Jump to content


Photo

Zsu-57-2


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Puckett

Puckett

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 29 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 December 2016 - 2003 PM

hi tankers, i have been reading about the russian zsu-57-2 anti- aircraft tank. my question is can this weapon take out a m-1 abrams tank ? and what effect  would the 57mm have on cobham armor ? thank you for any help.  puckett



#2 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 09 December 2016 - 2231 PM

Hmm,

 

Can be put in a different way: was the 57mm anti-tank gun M1942 (Zis-3) viable against the King Tiger back in 1945?  Not really.

 

The Zis 3 fired at 3300 ft sec at the muzzle.

 

The Zsu-57-2 used a gun based on the S-60, which is described on wiki as being 'notably less powerful' that the 57mm AT guns of WW2.

 

So, if the Zis-3 was not effective against the King Tiger, the extrapolation is that the zsu-57-2 would be even less effective against the Abrams, or any other post 1955 tank.

 

It may be able to knock out the headlights, sand off some paint, possibly cause some damage to to optics, and if lucky from the flank cause some damage to to tracks and suspension.  But would also be terribly vulnerable to even the commanders .50 cal and especially the 120mm main armament.

 

I remember reading, at this site, of a member of this forum who witnessed, in Gulf 1, a 'duel' between a ZSU-23-4 and an Abrams.

 

It sort of went:

 

ZSU guns:   bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Abrams gun:  Bang

 

End of 'duel'.



#3 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 09 December 2016 - 2314 PM

The AP round for S-68 will penetrate ~110mm Rha, although I have seen estimates closer to 170, that is likely enough for the M1 side and rear hull and rear turret. Head on it has little hope, it would have to hit the main gun and knock it out.


Edited by KV7, 10 December 2016 - 0225 AM.


#4 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 10 December 2016 - 0004 AM

Isn't this where the term "mission kill" comes into play? Knock out enough vision blocks and electronic sights, antennae, track links etc to where the tank can't fight back...



#5 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 10 December 2016 - 0501 AM

The AP round for S-68 will penetrate ~110mm Rha, although I have seen estimates closer to 170, that is likely enough for the M1 side and rear hull and rear turret. Head on it has little hope, it would have to hit the main gun and knock it out.

 

Fair enough:

 

but which vehicle would you want to be in if they faced off against each other?



#6 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 10 December 2016 - 0547 AM

No question there.



#7 crazyinsane105

crazyinsane105

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 11 December 2016 - 1530 PM

But...but...in Battlefield 4, you can take out MBT's using anti air vehicles!



#8 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 11 December 2016 - 1837 PM

But...but...in Battlefield 4, you can take out MBT's using anti air vehicles!

 

In WW2 context that can be feasible: for instance: The Ostwind with its 3.7cm FlaK 43 firing AP could certainly take out the M3/M5 light from all angles and had major potential against the vertical side armour of am M4 Sherman.  Much less potential against the frontal sloped armour of course.



#9 DogDodger

DogDodger

    Cornre durg dealing ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WV, USA
  • Interests:tanks, driving, hockey

Posted 12 December 2016 - 1625 PM

I remember reading, at this site, of a member of this forum who witnessed, in Gulf 1, a 'duel' between a ZSU-23-4 and an Abrams.
 
It sort of went:
 
ZSU guns:   bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
Abrams gun:  Bang
 
End of 'duel'.

I remember that post. The "zzzzzzWHAP" was quite an evocative description!

#10 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 12 December 2016 - 2215 PM

edit: chunk chunk chunk chunk , not zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Edited by KV7, 12 December 2016 - 2216 PM.


#11 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 12 December 2016 - 2305 PM

edit: chunk chunk chunk chunk , not zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Which really shows why the ZSU-57 had to be replaced by the ZSU-23 and various missiles, and why the German 5cm FlaK41 and the British 6pdr 6cwt AA Gun were not successful.

 

The rate of fire was too slow, the rate of traverse and elevation of the gun was also too slow to properly engage aircraft of the jet era.

 

The USA tried it with the 75mm 'Skysweeper' using heavier rounds with VT fuzing, but even that was not particularly successful.

 

But if you have the ZSU-57 in your inventory, I guess you better find a role to justify its staying there.

 

It should be noted, however, that the ASU-57 was phased out in favour of the ASU-85 by airborne units, leaving service in the 1970s.  If the ASU-57 was considered viable against post 1970s armour, it would have been kept in service longer.

 

That zzzzzzzzzzzzzz  by the way was the ZSU-23 sanding the paint off the armour of an M-1, until the M-1 decided to swat it like a mosquito.


Edited by DougRichards, 12 December 2016 - 2312 PM.


#12 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 12 December 2016 - 2310 PM


 


Edited by DougRichards, 12 December 2016 - 2312 PM.


#13 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0022 AM

ZSU was not so bad actually, it needed to get a radar though for use at night though.

Relatively useful for use against low altitude strike, longer range than the Zsu-23 too and better for CS.



#14 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 13 December 2016 - 1424 PM

Which really shows why the ZSU-57 had to be replaced by the ZSU-23 and various missiles, and why the German 5cm FlaK41 and the British 6pdr 6cwt AA Gun were not successful.
 
The rate of fire was too slow, the rate of traverse and elevation of the gun was also too slow to properly engage aircraft of the jet era.
 
The USA tried it with the 75mm 'Skysweeper' using heavier rounds with VT fuzing, but even that was not particularly successful.
 

In naval use using a three inch gun against aerial targets is pretty common nowadays, but there have been a few decades of further development since skysweeper. And there is Otomatic of course, but no buyers so far of the land based 76 mm Oto gun.

http://www.military-...ry/otomatic.htm

Edited by Panzermann, 13 December 2016 - 1425 PM.


#15 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,022 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 13 December 2016 - 2301 PM

For medium-altitude AA, the 57 was effective. It certainly got a lot of respect over Vietnam.

#16 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 2331 PM

For medium-altitude AA, the 57 was effective. It certainly got a lot of respect over Vietnam.

Yes, positive showing of AAA in Vietnam led to USSR adding guns back into the air defence formations IIRC.


Edited by KV7, 13 December 2016 - 2332 PM.


#17 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 14 December 2016 - 0038 AM

It helps when you can put a very large number of AAA weapons into a small country with a limited number of targets and ways of attacking those targets.

 

Throw enough metal into the sky from enough weapons, particularly from weapons that you have been given at low cost and in large numbers, and you are bound to hit something in a regular manner.

 

My understanding is that towed batteries of 57mm with radar had more success than ZSU-57, that did not have radar, and at lower cost.  The North Vietnamese didn't exactly have a large number of mobile armoured assets to protect with a mobile system, that could not effectively fire in the AA role whilst on the move anyway, so that ZSU-57 vehicles were effectively fixed in place, without radar, and simply awaited customers coming their way, to be fired on by visual sighting when light was available, and by the use of the human ear at night time or low visibility.  Even then, as stated before, enough metal going up, with enough passing targets, and you will hit something.



#18 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,323 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 19 December 2016 - 1621 PM

I suppose with all the footage we have been seeing recently where AAA has been used against ground targets (ZPU-2, ZPU-4, ZU-23, S-60, etc), the 57mm might just be a useful cannon to have around.  How capable would the shells be against thick brick walls or concrete structures?  After that, would the 57mm rounds have enough "behind armour" effect to make them particularly feared by enemy snipers etc firing weapons from tall buildings?

 

Putting a ZSU-57-2 up against an MBT would be a waste of a valuable infantry support weapon (in my opinion at least).  From the way AAA artillery has been used in recent conflicts (even 20mm Oerlikon-equipped Crusader cruiser tanks were used in support of Churchill heavy tanks and infantry according to Bryan Perrett's The Churchill tank book (a really interesting book I must say), I dare say that the ZSU-57-2 would do quite well in this role providing its thin armour and open-topped turret was taken into account.



#19 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 19 December 2016 - 1652 PM

Apparently Egypt modernized some ~40 units by adding a radar and acquiring proximity fused ammo.



#20 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 19 December 2016 - 1701 PM

See also this thing:

http://armyrecogniti...s_11404162.html






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users