Sergeant York vs ZSU-23 / Tunguska: WTF?

[Rubberanvil]

I went and found some links on the Sgt York and Point Air defence for Army formations. They're revelent as everyone here miss the primary problems on the York on over-expectations for the guns, wrong radar and nobody wanted it much less to work on it.

[Torr Samaho]

Originally Posted by Leo1

Detailed pics of the Pantsir-S1, but with no missiles on the rails- the truck version carries 12 missiles total

The same turret is mounted on a tracked chassis (the same as Tunguska's) for use by the Army in its traditional role of defending mobile armored forces.



Pantsir-S1 should enter service in the Russian military in 2008 (whether it's going to the Army or Air Force first, or both simultaneously, is unknown).

You can see the new radar setup compared to Tunguska as well as the optical sensors on the roof. You'll also note that one of the radars on the truck chassis is different from the radar on the tracked chassis- that's because the one from the tracked chassis is from an older picture- that radar was replaced later in development.

they made a truck version of it? i guess the gun/missile rack can be unloaded from the truck and the truck used in other roles too, that's impressively flexible and less expensive than a tracked chassis.

performance of the tunguska and the gepard with stingers mounted on the turret in the same way should be about equal, probaby with more range for the gepard's guns, and less for the stingers compared to SA-19.

[Leo1]

performance of the tunguska and the gepard with stingers mounted on the turret in the same way should be about equal, probaby with more range for the gepard's guns, and less for the stingers compared to SA-19.

I don't know about that. Not only is the Stinger simply an inferior missile (it's a MANPADS class weapon, simply not in the size class of the Tunguska-M1s missiles- less range, smaller warhead and slower), the Stingers are tacked on as an after-thought, not intergrated fully as they are on Tunguska (the Tunguska carries eight missiles to the Gepard's four).

I don't think the increased power of the Gepard's guns (sacrificing rate of fire) balances that out, IMO. I'd rather have four barrels with 5,000rpm than two barrels with 1,100.

[Torr Samaho]

Originally Posted by Leo1

I don't know about that. Not only is the Stinger simply an inferior missile (it's a MANPADS class weapon, simply not in the size class of the Tunguska-M1s missiles- less range, smaller warhead and slower), the Stingers are tacked on as an after-thought, not intergrated fully as they are on Tunguska (the Tunguska carries eight missiles to the Gepard's four).

I don't think the increased power of the Gepard's guns (sacrificing rate of fire) balances that out, IMO. I'd rather have four barrels with 5,000rpm than two barrels with 1,100.

i see, i must have confused the SA-19 with the SA-18, which is about equivalent to the stinger. silly me
clearly, an integrated, more powerful system is superior to a more or less improvised one, this makes up easily for the maybe 1 km more range of the gepard guns.

i found a description of the firing sequence here, the advantage to not being fire and forget is the ability to track incoming guided bombs. an S-400 site (which can shoot down missiles by itself) with point defense provided by tunguskas must be a tough nut to crack.

but the most interesting part is the possibility to launch S-A missiles at *ground* targets. this certainly kills an APC, never mind the cannons.

[Alamo]

I have to disagree here with the OP. It starts out with a basic assumption, that the ZSU-23-4 is a great weapon. This tends to be a common perception, especially in western techno-thrillers. The US Air Force also seems to have been bizarrely enamored with it, piling praise upon it and giving it a kill probability of .3, that is, one out of three planes that enter its range will be shot down. However the air force seems to have been anything but an unbiased observer, using the specter of the Shilka to get congressional funding for a new tank buster missile, the Maverick.

The United States possess a large number of working models of the ZSU-23-4, which have been used for an intensive series of tests, in which US Army gunners fired thousands of rounds at remotely controlled drone targets and tracked hundreds of passes by real fighters. The tests took place under what are called 'begin' conditions. The gunners were always forewarned of the approach of the targets, which flew past without exhibiting the realistically violent maneuvers that might be expected from planes flown by pilots afraid for their lives. The conclusion officially drawn from these tests as that the Shilka was just as deadly as had been feared and that it would claim, on average, one victim from every three passes by enemy aircraft in range. However, unofficial reports from reliable sources attest that the actual results of the tests indicated something rather different: the effectiveness of this weapon, even in the most favorable conditions, was about 100 times worse then the Pentagon had chosen to believe. Furthermore, the weapon was near useless against a maneuvering target. Such a conclusion was and is entirely unwelcome to the US Air Force since it questions the logic of a very expensive program to develop and buy 'standoff' weapons that are to be launched well outside the range of the "deadly" Shilka.

Source, pg. 156-158 The Threat: inside the Soviet war machine by Andrew Cockburn.

Not only that, but the system was mechanically unsound, its engine having the unreliability inherit to most Soviet machines. Powered by a Soviet tank engine cut in half, the Iranians found these to be so poorly made that all Shilka units were ordered to never travel over 18 miles under their own power or else they would surely break down. Other faults include hideously short barrel life, and early models of the Shilka exhibited a tendency similar to that of the York, that is to let loose bursts of fire at near random. This fault at least, seems to have been fixed in later models.

[JC - Interrupted]

Necro is BAD.

[Twisted Mentat]

Originally Posted by JC, Interrupted

Necro is BAD.

Posts without content are even worse.

[marvelous stan]

I've definitely heard a lot more praise for the Shilka as a close support vehicle than in its anti-aircraft role.

[Alamo]

What the... It showed up in new posts and I didn't bother double checking the date.

[Leo1]

That book again? Dude, the ZSU-23 was combat proven against the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War. It was indeed every single bit as effective as its been made out to be. "Unofficial reports from reliable sources" my ass- that's textbook unsubstantiated bullshit, and need not be taken seriously whatsoever.

[Joku]

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Its a vastly improved HEAT round (in both flight properties and lethality) that has a proximity fuse when it is in AIR mode. Basically your main multipurpose explosive round can be switched in a moment to be used against helos.

Btw, is it much more expensive than normal HE shells? Just wondering as there wouldn't be much point in blowing AA capable rounds at insurgents in various countries..

[Torr Samaho]

Originally Posted by Alamo

What the... It showed up in new posts and I didn't bother double checking the date.

i wonder why. i just linked this thread in the one about failed procurements since the seargeant york was brought up there and this one came to my mind. might be something for the people who do the forum's technical work.

but anyway, i feel it adds a good point to the discussion, so i don't see why this post should be "bad" just because the thread is old.

as leo1 said, the shilka shot down several israeli planes flying low to avoid SAMs, it's mentioned on the OPs wiki link.

plus its roof shredding power comes handy for infantry support, the russians even made an IFV with dual 30 mm guns and grenade launchers recently, can't remember its name.

[Robert_Utumno]

Originally Posted by Leo1

That book again? Dude, the ZSU-23 was combat proven against the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War. It was indeed every single bit as effective as its been made out to be. "Unofficial reports from reliable sources" my ass- that's textbook unsubstantiated bullshit, and need not be taken seriously whatsoever.

How many aircraft did the ZSU-23s shoot down?

[JC - Interrupted]

Originally Posted by Torr Samaho

plus its roof shredding power comes handy for infantry support, the russians even made an IFV with dual 30 mm guns and grenade launchers recently, can't remember its name.

The Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov (BMP-T).

[Alamo]

Originally Posted by Leo1

That book again? Dude, the ZSU-23 was combat proven against the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War. It was indeed every single bit as effective as its been made out to be. "Unofficial reports from reliable sources" my ass- that's textbook unsubstantiated bullshit, and need not be taken seriously whatsoever.

What do you mean "that book"? You pointed out that one of the authors sources concerning a tank gun was not very reliable in hindsight. I accepted this and moved on. It does not mean that the whole books validity is gone.

Now, there is a reason that I so often use this as a reference. Before I read it, I had a pretty normal view of the Soviet era military. Their equipment was rugged and reliable, their army was a massive juggernaut, and the only way to stop them from from overrunning Western Europe would be the use of nuclear weapons. This book completely changed my view on the matter, and I suggest you try and get it at your local library. The author found that many of the generally accepted "truths" concerning Soviet equipment did not hold up in light of the experience of the enlisted veterans who had to use them. Much of the book is composed of interviews with these veterans, Suverov being just one of them. It should be noted that the author accurately predicted the current disaster of the US defense industry-in 1983.

Now, back to the main debate here. If I am wrong, then show me. If the Shilka has such a sterling combat record it should be pretty easy to show. Prove to me that its reputation is something other then just hearsay like so many other pieces of Soviet equipment.

If the Shilka was in fact mechanically reliable, in stark contrast to other Soviet armored vehicles of the day, then show me proof of that as well.

As to barrel life, well there is no real argument there. 3500 round barrel life is pitifully short, and just shows the restraints of Soviet metallurgy. It is hard to make direct comparisons to other weapons, due to differences in caliber, muzzle velocity, and rate of fire, but even so, the results are clear. The DEFA 552 had a barrel life of 10,000 rounds, despite being of much greater caliber (30mm) and having comparable rate of fire and muzzle velocity. And it was produced 12 years before the ZSU-23-4. The 20mm Hispano-Suiza 820 from the late 40's had a barrel life of 16,000 rounds in spite of comparable performance! Even the later improved Shilka's only had a barrel life of 4500 rounds.

Oh, and the final thing, about the Shilka's tendency to fire without any reason, that comes from Isby's " Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army", page 238.

[Leo1]

Originally Posted by Alamo

What do you mean "that book"? You pointed out that one of the authors sources concerning a tank gun was not very reliable in hindsight. I accepted this and moved on. It does not mean that the whole books validity is gone.

Now, there is a reason that I so often use this as a reference. Before I read it, I had a pretty normal view of the Soviet era military. Their equipment was rugged and reliable, their army was a massive juggernaut, and the only way to stop them from from overrunning Western Europe would be the use of nuclear weapons. This book completely changed my view on the matter, and I suggest you try and get it at your local library. The author found that many of the generally accepted "truths" concerning Soviet equipment did not hold up in light of the experience of the enlisted veterans who had to use them. Much of the book is composed of interviews with these veterans, Suverov being just one of them. It should be noted that the author accurately predicted the current disaster of the US defense industry-in 1983.

Its pretty obvious said author has a partisan agenda - i.e. trying to minimise the threat with a series of anecdotes. In this case, he doesn't even grace the reader with a source.

Now, back to the main debate here. If I am wrong, then show me. If the Shilka has such a sterling combat record it should be pretty easy to show. Prove to me that its reputation is something other then just hearsay like so many other pieces of Soviet equipment.

You mean apart from the fact that the results of its combat debut in 1973 is common knowledge? That's not good enough? Tell me, did he even address that issue, or did he just ignore it?

As for showing you - why should I? Because some author in a book wrote "unofficial reports from reliable sources" - and you just took that at face value?

I'm sorry, but in both history and journalism that's simply unacceptable. Where's his sources? Why is it "unofficial"? Why can't he name names? Cite test data?

The answer is because he's obviously completely full of shit. His agenda is crystal clear from this - argue that the US defence industry is perpetrating some massive fraud on the people through the use of anecdotes and naked innuendo.

There's no reason to believe a word of his nonsense if he won't even offer up a source, a name, dates, and data to back up his claims. None.

If the Shilka was in fact mechanically reliable, in stark contrast to other Soviet armored vehicles of the day, then show me proof of that as well.

Again - why should I? Because some author in a book wrote "unofficial reports from reliable sources" - and you just took his word for it?

I'm well aware of Andrew Cockburn - he's a classic anti-war journalist still active today, and whilst his heart is in the right place, he is grossly partisan, anti-military to a fault, and prone to engage in gross hyperbole.

As to barrel life, well there is no real argument there. 3500 round barrel life is pitifully short and just shows the restraints of Soviet metallurgy

Who says? You? Why? Do you have access to the operational use of ZSUs and how their barrel life restricted their performance in combat? What, do you think these things were meant to spit out thousands of rounds in each engagement?

It is hard to make direct comparisons to other weapons, due to differences in caliber, muzzle velocity, and rate of fire, but even so, the results are clear. The DEFA 552 had a barrel life of 10,000 rounds, despite being of much greater caliber (30mm) and having comparable rate of fire and muzzle velocity. And it was produced 12 years before the ZSU-23-4. The 20mm Hispano-Suiza 820 from the late 40's had a barrel life of 16,000 rounds in spite of comparable performance! Even the later improved Shilka's only had a barrel life of 4500 rounds.

So what? How does this affect its performance in any significant fashion in combat? It doesn't. Or is it your argument that the logistics structure of which they're part don't have spare barrels on hand?

Oh, and the final thing, about the Shilka's tendency to fire without any reason, that comes from Isby's " Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army", page 238.

Yeah, early versions had cooling systems which weren't able to deal with very prolonged periods of fire, which sometimes caused chambered rounds to cook off, which would fire them, chamber a new round, and then it'd keep on going. This was not ever a particularly critical recurring problem, and is in no way comparable in significance to the useless Sgt York fiasco.

[Ghost_msl]

And the fix was relatively simple - flexible metal pipes instead of older style solid pipes.

[Alamo]

Sorry for the necro, but I thought it was better then starting another thread.

Leo, I'd like to apologize. I finally managed to track down some good references to the ZSU-23's service in the '73 war, and I withdraw my statements about it. It's targeting computers and radars did work reasonable well and they were able to hit a maneuvering target. You were right, I was wrong.

I still stand by some aspects of my older sources, such as the mechanical unreliability of the ZSU-23's engine and drive-train, but other then that, the Shilka was a fine weapon.