Jump to content

ZSU-23/4 Super Deadly


Recommended Posts

Just a heads up, but if you have air support coming in and there are some ZSU-23/4's on the battlefield, well your in for a rude awakening. If you don't take them out first, then you are just throwing away your Air Assets. I made me a little test range with the newer Soviet Armor to test the American tank guns to get an idea of how powerful the tank guns were and at what ranges they could penetrate the Soviet tanks. Mind you I removed all of the Soviet tank crews and positioned different tanks starting at 500 meters out to just over 3,000 meters. Then I wanted to throw in a bunch of American Airpower to see their effect, after that 2 ZSU's with the crews manning them at the conscript level. I had 4 A-10's and 2 F4-Phantoms all coming in at the same time, only one aircraft even got close enough to drop its ordinance, the other 5 aircraft perished rather quickly. Being in a TOW Unit for 8 years now I see why we were told to knock out the ZSU's first, otherwise we would be getting ZERO Air Support. Now I know why, those things are NO JOKE!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aircraft in Combat Mission are extremely vulnerable to AA. I recently saw a F-15E Strike Eagle shot down by an igla in Shock Force. Unlikely.

Combine that with planes doing single bomb runs making pass after pass? Even low-threat environments are deadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Redwolf said:

They run out of ammo under sustained air threat, though.

The American M113 with the Vulcan is not any wimpier, and even has a bit more armor.

Well, in game SPAAGs could be perhaps overperforming but, in real life, the M163 should be wimpier than the ZSU-23-4. I remember back in the '80s that the consensus was that US Army lagged behind the Soviet Army in the mobile air defense department, and the eventual demise of the ill-fated M247 Sergeant York added insult to injury.

It will be interesting to see the Flakpanzer Gepard in action when the Bundeswehr/NVA module will be released! 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

...but, in real life, the M163 should be wimpier than the ZSU-23-4...

 

Why?

The Vulcan is capable of a much higher rate of fire when the target is locked, though bursts are short to conserve ammo with both vehicles.

Also, as @Redwolf pointed out, the M163 is armored slightly better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

The Vulcan is capable of a much higher rate of fire when the target is locked

According to wikipedia the M163 has a rate of fire of 3000 rounds / min in burst mode (1000 in continuous). The Shilka has 4 x 800-1000 RPM. The latter wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Why?

The Vulcan is capable of a much higher rate of fire when the target is locked, though bursts are short to conserve ammo with both vehicles.

Also, as @Redwolf pointed out, the M163 is armored slightly better.

I'm talking about the AA role.

The M163 had a shorter range and was not capable of engaging Mi-24V helicopters outside the envelope of their ATGMs. US Army was perfectly aware of these shortcomings and the DIVAD was the (unsuccessful) attempt to develop something really comparable to the ZSU-23-4 or the Gepard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also worth noting that a similar problem prompted the adoption of the new Tunguska SPAAG. The ZSU-23-4 was marginal (in terms of range) against TOW and HOT equipped attack helicopters. The introduction of the combination Apache/Hellfire completely outclassed the Shilka, range-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else to note re: ZSU-23-4 vs M163 is that the former had a Radar fire control system while the latter only had a Radar ranger. Thus, the Shilka can leverage its FCS to put shells where the computer expects the aircraft to be when they arrive vs the M163 where the gunner has to eyeball it.  I think this disparity, more than any other, makes the Shilka far more effective at the AAA role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't tried it yet, but I suspect just like the Tungusta in Black Sea the zip-gun is going to be a favorite in h2h quick battles as an all purpose eradication vehicle and used against ground targets and buildings quite a bit.

Unlike Black Sea the American side also has a rapid fire zapper in the M163.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, db_zero said:

Haven't tried it yet, but I suspect just like the Tungusta in Black Sea the zip-gun is going to be a favorite in h2h quick battles as an all purpose eradication vehicle and used against ground targets and buildings quite a bit.

Unlike Black Sea the American side also has a rapid fire zapper in the M163.

ZSUs are terrifying but a glass hammer for sure. A cross look will take them out. 

 

H

Edited by Halmbarte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2021 at 5:58 PM, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Why?

The Vulcan is capable of a much higher rate of fire when the target is locked, though bursts are short to conserve ammo with both vehicles.

Also, as @Redwolf pointed out, the M163 is armored slightly better.

I Agree, the Sgt York was a joke. But if I remember correctly, wasn't there a version of the Vulcan AA Gun mounted on a small carriage?? Something like what the Quad .50's had. I guess if that was added to this game it would probably be issued to the infantry battalions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gary R Lukas said:

I Agree, the Sgt York was a joke. But if I remember correctly, wasn't there a version of the Vulcan AA Gun mounted on a small carriage?? Something like what the Quad .50's had. I guess if that was added to this game it would probably be issued to the infantry battalions. 

For Airborne and Air mobile I believe.
 

For all that I said the ZSUs are terrifying in my current game mine just sat their drunk while attack helos zapped a T64 and at BRDM AT5. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gary R Lukas I had a battle in H2H where my air assetes were 2 A-10s with 4 Mavericks and 4 bombs, and 2 AH-1Fs with 8 TOWs and 38 Hydras, the enemy had Iglas and Shilkas. What I've learned from this battle is that Mavericks are hella good, the Shilkas and Iglas only fire when the A-10s are "Attacking", when they are coming around they would do nothing, same for the AH-1F, the AA only fired hwen he launced TOWs. So, I guess the game simulates the Maverick's standoff range againts the Shilka, (about 6km effective range for the ATGM and 3km effective range for the AA) and also obsticales that the Helis could hide behind, after all the battlefied was a fulda gap like terrain, so they were a lot of hills. I've launched my A-10s at the start of the game, and only one got shotdown at the end when he tried to do a bombing run (not the Mavericks) and the AH-1s i've launched mid to late game. They overhaul togather knocked out 8 tanks, and 5 BMPs. The tanks that i fought againts were T-64Bs, which i could not pen at 2000m with my M60 TTS, they would just fire first, not pen, and then get fired upon, and get penned. The CAS saved for me the game. I've also noticed a difference between AH-1s, AH-1Fs will survive longer than the AH-1Ss andthe AH-1Gs. Also for the typbe of aircraft, F4Es will not survive that much againts Iglas, Strelas and Shilkas, the A-10 however, will survive much more, and the best at it, is the F-16A, which BTW could carry the most Mavericks in the game (6 of them). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My drunken ZSU crew in Scouts Out! was jolted back to wakefulness by the exploding T64 and fired back w/o results. At least they didn't end the game with a full load of ammo while I lost 3 AFVs to American CAS. 

As either side I'm always assuming they other side has CAS. I typically try to scurry from tree to tree that has overhead cover and park vehicles in the shadow of buildings* whenever possible. It's not always possible to have overhead concealment and get the job done, but hey there's a war on and it's a risky business. 

If the pixeltroops wanted to be safe they shouldn't have been conscripted. 

H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trailer mounted Vulcan = M167 VADS. Replaced by M1097 Avenger sometime around 1994.

On 5/27/2021 at 1:48 PM, Gary R Lukas said:

I Agree, the Sgt York was a joke. But if I remember correctly, wasn't there a version of the Vulcan AA Gun mounted on a small carriage?? Something like what the Quad .50's had. I guess if that was added to this game it would probably be issued to the infantry battalions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a lack of a dedicated mobile antiaircraft (small) system like the Avenger nowadays? 

US doctrine goes from stingers straight to large antiaircraft vehicles. Correct? The assumption is we would control the sky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Isn't there a lack of a dedicated mobile antiaircraft (small) system like the Avenger nowadays? 

US doctrine goes from stingers straight to large antiaircraft vehicles. Correct? The assumption is we would control the sky?

The progression seems to be Singer > Patriot > USAF. 

 

Seems awfully trusting of the Army to rely that the USAF is always going to be able to achieve air supremacy. 

 

When I'm playing  I always assume the other side has effective air support. Lots of hiding under trees for units that aren't needed to keep them away from prying eyes. 

 

H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Halmbarte said:

Seems awfully trusting of the Army to rely that the USAF is always going to be able to achieve air supremacy.

Agreed... Sure the stingers can deter helicopters but they definitely don't have the fuel to be chasing planes. And the patriot? Well sure, but that's a very expensive alternative to a vehicle that can sling numerous cheap stinger missiles at once. I know they can cart the patriot around on trailers similar to the Pantsir. But it just seems totally impractical. Those patriots have to give off MASSIVE radar signatures. I can expect stand-off munitions to obliterate them in a real conflict.

Edited by Artkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vulnerability to detection and ARMs is a downside to pretty much all active radars before the more advanced AESA types were developed. 
 

It certainly seems like the Army believes that the USAF wouldn’t ever allow an adversary to get attack aircraft close enough to attack an Patriot battery with ARMs.
 

Indeed the biggest assumption is that the USAF would be able to keep the airfields open in the face of a multi pronged Soviet attack on them. Even without nukes the airfields would be hit long, hard, and continuously. 
 

H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You make excellent points. In ww2 the airfields were certainly all decimated.  And there ain't no aircraft carriers getting close. Even still those are just multirole aircraft

 

Edited by Artkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...