This weapon became obsolete as soon it was introduced. Without radar and computerized firing solution it was already impossible to keep up with jet planes of first generation, which already were in service. That's why this weapon was in production only for 3 years - 1957-1960.
And then, in 1962, the legendary Shilka arrived! 20years in production and still in service!
@3SRBIJACCCC I thought that was SAM that shot him down . there was pilot rescued . he was on TV said he was flying along heard no missile alarm and BANG ! he ejected .
@darthspeaks Yeah, right... Your's modern A-10 can defeat the WW2 AA tank.... and it's only target A-10 can defeat=) ...still, it depends on intelligence reports, otherwise A-10 is useless. ...and as allways, have a nice day;)
@konstantin88181 OK, OK, my favorite airplane IS the A-10 (I know - I am biased). The A-10 was built to withstand hits from 20mm shells and has a BFG it was built around to slice through tanks like a hot knife through - well you get what I mean. You are right about it going against a MODERN air defense system. But this airplane excels at cleaning the battlefield of armor commanded by substandard commanding practices.
@konstantin88181 Hey, mate, that is pretty much what I said in the first place. This weapon is an aircraft from FORTY years ago. It is still serving, taking out tanks and squashing soft targets. :)
@konstantin88181 Friend, I was never really saying you were wrong, mate. Really. I was just saying that my favorite aircraft, the A-10, is still a deadly aircraft in many situations.
@darthspeaks "it was built around to slice through tanks like a hot knife through"
That's nice for advertisement. Check penetration tables stated for GAU-8. "69 mm at 500 meters, 38 mm at 1000 meters" It is far far away from "hot knife through butter". Get real.
I don't say that A-10 is not good. Contrary. CAS airplanes are great and there are only two of this kind. A-10 and SU-25/39
@konstantin88181 Just wiki the A-10 Warthog. It was a product of the 1970s-1980s when there was a real threat of hordes of Russian tanks storming Eastern Europe. This aircraft was built from the ground up to be a tank killer. They actually still use it in Afghanistan where air defense is substandard ... to deadly effect.
@darthspeaks that is what I'm talking about: A-10 is 1975-1984 made and ZSU-57-2 is 1955-1970 - feel the difference ZSU-57-2 even has no radars. Soviet Union sold all that crap to southern countries when it obsolete and was removed from service.
To aim A-10 on target it needs help from the ground(maybe with help of target lasers or something) but it will be impossible if enemy's army is trained and provided with modern equipment such as, for example: S-300, ZSU "Shilka", ZSU "Tunguska" etc.
@darthspeaks that is what I'm talking about: A-10 is 1975-1984 made and ZSU-57-2 is 1955-1970 - feel the difference ZSU-57-2 even has no radars. Soviet Union sold all that crap to southern countries when it obsolete and was removed from service.
To aim A-10 on target it needs help from the ground(maybe with help of target lasers or something) but it will be impossible if enemy's army is trained and provided with modern equipment such as, for example: S-300, ZSU "Shilka", ZSU "Tunguska" etc.
can you people STOP wasting your time on these ignorant Americans? I am an american, I am not ignorant, but I will tell you that the ones that think SOOOOO highly of our nation have opinions that can NEVER be changed, because frankly, some, or many, Americans are just plain stupid and ignorant. I love my country to death, but just forget about them.
I want one. Who needs a Bradley when you've got Twin 57mm cannons? Nevermind it having SOME capability against helicopters, It could one-shot A Hind or an Apache i bet. Wouldn't try to down a plane with it though, but i bet you could get a few lucky hits here and there lol.
I'd buy it. Heck, modernize it and you've got a fearsome Infantry-supporting machine :D
Maybe it is shitty... but recently an airfield has taken a new landing route in use. Yep right over our homes. Sleepless nights since then... so... Can I borrow it??? I think its outdated rader and fire control can still be used and that will prove that it is still a dangerous piece of equipment.
stop saying it is crap, this was a very good SPAAG at its time, today of course it cant anything against planes, but still dangerous for helos, and ground targets.
Recall this fires the good old 57mm ZIS2 of ww2 ammo. 1100m/s 150mm penetration at 100m, with modern APDS it should be more than 200. This canon exist as a simple AA gun S60. Used in ambushes, it is a very destructive high rate of fire weapon, it can kill abrams on flank.
@PATRONSKiii While actual side thickness is classified, traditional tank doctrine in western nations is to have side thickness roughly around 50% the frontal. With ~1000mm current frontal, that would give the Abrams well over 300-500mm Chobam on its flanks, which is much, much more than the 150mm RHA penetration of this gun.
Just a spoiler, Americans aren't the only offenders in the "my country makes better shit than yours" jingoistic bullshit department, as is evidenced by your comment.
@SnakeTheFox Actual thickness is classified until tank goes to battle, get destroyed and pictures of his burned body goes all around internet and then estimation of actual thickness can be done quite accurately.
Speaking about turret's sides, its equivalent is around 300-350. Nowhere close 500 without ERA. 500 with ARAT ERA.
Speaking about body's sides then pictures becomes sad. Only 25-55mm. Side skirts are very thin. 70mm on roof.
Actually 150mm vs KE rounds is enough to penetrate every existing tank from body sides. Just some tanks have body side armor thickness at 90-100mm, while Abrams only 25-55. However 150 is more than 55 and more than 100. So, its irrelevant.
@PATRONSKiii if you allow the ZSU-57-2 to sneak up on you with its high profile then you deserve to get destroyed, the vehicle is not subtle at all. hahahaha
@PATRONSKiii It can kill ANY tank at BODY flank (not only Abrams and not its turret sides). However, anti-tank is not its primary role and speaking about AA abilities, sorry to disappoint you, but this weapon became obsolete as soon as it was introduced. That's why it remained in production only for 3 years.
Jet planes of first generation came into service. And without automated and computerized system it was already impossible to track and shoot them down at their speeds.
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured and was assassinated by the German BND which is the renamed GESTAPO. Germany is exactly the NAZI state as it is seen by many people. That is even evident from the fact that no critic is allowed by German snitchers. As we just have seen with regards to Skelros.
Check out my channel and homepage on the technologies used by the German secret services.
From what I've read, the '57 used a mechanical computer with an optical rangefinder. A crewman would figure the distance with the rangefinder and then would enter the info into the fire control computer, along with his best approximation of the speed and direction of the target. It's somewhat similar to the fire controls used on certain tanks of that era.
There is no doubt it is far away deadlier for precision against highly mobile armored vehicules (including tanks) and against another chopper (even a Ka 52). If you want to see it's manouevrability, there may be some videos on the net. I'm glad now to make you understand that you were not comparing the good choppers since Apache is older than Mi-28 and Ka-50/52.
Nope, it's entirely in composite materials, making it more protected than Apache and lighter than both Apache and Mi 28. It's 30mm gun is the more accurate and able to follow high speed vehicules with site and azimuth speed angles higher than those choppers. The 30mm is also more powerful than on the apache. Moreover, the Flir, cueing and missile guidance onboth versions are on the top of the rotor axe, making it able to trully hide behind tries and drop missiles without poping up
I don't blaim America for underreporting their losses and overreporting kills; it's a right thing to do for any country willing to win the war in the minds of its children. But you are a grown up already, it's time to start thinking analytically!
You should know that whe do not hardly believe whatever our big brother says, the whole countrary of you my friend. Quote that you never tried to compare your chopper with a Tiger.
Tiger is slightly superior to Apache in some stats, but it is largely inferior in armament: 8 HOT/TOW vs 16 Hellfire/TOW. And it costs 46 million!!!
I'm really sorry that Eurocopter and Mil-Rosvertol collaboration didn't work out yet. We could already build better and cheaper choppers for Europe and the world together.
It has less firepower, but it is much more advanced. It's aiming system is for the moment the most advanced in the world for both the 30mm and the HOT. The australian army prefers a fire and forget Hellfire instead of the HOT. In manoeuvrability it is something between the Mi-28 and Ka-52, and it is only half the weight, with some 30mm protections instead of a 23mm. If it sucks more than an Apache or Mi-28 in anti tank firepower
There are two kinds of sources of information available, that differ in their purpose: the one that is meant to form public opinion (e. g. "hundreds of Iraqi T-72s burning in the desert") and the other one is meant for study ("CMS report: 51 T-55, 13 T-62, 14 T-72"). I prefer the latter.
P.S. That CMS report I mentioned as an example is entitled "Warhead hit distribution on main battle tanks in the Gulf War". But it may be very tricky to find the article on the net. Average kid or a taxpayer is not supposed to see such materials without strong desire.
It was surprised to find out that Finland had a handful of these in 1961-2006. I had never seen them in any publications, so apparently they had been in the reserve for decades...
Come ooon! All this flaming.. There should be a 14 year old limitation to leaving comments.
Fact: Against jets you use missiles. Period.
Against LOWFLYING jets (ie probably not supersonic) you can use rapidfire cannons at great effect, but hit probability is determined by the quality of the fire-controlsystem, all AA guns can shoot them down at low alt. and speed but they are primarily used against helicopters now a days.
che manga de giles, se quedan sin misiles y con que les tiran a los cazas?? con gomeras?? no boludos con artilleria antiaerea, balas, los misiles no dan siempre en el blanco, el mejor carro antiaereo es el THUNGUSKA RUSO.
For "A huge ammount of luck", the ZSU-57 has a superb anti air reccord much like the Shaika that replaced it. Black hawk down? Ha ha, never will.
Any sort of AAA is limited in it's use against a full blown jet, but it's not exactly hard to hit an F-18 banking into a turn. I'd bet in skilled hands it could take down a B2 or an Awacs even.
And if not for it's AA ability, then what about it's usefulness as a lead chainsaw? It'd obliterate every Stryker, Gavins and even Bradley that crosses it.
yeah, but America raped n vietnam in Air warfare. I read somewhere that it was like for every American jet shot down, 11 n vietnamese jets were shot down.
We didn't lose the vietnam war because of our military, we pulled out, because hippies back home kept saying the word "peace"
Well, on that I have to disagree with ya my friend. At first, air war in Vietnam was a disaster for the American mostly because their new fighter F4 was relied on missle tech for weapon. But these first generation missles were tottaly unreliable and they were getting a disgrace 1-1 exchange ratio in number of aircraft shoot down. So after that the military decided to add external gun the plane and situation got better.
hahaha i just watched the video, and it was talking about IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR. Not the whole war. That is why the man goes on to say "once those tactics were altered, then it ended up getting a SUBSTANTIAL kill ratio.
Sorry for the misunderstood, If you read my comment again, I said "at first" the air war was not going good for the F4 but then with the external gun the situation got better! I never say F4 was a bad aircraft???
No, you were making it out as if the f4 always had a 1-1 kill ratio, which wasn't the case. The guy clearly says that the kill ratio increased dramatically once the problem was fixed.
And let me clear this one for you too: NVA air-force in Vietnam used Hit and Run tactic mainly because the limited number of aircraft they have, they only chase against the less maneuvarble (wrong-spell for sure) fighter-bomber and then get the hell out before they got spotted by fighter. So they won't waste 11 MIG planes to shoot down just one U.S aircraft. ; )
Yes, it may be true, but what I am trying to say is that most likely the NVA air-force won't throw all their planes against the U.S fighters. Like I said above they only kind of fly in pair once of a time hit and then run to save their aircraft. But yes the American was winning in the air-war in Vietnam but probabaly won't shoot down that many of NVA aircraft mainly because the NVA they hit and then runaway
You read wrong xD that would mean that Vietnam lose 15.000 Jets (LOOOOOOOOOOOOL)....americanl losed about 1200 Jets.... -.- 1200x11= 13200 -.- I would like to see that amount of jets xD
europe still uses 20mm, 30mm, 35 mm AA very effective against helicopters and fast moving low jets. The 57mm started life as an antitank weapon round. The AP shot from the AA will mess up the day of any APC out there.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sucks for them because They decomisioned the A-10 and AA are not pratical with jets most modern countries use missels like the US . Countries like china who are developing country use AA.
You are right i am wrong. It is actually a 12-1 kill ratio. You don't know anything about ratios if you automatically assume that you are supposed to just multiply 1200x11. That is not how it works little kid.
I am sending you the url that shows the 12-1 kill ratio (in American favor) in a personal message.
This self-propelled gun ZSU-57-2 (С-68) the sample of 1955 on the chassis of average tank T-54, instead of "Shilka". It was applied in Vietnam War, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, Angolan Civil War, Sino-Vietnamese War, IranIraq War, Lebanon War First Persian Gulf War Yugoslav wars. Second Persian Gulf War, Invasion of Iraq.
At present it is removed from the arms, some samples are used at training in driving of mechanics-drivers
lol u guys rly think russia would show a real anti aircraft weapon of their in a place like this? this shit is old, and russia aint using any more shit as these
This has been flagged as spam show
This weapon became obsolete as soon it was introduced. Without radar and computerized firing solution it was already impossible to keep up with jet planes of first generation, which already were in service. That's why this weapon was in production only for 3 years - 1957-1960.
And then, in 1962, the legendary Shilka arrived! 20years in production and still in service!
BitnikGr 1 month ago
The Chassis very looks like T-34
declaration963 2 months ago
@declaration963 It's based on a T-55 which was developed from a T-54 and then a T-44 which the T-44 which basically was a T-34 with lower profile
SMGJohn 1 month ago
Used by Yugoslav Army against NATO helicopters in Kosovo in 1999.
3SRBIJACCCC 2 months ago
@3SRBIJACCCC did it fuck them up?
GalaticSpaceHero 2 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero By this weapon it was killed one NATO pilot who catapulted from F-16, that pilot was son of NATO's main General Clark.
3SRBIJACCCC 2 months ago
@3SRBIJACCCC I thought that was SAM that shot him down . there was pilot rescued . he was on TV said he was flying along heard no missile alarm and BANG ! he ejected .
GalaticSpaceHero 2 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero Sam destroyed the plan, but ZSU57 killed the pilot. The rescued one is another pilot.
3SRBIJACCCC 2 months ago
T55 chassis + 57mm aa gun?
Scientist9221 3 months ago
i know him from battlefield vietnam :D
glosteradv 4 months ago 3
It is great against ground targets.
SerbianCommandoSCGRS 4 months ago
hey actually its possible shhot down helicopter with this system
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
Imagine it fired acouple rounds and you see like a 747 come crashing down? LOL.
LeGiiTuhMate 4 months ago
ZSU-57-2 live action: watch?v=RURZrtES9jU&list=FL8ZBL5jYRSsn-hD0eyP2Ytw&index=114
Vilko1984 4 months ago
Too bad the FDF has already scrapped these. Might have been good for reducing an landing of paratroopers.
Suojeluninja 4 months ago
can any one tell me the rate of fire of those guns? are automatic or you have to reload every round
Landoforpresident 4 months ago
This is what I call an A-10 target.
darthspeaks 4 months ago
@darthspeaks Yeah, right... Your's modern A-10 can defeat the WW2 AA tank.... and it's only target A-10 can defeat=) ...still, it depends on intelligence reports, otherwise A-10 is useless. ...and as allways, have a nice day;)
konstantin88181 4 months ago
@konstantin88181 Wrong, just wrong.
darthspeaks 4 months ago
@darthspeaks arguments and facts, please. Otherwise it is empty talk...
konstantin88181 4 months ago
@konstantin88181 OK, OK, my favorite airplane IS the A-10 (I know - I am biased). The A-10 was built to withstand hits from 20mm shells and has a BFG it was built around to slice through tanks like a hot knife through - well you get what I mean. You are right about it going against a MODERN air defense system. But this airplane excels at cleaning the battlefield of armor commanded by substandard commanding practices.
darthspeaks 4 months ago
@darthspeaks generally, all this empty talk. A-10, never faced with the modern anti-aircraft guns, and therefore we can only speculate on that.
konstantin88181 4 months ago
@konstantin88181 Hey, mate, that is pretty much what I said in the first place. This weapon is an aircraft from FORTY years ago. It is still serving, taking out tanks and squashing soft targets. :)
darthspeaks 4 months ago
@darthspeaks taking out FIFTY years old tanks and monkeys whees AKs, who even don't know how to aim=)
Su-25 on the other hand is 1975 made, and still taking out monkeys with AKs at Caucasus mountains=)
konstantin88181 4 months ago
@konstantin88181 Friend, I was never really saying you were wrong, mate. Really. I was just saying that my favorite aircraft, the A-10, is still a deadly aircraft in many situations.
darthspeaks 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darthspeaks "it was built around to slice through tanks like a hot knife through"
That's nice for advertisement. Check penetration tables stated for GAU-8. "69 mm at 500 meters, 38 mm at 1000 meters" It is far far away from "hot knife through butter". Get real.
I don't say that A-10 is not good. Contrary. CAS airplanes are great and there are only two of this kind. A-10 and SU-25/39
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@konstantin88181 Just wiki the A-10 Warthog. It was a product of the 1970s-1980s when there was a real threat of hordes of Russian tanks storming Eastern Europe. This aircraft was built from the ground up to be a tank killer. They actually still use it in Afghanistan where air defense is substandard ... to deadly effect.
darthspeaks 4 months ago
@darthspeaks that is what I'm talking about: A-10 is 1975-1984 made and ZSU-57-2 is 1955-1970 - feel the difference ZSU-57-2 even has no radars. Soviet Union sold all that crap to southern countries when it obsolete and was removed from service.
To aim A-10 on target it needs help from the ground(maybe with help of target lasers or something) but it will be impossible if enemy's army is trained and provided with modern equipment such as, for example: S-300, ZSU "Shilka", ZSU "Tunguska" etc.
konstantin88181 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darthspeaks that is what I'm talking about: A-10 is 1975-1984 made and ZSU-57-2 is 1955-1970 - feel the difference ZSU-57-2 even has no radars. Soviet Union sold all that crap to southern countries when it obsolete and was removed from service.
To aim A-10 on target it needs help from the ground(maybe with help of target lasers or something) but it will be impossible if enemy's army is trained and provided with modern equipment such as, for example: S-300, ZSU "Shilka", ZSU "Tunguska" etc.
konstantin88181 4 months ago
This is kept around to plakate the masses.Its a piece of crap. Russia has an inferior complex so big it can't even see it.
scottwins2 4 months ago in playlist J063 - Anti-Aircraft Systems
what a load of shite lol sooo third world
MrMilfhunter2003 5 months ago
i want one.
Crazybenjiwoo 5 months ago
Шилочка)
RomanRUS163 5 months ago
Uuuhhh ! It seems to be a picnic. I would have liked to see it shooting...
bompiberlot 5 months ago
That AA gun is shaped like a box did Volvo make it
TheRalphus666 5 months ago
awesome
hotlanta35 6 months ago
Hell yea mercenaries :D
soku47 6 months ago
THAT JUNK IS WHAT YOU GIVE TO THE LIBYAN PEOPLE DEFEND THEM SELF AGAINST the damn otan , WHAT A SHAME!!!!!
sietepeo1 7 months ago
Am I the only one who remembers this in the original mercenaires.
xXCPDaBeastXx 7 months ago
@xXCPDaBeastXx YES! best vehicle in the game.
Chris53456 7 months ago
Battlefield Vietnam , anyone?
gazzxr 8 months ago
can you people STOP wasting your time on these ignorant Americans? I am an american, I am not ignorant, but I will tell you that the ones that think SOOOOO highly of our nation have opinions that can NEVER be changed, because frankly, some, or many, Americans are just plain stupid and ignorant. I love my country to death, but just forget about them.
th4Guy77 9 months ago 12
@th4Guy77 Every country has those types, not just ours.
Elthenar 4 months ago
lol looks like somthing out of ww2
Tiger66261 9 months ago
Во блин! Ужас! Можно спросить, из какого музея угнали?!! А пробовали стрелять!? Смогли???
sau0483 9 months ago
Pěknej kousek :)
TominCze 10 months ago
Effective against low flying aircraft and choppers, but that is about it. However, against ground targets I think it could be very effective.
But then again, so is an Main Battle Tank... lol
How reliable is this old 60's and 70's Russian stuff?
TheLoyalOfficer 11 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer very
iloveafg123 10 months ago
And what will these do against modern aircraft? Jack fucking shit!
lurconis666 11 months ago
@lurconis666 kind of weird comment and a kind of weird comparison:comparing modern aircraft with a 50's SPAAG?
gtamodman122 10 months ago
No offense to the Russians,but since each cannon has an approximate ROF of 70RPM,how can you shoot a plane down with this?
gtamodman122 11 months ago
@gtamodman122
They wouldn't always use only 1 lone ZSU-57, they might have had as many as 9 working together to bring down aircraft.
Sismiques 10 months ago
@Sismiques Well,I thought they would be fewer,around 4-5 vehicles only,but thanks for that
gtamodman122 10 months ago
I want one. Who needs a Bradley when you've got Twin 57mm cannons? Nevermind it having SOME capability against helicopters, It could one-shot A Hind or an Apache i bet. Wouldn't try to down a plane with it though, but i bet you could get a few lucky hits here and there lol.
I'd buy it. Heck, modernize it and you've got a fearsome Infantry-supporting machine :D
peepeevagi 11 months ago
I you want peace, ,,,,prepare for war.
caibarien71 1 year ago
JNA 1975 , Banja Luka i Subotica .
mihabakran 1 year ago
Great backround music
lordofdarkdudes 1 year ago
Maybe it is shitty... but recently an airfield has taken a new landing route in use. Yep right over our homes. Sleepless nights since then... so... Can I borrow it??? I think its outdated rader and fire control can still be used and that will prove that it is still a dangerous piece of equipment.
viowave 1 year ago 4
stop saying it is crap, this was a very good SPAAG at its time, today of course it cant anything against planes, but still dangerous for helos, and ground targets.
Recall this fires the good old 57mm ZIS2 of ww2 ammo. 1100m/s 150mm penetration at 100m, with modern APDS it should be more than 200. This canon exist as a simple AA gun S60. Used in ambushes, it is a very destructive high rate of fire weapon, it can kill abrams on flank.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago 30
@PATRONSKiii While actual side thickness is classified, traditional tank doctrine in western nations is to have side thickness roughly around 50% the frontal. With ~1000mm current frontal, that would give the Abrams well over 300-500mm Chobam on its flanks, which is much, much more than the 150mm RHA penetration of this gun.
Just a spoiler, Americans aren't the only offenders in the "my country makes better shit than yours" jingoistic bullshit department, as is evidenced by your comment.
SnakeTheFox 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@SnakeTheFox Actual thickness is classified until tank goes to battle, get destroyed and pictures of his burned body goes all around internet and then estimation of actual thickness can be done quite accurately.
Speaking about turret's sides, its equivalent is around 300-350. Nowhere close 500 without ERA. 500 with ARAT ERA.
Speaking about body's sides then pictures becomes sad. Only 25-55mm. Side skirts are very thin. 70mm on roof.
...
BitnikGr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SnakeTheFox ...
Actually 150mm vs KE rounds is enough to penetrate every existing tank from body sides. Just some tanks have body side armor thickness at 90-100mm, while Abrams only 25-55. However 150 is more than 55 and more than 100. So, its irrelevant.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@PATRONSKiii exactly, and you cant jam those shells with the best electronics too
101andrewj 6 months ago
@PATRONSKiii its a piece of crap... and more crap.... best is he gepard...
panzerkeiko 5 months ago
@panzerkeiko moron...
PATRONSKiii 5 months ago
@PATRONSKiii if you allow the ZSU-57-2 to sneak up on you with its high profile then you deserve to get destroyed, the vehicle is not subtle at all. hahahaha
spyderc85 4 months ago
@PATRONSKiii It can kill ANY tank at BODY flank (not only Abrams and not its turret sides). However, anti-tank is not its primary role and speaking about AA abilities, sorry to disappoint you, but this weapon became obsolete as soon as it was introduced. That's why it remained in production only for 3 years.
Jet planes of first generation came into service. And without automated and computerized system it was already impossible to track and shoot them down at their speeds.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
its russian... chances r its crap they have horrible quality control :s
auroraionaa 1 year ago
i hate these things in bfv....
13mattjr 1 year ago
@13mattjr lmaooooo
T3AM33 1 year ago
It's only paint this with the little red star and ready to be a good target in a boot camp
ejzen11 1 year ago
Yeah we saw how well these did in iraq LOL !
dblemn 1 year ago
what a piece of shit chassis seems way to small and a high profile
ZACKBAGNALLVIDEO 1 year ago
@ZACKBAGNALLVIDEO this piece of shit would have really been a nuisance against hueys in vietnam .. oh wait .. it was.
xlx1979 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured and was assassinated by the German BND which is the renamed GESTAPO. Germany is exactly the NAZI state as it is seen by many people. That is even evident from the fact that no critic is allowed by German snitchers. As we just have seen with regards to Skelros.
Check out my channel and homepage on the technologies used by the German secret services.
Martin Bott
wwwtotalitaerde 1 year ago
lešany
pifchmel 1 year ago
Lešany?
pifchmel 1 year ago
это реально лом
даже шилка и то лом
хотя до 85 года она счеталась этолоном
я в ней сидел один раз - это робот натуральный она сама можнт стрелять
и она разработана была в 60 годах
а этот образец это вообще что такое это спариная зенитка оброзца 39 года
СУКА ШИЛКА ТАКАЯ ВЕЩЬ ЕСЛИ ЧЕСНО! ДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНО ЭТАЛОН!
ДАЖЕ ЛУЧШИЙ НЕМЕЦКИЙ ВОЕННЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ ПРИЗНАЛ ТАМ В 70х ГОДАХ ПОМОЕМУ, ЧТО ШИЛКА ЭТО ВЗЕ БЕСТ!
а это наверно парад просто как у нас на 9 мая, там т34 СУ100
PARADOX24rus 1 year ago
tank body is from t-55 i think?
grvc44 1 year ago
Is that gun tied into radar? No way it could be manually aimed to any affect.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee How do you think they shot down planes pre radar?
CommissarBraxton 1 year ago
With something they could aim.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee
From what I've read, the '57 used a mechanical computer with an optical rangefinder. A crewman would figure the distance with the rangefinder and then would enter the info into the fire control computer, along with his best approximation of the speed and direction of the target. It's somewhat similar to the fire controls used on certain tanks of that era.
TypicalJAFO 1 year ago
господи что это
это при ленине или при сталине проектировали
такой лом
PARADOX24rus 1 year ago
@PARADOX24rus - yeah, I don't think they know how old this junker is. They actually think it's a modern piece of equipment.
Raawrbert 1 year ago
@PARADOX24rus
лом или не лом - но эта установка отлично показала себя и в арабо-израильских войнах, и во Вьетнаме, и ещё бог знает где... рабочая лошадь
HerrHauptmann 1 year ago
battlefield vietnam!!
theslothface 1 year ago 2
@theslothface
Also my first idead :D
STBF1337 1 year ago
@theslothface -.-
only thing where you notiste this? :P
leksss4 1 year ago
mach old
MegaPypkin 1 year ago
ur just mad becouse they got more better weapons and army then u stupid american faggot
BrazilAve09 1 year ago
now that looks daft. Looks like a cockroach on steroids, all puff and no strength lol.
Just talking about its looks mind, pls dont have a go!
bodunchar 1 year ago
hahah BF Vietnam :D
donzaliko 1 year ago 2
this is more like ww2 lol, cold was is Tunguska-M1
Hatinonthehaters 1 year ago
There is no doubt it is far away deadlier for precision against highly mobile armored vehicules (including tanks) and against another chopper (even a Ka 52). If you want to see it's manouevrability, there may be some videos on the net. I'm glad now to make you understand that you were not comparing the good choppers since Apache is older than Mi-28 and Ka-50/52.
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
If there were "Tiger vs ..." video, I would.
Tiger's firepower is low.
It's general protection is structure-based only (like Apache, though it's better).
Electronics advanceness is controversial. Mast-mounted radar OR mast-mounted FLIR/LLTV/LD system are mutually exclusive.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
Nope, it's entirely in composite materials, making it more protected than Apache and lighter than both Apache and Mi 28. It's 30mm gun is the more accurate and able to follow high speed vehicules with site and azimuth speed angles higher than those choppers. The 30mm is also more powerful than on the apache. Moreover, the Flir, cueing and missile guidance onboth versions are on the top of the rotor axe, making it able to trully hide behind tries and drop missiles without poping up
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
Tiger is good (but VERY pricey) light Recon/AT helicopter, not a gunship. I wouldn't send it into battle on enemy territory.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
We were strongly oposed to war in Iraq, think about it before claiming such bullshit
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
andrewm153351, cut the crap already!
1) For F4 vs MiG-17 even 1:20 kill ratio still would be a shame.
2) Vietnam lost no more than 149 jets.
USAF lost at the very least 4200, 320 of wich in fighter vs fighter.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
Man your masturbating your brain again. First it is with the Mi 28 and then with Vietnam ? What's your problem, are some kind of vodka junky ?
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
You ignorant children need proper education, and I provide it. With simple facts.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
Nope dude, your bullshiting them with Russian claims. That's all lol !
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
"Russian claims", rofl.
I don't blaim America for underreporting their losses and overreporting kills; it's a right thing to do for any country willing to win the war in the minds of its children. But you are a grown up already, it's time to start thinking analytically!
PKSnsk 2 years ago
Worse for you my friend, I'm not US. I do not need some else to make my own analysis and thinking, unlike some people...
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
I do know that you're French. Well, it's interesting how strong American propaganda is, in NATO countries at least.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
You should know that whe do not hardly believe whatever our big brother says, the whole countrary of you my friend. Quote that you never tried to compare your chopper with a Tiger.
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
I suggest you to go and take a look at the Tiger's price tag.
Then check its stats and capabilities.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
Yeah well done, now compare the whole choppersn it has been a long time till ou do it man !
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
Tiger is slightly superior to Apache in some stats, but it is largely inferior in armament: 8 HOT/TOW vs 16 Hellfire/TOW. And it costs 46 million!!!
I'm really sorry that Eurocopter and Mil-Rosvertol collaboration didn't work out yet. We could already build better and cheaper choppers for Europe and the world together.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
It has less firepower, but it is much more advanced. It's aiming system is for the moment the most advanced in the world for both the 30mm and the HOT. The australian army prefers a fire and forget Hellfire instead of the HOT. In manoeuvrability it is something between the Mi-28 and Ka-52, and it is only half the weight, with some 30mm protections instead of a 23mm. If it sucks more than an Apache or Mi-28 in anti tank firepower
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
There are two kinds of sources of information available, that differ in their purpose: the one that is meant to form public opinion (e. g. "hundreds of Iraqi T-72s burning in the desert") and the other one is meant for study ("CMS report: 51 T-55, 13 T-62, 14 T-72"). I prefer the latter.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
P.S. That CMS report I mentioned as an example is entitled "Warhead hit distribution on main battle tanks in the Gulf War". But it may be very tricky to find the article on the net. Average kid or a taxpayer is not supposed to see such materials without strong desire.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
It may be fifty years obsolete for AA purposes, but it is still a great pair of very powerful autoguns on a reliable tank chassis.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
It was surprised to find out that Finland had a handful of these in 1961-2006. I had never seen them in any publications, so apparently they had been in the reserve for decades...
tupsumato 2 years ago
Come ooon! All this flaming.. There should be a 14 year old limitation to leaving comments.
Fact: Against jets you use missiles. Period.
Against LOWFLYING jets (ie probably not supersonic) you can use rapidfire cannons at great effect, but hit probability is determined by the quality of the fire-controlsystem, all AA guns can shoot them down at low alt. and speed but they are primarily used against helicopters now a days.
There, now stop flaming.
zekewargh 2 years ago
looks like a dam rc toy!
piromx2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Commie bullshit that could be wiped out in a blink of an eye!
10 ton paper weight! LMFAO
CDNHottie69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this tank looks awasome but its a sitting duck by american standards, but from one shitty country to another this has its time and place.
sseliet88 2 years ago
che manga de giles, se quedan sin misiles y con que les tiran a los cazas?? con gomeras?? no boludos con artilleria antiaerea, balas, los misiles no dan siempre en el blanco, el mejor carro antiaereo es el THUNGUSKA RUSO.
ceresit0 2 years ago
Its ugly but beautiful.
gcord21 2 years ago 2
Coolest SPAAG ever.
Even the oldest ones like that are capable of taking down a modern jet. Plus, it's 57mm x2
It'll chop anything that's not a tank to bits.
peepeevagi 2 years ago
"Even the oldest ones like that are capable of taking down a modern jet. Plus, it's 57mm x2"
Only with huge amount of luck.
MokomaSusi 2 years ago 2
For "A huge ammount of luck", the ZSU-57 has a superb anti air reccord much like the Shaika that replaced it. Black hawk down? Ha ha, never will.
Any sort of AAA is limited in it's use against a full blown jet, but it's not exactly hard to hit an F-18 banking into a turn. I'd bet in skilled hands it could take down a B2 or an Awacs even.
And if not for it's AA ability, then what about it's usefulness as a lead chainsaw? It'd obliterate every Stryker, Gavins and even Bradley that crosses it.
peepeevagi 2 years ago
If it is flying on hight altitude-yes, but if it is engaging ground targets it will not be too difficult to take it out.
KornSarum 2 years ago
what? Nazis in the Vietnam?
caucau2323 2 years ago
Haha, I heard that part too, 00:23 he say somethin' "nazi and vietnam" together.
well we all know the fact that the Soviet Union supplied these AA-tank for the North Vietnam Army (NVA) in the infamous vietnam war.
bunsinh456 2 years ago
yeah, but America raped n vietnam in Air warfare. I read somewhere that it was like for every American jet shot down, 11 n vietnamese jets were shot down.
We didn't lose the vietnam war because of our military, we pulled out, because hippies back home kept saying the word "peace"
andrewm153351 2 years ago
Well, on that I have to disagree with ya my friend. At first, air war in Vietnam was a disaster for the American mostly because their new fighter F4 was relied on missle tech for weapon. But these first generation missles were tottaly unreliable and they were getting a disgrace 1-1 exchange ratio in number of aircraft shoot down. So after that the military decided to add external gun the plane and situation got better.
bunsinh456 2 years ago
"1-1 exchange ratio"
Are you trying to say that half of our aircrafts were shot down?
if you are, then you are being silly. Most of our aircraft that were shot down were helicoplers anyways.
andrewm153351 2 years ago
Nooo, Here check this video out, it talks about the F4, one of the guy actually said the 1-1 exchange ratio, maybe this will clear up for ya
/watch?v=a48-Z-Qk6po
bunsinh456 2 years ago
hahaha i just watched the video, and it was talking about IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR. Not the whole war. That is why the man goes on to say "once those tactics were altered, then it ended up getting a SUBSTANTIAL kill ratio.
Funny how you looked past that part.
It is at 4:47
Oh, and the video even says
"The phantom rates as one of the most successful war planes of all time."
HAHAHAHA you were saying???
FAIL
andrewm153351 2 years ago
Sorry for the misunderstood, If you read my comment again, I said "at first" the air war was not going good for the F4 but then with the external gun the situation got better! I never say F4 was a bad aircraft???
bunsinh456 2 years ago
No, you were making it out as if the f4 always had a 1-1 kill ratio, which wasn't the case. The guy clearly says that the kill ratio increased dramatically once the problem was fixed.
andrewm153351 2 years ago
I'm not gonna wasting my time keep telling you to "clearly" read my comment again.
Have a nice day, Yankie.
bunsinh456 2 years ago 38
i said that we had really god kill ratio's in vietnam.
you said that wasn't true. In your first messages, you didn't say that it was just in the beginning.
andrewm153351 2 years ago
This was his first message about Air warfare:
''At first, air war in Vietnam was a disaster for the American mostly because their new fighter F4 was relied on missle tech for weapon.''
DesertFoxKG 2 years ago
And let me clear this one for you too: NVA air-force in Vietnam used Hit and Run tactic mainly because the limited number of aircraft they have, they only chase against the less maneuvarble (wrong-spell for sure) fighter-bomber and then get the hell out before they got spotted by fighter. So they won't waste 11 MIG planes to shoot down just one U.S aircraft. ; )
PS: I'm a vietnamese myself ^^
bunsinh456 2 years ago
???
Yes, there were 11 north vietnamese fighters shot down for every 1 American.
andrewm153351 2 years ago
Yes, it may be true, but what I am trying to say is that most likely the NVA air-force won't throw all their planes against the U.S fighters. Like I said above they only kind of fly in pair once of a time hit and then run to save their aircraft. But yes the American was winning in the air-war in Vietnam but probabaly won't shoot down that many of NVA aircraft mainly because the NVA they hit and then runaway
bunsinh456 2 years ago
You read wrong xD that would mean that Vietnam lose 15.000 Jets (LOOOOOOOOOOOOL)....americanl losed about 1200 Jets.... -.- 1200x11= 13200 -.- I would like to see that amount of jets xD
nedeljko031 2 years ago
url please
andrewm153351 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh forgot to mention shit Russia use AA.
kennyvsspennydd 2 years ago
europe still uses 20mm, 30mm, 35 mm AA very effective against helicopters and fast moving low jets. The 57mm started life as an antitank weapon round. The AP shot from the AA will mess up the day of any APC out there.
globetrotter1121 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sucks for them because They decomisioned the A-10 and AA are not pratical with jets most modern countries use missels like the US . Countries like china who are developing country use AA.
kennyvsspennydd 2 years ago
Decommissioned the A-10? What are you smoking?
iowa61 2 years ago
ya for sure...LOL its in use every day
sseliet88 2 years ago
Yes i know, im not stupid you know :)
What i meant to say was that AA shells on light vehicles, such as cars, can still do serious damage, since AA ammo is HE (HIgh Explosive)
;)
PitbullNL 2 years ago
This tank can still do serious damage, but only on light vehicles.
I actually love those big ass russian weaponry, its massive!! :))
PitbullNL 2 years ago
It's an AA, not a tank -.-"
MikhailMengsk 2 years ago
He tought that its based on T55 xD
nedeljko031 2 years ago
You are right i am wrong. It is actually a 12-1 kill ratio. You don't know anything about ratios if you automatically assume that you are supposed to just multiply 1200x11. That is not how it works little kid.
I am sending you the url that shows the 12-1 kill ratio (in American favor) in a personal message.
andrewm153351 2 years ago
It was originally an assault gun. I would rather have a gepard.
WASPfreak 2 years ago
This self-propelled gun ZSU-57-2 (С-68) the sample of 1955 on the chassis of average tank T-54, instead of "Shilka". It was applied in Vietnam War, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, Angolan Civil War, Sino-Vietnamese War, IranIraq War, Lebanon War First Persian Gulf War Yugoslav wars. Second Persian Gulf War, Invasion of Iraq.
At present it is removed from the arms, some samples are used at training in driving of mechanics-drivers
LeitenantASD 2 years ago
for those who sont know ZSU-23-4 is on a light PT-76 chassis...
TomaSkTemplar 2 years ago
yes you'r right
bengacris 2 years ago
lol i like how there is music at the military event.
fake1009 2 years ago
That could be useful in urban fighting too.
DEP717 2 years ago
ZSU-57 on T-54 Tank also known as Shilka
Konartis0 2 years ago
No, the Shilka is the smaller, newer one.
peepeevagi 2 years ago 3
Shilka is the name of the ZSU-23-4 self propelled anti aircraft vehicle
Eye4Lites 2 years ago 2
Isnt this just a T-55 tank with a Anti air turret on it?
gielfransen 2 years ago 4
feo y humeante-
very ugly!
PabloHernanSCL 2 years ago
2K22M Tunguska-M1 is what the Russians use now right? Warthog A10 will not take that one out so easily
Pungopingu 2 years ago
is Tunguska-m1 anti aircraft ??
edisGW 2 years ago
Yes, but its main weapons are missiles. Look it up, cool unit
Pungopingu 2 years ago
how much is it..? :P
and do you my be know the web site where its shows the prices from this weapons :D
edisGW 2 years ago
Some say the Tunguska-m1 unit costs between 8 and 10 million USD.
Pungopingu 2 years ago
omg...that is soo to much
and you dont know any web site where can I find this informations?
edisGW 2 years ago
well I don't know if my info on the cost is correct. I usually find my weapons info on wikipedia
Pungopingu 2 years ago
yea yea I know I look at it to but Tunguska m-1 is 25 MILLION dollars. WTF :S
edisGW 2 years ago
yeah, sure is expensive
Pungopingu 2 years ago
This unit was replaced by the ZSU-23 SHILKA
Pungopingu 2 years ago
This Raritet lol man :)
bearName 2 years ago
lol u guys rly think russia would show a real anti aircraft weapon of their in a place like this? this shit is old, and russia aint using any more shit as these
PrickIttwice 2 years ago
Russia = you can't polish a turd...
DigbyCat 2 years ago
what u mean??
PrickIttwice 2 years ago
its old but classic, yankees got scared in vietnam as they saw it fireing through trees :)
InRUSSIAweTRUST 2 years ago