Zsu-23-2 Towed Anti-aircraft System

[INDIAN]

:india Hello! Friends,​

This is about ZSU-23-2 air defence system.Check it up!....​

ZSU-23-2 TOWED ANTI-AIRCRAFT SYSTEM​

The ZSU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun system comprises twin 23mm cannons on a towed two-wheel carriage. The cannons are mounted side-by-side between large ring-type trunions. The system resembles the 14.5mm ZPU-2, however the shape and placement of the ammunition boxes (at right angles to the gun carriage) and the prominent muzzle flash suppressers are its distinguishing features. The ZSU-23-2 is a highly mobile, air-droppable weapon. It has an effective anti-aircraft range of 2500 meters. The system is also effective against lightly armoured vehicles.

In the firing position, the ZSU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun system is levelled by jacks and stabilized on a three-point base. It uses an optical mechanical computing sight for A-A fire and a straight-tube telescope for ground targets. The crew can fire the gun from the traveling position during emergencies. On the towed system, ammunition is fed from box magazines mounted on the outside of each trunion. Reloading is fast and uncomplicated and the magazines are accessible easily. The beginning link of the new belt attaches to the link of the last old cartridge. This last cartridge automatically interrupts the firing cycle when it reaches the feed way and signals the bolt to remain open.

For more details, visit:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/zsu-23-4.htm

INDIAN

 

[Red aRRow]

Please add your comments to the article as per the rules. Thank you.

 

[Salman78]

It's called ZSU-23-4 and NOT ZSU-23-2.
Why did you bother to change it's name ?
The link provided is for ZSU-23-4

It's and old, outdated and obsolete system.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's called ZSU-23-4 and NOT ZSU-23-2.
Why did you bother to change it's name ?
The link provided is for ZSU-23-4

It's and old, outdated and obsolete system.

It's an old and outdated system, but the Chinese and Russians still use them as secondary units. Plus there was some scuttlebutt that the Chinese were slaving them to modern electronic FCS.

You certainly wouldn't want to be in a helo doing tank busting and elect to ignore them - and they have been impressed into some forces as possible UAV killers.

Old does not necessarily mean useless.

The Chinese and Russians still have T-34's as defensive guards on their borders - and they're a hell of a lot older then the Z's

 

[Pendekar]

iraqis use the same system to shot down some of the allied aircrafts during the gulf war. i believe it was the tornados

 

[tatra]

A few nations modernized their ZSU-23-4. There are upgrades available from Russian and Ukraine but also from Thales Netherlands (Signaal). Usually includes new, modernized or augmented firecontrol, sometimes addition of MANPADS and sometimes uses of new, more powerfull 23mm ammo types.

A question I have: the Chinese manufacture a 25mm variant of the ZU-23-2 AAA gun. What if any is the performance difference between the two, due to the change in caliber?

 

[gf0012-aust]

A few nations modernized their ZSU-23-4. There are upgrades available from Russian and Ukraine but also from Thales Netherlands (Signaal). Usually includes new, modernized or augmented firecontrol, sometimes addition of MANPADS and sometimes uses of new, more powerfull 23mm ammo types.

A question I have: the Chinese manufacture a 25mm variant of the ZU-23-2 AAA gun. What if any is the performance difference between the two, due to the change in caliber?

Not sure, maybe it's a logistics issue to keep a common calibre base within it's tactical doctrine (eg where it's likely to be employed it will also be supported by other 25mm weaps - hence a tactical logistics issue)


As for a quad downing US aircraft in Desert Storm, I can't find any detail as to any US aircraft killed by this system.

 

[Awang se]

i seen a video footage once of a shilka under a camo net firing on what's looks like a tornado or F-14s that's fly low. it's on azzam.com when i was still a University student and that is 3-4 years ago. the writer claim that the aircraft was shot down but i don't see it go down. but i do see the aircraft was hit and smoke come out from right wing and engine.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i seen a video footage once of a shilka under a camo net firing on what's looks like a tornado or F-14s that's fly low. it's on azzam.com when i was still a University student and that is 3-4 years ago. the writer claim that the aircraft was shot down but i don't see it go down. but i do see the aircraft was hit and smoke come out from right wing and engine.

If anything it would have been a Tornado - they were the only aircraft with the approp systems in place and tasked to do low level strike IIRC.

Those RAF pilots had balls.

 

[adsH]

I don’t think the RAF tornado ever went down because to Iraqi Anti Aircraft guns, it was mainly the American Friend or Foe i.e. if (AC = = Friend); do { Kill Target} i.e. doing the job worthlessly for what it was designed to do.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don’t think the RAF tornado ever went down because to Iraqi Anti Aircraft guns, it was mainly the American Friend or Foe i.e. if (AC = = Friend); do { Kill Target} i.e. doing the job worthlessly for what it was designed to do.

adsH, the RAF took some very bad early losses in the air war because of their mission profiles. In the end they were forced to play higher to avoid losing crew. The shift in tactics happened after the famous incident where RAF Tornado pilots were paraded in front of Iraqi TV and it became apparent that they had been beaten by the Guards.

Tornados had got down low out of necessity because their cratering loads needed low release.

It had nothing to do with IFF issues.

 

[adsH]

adsH, the RAF took some very bad early losses in the air war because of their mission profiles. In the end they were forced to play higher to avoid losing crew. The shift in tactics happened after the famous incident where RAF Tornado pilots were paraded in front of Iraqi TV and it became apparent that they had been beaten by the Guards.

Tornados had got down low out of necessity because their cratering loads needed low release.

It had nothing to do with IFF issues.

if i can recall right there were RAF pilots that were on the Tele. Thats the thing I can't remember. If I recall right the USAF pilots were allot more Resistive, then the British Pilots (according to the RAF pilots account). I think it was a “news night†interview where they interviewed the RAF Pilot. Gf do you know how many tornados went down during GW I. Not too sure but the tornados were dam new at that time and they had some problems with weapon integrations.

 

[insas556]

It's called ZSU-23-4 and NOT ZSU-23-2.
Why did you bother to change it's name ?
The link provided is for ZSU-23-4

It's and old, outdated and obsolete system.

In the Indian sub-continent and scenario one cannot just throw away weapon systems. Financial constraints and common sense dictate this. While the Indian Army is getting the new Tungushka AD systems, they are pretty expensive.The IA ZSU-23-4 schilkas are being upgraded by BEL India with Israeli assitance. deatails are here:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/ZSU-23-4.html