We were told in the '70s' on the communist border in the 2nd CAV, we would not get Cobra support if there was one of these on the battlefield. Evidently it was a very effective piece of battle equipment.
I was a gunner in one of those in the east german army 82-85. Of note, the radar was operating within the microwave frequency range. I remember getting "sea sick" for the first time in my life on a ride in rough terrain with the hatch closed
WinnyJ1 - In my two tours to Iraq and one to Afganistan, I will say that its really comforting to know that an Apache or Kiowa is covering you. I know from experience that even on a clear day, most of the time I never even knew an Apache was covering us because I couldn't see or hear them, but they would let us know they were up there.
Stormwern - So your tell me that you have been in an Abrams that got shot by an Apache? Sorry buddy but I'm calling bull shit on that one. I'm not saying that there hasn't been friendly fire but usually when a Hellfire missile hits something, whoever or whatever is in it isn't going to live to tell about it.
I've always wondered if the turret of the Shilka could be used as a CIWS for naval vessels. Obviously, not for modern militaries, but a Shilka turret defending your light missile boat should be a lot better than a manually operated 14.5mm.
It has no real benefits over Russian/ex-Soviet CWIS systems, the inopportune space usage (it uses a 1840mm mount compared to the 1240 of the AK-630) and the low fire rate (about 3,400-4,000 maximum compared to the 5-10k of the various AK-630 variants) make it compare rather unfavourably.
It is a popular AFVID vehicle - but I never included it in the tests. Just the PEs. For the tests you get Tunguska - which half would still call a ZSU. (Best answer ever on a test: "Cordoba". I assume it had rich corinthian leather.)
MrFalconfly Sorry bud but hats never gonna happen. The guns penetration is too low for high tiers and the tank's design doesn't fit with the low tier time period. Plus it's an anti air platform so it has no role to play in a tank only environment.
I don't think so, the Shilka has the guns clustered on the front of the turret where the Hydra spaces them out, reminds me more of a quad gun version of the '60s West German Flakpanzer Gepard.
Many years late so you may have found this out since - but they do, and not just for ground forces. The standard fighter unit of the Air Force (or Air Defence Force, a separate entity during the Cold War) was an "IAP" - istrebitel'niy aviatsionniy polk, fighter aviation regiment.
The_Chieftain I happened to know that because we Chinese also primarily use steel cartridge case and it was the soviet who taught us how to do that. Love the soviets!
The Shilka: a quite simple and practical vehicle to operate that was feared by any flyer! A vehicle that only the Russians could build! But why couldn't the western army build something similar? It would not have been difficult to use the ubiquitous m-113 as a chassis to start with instead of creating the incredible fuck up such as the Sergeant York! In this the USA has failed very badly instead of learning from the Russians! Btw I wonder if vehicles like the Shilka is still feasible for modern warfare but I think that it might still be useful with upgraded armour and electronic equipment!
+Paolo Viti M113 was modified as an SPAAG. The m163 VADS, compared to the shilka it had a smaller calibre but better accuracy, it was all around a success, even if it never got the chance to actually shoot anything down. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_VADS
missiles were deemed more important due to their longer range, if the aircraft are already within range to fire their missiles then it’s already too late. and attack helos? same. it’s also different tactics used: you aren’t getting infantry so far ahead of AAA that those are able to attack. and Close in fire support from planes and helos makes the need for a devoted anti-aircraft canon less as the helos and planes are engaging the aircraft and helos
@@bostonrailfan2427 i think that you are correct but I'm not a tactician but simply an armchair "general"! But I noticed that the troops are becoming far too dependent on missiles and very expensive equipment....
+John Kantor The M247 Sergeant York DIVAD (Division Air Defense) was generally considered to be a krap piece of kit. Besides, it's yank... The ZSU 23/4 was soviet.
+petethebastard Because the News Media and US Liberals did a hatchet job on it - like they do on every weapon system. They can't call soldiers "baby killers" any more so they attack the military through the back door. Even if the Sgt York was fatally flawed - to this day they have never came up with a replacement for it - which is just what Liberals want - a completely ineffective army that only generates casualties that they can use to justify cutting-n-running from any place, any time.
John Kantor Which is more likely: that liberal American citizens are a secret cabal rooting for America's failure in favor of.... what? Or that they are just as pro America as you but with much better critical thinking skills and a resistance to jingoistic and blind obedience to a military industrial complex that knows how to push your guns 'n god buttons?
Charles Ball Charles Ball First of all I'm not on the Right. You should look at what the Left stood for before 1940. (Actually before they were defeated in the Spanish Civil War.) Second, Trump is right (at some mindless chimplike level) about the Liberal media's bias. They lie about EVERY weapons system - and then when those systems eventually are debugged and prove to be both a quantum leap in capability and well ahead of any potential adversary just ignore them and start attacking the next one. Just recently the F22 and the Osprey were both characterized as boondoggles - as they are now doing with the F35. Of course the reason we have to build ridiculously complex do-everything weapons systems is diectly related to that bias. It's a self for filling prophecy. If we build multiple weapon systems (and lose all of the economies of scale and logistical standardization that the F 35 is specifically designed for) we will be called warmongers just becuse if the numbers. They will still attack the costs of maintaining all those separate systems and their personnel (even though they might be less than something like an F35 - but if we aren't building those kinds of weapon systems we won't have anything to compare them to), and because the survivability of these platforms will be lower (made up for by numbers), any actions where we take losses will be characterized as complete and total failures regardless of the strategic outcome. Reporters build their careers on sensationalism and destroying people and institutions whether they deserve it or not. An even better example from the Sergeant York period is the "Neutron Bomb" - as they called it. Not a single thing the news media ever said about that that was true. It was all Left-Wing fear-mongering, anti-military bias, and Cold War appeasement.,
![Natanael Cano - Amor Eterno [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EO4prCs6WpM/mqdefault.jpg)
I was a driver of this machine in the '90 -'91. I was serving in the Polish Army. Thanks for reminding my beloved Shilka. Regards.
what was driving it like? Are/were the crew comforts any good?
BASED POLAND
hello, I am planning to make a simulator that I hope will include the zsu 23 4, do you have access to an operator's manual for the system?
We were told in the '70s' on the communist border in the 2nd CAV, we would not get Cobra support if there was one of these on the battlefield. Evidently it was a very effective piece of battle equipment.
I was a gunner in one of those in the east german army 82-85. Of note, the radar was operating within the microwave frequency range. I remember getting "sea sick" for the first time in my life on a ride in rough terrain with the hatch closed
that seems... not crew friendly.
most war vehicles are not built for comfort lol@@osmacar5331
Shilka is a legend as far as AAA is concerned .
shame this couldn't get a full episode
Whether I was playing Operation Flashpoint or Falcon 4.0, Shilkas always received a healthy amount of respect from me.
Love you for Operation Flashpoint reference. This Czech gem lives in our hearts forever
Motherfucking Zeus, the nightmare of any Operation Flashpoint pilot. Good old memories.
"3! ENGAGE that SHILKA, 500"
"Oh no! 3... is down!"
man what a good time that game was.
haha true.
I developed some respect for these nightmares when i first uncounted one flying my Apache gunship.
WinnyJ1 - In my two tours to Iraq and one to Afganistan, I will say that its really comforting to know that an Apache or Kiowa is covering you. I know from experience that even on a clear day, most of the time I never even knew an Apache was covering us because I couldn't see or hear them, but they would let us know they were up there.
They've killed a fair few Abrams I've been in too
Stormwern - So your tell me that you have been in an Abrams that got shot by an Apache? Sorry buddy but I'm calling bull shit on that one. I'm not saying that there hasn't been friendly fire but usually when a Hellfire missile hits something, whoever or whatever is in it isn't going to live to tell about it.
This thing is actually pretty underrated in Wargame:Red Dragon. Used to see it get spammed a lot cause of its firing on the move thing.
I've always wondered if the turret of the Shilka could be used as a CIWS for naval vessels. Obviously, not for modern militaries, but a Shilka turret defending your light missile boat should be a lot better than a manually operated 14.5mm.
It has no real benefits over Russian/ex-Soviet CWIS systems, the inopportune space usage (it uses a 1840mm mount compared to the 1240 of the AK-630) and the low fire rate (about 3,400-4,000 maximum compared to the 5-10k of the various AK-630 variants) make it compare rather unfavourably.
man I always loved the Shilka....thanks for this video!
Cheers for sharing this with us Chief!
operation flashpoint flashback
Still an amazing game!! too bad all the others after it were not as good.
krucafuks123 hahaha when they started shooting down your helicopter, "fuck fuck fuck" hahahah
Oh man the memories. I remember stealing a shilka after killing the crew on an island and running amok with it! But the game was good too.
I loved using this thing to fire on masses of infantry in operation flashpoint.
SHILKA! Yes! Now, that's one of my favorites.
It is a popular AFVID vehicle - but I never included it in the tests. Just the PEs.
For the tests you get Tunguska - which half would still call a ZSU.
(Best answer ever on a test: "Cordoba". I assume it had rich corinthian leather.)
Would definitely like to have this thing in War Thunder.
Designed 1957 - 1962, in Service 1962 - present so sadly out of Gaijins timeline. The cutoff for War Thunder is 1953.
FirstDagger
Could be in the Soviet WoT Tree though.
MrFalconfly Sorry bud but hats never gonna happen. The guns penetration is too low for high tiers and the tank's design doesn't fit with the low tier time period. Plus it's an anti air platform so it has no role to play in a tank only environment.
Kyouko Sakura
Anti-Air or Anti-Anything soft skinned I don't like.
It's gonna be a monster against light tanks.
Kyouko Sakura lol how wrong you were
Shilka and tungushka. ❤❤
Operation Flashpoint! Anyone?
Anyone who plays any DCS games knows to be wary of this.
Perfect tool to kill Skinwalkers if you spot them in the forest.
If I recall correctly, we also nicknamed it the zipper.
The Doug De Muro of SPAAGs!
That's some serious firepower
after seeing one ,always wondered about them ,they look NASTY
Lol- seen chieftain at tank fest now, videos as good as ever- just a few more a bit faster would be appreciated ;-)
Reminds me of the WH40k hydra tank. Wonder if the Hydra was based on it?
I don't think so, the Shilka has the guns clustered on the front of the turret where the Hydra spaces them out, reminds me more of a quad gun version of the '60s West German Flakpanzer Gepard.
Interestingly, these type of SPAAGs are important again due to drones.
Nope Russians got the tuguska.
It's basically a shilka but better in every way with addition of missile and plus a better Cannon
Jeździłem tym dwa lata i sześć miesięcy
I'm not certain about it, but I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't use the Regimental system. Regiments are an artifact of the Commonwealth.
Many years late so you may have found this out since - but they do, and not just for ground forces. The standard fighter unit of the Air Force (or Air Defence Force, a separate entity during the Cold War) was an "IAP" - istrebitel'niy aviatsionniy polk, fighter aviation regiment.
Soviet shell case are steel not brass………………
Fair point. Never really thought about that, but you are, of course, correct.
The_Chieftain I happened to know that because we Chinese also primarily use steel cartridge case and it was the soviet who taught us how to do that. Love the soviets!
Also, in ths west, we tend to use the term " brass" as a generic word for case.
Known as the 'Sewing machine' by the Afghans.
This vehicle is perfect for cleaning up cities.
23mm HE?
Its a ZEUS!
from soviet strike
War absolut irre das Teil, einmal Flugzeug erfasst, war es verloren
Soviet Strike
soon war thunder :3
Nicholas I love your videos , BUT FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY PLEASE DITCH THEY HORRIBLE REPETITIVE "MUSIC" THAT ALL BUT DROWNS YOU OUT! :(
The Shilka: a quite simple and practical vehicle to operate that was feared by any flyer! A vehicle that only the Russians could build! But why couldn't the western army build something similar? It would not have been difficult to use the ubiquitous m-113 as a chassis to start with instead of creating the incredible fuck up such as the Sergeant York! In this the USA has failed very badly instead of learning from the Russians! Btw I wonder if vehicles like the Shilka is still feasible for modern warfare but I think that it might still be useful with upgraded armour and electronic equipment!
if the T55 and Mig 21 are still soldiering on today I see no reason why the Shilka shouldn't.
+Paolo Viti
M113 was modified as an SPAAG. The m163 VADS, compared to the shilka it had a smaller calibre but better accuracy, it was all around a success, even if it never got the chance to actually shoot anything down.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_VADS
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K22_Tunguska#Missiles
missiles were deemed more important due to their longer range, if the aircraft are already within range to fire their missiles then it’s already too late. and attack helos? same. it’s also different tactics used: you aren’t getting infantry so far ahead of AAA that those are able to attack. and Close in fire support from planes and helos makes the need for a devoted anti-aircraft canon less as the helos and planes are engaging the aircraft and helos
@@bostonrailfan2427 i think that you are correct but I'm not a tactician but simply an armchair "general"! But I noticed that the troops are becoming far too dependent on missiles and very expensive equipment....
Lopez Donald Taylor Angela Gonzalez Linda
The Sgt York would have been even more effective.
+John Kantor The M247 Sergeant York DIVAD (Division Air Defense) was generally considered to be a krap piece of kit. Besides, it's yank... The ZSU 23/4 was soviet.
+petethebastard Because the News Media and US Liberals did a hatchet job on it - like they do on every weapon system. They can't call soldiers "baby killers" any more so they attack the military through the back door. Even if the Sgt York was fatally flawed - to this day they have never came up with a replacement for it - which is just what Liberals want - a completely ineffective army that only generates casualties that they can use to justify cutting-n-running from any place, any time.
John Kantor Which is more likely: that liberal American citizens are a secret cabal rooting for America's failure in favor of.... what? Or that they are just as pro America as you but with much better critical thinking skills and a resistance to jingoistic and blind obedience to a military industrial complex that knows how to push your guns 'n god buttons?
John Kantor And the Sgt York really was an expensive heap of steaming crap, by the way.
Charles Ball Charles Ball First of all I'm not on the Right. You should look at what the Left stood for before 1940. (Actually before they were defeated in the Spanish Civil War.) Second, Trump is right (at some mindless chimplike level) about the Liberal media's bias. They lie about EVERY weapons system - and then when those systems eventually are debugged and prove to be both a quantum leap in capability and well ahead of any potential adversary just ignore them and start attacking the next one. Just recently the F22 and the Osprey were both characterized as boondoggles - as they are now doing with the F35. Of course the reason we have to build ridiculously complex do-everything weapons systems is diectly related to that bias. It's a self for filling prophecy. If we build multiple weapon systems (and lose all of the economies of scale and logistical standardization that the F 35 is specifically designed for) we will be called warmongers just becuse if the numbers. They will still attack the costs of maintaining all those separate systems and their personnel (even though they might be less than something like an F35 - but if we aren't building those kinds of weapon systems we won't have anything to compare them to), and because the survivability of these platforms will be lower (made up for by numbers), any actions where we take losses will be characterized as complete and total failures regardless of the strategic outcome. Reporters build their careers on sensationalism and destroying people and institutions whether they deserve it or not.
An even better example from the Sergeant York period is the "Neutron Bomb" - as they called it. Not a single thing the news media ever said about that that was true. It was all Left-Wing fear-mongering, anti-military bias, and Cold War appeasement.,
why did they get someone who acts like a news anchor for this job.
As he's professional. Also he's an ex tanker.
sadly he looks like that in snapshots but in inside the hatches he can say so much you cant find and shows everything
Cronkite was dead.
Gun system was so unreliable that crew only used one of them in case of jamming.
And I heard that it is done to save the resource of barrels. Cos when you firing on ground targets you don't need four barrels.
Looks like claudy is just talking out of his butt ... typical you tube troll action
Claudy_Focan RUclips comments are so unreliable that nobody can take then seriously.
The famous Soviet maintenance program.