Talk:ZSU-23-4 Shilka

NATO Codename Error

The NATO Codename "Awl" is assigned to a Soviet/Russian Air To Air Missile. For the time being I have removed the sentence saying that the "Awl" codename is applied to the ZSU-23-4, unless someone out there can provide proof that it is so. Wikiphyte 12:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. AA-4 AWL is the NATO reporting name for the Raduga K-9 long range missle carried by the MiG Ye-152, both of which never left the prototype stage. In my experience armor and ground vehicles never have NATO reporting names. Should have caught that one myself. Thanks and cheers. L0b0t 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate! I was beginning to doubt my fragmented memories with regards to NATO reporting names. Maybe someone should start an article on that one, if there isn't one already. Wikiphyte 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be on to something there. Awhile back one of the cable networks had a documentary about the MiG-15, and not once in the whole hour did they mention the NATO repoting name "Fagot" (I can only guess this was some kind of misguided nod to political correctness.) Cheers. L0b0t 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Gotta love PC eh! Was it the History Channel? I seem to remember watching a doco on the air war in Korea, or something related to it, and I'm sure they didn't say the word "Fagot", just the MiG-15. I'd like to know who was the person who came up with that name in NATO. He must have really hated the communists LOL:P! Wikiphyte 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I think it was History Channel. I spent some time as an air defender in the U.S. Army and every Friday we had to take a VACR (visual aircraft recognition) test: 100 silhouettes, 100 photos, and 100 tail roundels. One had to get at least 80 correct in each section or you got to spend your weekend studying and performing unpleasant work details (KP, gate guard, picking up trash). Sometimes the reporting names appear in my dreams (Fagot, Farmer, Fishbed, Flogger, Frogfoot.....) Cheers. L0b0t 14:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe ADA guy! They must have really drilled it into you fellas! What did you qual in? Chapparal, Patriot, Hawk, Vulcan? Wikiphyte 12:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was 16-R/S, M167 Vulcan cannon, Stinger missile. Arrived for the change over from the Gama Goat to the HMMWV and left during the switch from Vulcan to M1097 Avenger. During Just Cause, my squad sank a Panamanian Vosper PT-boat with our Vulcan (our gun is now at the Ft. Bliss ADA museum in El Paso, Texas.) Thanks for the kind words on my talkpage. I may well return, but for the next year or so I will be the asst. mess chief and head baker aboard whatever ship I get asssigned to. Cheers. L0b0t 14:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries buddy! So you switched from Army to Navy? Now that you have experienced both worlds which one would you think is better? I bags the navy. I don't know how it works in the US but over here Down Under it is always the Army who gets the scraps of the defence budget...until recently that is with the GWOT and our guys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh well, take care and we'll see you around! Wikiphyte 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, there are several small mistakes in your posts. 1. AA-4 "Awl" is a NATO codename for all modifications of Soviet series-produced R-8 (K-8) guided air-to-air medium-range missile (developed in 1955, used mainly by fighters SU-11 since 1962, those missiles were delivered to Warsaw-pact countries also) but not for experimental K-9 air-to-air missile. http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/vympel/v_list.htm 2. K-9 wasn't the long-range missile but guided medium-range missile. It should be also mentioned that experimental K-9 didn't represent the single prototype, in reality 26 K-9 missiles of 4 variants were produced in 1961, 10 launchings from E-152A fighter were performed the same year. But the program with K-9 was closed. 3. E-152 was an experimental interceptor fighter developed by MiG design bureau indeed, but 2 prototypes (E-152-1 and E-152-2) were built and tested. E-152-1 (E-166) achieved three world's records: average speed 2401 km/h along the 100 km route, average speed 2681,7 km/h (maximal speed was 3030 km/h) along the 15-25 km base length and altitude 22680 m (at speed 2500 km/h) along the 15-25 km base.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vlad, as always, you are a font of knowledge. My source for the above comment is most likely outdated (it predates Glasnost anyway) Ray Bond's Modern Soviet Weapons, ISBN 0138237581. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

ZSU-30?

I found a few references to a vehicle called a ZSU-30. Apparently, it's an antiair track used by the Soviet Union around the 80's. Its armament is a 30mm Gatling gun, but I've seen no other stats. If someone can find the stats about that vehicle and post it somewhere on Wikipedia, it's be much appreciated. Thanks. 75.27.191.73 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The ZSU-30-4 was a Sov SP ADA gun system that was to replace the ZSU-23-4. It used 30mm guns instead 23mm, but never left the drawing board. The project morphed into the Tunguska-M1 , there is a great history of the project here. Cheers. L0b0t 02:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ZSU-30-4 was a project to replace 23mm Shilka's autocannons with 30 mm autocannons. This would increase altitude from 2000 m to 4000 m and the probability to shot down jet aircraft with a speed around 300 m/s 1.5 times. The story was the following: several projects to increase the firepower and fire range of ZSU-23-4 using 30mm autocannons were developed in USSR since 1962 already. They included mounting of 30mm HH-30 naval autocannon of revolver-type developed by Design Bureau No. 16 or 30mm six-barrel AO-18 naval autocannon or 30ww AO-17 twin autocannon. Finally, it was decided to use 30mm AO-17 (2A38) twin autocannon but not mounting on Shilka but on completelly new vehicle. Thus, the self-propelled AA missile-gun system 2K22 Tunguska armed with two 2A38 30mm twin autocannons and two 9M311 surface-to-air missiles twin launchers was created. Tunguska-M1 is an incorrect term for this vehicle as Tunguska-M1 is a 2003 year modification of Tunguska-M with automatic fire control system and improved SAMs.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"NATO Reporting Name"

"Gundish" is not the reporting name for this vehicle, it's the reporting name for the radar set attached to the vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.117.106 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it is the NATO designator for ZSU-23-4's radar but I never saw such designator in Russian sources. The native name for this radar set is RPK-2 "Tobol", Tobol is a river in Kazakhstan and Russia - Tobol River Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Use during Vietnam War

A North Vietnam Army Shilka opened fire against a F-8 in ~1970, during the Vietnam war. The pilot barely avoided the burst. I read it in an aviation magazine, can not remember which one and which issue in particular. But I had to mention this, because it indicates that the Shilka was used in Vietnam War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.58.145 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Shilka SPAAGs were used successfully during the Vietnam War indeed (US pilots whose aim was to destroy Vietnam bridges and other ground targets from low altitudes (to avoid detections by stationary radars) reported about "seas of flame" created by Shilka's autocannons). When US pilots changed their tactics to avoid losses from Shilkas and other AA guns (towed S-60 57 mm autocannons mainly), and began to attack targets from higher altitudes US aircraft became visible for stationary radars and therefore became vulnerable to Vietnamese missiles.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What were the imperialists bombing by 1975, anyway?--172.190.26.21 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On page 26 of the Osprey-published book, 'F-111/EF-111 Units in Combat' by Peter Davies and Rolando Ugolini, F-111A crewman Lee Dodd recalls the use of the ZSU-23-4 by the North Vietnamese in the course of his combat tour (during Operation Linebacker 2) with the 474th Tactical Fighter Wing in 1972. Since this is testimony by someone who was there, then I think the article needs to include such an entry. MainBattery (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Advantages and Problems

The Advantages and Problems are quite repetitive and don't really bring anything. I suggest the removal of this chapter. At least, don't include it in the Description Chapter...

Germ (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This chapter contains quite important information about advantages/problems of ZSU-23-4 described in a corresponding literature. But I am planning to modify/improve this chapter indeed (when I have time for this); perhaps, all mentioned info will be placed in corresponding paragraphs of the Description Chapter and "Advantages and Problems" sub-chapter will be removed. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The corresponding info was included into the Description Chapter directly. The Advantages and Problems sub-chapter was removed. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Particular ZSU model unusued in Philippine military service, but in display

[1]

Hope this helps. Ominae (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia actually never used Shilka. Don't be confused by nonsense about Czechoslovak license on Jane's - it only shows how bad source Jane's is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.33.239 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ammunition feed

Is each gun only loaded 50 rounds at a time? or are the belts longer? The article isn't too clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.137.160 (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is NO. As a matter of fact there was no such term as "50-round belt" in the manual, when I was reading it.

There are two ways to load ammo: (1) from TZM (транспортно-заряжающая машина - transporting-loading truck) and (2) from the [tarp on the] ground, when TZM cannot be driven close enough. When ammo is fully loaded, there are only four belts there: 2x520 rounds for upper barrels and 2x480 for lower barrels. The belts are made of separate metal links, which can be easily separated/connected without rounds inserted - a "hook" on one link goes into "eye" on another, then turns about 60-90 degrees. When round is inserted into the link, it prevents the "hook" from turning far enough for separating the links. Rounds are inserted into the links with either manually operated loading device (man, it is a hard labor!) or by electric-powered 2.5kW loader, which is transported on TZM. Crew members load full length (480 or 520) ammo belts into turret using crank with sprocket located on hinged armor plate which covers ammo compartment (both on left and right side). There is also manual tool that allows to remove a single round from the belt (to be able to disconnect chain links) or to insert a round into link when connecting two belts. BTW, it is called "ribbon" (лента) in Russian, not "belt" (ремень) - just FYI. Where this "50-round or shorter belts" thing is coming from? Here is my guess. If you are not able to bring TZM close to ZSU (less then a couple feet), then somebody needs to carry the ammo from truck to ZSU and that somebody has human limits on what he can carry and how far. A single round weight is 450 grams. Add, lets say, 50 gram per chain link. That makes it half kilo per round and about 25 kilograms for "50-round belt", which would be probably a maximum what I would consider putting on shoulders of an infantryman also carrying his AK, spare clips, armor, grenades, water and so on. When those "50-round belts" are brought to ZSU, the crew uses that manual tool mentioned above to re-connect them together and load. Another thing to consider is belt length. I do not remember the number, it was long ago, lets say that it is about 50 mm per round, which makes those "50-round belts" about 2.5 meters long (over 8 feet). The belt cannot be folded, so if you do not want any dirt on your rounds (to prevent jams), you do not make it longer. Again, when it is all done and ammo is loaded, there are only four belts - one for each barrel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binary someone (talk • contribs) 07:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"maszyna do szycia"

"Maszyna do szycia" means "sewing machine" in Polish, not a language used by Afghan natives. Surely it's an error in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.239 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Afghan soldiers nicknamed it ...

The line about the nickname somewhat defies logic. It states that "Afghan soldiers" nicknamed it a sewing machine because the RUSSIAN word for sewing sounds close to the RUSSIAN original name "Shilka". Now I'm sure IF the Afghanis select a nickname for the beast they'll choose one in their own language and do not care about similiarities in Russian. Also shilka and shigh do NOT sound very similiar in Russian (in my opinion). I lived a long time in military environments in the East and the thing was always called the Shilka. The "sewing machine" was a propeller aircraft as far as I recall. I guess people could call the Shilka a sewing machine because of shooting rate, but then that would not be limited to afghani soldiers. Wonder if that's a case where one should seek for a proper source (also read section above please). --92.195.215.154 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC) JB.

I also thought this sounded dubious, but mostly because it's pretty clear that "Shilka" is just the romanization of the Russian "Шилка", and I was dubious that that word had anything to do with sewing machines (this connection is not actually mentioned). According to interwiki links leading to Russian Wikipedia, "sewing machine" is "швейная машина", which sounds nothing like "шилка". Further, the name seems in fact to refer to the Shilka river near the Chinese border. I've removed the assertion as it seems to have no basis in reality and is not sourced. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Six stroke V8?

Under the vehicle specifications, the engine is listed as a 6 stroke 8 cylinder engine. From what I can tell from other sources, the engine is actually a 4 stroke V6. The reference link to this fact leads to a 404. Does anyone know of another reference for the 6 stroke 8 cylinder configuration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.248.34 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There newer was any MZ "Beryoza"

In fact it's correct name is M3 Biryusa. Someone has blundered,and how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.97.11 (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Chronology

The table says it was developed 1956-1962 and in operation from 1962. The text says development started 1957 and that it has been in use since 1965. I guess it may have been delivered for tests in 1962 and accepted in 1965 but more accurate information would be nice.150.227.15.253 (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

citation question

Why does the fact "The United States operates a few ZSU-23-4 for testing." have a citation needed after it? there is a photo in the "Weapons and fire control" section with a US marine inside a ZSU taken at Camp Pendleton, does that not solidly prove that the USA had at least a few such ZSU's-23-4's for testing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5C02:20E0:0:0:0:C847 (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased Wording?

Noticed significant use of wording purely in praise of the design almost like a propaganda piece or advertisement and not more neutral language like what we are supposed to be using TheGuy1440 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)