ZSU-57-2 SPAAG
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 ноя 2024
- The ZSU-57-2 (Ob'yekt 500) is a Soviet self-propelled anti-aircraft gun armed with two 57 mm autocannons. ZSU stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka (Russian: Зенитная Самоходная Установка), meaning "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount", 57 stands for the bore of the armament and 2 stands for the number of gun barrels. It was the first Soviet mass produced tracked SPAAG. In the USSR it had the unofficial nickname "Sparka", meaning "pair", referring to the twin autocannon with which the vehicle is armed.
Basing on past experiences with SPAAG designs, Soviet engineers designed a vehicle that used a modified T-54 chassis, with four twin road wheels per side instead of five, and with much thinner armour. The vehicle was armed with the 57 mm S-68 twin AA autocannon in a new large rotatory open-topped turret. The ZSU-57-2 consists of three compartments: driver's in the front, fighting in the middle and engine-transmission in the rear. The hull of the ZSU-57-2 is more spacious in comparison with the T-54 medium tank because of the thinner armour and has different location of some equipment also. The general layout with transverse mounting of engine is the same.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Catch Me [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KxwEXXFQMTY/mqdefault.jpg)
When it was in service, helicopters were usually shot down with rifles.
Lol what?fr?
@@uwuowo4856
Look up what did helicopters look like in the 1950-s, numptie.
@@uwuowo4856 yeah a well placed 12.7 or 7mm can shred Helis back then
@@Old_user123
They still can, only the Hind and other late 80s Soviet attack helicopters have armour to withstand anything else, the west never really invested that much into flying tanks, their attack helis can withstand small arms fire but not a 12.7mm armour piercing barrage.
That is interesting, tho I guess regular aircraft is the same way, so it’s not too out of place
That's one thing the Russians have always been good at, and they still do it today. The Russians can produce a large quantity of weapon systems because they keep updating and upgrading existing systems and equipments to keep up with the modern battlefields. It's pretty obvious they learned their lessons from the collapse of the USSR is why they are very conservative, efficient, and resourceful when it comes to their military budget. The quality of Russian equipments and weapon systems have been given a boost under Putin too. Instead of building an entirely new weapon systems for replacements, the Russians will just upgrade it for extremely cheap. A good example would be the T-72 tanks. A couple of years ago, they upgraded 109 T-72 tanks into the T-72B3M tanks for a tiny $25 million dollars. An older T-72BM was hit by 2 US made TOW ATGM and survived in Syria, so you know these T-73B3M are going to be effective on the battlefields. T-73B3Ms even use the same reactive armor from the T-14 Armata which is supposed to be 2 times more effective then the older reactive armor. For $25 million dollars, you can only buy four M1A2 Abram tanks. The Russians have thousands of older T-72 tanks of older variants, so upgrading 109 older T-72 tanks into a quite modern T-72B3M tank for $25 million is extremely cheap. Now that's what I mean by being resourceful, because there is no way four M1A2 Abram tanks can destroy 109 T-72B3M tanks. People always talk shit about the T-72 since many were destroyed by Abram tanks during the Gulf War and Syria, but how many of those T-72 were upgraded and used modern AP sabot ammunitions? In the gulf war, Sadam's T-72 didn't even have Sabot AP ammunitions, night vision, or reactive armors. Sadam's T-72 were built using 2nd hand spare parts he purchased from other countries. Majority of the T-72 tanks destroyed in Syria didn't have reactive armor either. Compared to the US' massive military budget, Russia produces a lot of good weapon systems and equipments for so much less. They average $50 billion through the last few years, and a lot of it has been upgrading older variants into modern, effective, and advanced equipments for dirt cheap. Just look at the T-72B3M tanks, T-90AM tanks w/ APS, BMP-T (Terminator 2) tank hunter, BTR-82A, BMD-4M, BMP-4M, Su-25SM3 CAS jet, Su-24M2 frontline bombers, AK-74M3 (also known as the AK-12), Sosna SAMs, Tor-M2U SAM, Osa-M, Pantsir-S2 etc. They definitely learned their lesson about spending too much money on their military that was part of why the USSR dissolved. It would be awesome to see these S-60 dual cannons on an BMP chassis, because it would make an great fire support and infantry fighting vehicle. All they would have to do is produce new 57mm shells like HEAP, air burst, HE etc.
I respect how long it took you to write this
The sentences "The Russians can produce a large quantity of weapon systems" and " they keep updating and upgrading existing systems" are contradictory.
"Instead of building an entirely new weapon systems for replacements, the Russians will just upgrade it for extremely cheap." The only reason they can do that is because communist slave labor let them amass a massive stockpile of free gear that they now get to upgrade thanks to low wages. It's easy to look slick if you chronically rely on not paying workers their due.
"A couple of years ago, they upgraded 109 T-72 tanks into the T-72B3M tanks for a tiny $25 million dollars." Unsourced claim, and no data on what the upgrade included. Considering the T-72B3M was presented right after T-72B3 which was itself an extensive upgrade, one wonders why Russia felt the need to upgrade the B3 to B3M to get to an acceptable standard.
"An older T-72BM was hit by 2 US made TOW ATGM and survived in Syria" I think you're thinking of that T-90 hit by 1 TOW.
"T-73B3Ms even use the same reactive armor from the T-14 Armata" Armata uses Malachit, B3M uses Relikt.
"For $25 million dollars, you can only buy four M1A2 Abram tanks" Unsourced claim, erroneous comparison (upgrading T-72s vs buying new M1A2s), and the M1A2 gets you leaps and bounds more things than any upgraded T-72. The comparable T-90M has a similar price tag, indicating you simply get what you pay for.
"In the gulf war, Sadam's T-72 didn't even have Sabot AP ammunitions, night vision, or reactive armors" Lack of sabots doesn't a) justify the armor not surviving even 105mm hits and b) matter when you're getting hit outside your max range. Abrams did not have ERA either, and even Soviet-spec T-72/80 did not have passive NV or IR sights. Iraq's foreign-made T-72s were Warsaw Pact model spec same as those used by Soviet allies in Europe.
"Just look at the T-72B3M tanks...Pantsir-S2 etc" Problem is just because they're talking about them doesn't mean they're making or buying them, let alone in quantity. Or even that they exist (KS-172). Many times Russia talks big about some new system and then buys little or none of it (Armata...). Some weapons don't work right despite the media buzz they create (remember when VDV refused to accept the 2S25 and BMD-4?). Or they buy sth the west has had for years and act like it's a big deal (like SVP-24's CCIP/RP functions). And many of the things they spend money on may look nice but they are redundant and overlap considerably (Tor vs Pantsir vs Sosna vs 2S38 for example).
@@becauseiwasinverted5222how much time did u spend on this presentation
@@polakrodak8538 less than it took you to come up with this
@@becauseiwasinverted5222 Wow both of you guys explained everything I need to know that would otherwise waste weeks of my life researching about this stuffs, thanks again.
This stupid machine is a pain the arse in War Thunder!
Killian Billian бомбит?
But it has weak armor , why is it a pain in the ass?
StodOne Cause it shoots fucking twin 57mm projectiles
Because it fires bursts of two 57mm shells that can pen BR 8 tanks.
Ah look at those Leopard 1 player. xD
this thing is pretty bad vs planes because it has no fire control and relies on impact fuzes, its however great vs lighter vehicles and as fire support against infantry
It has proximity fuse
The hit probability with the technology available when they developed the Shilka, would have been too low to be practical. And they did prioritize the hit probability over hitting power when they developed it. So did the US when they replaced its 40mm guns with the Vulcan.
fast forward into the future 11 years ago, since the advent of advance modern predicted ballistic computers and firing control system, there is a trend of going to 50mm again, look at the 2s38 and German Sky Ranger, due to advancement in accuracy and precision it allows them to used large caliber again without the fear of losing hit probability.
@@richelle9563 Pretty much, yeah. The Iranians with their 100 mm AA guns take the prize as far as I know.
Not really any point in improving the ZSU-57-2 since the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" was already entering service at the time. Finland did look at modernising their ZSU-57-2's but the costs outweighed the benefits.
I got recommended from this
I don't believe it can hit the plane
bias guides it
Chao-fan Yang I guide the shells
That's a dumb thing to say because old ZSU-23-2 anti aircraft cannons have been used to take down aircrafts and helicopters before. ZSU-23 are manually aimed using a regular eye sight. These ZSU-57-2 can definitely take down an low flying aircraft and helicopter if an little 23mm ZSU-23 can take down an aircraft. The Vietnamese used these same cannons without the mobile chassis during the Vietnam War, and they destroyed 10,000 aircrafts ranging from bombers, jets, helicopters etc. That proves it's very possible that this system can take down an aircraft. The Vietnamese even used smaller caliber cannons to shoot down aircrafts. Most of the aircrafts shot down during Vietnam were from anti-aircraft artillery systems like the S-60 cannons, ZSU-23-2/4, and even 12.7 heavy machine guns that they mounted on a tripod. Yes, it can shoot down an aircraft
"HIT" do you understand english? "HIT"
Would you be willing to hop on a plane and get shot by it then?
RUclips recommendation's is kinda creepy
@MarkoParabucki hvala na info!
@roknikov Oko sto vozila. Stavr je bila u tome sto se vec tokom testiranja u Cehoslovackoj pokazalo da top nije mnogo efikasniji od prostije i jeftinije M53/59 (popularne 'Prage'), tako da je ova bila odabrana kao glavno samohodno oruzje i cehoslovacke i jugoslovenske armije.
Против иранских дронов шахед эта система должна быть пооезна.
Zsu 57 proved great in NATO aggression on Serbia in 1999.Many jets and cruise missiles gone down bcs of that AA system.
Apparently the Yugoslavians we're killing Albanians. Which caused this intervention
@@atlasdusk6341 You are so uneducated, brainwashed,and above all bad informed so I won't even try to enter in conversation about this serious topic with you.
@@igor7195 could have just started a conversation, dick head
@@igor7195 Literally searched it up but ok, guess im brainwashed or something. Douche bag
@@igor7195 Oh, im the brainwashed one? Listen to yourself you clown
bok, kažeš da je učinkovita bila kao i praga - da to nije možda zbog lošeg ciljnika koji se u to vrijeme koristio, a koji nije dozvoljavao da se iskoristi puni kapacitet tog kalibra
@draadstaal33
Nope! Finnish army made one example for testing but it just wasn't worth the trouble. And this is the army that kept them up to last decade for anti-helicopter duty. Apparently the rate of fire is just too slow and there is no even remotely modern ammo aviable.
@mihabakran koliko ih je JNA imala?
Je imala ih je dosta
Ovo sam ja vozil u Subotici 1975. JNA.
Legendo!
Pizda kera sreča stari
@uzickimajmunac
Bit pointless now as they are now scrapped, but remembering that who they would be facing in war. I don't think that they would be very usefull.
the concept seems weak against evry thing and i think the only value is against helico
"Somewhat Limit it's effectiveness" must into buff then)))))))))
nothing to keep in this device : but it seem after to raise to 35mm the usa and euro are developing a 50mm fullautogun :
it take advantage of rapid rate of fire ,long range ,high speed and heavy weight shells alowing sensor fuse or arow sabot or big frag / big explod :
in fact that can destroy a heavy tank from rear or side
its seem the new amphibious usa vehicule have a turet designed for accept 50mm gun ,and the sweedeish cv90/40bofors radar need better than a 1938 year gun
RUSSIA MACHINE
This is so ridiculous!!!!! ))))))))))))
Useleess at night or fog
USSR zsu 57 2
2024
Gia$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Miller Jason Thomas Charles Jackson Linda
BIAS
DJMikaelito,
'
i rather only america and europe can do that,,,
no need ussr russia