AZP-S60 this other forgotten hero

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!

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 AZP-S60, beside ZSU23-4, ZPU-14.5, ZPU-23,  AK-47, RPG-7, T-54/55, T-62, T-72, Mig-15, Mig-17, Mig-19, Mig-21, Mig-25, Mig-29, SU-25, SSNX-3 Styx, SA-2, SA-6, and many many others deserve respect. Why so few articles about this absolutly incredible legend ? Why this wonderfull hardware is so despised, including by russsiandefense's forum users ?
Its incredible palmares is :
- AZP-S60 was the unfortunate hero 1967 war, nevertheless effective after the surprise attack, and this hardware limited the egyptian, and syrian losses.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of Vietnam war.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of the 1973 war.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of Iraq-Iran war.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of Gulf war -1991-. It hampered in a significant way western bombing campaign.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of Israel-Hizbollah war in 2006.
- AZP-S60 is the actual hero of Saudi-Yemen war, where untill now, Saudis did not successfully reach their objectives. In fact saudi air force  -in reality westerners pilots and must be american pilots, if not israelis pilots run saudis aircrafts- did not reach any of its objectives.
- AZP-S60 has redoutable effectiveness, because as westerners provided a significant number to DAESH terrorists criminals, untill now, neither russian-syrian chinese bombardements, or US western coalition's bombardements were effectives. DAESH terrorists successfully took Ramadhi, and Palmyre. It proves the louder and ostentatious F-22 presence was just no more than a show, but completly useless. The most responsible of this faillure is still the AZP-S-60. Why ?
Westerners asserts that its effectiveness range is between 500-1500 m.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZP_S-60
Well, if I see untill now its effectiveness, and how this basic asymetric, anti-aircraft cannon could hampered the most modern air bombardements, this claim seems to be completly false. Why this success ?
In fact its secret could be its upgrade amnutions like HE-T, and AP-T. If I take the original amnutions, indeed, the range of the AZP S-60 could be limited to 1.500 m, where it can perfored 96 mm. But with modern amnutions it can perfored the fragile fighter bombers armour, and exploded inside the aircraft transforming this basic cannon as redoutable anti-aircraft artillerie, and sometimes as anti lightly armored vehicles. As I understood, its effective range must be above 5.000 meters. As the velocity of the amnutions are around 1000 m/s the fighter-bombers will have to fly high, and very quiclkly. In these conditions the precision could not be meet. If someone among you has more clues about this incredible, and amazing old soviet weapons that is still effective nowadays.

nemrod wrote:The AZP-S60, beside ZSU23-4, ZPU-14.5, ZPU-23,  AK-47, RPG-7, T-54/55, T-62, T-72, Mig-15, Mig-17, Mig-19, Mig-21, Mig-25, Mig-29, SU-25, SSNX-3 Styx, SA-2, SA-6, and many many others deserve respect. Why so few articles about this absolutly incredible legend ? Why this wonderfull hardware is so despised, including by russsiandefense's forum users ?
Its incredible palmares is :
- AZP-S60 was the unfortunate hero 1967 war, nevertheless effective after the surprise attack, and this hardware limited the egyptian, and syrian losses.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of Vietnam war.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of the 1973 war.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of Iraq-Iran war.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of Gulf war -1991-. It hampered in a significant way western bombing campaign.
- AZP-S60 was the hero of Israel-Hizbollah war in 2006.
- AZP-S60 is the actual hero of Saudi-Yemen war, where untill now, Saudis did not successfully reach their objectives. In fact saudi air force  -in reality westerners pilots and must be american pilots, if not israelis pilots run saudis aircrafts- did not reach any of its objectives.
- AZP-S60 has redoutable effectiveness, because as westerners provided a significant number to DAESH terrorists criminals, untill now, neither russian-syrian chinese bombardements, or US western coalition's bombardements were effectives. DAESH terrorists successfully took Ramadhi, and Palmyre. It proves the louder and ostentatious F-22 presence was just no more than a show, but completly useless. The most responsible of this faillure is still the AZP-S-60. Why ?
Westerners asserts that its effectiveness range is between 500-1500 m.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZP_S-60
Well, if I see untill now its effectiveness, and how this basic asymetric, anti-aircraft cannon could hampered the most modern air bombardements, this claim seems to be completly false. Why this success ?
In fact its secret could be its upgrade amnutions like HE-T, and AP-T. If I take the original amnutions, indeed, the range of the AZP S-60 could be limited to 1.500 m, where it can perfored 96 mm. But with modern amnutions it can perfored the fragile fighter bombers armour, and exploded inside the aircraft transforming this basic cannon as redoutable anti-aircraft artillerie, and sometimes as anti lightly armored vehicles. As I understood, its effective range must be above 5.000 meters. As the velocity of the amnutions are around 1000 m/s the fighter-bombers will have to fly high, and very quiclkly. In these conditions the precision could not be meet. If someone among you has more clues about this incredible, and amazing old soviet weapons that is still effective nowadays.

hi i have posted a couple threads about the 57mm gun, in S-60 form and ZSU 57-2 and have nothing but praise for it, the shell is devastating against aircraft and ground targets, i rather like to look at the gun itself than just solely the S-60, but i think really in todays conflicts, the only use the S-60 has is in the ground support role, in Syria they (SAA) have even mounted them on trucks.

the gun itself has is pure excellence and would be ideal mounted on a AFV,  i think the ZSU -57-2 is brilliant at providing ground suport and with a few modifications like adding armour to the turret to protect crew and some sighting upgrades and its a useful ground support vehicle and would be ideal to use them up in this manner if you have in your inventory. Also the gun has been used on upgraded PT-76's the PT-76E, see below,  and of course they could still be used in anti air role if needed. Another option for the S-60 would be upgrade along the same lines what the Iranian's did with the KS-19 (100mm) anti aircraft gun, think they called it Sa ir or saeer, which is fully automatic, self loading and radar controlled, see pic below, ive also included a video of the ZSU 57-2 being used in ground support role, enjoy, the S-60/ 57mm gun is a hero and could still be used in newer equipment as there is talk in putting on the new Kruganets AFV,

There is an excellent opportunity with the new vehicle families the Russians are developing for mobile gun platforms in the form of a range of vehicle types including heavy and medium tracked vehicles and medium and light wheeled vehicles.

Fitting a fairly large vehicle with a 57mm gun turret with the internal capacity of the hull of the vehicle for extra ammo would enable the creation of very powerful vehicles.

Imagine a 57mm gun armed armata based vehicle with an enormous amount of internal ammo, plus guided shells and modern long range sensors and heavy armour.

Not designed to take on enemy tanks of course, but pretty much able to take on any enemy light vehicle or ground position... and light aircraft...

GarryB wrote:There is an excellent opportunity with the new vehicle families the Russians are developing for mobile gun platforms in the form of a range of vehicle types including heavy and medium tracked vehicles and medium and light wheeled vehicles.

Fitting a fairly large vehicle with a 57mm gun turret with the internal capacity of the hull of the vehicle for extra ammo would enable the creation of very powerful vehicles.

Imagine a 57mm gun armed armata based vehicle with an enormous amount of internal ammo, plus guided shells and modern long range sensors and heavy armour.

Not designed to take on enemy tanks of course, but pretty much able to take on any enemy light vehicle or ground position... and light aircraft...

I don't think anyone believes a 57mm gun can penetrate the frontal armor of modern MBT's, however with guided shells it's quite possible with the help of command posts (maybe capable of guiding 20 or more shells at a time) and maybe drones for guidance accuracy, to direct 57 mm shells to hit (within 1-4 meters of each other) the top armor of MBT, taking out the crew compartments and the engine spaces.

and now Iran's new upgraded version of ZSU-57-2

http://armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_bahman_57mm_6x6_self-propelled_anti-aicraft_twin_gun_unveiled_by_iranian_armed_forces_11404162.html

Iran Defense Industry has developed a new wheeled self-propelled anti-aircraft gun system under the name of "Bahman", the vehicle was unveiled on Wednesday, April 13, 2016, during a ceremony on the occasion of the Army Day, attended by the Ground Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan.
The Bahman is 57mm twin-cannon self-propelled wheeled air defense system designed and manufacture by the Iranian defense industry. The vehicle is based on Ukrainian-made 6x6 truck chassis KrAZ-6322.

The Bahman seems to equipped with a modified turret of Soviet-made ZSU-57-2 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. Main armament consists of twin 57mm S-68 guns which have the same performance and use the same ammunition as the towed single S-60 anti-aircraft gun. The turret is mounted at the rear of the truck chassis.

The turret has an elevation an elevation of +85º, depression of -5º and 360º turret traverse. Elevation, depression and turret traverse are powered, with manual controls available for emergency use.

The original Soviet-made ZSU-57-2 has a rate of fire of 105 to 120 rds/min with a practical rate of fire of 70 rds/gun/min. Maximum horizontal range is 12,000 m, maximum vertical range 8,000 m, although effective ranges are less than this. Effective slant range is 3,993 m, effective altitude limit with weapons elevated at +45º is 2,835 m and effective altitude limit with weapons elevated at +65º is 4,237 m.
In firing position, the vehicle is stabilized by the use of two large hydraulic spades lowered on the ground on each side of the turret.

d_taddei2 wrote:...and now Iran's new upgraded version of ZSU-57-2...

Thx Taddei2
It could be useful for Iran, and especially for its friends and allies like Hizbollah. It could not deter, but could really complicate any israeli's aggression.
However the article is written by Armyrecongnition. As any western think tanks, they try either to despise, or to minimize the impact of weapons produced by US' adversaries. I beware of all western's websites. In my view this Bahman could exceed 7.000 if not 8.000 meters in practical vertical range. The AZP S-60 was designed in the late of 40's, 70 years after in my view the engineers could overcome its initial limitations, especially regarding its ammunitions. For that reason I think this weapon with modern design regarding its fire direction, with passive mode, and of course its power, the gun may reach 10.000 meters in vertical range, if not more. Hence this anti-aircraft hardware could be a real nightmare for any western fighter bomber trying to attack a target.

nemrod wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:...and now Iran's new upgraded version of ZSU-57-2...

Thx Taddei2
It could be useful for Iran, and especially for its friends and allies like Hizbollah. It could not deter, but could really complicate any israeli's aggression.
However the article is written by Armyrecongnition. As any western think tanks, they try either to despise, or to minimize the impact of weapons produced by US' adversaries. I beware of all western's websites. In my view this Bahman could exceed 7.000 if not 8.000 meters in practical vertical range. The AZP S-60 was designed in the late of 40's, 70 years after in my view the engineers could overcome its initial limitations, especially regarding its ammunitions. For that reason I think this weapon with modern design regarding its fire direction, with passive mode, and of course its power, the gun may reach 10.000 meters in vertical range, if not more. Hence this anti-aircraft hardware could be a real nightmare for any western fighter bomber trying to attack a target.

no problem,

I quite agree i this could also be good at long range fire support for ground troops, park this behind a large mound of earth and let rip. Would make short work of AFV's

d_taddei2 wrote:
I quite agree i this could also be good at long range fire support for ground troops, park this behind a large mound of earth and let rip. Would make short work of AFV's

I did not mean Iam right, U must be know better than me regarding this subject.
I just asserted that as the iranian hardware is a kind of modernized  ZSU-57-2, it is highly possible after 70 years that iranian engineers overcame some intrinsic limitations of the original AZP S-60's cannon. I think Iranian engineers worked on extending the range of gun -more than 10.000 meters- by designing new ammunitions -better velocity, and penetration, like modern AP-T for example -, and its fire direction system, relying on passive detection rather than radars. I suppose, Iam not sure. If the Bahman's ammunitions reaches 1.800 m/s, and they could overpass 10.000 meters altitude, it could be a redoubtable danger for any western fighter bombers, including the F-22. US Air Force could jam SAM missiles, but hardly AAA.

nemrod wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:
I quite agree i this could also be good at long range fire support for ground troops, park this behind a large mound of earth and let rip. Would make short work of AFV's

I did not mean Iam right, U must be know better than me regarding this subject.
I just asserted that as the iranian hardware is a kind of modernized  ZSU-57-2, it is highly possible after 70 years that iranian engineers overcame some intrinsic limitations of the original AZP S-60's cannon. I think Iranian engineers worked on extending the range of gun -more than 10.000 meters- by designing new ammunitions -better velocity, and penetration, like modern AP-T for example -, and its fire direction system, relying on passive detection rather than radars. I suppose, Iam not sure. If the Bahman's ammunitions reaches 1.800 m/s, and they could overpass 10.000 meters altitude, it could be a redoubtable danger for any western fighter bombers, including the F-22. US Air Force could jam SAM missiles, but hardly AAA.

i am agreeing with you because i believe what your saying could well be right, advances in tech,i can only assume that rounds and systems have been upgraded and a some drawbacks of the past been sorted, but being Iran not much info has been shared into that much depth.

d_taddei2 wrote:and now Iran's new upgraded version of ZSU-57-2

http://armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_bahman_57mm_6x6_self-propelled_anti-aicraft_twin_gun_unveiled_by_iranian_armed_forces_11404162.html

Iran Defense Industry has developed a new wheeled self-propelled anti-aircraft gun system under the name of "Bahman", the vehicle was unveiled on Wednesday, April 13, 2016, during a ceremony on the occasion of the Army Day, attended by the Ground Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan.
The Bahman is 57mm twin-cannon self-propelled wheeled air defense system designed and manufacture by the Iranian defense industry. The vehicle is based on Ukrainian-made 6x6 truck chassis KrAZ-6322.

The Bahman seems to equipped with a modified turret of Soviet-made ZSU-57-2 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. Main armament consists of twin 57mm S-68 guns which have the same performance and use the same ammunition as the towed single S-60 anti-aircraft gun. The turret is mounted at the rear of the truck chassis.

The turret has an elevation an elevation of +85º, depression of -5º and 360º turret traverse. Elevation, depression and turret traverse are powered, with manual controls available for emergency use.

The original Soviet-made ZSU-57-2 has a rate of fire of 105 to 120 rds/min with a practical rate of fire of 70 rds/gun/min. Maximum horizontal range is 12,000 m, maximum vertical range 8,000 m, although effective ranges are less than this. Effective slant range is 3,993 m, effective altitude limit with weapons elevated at +45º is 2,835 m and effective altitude limit with weapons elevated at +65º is 4,237 m.
In firing position, the vehicle is stabilized by the use of two large hydraulic spades lowered on the ground on each side of the turret.

now this is interesting but imagine if it was a 2 part 4 axis truck . front part like kamaz truck with cabin and passive irst , and rear with gun and laser,....that you could decouple automaticaly and front part rolls off hundred meters while still atached by towed cable to the rear. then just back up when danger is over.