Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Ssnake

SB Pro PE 2.6x general information

403 posts in this topic
Isnt the shilks and the tunguska a bit of an overkill? Choppers and uav,s are extremely vulnarable allready as it it. I would have rather seen an AAA unit on the blue side for a change.

I dont think so the Tunguska was not introduced till the late ninety's.

The shilka has been around since the seventy's.if you were playing a cold war scenario

The Tunguska,would be out of place.any way what would you use on the blue side the Sgt york or the Gepard.i remember reading that the americans did not put much money or time in to air defence as they assumed they would have air dominece from the get go of any Conflict.ps they did have a very good missile system for air base defence i Think it was called the hawk.also they fitted a bradley with the stinger.but i am not sure it was ever deployed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best news in the gaming since the SB PE! :)

I played quite a bit the original SB, and have had the SB PE for quite a few year now as well. As an old T-72M1 TC I have been quite excited about the possibility of having a T-72 in SB PE some day. I admit, I might have been disappointed sometimes hearing about delays with T-72. To be honest I wasn't really expecting it to PE anymore knowing the pressures the development team is in (trying to keep up with the big customers demands).

For me the 2.6xx is a dream come true. Finally I my younghood love in my favourite simulation platform. First time T-72 is really simulated. This is absolutely superb!

I want to say thank you to the development team, straight from the heart!

Old tanks and tankers never die!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt the shilks and the tunguska a bit of an overkill? Choppers and uav,s are extremely vulnarable allready as it it. I would have rather seen an AAA unit on the blue side for a change.

We have AAA units on Blue already - they are called Bradleys and CV90s. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any information about multiplayer session? Are we gonna be able to rejoin even if we dropped in the middle of scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choppers and uav,s are extremely vulnarable allready as it it.

Maybe the increased visibility will give the chopper some stand-off range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

The new ZSU-23/4 looks nice, decent model. Can we turn this thing into a meat chopper? As in fire it against infantry and AFV's ? That of course would be very cool if possible. Maybe this addition of the new AA unit means new aircraft is on the way as well?? what I'd really like to see is some of the older models get a face lift to match all of this new stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new ZSU-23/4 looks nice, decent model. Can we turn this thing into a meat chopper? As in fire it against infantry and AFV's ?

While this would be a blatant violation of doctrine - yes, you could, just like the Tunguska. Both are very vulnerable however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the ZSU armor is extremely thin. It will likely not stand up to infantry very very long, despite what anyone has seen in movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this would be a blatant violation of doctrine - yes, you could, just like the Tunguska. Both are very vulnerable however.

Hey, die Vorschrift für den Gepard sagt: In Krisen Situation unterstützt der FlaPz die Kampftruppe mit direktem Feuer!!

Do the Sovjets have such different SoP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with the caveat that I haven’t the faintest idea as to what you said, but ...

I’m thinking the Soviets acknowledge that the ZSU only carries so much ammunition (what 2,000 rounds) and has a huge cyclic rate (IIRC, some 4,000 rounds per min for the combined four guns) so roughly 30 sec of fire against ground targets is probably not as good a return as say 30 sec against a fixed or rotary wing airframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

In fact they do. When Russian mechanised batallion attacks the AA and AT units are usually tasked flank protection. So if counterattack against such formation succeeds and hits home that is exactly what one should face.

Of course direct fire support mission is possible too, but considering the fire power already present in the frontline it is quite unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the ZSU armor is extremely thin. It will likely not stand up to infantry very very long, despite what anyone has seen in movies.

Concur. I've never seen any proof that the ZSU-23/4 was ever used in the ground role, and even if it has then it is a one off, like using a Carl-Gustav 84mm in the anti-ship role.

....but, the ZU-23 is widely used in the ground to ground role, especially by irregular forces, and the Russians and others have used it mounted on trucks and even APCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with the caveat that I haven’t the faintest idea as to what you said, but ...

It was mainly targetted at Ssnake.

I was quoting the FM for AA-tanks crews. translation is like:

"...in situations of crisis (i.e. dispair ;-) ), the Gepards supports the combat units with direct fire..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concur. I've never seen any proof that the ZSU-23/4 was ever used in the ground role, and even if it has then it is a one off, like using a Carl-Gustav 84mm in the anti-ship role.

I remember footage from post-Soviet combat in Chechnya where the ZSU was used in the ground combat role, and I also remember reading reports that it became one of the army's favorites in urban combat scenarios because of the extreme elevation angles at which it could still aim and fire.

Depending on one's view of the nature of future conflict, that could be dismissed as an abnormal, pathological case - or as a template for future, asymmetrical ground combat in urbanized terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was mainly targetted at Ssnake.

I was quoting the FM for AA-tanks crews. translation is like:

"...in situations of crisis (i.e. dispair ;-) ), the Gepards supports the combat units with direct fire..."

Yeah, I know that passage very well. It's the standard excuse of all task force commanders that abused the Gepard to shore up their defense line. The fact remains that an AAA tank is an extremely valuable and at the same time rather vulnerable asset.

In desperate situations you may fire on ground targets to cover the Gepard's hastened retrograde movement. But if you need it to hold your line in the first place, your position as such is untenable and you should revise your OpOrder. The attrition rate of lightly armored AAA vehicles is too high to piss them away at IFVs assaulting your position.

Of course - if the enemy doesn't have AFVs and its hand weapons have limited range and you have excellent ammo supply and no air threat ... but that's a lot of ifs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... or as a template for future, asymmetrical ground combat in urbanized terrain.

As long as you ramp up its protection considerably.

MBTs suffer enough in urban terrain if operating alone, let alone something “armoured” with tin foil (relatively speaking).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I remember footage from post-Soviet combat in Chechnya where the ZSU was used in the ground combat role, and I also remember reading reports that it became one of the army's favorites in urban combat scenarios because of the extreme elevation angles at which it could still aim and fire.

Depending on one's view of the nature of future conflict, that could be dismissed as an abnormal, pathological case - or as a template for future, asymmetrical ground combat in urbanized terrain.

Not saying it couldn't happen. Yes, "in extremes", a ZSU-23/4 could probably give anyone on the ground a very hard time, and almost certainly has done.

The Flak-36 was pretty good in the ground role, but what ever a ZSU-23-4 is shooting at is probably better done by a BMP-2 or similar. It's a nonsensical and poor use of the platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should inform the Russians of that then- evidently, they were specifically valued in urban combat for their ability to reach the upper floors of structures where otherwise Chechen fighters could pick off vehicle columns with impunity from outside the mechanical limits of the main armament of tanks and BMPs. In some cases, they were the only vehicles capable of effectively stopping the RPG teams swarming around on rooftops and even ground level basements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Flak-36 was pretty good in the ground role, but what ever a ZSU-23-4 is shooting at is probably better done by a BMP-2 or similar. It's a nonsensical and poor use of the platform.

You should tell that to the soldiers that were saved by his ground role. In a tactical wargame like Steel Panthers using the ZSU-23-4 against infantry is a pretty valid strategy, proving that real life urban warfare needs whatever fits better your needs not believing what a guy behind a desk says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... proving that real life urban warfare needs whatever fits better your needs not believing what a guy behind a desk says.

The Libyan (former) rebels seem to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should inform the Russians of that then- evidently, they were specifically valued in urban combat for their ability to reach the upper floors of structures where otherwise Chechen fighters could pick off vehicle columns with impunity from outside the mechanical limits of the main armament of tanks and BMPs. In some cases, they were the only vehicles capable of effectively stopping the RPG teams swarming around on rooftops and even ground level basements.

True but irrelevant. What this says is that a poorly trained army, using bad tactics were forced to do something stupid. Not something that should be replicated.

You should tell that to the soldiers that were saved by his ground role. In a tactical wargame like Steel Panthers using the ZSU-23-4 against infantry is a pretty valid strategy, proving that real life urban warfare needs whatever fits better your needs not believing what a guy behind a desk says.

Really? If I was a Formation Commander and found some clown had been employing my air-defence battery in that role, then I'd sack him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? If I was a Formation Commander and found some clown had been employing my air-defence battery in that role, then I'd sack him.

Yeah, is far better to recover your AAA in burnt pieces. But enough of that, we are going away from the main theme, will not post anymore about this.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but irrelevant. What this says is that a poorly trained army, using bad tactics were forced to do something stupid. Not something that should be replicated.

Says you- make no mistake, many of the Chechen fighters were noted for their ferocious courage, not to mention that many of them had served previously in the Russian or Soviet Army and knew Russian tactics and abilities. You're creating an is/ought problem, as if to say that they ought not to even though they actually did. In other words, you're going against reality here, I'm afraid- based on what, some general principle?

Really? If I was a Formation Commander and found some clown had been employing my air-defence battery in that role, then I'd sack him.

One more time- the Russian Army began specifically using AA units as a matter of doctrine, specially formed up in urban assault units to do exactly that, I'm afraid. What are you attempting to argue, that they didn't do that, or that it was some low ranking clown who did that? Bringing in specialist vehicles such as self propelled AA was a deliberate improvisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, is far better to recover your AAA in burnt pieces. But enough of that, we are going away from the main theme, will not post anymore about this.

Thanks

agree with that!! the title says "SB Pro PE 2.6x general information " btw, like your banner Stratos :diable:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, well, no need for a debate. Nothing is stopping anyone from using the ZSU to shoot infantry and light skinned vehicles in SB and as a matter of fact, when confronted with nothing but ground targets, you might want to tell them to hold fire in order to keep them from wasting all their ammo. ;)

I just want to stress that if you have a ZSU engaging ground targets as the norm, then don't expect it to last very long. In some places small arms can penetrate the vehicle if very close to enemy (flanks and such). If you look at it, you might get mislead. It has tracks, it looks almost tank like, but it is extremely vulnerable. Besides that, use it for whatever you want. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now