ZSU-23-4 and ZU-23-2 AA Guns: Views

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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...

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...

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote: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.

This would fall into my comment I made there comes a point something becomes so old and obsolete that's it's scrapped etc. But also falls into comment around when equipment is stripped for parts and is defacto classed as scrapped or exhausted as u use and parts are sold to operators of the equipment including those private companies or privatw owners who own vintage equipment including aircraft.

And if u use a common sense approach items in storage that they want to put into secret storage ain't going to be items they don't see as usefull

The management of the storage that you described for the UK Armed Forces is quite bad. This is not only a military issue, good management of storage and its reduction is very important also in the civil industry,

The wars in Syria specially and in Dombass in lower degree, made to introduce a far stronger system of control of stored armament in order to find which material to provide to Syria. Many people working on it, finding first and repairing later, years appliying procedures to find and repair if necessary the less modern, less capable and less powerful weapons and their ammunition in every storage make credible the recent reports about the strong reduction in the number of different items stored. Well applied in a timeline of several years, is perfectly possible the total exhaustion of the important number of items announced in recent reports (from 3900 in 2014/5 to 2600 in mid 2018, a 33% of reduction).

Im trying to explain that this kind of work on reduction in the number of stored items applyed during a timeline of several years in not compatible with a situation of important amounts of lost material, because when detected the old material is included in the queue of material going out to Syria, in the form of combat ready weapons or in the form of spare parts.

The work in the Russian storage bases has been strongly reinforced these years, and the quality of the storage and the stored material improved significantly. There is a very important difference between a work of recount of inventary of 1 week or 2 that can give room to some lost material, and a continuous work of several years finding this material to exit. A work thaqt continues at this point and is easier with the time, with lower number of items around.

GarryB wrote:

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.

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...

You disected the comment, but the second part is the explanation of the first.

The reason that I commented affects also to other weapons based on previous BMD platforms (BMD-1, BTR-D, 2S9, BMD-2, BMD-3) in their areas and explains the decission of a faster development of the BMD-4(M) platform than the development of the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms.

With 800 SA-13 Strela-10 likely to go before (the range of its missiles is surpassed by modern manpads + weaker hull), there is not room to think in a fast retirement of the ZSU-23-4.

GarryB wrote:

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.

It is far more likely to see the GSh-23 and GSh-30 mounted on small structurtures in the mold of the used for 14.5mm and 12.7mm machine guns, and small structures that allow high angle for air defense use.

GarryB wrote:

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.

It seems the demand of ZU-23-(2) in Syria is enough for its total exhaustion in Russia. In this case Russia will not keep a stock of ZU-23(-2) weapons and provide a better and more powerful weapon instead. It would not make sense, this would not be the case of the 2S4 240mm and 2S7 203mm.

Neither Im talking about scrapping, except maybe for the remains of some unit not recoverable.

All the items stored by Russia are today useful. Some more, some less. My comments about the less capable, less modern and less powerful weapons being first in line for exhaustion are just about how Russia is selecting the material to keep.

The ZSU-23-4 obviously is not in the top of the most modern, most capable and most powerful weapons, but has still a technological advantage over other weapons. Despite the BMPT would be a modern concept, the ZSU-23-4 is some kind of precedent, is some kind of primitive BMPT, and can be used for this with the best performance after the modern BMPTs based on the T-72, that are very few still.

In fact the list of items first in line for exhaustion is a list in relative terms.

It would be interesting that you and/or GarryB mention which weapons can go before the ZU-23(-2) in your opinion because of being less capable, less modern, less powerful or less useful in overall terms. Very likely you will mention only weapons also on exhaustion, if not totally exhausted at this point.

At this point we are not talking about myths like the T-34 or the BM-13. The current weapons in line for exhaustion will be exhausted if the needs in Syria require to finish the Russian stored reserve. And today to provide weapons to Syria is a high priority for Russia over many other countries.

To note that if Im not wrong the data for the end production of the ZU-23(-2) in the Soviet Union would be 1980. After this data the production would be in China. And logically repairs, sale of used units conveniently restored, even upgraded, sale of ammunition, and sale of spare parts, continued in the Soviet Union and Russia.

It would be interesting that you and/or GarryB mention which weapons can go before the ZU-23(-2) in your opinion because of being less capable, less modern, less powerful or less useful in overall terms. Very likely you will mention only weapons also on exhaustion, if not totally exhausted at this point.

DShkM HMGs are less capable and less modern and less powerful, but only compared with ZU-23-2... HMGs have uses too as the ammo is still in widespread production whereas the 23x152mm round is no longer the standard Russian air defence cannon calibre... the 30x165mm has replaced it in the primary role on vehicles but no in mobile mounts...

As explained before, to be in the catalogues is not synonim of being in production. As example now we find the BMP-2 in the catalogues to export but its production stopped in 2008. Unlike you seems to suggest, the export of weapons is very controlled in Russia and directed toward Rosoboromexport, that update their catalogues frequently.

To win the war in Syria is key for Russia. This is clearly over many other issues. I do not think the satisfaction of the Russian weapons customers decreases by the exhaustion of some item in Russia, when its ammunition continues being produced while be necessary.

GarryB wrote:

It would be interesting that you and/or GarryB mention which weapons can go before the ZU-23(-2) in your opinion because of being less capable, less modern, less powerful or less useful in overall terms. Very likely you will mention only weapons also on exhaustion, if not totally exhausted at this point.

DShkM HMGs are less capable and less modern and less powerful, but only compared with ZU-23-2... HMGs have uses too as the ammo is still in widespread production whereas the 23x152mm round is no longer the standard Russian air defence cannon calibre... the 30x165mm has replaced it in the primary role on vehicles but no in mobile mounts...

This weapon would be exhausted earlier in Russia. It is logical.

It would be interesting if you try to expand the list, trying to compare also weapons for different roles. In fact, weapons of all the different types must converge to some kind of common rank/groups toward exhaustion where all are compared in relative terms.

I do not see 2009 in the links.

But the ZU-23(-2) is not in the picture.

It would be production of a component/spare part of the ZU-23(-2), not the entire weapon.

At the same data, there is also present in the picture production of a component/spare part of the ZSU-23-4, but 1982 would be the year of the end of the production of the ZSU-23-4.