates wee done by officers/nco

    Well if you have a bit tucked away and someone wants to buy it you don't need to cook the books for the transfer.

    Of course it happens in every army... I know of a guy selling all sorts of American weapons and after they arrested him they found out the stuff he was selling was from US exercises... in the chaos and noise of training no one can tell if you fired 5 live rounds or 50... so you get issued with 200 and you fire 20 and you tuck the rest away to sell... everyone in the unit does that and you can make a lot of money.

    Equally if you are supposed to blow something up... who can tell if you used 50 grammes or 150 grammes of HE... keep the difference and when it has mounted up have a sale... LAW rockets, AT-4 rockets, Hand grenades, Flash Bangs... etc etc etc.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1380
    Points : 1556
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:30 pm

    In reality for an example a 122mm artillery gun whether D-30 or M-30 they do the same job although the former with some improvements. But if you need artillery and have a small budget chances are you will be able to purchase something from storage syria received some M-30 from Russia. And it's the same from some of the older 120mm mortars not a massive difference and still lob a 120mm mortar on the enemy. And if they are lost in any way it's not a massive loss. And in a long drawn war buying this a bit cheaper can make a difference to an already struggling budget.

    Universal mount is a good idea and of course you could add bolt on items to the mount so for instance you could have a mount with a single 30mm gun and add AGS for ground role and AD a manpad system. Many options which allows customer to customise to there needs and weapons they already use.

    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1380
    Points : 1556
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:32 pm

    I was browsing the internet as you do and came across a southfront article on zsu-23-4 in use with SAA. And as I mentioned here earlier as well as on bmpt thread they did exactly what I mentioned they removed the radar etc and added armour and despite removal of radar electronic etc the vehicle was heavier which means that they added decent armour.
    The SAA also brought out zsu-57-2 from storage and used them to destroy T-55 bmp-1 etc. So luckily for them they didn't scrap them

    I bet many armed forces with similar equipment to SAA were looking at syria and looking at what they had in storage for potential ideas.

    As mentioned earlier no reason why zsu-57-2 and 23-4 can't be designed into a makeshift bmpt type vehicle. I've always thought a zpu-4 mounted on armoured vehicle is an ideal VBIED killer the 14.5mm is enough to penetrate the ramshackle ISIS VBIED's who's armour was really only to protect against rifle light machine and possibly some medium machine gun fire it was never thick enough to stop 12.7mm upwards due to weight implications. And having 4 barrels spraying 14.5mm rounds in there direction you only had to be fairly accurate and not precise and I would imagine the panic and frantic fire against it that a VBIED would bring upon it appearing on the battlefield. The SAA as mentioned was seen with zpu-4 on T-55 chassis and it was made into a turret which looked like it had a decent amount of armour including roof.

    As for towed pieces many people it's better to half SP but not always towed AA guns and artillery are ideal for air drop by helicopters in hard to reach areas certainly up to 122mm guns the heavier guns tend to be used for based at bases and where the need of a more static defence is needed. Mortars are ideal for mountainous areas but there no way your going to manpack a 120mm mortar up a mountain even 82mm mortar would be a struggle. The 160mm mortar would also be effective if the enemy had a heavily reinforced bunker and if the enemy built a heavily reinforced command centre but out of reach of 160mm mortars and it was strong enough for 120mm & 122mm to not be able to destroy it quick enough you could air drop the towed 240mm mortar it's got good range and with 1-3 rounds most bunkers would be destroyed and gives the enemy a nasty surprise thinking there safe. Hence if you already have tulpan and your in mountainous country it would be good idea to source 2nd hand towed 240mm mortars even half a dozen max would be enough. This is one of the reasons I like soviet/Russian equipment they have something for every scenario

    Link of zsu-23-4 southfront
    https://southfront.org/syrian-army-upgraded-zsu-23-4-shilka-self-propelled-anti-aircraft-gun-for-ground-combat/
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2303
    Points : 2297
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Isos on Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:02 pm

    I bet many armed forces with similar equipment to SAA were looking at syria and looking at what they had in storage for potential ideas.

    All the vehicles of every army would be adapted to the mission/battlefield to be the most usefull.

    Enemies will find the weakest spot of your hardware pretty fast if you don't change it before sending it on the front. For exemple nato countries protected their tanks and APCs in afghanistan against chaped charges because it was the most common thing they could face. Any modern RPG could penetrate any tank from rear or sides. And the gunner with its machine gun is more usefull than the 120mm gun on a tank so they prepare to use him first.

    ZSU proved to be very effective in ground attack role in every conflict. 57mm can destroy most of vehicles and even dammage tanks. Being also very mobile it is better for small armies. Everyone knew that before syrian war.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1380
    Points : 1556
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:39 pm

    I like it when armed forces use up convert upgrade etc something that's effectively obsolete in its primary role or by just a a few upgrades to make it that bit better. The houthi turned Sa-75 missiles into surface to surface with not bad results. Something similar could be done to Sa-4/krug so effectively you have a self propelled (tracked) vehicle carrying two surface to surface missiles that could have various uses thermobaric HE-frag emp etc. I remember that frog-7 luna was upgraded to increase range and accuracy which wasn't bad and much better than the highly inaccurate standard version.

    I know countries knew that zsu -57-2 was useful as ground support but not if any have upgraded or modified it to that specific role which could have easily been done I know some had crude roofs welded on but nothing beyond that
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18348
    Points : 18908
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  GarryB Yesterday at 12:36 pm

    In reality for an example a 122mm artillery gun whether D-30 or M-30 they do the same job although the former with some improvements.

    Well that can be complicated by the fact that not all 122mm artillery rounds are the same... I mean some IS-2 tanks from WWII with a 122mm main gun obviously is not compatible with the 122mm artillery round the D-30 towed gun and the 2S1 SPA fires, and wont work in an older model like the M-30... which might not even like the newer 122mm ammo.

    And of course there will be 152mm rounds for the D-1 that would not be worth using in a 2A36 or 2S5... while some rounds might be compatible with the main 152mm guns like the D-20, BL-20, 2S3M, 2A65, and 2S19, they might not be much use in Coalition...

    Universal mount is a good idea and of course you could add bolt on items to the mount so for instance you could have a mount with a single 30mm gun and add AGS for ground role and AD a manpad system. Many options which allows customer to customise to there needs and weapons they already use.

    There is no need for it to be cheap... you could make it rather sophisticated like the launch sight for the RPG-32 that allows 105mm and small rockets to be fitted so it can adapt to anti armour or anti soft target in a large and smaller calibre... some sort of all weather optronic system with a ballistic computer component where you punch in the weapon type and its built in laser range finder generates an aiming point to improve accuracy and performance...

    It would be a rather interesting idea... you could even attach those new rocket pods for helicopters to it... a mix of 57mm and 80mm and 122mm rockets... in the direct fire role would be quite devastating... and the RPG and RPO and other types would make it rather interesting...

    I was browsing the internet as you do and came across a southfront article on zsu-23-4 in use with SAA. And as I mentioned here earlier as well as on bmpt thread they did exactly what I mentioned they removed the radar etc and added armour and despite removal of radar electronic etc the vehicle was heavier which means that they added decent armour.

    In Afghanistan in the 1980s the Soviets did the same and reportedly doubled the ready to fire ammo capacity... so about 4,000 rounds or so...

    The barrels on the ZSU-23-4 are 2A14s, which have built in water cooling jackets... but they were still notorious for overheating with cookoffs being a real problem with a normal standard load of ammo.

    As mentioned earlier no reason why zsu-57-2 and 23-4 can't be designed into a makeshift bmpt type vehicle.

    Neither are very well protected and would require quite a lot of armour just to get them to be 50 cal proof...

    Perhaps taking a T-55 or T-72 and replacing the main gun with a twin barrel 30mm cannon like the 2A38M and just have a continuous belt feed so no manual loading would be needed... so gunner and commander and perhaps 2,000 rounds of 30mm cannon ammo... plus ERA armour addons...

    I remember that frog-7 luna was upgraded to increase range and accuracy which wasn't bad and much better than the highly inaccurate standard version.

    The SS-21 I believe NATO called it... it was largely replaced by the much better OKA... SS-23, but ended up being banned by the INF treaty and eventually was replaced by the Tochka and Iskander... the Iskander eventually replacing the shorter ranged Tochka, but it seems a shorter ranged Iskander is being developed to fill that gap again.

    I know countries knew that zsu -57-2 was useful as ground support but not if any have upgraded or modified it to that specific role which could have easily been done I know some had crude roofs welded on but nothing beyond that

    Would not be a very nice work environment if you put a roof on it... those 4 round clips are bulky and heavy at the best of times... perhaps some belt feed modification to automate loading could make a roof a practical option...
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2279
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  eehnie Yesterday at 2:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    In terms of self propelled weapons the ZSU-23-4 has advantage over the ZU-23-2.

    The ZSU-23-4 is vastly more expensive to buy and to use than a towed ZU-23-2, and there are a lot of places you could never get a ZSU-23-4 that you could drag a ZU-23-2 and use effectively.

    Lash a ZU-23-2 onto the back of a flatbed truck and it has a large portion of the mobility of the ZSU without the cost, but in terms of air defence performance the ZSU is rather better...

    In terms of lighter man-portable weapons, the GSh-23 and GSh-30 (with 1, 2 or 6 barrels) have advantage over the ZU-23-2.

    Well not really... if you want to use the GSh-23 or GSh-30 then you are going to have to rig up some sort of mount to use them and to store their ammo.... keep in mind that they are air force weapons so the ammo is electrically fired so you will need a good reliable power supply to fire them too... so the ammo needs to be air force ammo and it is not compatible with army ammo... which is percussion fired.

    The aircraft weapons tend to have very high rates of fire.... which is usually not so important in ground to ground use... it would make short bursts rather devastating though.

    Obviously the GSh-23 or GSh-30 man-portable options would be for the points where the ZSU-23-4 can not access, but these are not many.

    In the refered to the ammunition, also in the case of the ZU-23(-2) is necessary to carry ammunition. Fire control systems are good (even necessary) for the GSh-23 and GSh-30, but also for the ZU-23(-2).

    The main advantege of the GSh-23 and GSh-30 over the ZU-23(-2) is in the massive difference of weight. They have also higher rate of fire per barrel but the difference is lower. Not sure but I would say that there is some variant that requieres not external supply of energy, but if necessary the massive difference of weight would allow to carry some generator of until 600/700 Kg.

    d_taddei2 wrote:On the issue of older equipment where I mentioned items kept in storage for too long they then become to far obsolete in regards to your comment on ammo chances are that it the item is too far obsolete then there's a high chance the ammo will either be in small quantities or no longer safe to use. And then on another note there's cost in reactivating it vs. Cost of selling it things like towed artillery costs less to overhaul than a bmp-1 for instance. And all depends on how they were stored and preparation before going into storage.

    If a Russian ally faces another syria type situation you might find more sales of older equipment as syria has proven them useful and economical. Or if Ukraine kicks off again. Although a chunk has been shipped to syria I'd still think quite a bit still remains in storage reserve/storage figures are never accurate
    Regardless of the source. It's only what they are willing to admit some items will be kept in hidden storage some figures are only as good as those who count them and from experience sometimes guestimates wee done by officers/nco

    The exit of the less capable, less modern and less powerfull material is not in doubt. And the wars in Syria and Ukraine allowed Russia to clean the oldest material from their arsenals.

    The key of the issue is which material goes before, and which material can remain longer. Some kind of rank for exits is necessary, and some measures for the complete exhaustion of the material marked as first in line for exit are also necessary in order to avoid rests of these weapons remaining in the reserve.

    The ZSU-23-4 is not still between the material for fast exhaustion because there is other material less capable, less modern and less powerfull that is very likely to be exhausted before (between them the ZU-23(-2).

    Not all is about age, in the process of exhaustion there is also a technological component. Heavy towed weapons have technological disadvantages that make them to go before than other options. Even making mobile weapons like the ZU-23(-2) mounted in a truck or in a boat, there are design limitations that make them worse option than other options today in the Russian arsenals.

    But even between the mobile air defense weapons the ZSU-23-4 seems to be resisting the pass of the time better than other options like the SA-13 Strela-10 and the BRT-D variant with the ZU-23(-2) mounted. I think both will go to exhaustion before than the ZSU-23-4.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1380
    Points : 1556
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  d_taddei2 Yesterday at 4:59 pm

    @ GarryB

    In reality for an example a 122mm artillery gun whether D-30 or M-30 they do the same job although the former with some improvements

    My comment on this was not ammo compatibility but rather a 122mm artillery regardless of model generally do the same pound the enemy with 122mm shells and only minor differences in range and operation between models. So incase of syria getting the M-30 from Russia they needed artillery to pound enemy and Russia giving them artillery for free hence they choose to give them older equipment and ammo it's a win win situation syria still get artillery to pound enemy Russia gets to clear older stocks.

    @ eehnie

    My comments on older equipment were firstly highlighting that there comes a point where old equipment becomes too obsolete. And second point was equipment in storage wasn't always counted accurately. This is from experience and happens everywhere. If you were in the services you would realise this. So regardless of the sources you use eehnie they won't be 100% I know that might frustrate you or you might not accept that but it's true. Firstly as I stated some items will be kept secret. And the rest will have had guesstimates. And you have the corruption factor and everyone knows that Russian military had a big problem with this and it exists in every military. So items can be written off as damaged beyond repair or lost when in fact there not. You only have to look at all these recent warehouse fires in Ukraine where people are already questioning that ammo was sold on black market and also given to syrian terrorists. It's highly likely all the good stuff was taken out of the warehouse and only old ammo left inside when it was set a light.

    And yes they will be graded items were maybe no ammo/small amount/or unsafe ammo could be a factor. But also what still exists in other armed forces who use Russia to supply. Russia won't start production for older parts of equipment they will simply strip down old equipment in storage and give the part a quick overhaul and then sold. I bet there's many pieces of equipment laying in bits in warehouses which for counting purposes will be classed as scrapped but Russia will still be supplying parts for years to come. British army did it with older equipment and you found only hulls/chassis (empty shells) and were left to be weighted in and scrapped. In places like overseas areas items were sometimes just abandoned. In British exercises in Oman they shipped over 4 tonne trucks that were in reasonable condition after a few years they just dumped them in dessert or left for locals. In some cases we use to dump full packs of ration pack food or locals would give us crates of beer in return for them. When I was in Cyprus the army got rid of old landrovers they sold them off to local farmers at £500-£1000 which was a bargain.

    Also another thing that use to happen was when counting was done they use to say for instance for trucks anything over the count of 50 to submit the count anything under they weren't interested. Obviously in battalions that every truck was accounted but in storage depot they weren't interested unless it was over a certain number. At battalion level ration packs and other items whee usually dumped. When in Jordan the battalion dumped over 2000 unopened ration packs amongst over items boots dessert clothing etc. And I have no doubt locals took them. Also paperwork for bringing certain items back was a nightmare so sometimes at the end of any exercise we would be told to fire off flares, mortars, rounds of ammo etc to just waste it so no paperwork had to be done. I even remember that two LAW's had were fired off and a Milan missile just so no paperwork had to be done. Now if you take that attitude across the whole armed forces of uk imagine how much wastage was done. And friends have told it's seems worse now. We also did a boot trial for dessert boots to everyone threw them away because they were crap and everyone in the battalion were also issued current army issue desert boots which were terrible. you could never break them in a destroyed your feet in fact some people even drove over them in 4 ton trucks to soften them and they still weren't comfortable and I kid you not around 600-700 pairs of these boots were thrown away in desert. Lol. Gives you an insight.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2279
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  eehnie Today at 2:19 am

    Measures for total exhaustion are just to avoid lost units in storage, and other kind of situations.

    The recent reports about reduction of the number of items used by the Russian Armed Forces show clearly how measures for total exhaustion have been used in many cases.

    Taking into account the age of the material recently exhausted, or for exhaustion in the short/mid-term, there is not reason to find them in secret storage depots.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18348
    Points : 18908
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  GarryB Today at 3:26 am

    Obviously the GSh-23 or GSh-30 man-portable options would be for the points where the ZSU-23-4 can not access, but these are not many.

    Well never say never, but the GSh-30 and GSh-23 don't currently come in man portable versions.

    In terms of the GSh-301... it is a very specialised weapon optimised for fighter use with a relatively short barrel life and the real focus on very light weight.

    The twin barrel GSh-30 as used on the Hind was not really produced in enormous numbers so I rather doubt it would be used either... I personally would have gone with a GSh-30 twin barrel gun in the BMPT instead of two 2A42s... for that role you want rate of fire and the GSh is rather better than 2 2A42s... but clearly they wanted an Army gun...

    The GSh-23 is really only used on the Hind in the current model with it in a chin turret and on paper it should actually be an excellent weapon... compact light ammo with a good HE projectile with a high rate of fire and low recoil, but without a good light mount it is probably going to remain in Air Force stores rather than Army stores.

    Of course you do still see it offered for export on things like MTLB upgrades and I would suspect it would be rather useful as a compact but powerful weapon for unmanned land vehicles.

    Personally I suspect the 23x115mm ammo might become widespread as a modification of the 14.5x114mm KPV, as there is a version called the KPVB that is adapted to use the 23x115mm ammo... it would be much lower velocity unless they developed APFSDS rounds for it, but the HE round would pack rather more punch... and most of their BTRs had them so they should have a lot.


    The main advantege of the GSh-23 and GSh-30 over the ZU-23(-2) is in the massive difference of weight.

    The GSh-23 uses much less powerful ammo, but the GSh-30 uses more powerful ammo and both would be similar in weight or heavier than the ZU-23 when on a towed mount.

    The key of the issue is which material goes before, and which material can remain longer. Some kind of rank for exits is necessary, and some measures for the complete exhaustion of the material marked as first in line for exit are also necessary in order to avoid rests of these weapons remaining in the reserve.

    True but some stock will always be useful, like 203mm shells and 240mm mortar bombs, whereas some are just in storage because they really are obsolete and would only be taken out and used in a very desperate situation... which on its own is a good enough reason to store it.

    There is however no point in keeping ammo for which there are few or no weapons that can use it, and equally there is no point in keeping weapons for which there is no ammo or spare parts.

    The ZSU-23-4 is not still between the material for fast exhaustion because there is other material less capable, less modern and less powerfull that is very likely to be exhausted before (between them the ZU-23(-2).

    I disagree... the ZSU-23-4 uses a chassis and engine that needs to be maintained... so the costs of storage is higher... there is no point in storing them if you can't get parts or they don't make those track links anymore... all of the electronics are largely obsolete, so upgrades might make them cheaper to own, but that has costs too.

    In comparison you really just need ammo for the ZU-23-2.

    Not all is about age, in the process of exhaustion there is also a technological component. Heavy towed weapons have technological disadvantages that make them to go before than other options. Even making mobile weapons like the ZU-23(-2) mounted in a truck or in a boat, there are design limitations that make them worse option than other options today in the Russian arsenals.

    You are not wrong, but the ZU-23-2 by design is simple and rugged... by definition it is going to be easier and cheaper to maintain and operate than an armoured self propelled anti aircraft system like Shilka.

    But even between the mobile air defense weapons the ZSU-23-4 seems to be resisting the pass of the time better than other options like the SA-13 Strela-10 and the BRT-D variant with the ZU-23(-2) mounted. I think both will go to exhaustion before than the ZSU-23-4.

    That is possibly true but not for the reasons you are suggesting... the Strela-10 and BTR-D and ZU-23 are used by the VDV and the ZSU-23-4 is of no value for a replacement to any of those because it is too heavy for them to operate... even the MTLB based Strela-10 is too heavy to deliver by parachute, so they will need and likely will be getting a new air defence system to replace these systems... and it is called Fowler and will be based on the Pine Surface to Air Missiles... also known as SOSNA...

    In comparison to the 5km range Strela-10 and the ZU-23, the 10km range Pine has better range and PK performance with fast but cheap two stage laser beam riding missiles... it is a bit like a very fast two stage Kornet-EM... it is three times faster...

    So incase of syria getting the M-30 from Russia they needed artillery to pound enemy and Russia giving them artillery for free hence they choose to give them older equipment and ammo it's a win win situation syria still get artillery to pound enemy Russia gets to clear older stocks.

    Ahhh, yes I agree... the D-30s might have been more useful and easier to use, but the Russians could also use such weapons too... the M30 is almost as good and certainly better than nothing.

    I hate the word obsolete... the Mosin rifle model 1944 is obsolete on the modern battlefield but it can still kill you, and the ammo is still in use by the country that introduced it... it is not a Soviet round... it is a Russian round... if you know what you are doing and get the right ammo and optics you can kill at ranges the enemy wont even see you from most of the time.

    Obviously however there are cases where having 20 or 30 different weapons using the same ammo doing basically the same thing just creates confusion in terms of training and maintenance... and it simply does not make sense to keep things in storage that should be in a museum or scrap metal...

    It comes down to a judgement call and of course safety... some ammo can't be stored safely, so when you dispose of the ammo it makes sense to get rid of any weapon or system that uses it... unless that system or weapon is not replaceable so you need to make new ammo...

    At the end of the day if Russian armour stores no longer included T-34s and T-10s and T-54/55s, and T-62s, and T-64s, it would not be the end of the world, but if they contained nothing at all then their could be problems...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18348
    Points : 18908
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  GarryB Today at 3:33 am

    And you have the corruption factor and everyone knows that Russian military had a big problem with this and it exists in every military.

    Not sure about actual corruption but I have read they had a tradition of keeping new stuff away from conscripts and letting them use older stuff to learn on... so for example they would train on T-55s and T-62s with the T-72s and T-80s in storage to avoid wear and tear on the good stuff.

    Interesting info about the British army... thanks...

    Sponsored content

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:56 am