Puddinhead Johnson | 23 Nov 2016 11:37 a.m. PST |
There is a certain Cold War game I play which, except for a shorter range against ground targets, allows weapons like ZSU-23 or Gepard to shoot at infantry, APC's etc (also tanks, but the weapons can't hurt a tank) without any less effectiveness than if they were shooting at aircraft or helicopters. My admittedly limited research (talking to a friend who served in Iraq) indicates that AA units would not be used to engage ground targets except in self-defense, or in an emergency. I've raised this issue on other forums and in response some have said that my friend is not correct. Those taking this position have cited use of the ZSU 23 as an anti-infantry support weapon in Afghanistan. But as far as I know, "doctrine" wouldn't have indicated this use for them in a hypothetical cold war gone hot in the 1980's. So, I'm interested in hearing other points of view. Thanks. |
dwight shrute | 23 Nov 2016 11:54 a.m. PST |
Argentinians were firing fixed AA guns against British forces at Goose Green . I have seen Shilkas firing at ground positions in Syria . |
Mako11 | 23 Nov 2016 12:06 p.m. PST |
That's the ZSU-23, twin gun, and not the ZSU-23/4 SPAA vehicle? I can see the twin guns being used that way, but find it very unlikely that the SPAA vehicles would, unless there is a total lack of air threat by enemy forces. Doesn't make sense to expend ammo on infantry or vehicles, in most cases, and then not have it for air defense. I concur that most likely the SPAA vehicles would only normally be used in self-defense, or an emergency, no matter what "the game rules" permit, from a realistic, doctrinal standpoint. Used in an anti-infantry, and/or anti-armor role, they would be highly effective no doubt, since those move a lot more slowly than aircraft, so are more vulnerable in many cases, save for really thick frontal armor on tanks. |
Mako11 | 23 Nov 2016 12:07 p.m. PST |
I can see the Shilkas being used against ISIS, since they don't have an air force to worry about. |
Dynaman8789 | 23 Nov 2016 12:16 p.m. PST |
It all depends, saving rounds for use against aircraft becomes theoretical if the enemy ground forces are about to overrun your position. |
JasonAfrika | 23 Nov 2016 12:21 p.m. PST |
Sorry but your friend is WAY OFF! Guess he never heard of the M42 Duster and its role in Vietnam. Other examples are almost too numerous to mention: During Iran-Iraq War the Iraqis used all kinds of AA guns especially ZU-23/2s to "hose" Iranian human wave attacks. The Soviets used various SPAA versus infantry in Afghanistan-and it did become part of their official doctrine versus ambushes, The SADF(dual 20mm) and Cubans(ZSU-57/2s) used SPAA for direct fire support in Angola. The Toyota Wars in Chad, Ethiopia in Eritrea, Israel used the M163 Vulcan in Lebanon in an anti-sniper role when snipers were hidden in buildings, Morocco versus Polisario, Yugoslavia saw extensive use of SPAA for DF support, Argentina used the massive Oerlikon dual 35mm versus the Brits, I could go on and on and on…Heavy firepower, remember the 23mm is a cannon, high rate of fire, albeit light armor and limited ammo but what's not to like. The Germans invented this whole thing at the end of WW2- Kampgruppes always had a mobile AA weapon up front with them for direct fire support. I would say that the venerable ZU-23/2 has by far been the most popular because of its light weight-it can be mounted in the back of a light pick up, its versatility, ammo availability. |
Weasel | 23 Nov 2016 12:32 p.m. PST |
There's the intended role and there's what happens in the field :-) Tunguskas shot at buildings in Chechnya since they could aim higher than the BMPs and T72s could. In the various fighting in Africa in the cold war, all manner of guns could be found in all manner of unintended roles. |
Mako11 | 23 Nov 2016 12:50 p.m. PST |
Again, most of those examples are against opponents with little to no air support, so using them against ground troops and other targets makes sense. I suspect during an attack in NW Europe, with heavy helo and air threats, few commanders would permit them to be used in such roles, most of the time. |
Gennorm | 23 Nov 2016 12:58 p.m. PST |
Needs must. The Germans used AA guns as anti-tank guns at Arras in 1940. Others have followed suit. |
Legion 4 | 23 Nov 2016 2:50 p.m. PST |
In SE Asia, the US used the M42 Duster in the anti-personnel role. It was pretty effective … link There was even a few US ARMY M42s at Khe Sahn along with some older quad 50s. Both just for attriting NVA massed Infantry attacks. (talking to a friend who served in Iraq) indicates that AA units would not be used to engage ground targets except in self-defense, Even if the Iraqis had no air force, but it's neighbors like the Iranians do. There are many in the US military that know. We have been in an undeclared war with Iran since '83. That is Not just my opinion. Better to have ammo incase they go full tilt jihadi, etc., … |
GarrisonMiniatures | 23 Nov 2016 3:23 p.m. PST |
You use what you've got at the time against the enemy you are fighting at the time – saving it for 'what if's' get you killed. |
Weasel | 23 Nov 2016 3:23 p.m. PST |
Sure, but if some enterprising enemy infantry is roaming too close to your Bofors gun in 1940, I imagine popping off a few rounds seems like a mighty good idea :-) |
Antioch | 23 Nov 2016 4:46 p.m. PST |
Funny I was just reading about the zsu23-4 the other day. Apperantly the poles had developed an APDS/tracer round for the gun. Can't imagine they would have used that on aircraft. From Wikipedia … "The guns are useful against low-flying aircraft and lightly protected ground targets. Due to its effectiveness against ground targets, ZSU-23-4s have been used in urban environments (e.g., Afghanistan, Abkhazia, Chechnya, Syria and Lebanon). This is primarily because the guns can elevate much higher than a tank or APC cannon, enabling armored units equipped with ZSU-23-4s to return fire against ambushes from above." |
Dynaman8789 | 23 Nov 2016 5:14 p.m. PST |
I'm of two minds on allowing it in wargames. As one designer somewhere noted "anything that can be done in a wargame becomes normal". In actual use where aircraft are a threat a commander would make a high priority to keep the AA assets as a counter to enemy airpower. Give those assets to a wargamer and they will be used on ground targets as a first option if air power is not included. Perhaps a scenario rule, every time you fire an AA weapon at a ground target the chance of an airstrike happening increases. |
Weasel | 23 Nov 2016 5:17 p.m. PST |
Scenario design can handle this though, can't it? If the enemy doesn't KNOW if they face air strikes and they have 8 bursts worth of ammo, then they gotta make some choices. |
Vostok17 | 23 Nov 2016 8:48 p.m. PST |
Shilka, as far as I know, the first time began to actively applied at ground targets in Afghanistan. The results were impressive (especially against the clay buildings and buildings of cinder block). Later, with the ZSU-23-4 began to remove the radar, in order to get more ammo. ZSU actively used during the battles for Grozny (there has been more difficult – he built up with typical Soviet panel houses, and houses the so-called "Stalin" type, which are strong enough). More can be said that during the civil war in Congo-Brazzaville Shilka tried to equate to "weapons of mass destruction." In general, it is certainly an ersatz, and of course in the Soviet doctrine of this in the 1980s spelled were not. Usually these ZSU used against ground targets in full control of the air (or lack of enemy aircraft), and only on local initiative. This is due to the relatively weak armor, as well as poor protection of the cooling system of weapons. |
emckinney | 23 Nov 2016 8:59 p.m. PST |
Those AAA units might fire in desperation, but they're going to pack up and run if they see they enemy coming (or hear thm, or someone radios a warning …). In the threat environment of the Central Front, firing at ground targets with AAA should impose a victory point penalty. Just leaving the guns temporarily out of ammo is a big risk. |
Bede19002 | 24 Nov 2016 6:07 a.m. PST |
I think Mako made the best point. The examples of these AA guns being used against ground targets are anti-insurgent operations or similar where the enemy has no aircraft. Not comparable to a war between two modern , well-equipped armies where fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft are a serious threat. |
Major Mike | 24 Nov 2016 7:28 a.m. PST |
As told to me by an Allied officer with experience during a demonstration of the Vulcan against aerial targets, "It is very good against troops too." |
SouthernPhantom | 24 Nov 2016 8:05 a.m. PST |
The SAA 4th Armored Division seems to make good, habitual use of ZSU-23/4s against fortified Islamists in urban areas. I believe that some of their Shilkas have been up-armored (although the effectiveness of what amounts to a poor imitation of hillbilly armor is anyone's guess) for close inter-operation with mechanized infantry. |
Weasel | 24 Nov 2016 11:14 a.m. PST |
Let's back up for a moment. If you sit down to play a scenario where the scenario writer gave you a Bofors and there are no enemy air assets involved… what is the intention? |
McWong73 | 24 Nov 2016 4:49 p.m. PST |
I'm not aware of any rules set that doesn't allow kinetic AA weapons to be fired at ground targets. |
Legion 4 | 24 Nov 2016 6:51 p.m. PST |
I don't think any one or any rules sets say ADA/AAA can't fire at ground targets. However, in the real world as pointed out in the original post – My admittedly limited research (talking to a friend who served in Iraq) indicates that AA units would not be used to engage ground targets except in self-defense, or in an emergency.
That was unit SOP/ROE based on the current situation. And as noted : AA units would not be used to engage ground targets except in self-defense, or in an emergency. Now the situation could change and the new ROE allowed them to fire at ground targets. Again I believe the ROE to not to fire at ground targets in Iraq. Was based on the possible threat from other moslem nation(s) in the region. And obviously if the enemy has limited to no aircraft. Then the ROE would be changed to suit the situation. Especially in insurgencies. Even at Khe Sahn, if you read my first post, US ARMY's M42s and Quad .50s were there for primarily anti-personnel work. Since the NVA had limited air assets and were usually on CAP, AFAIK. I rarely think I ever heard of any NVA aircraft attack ground targets. But if they did, e.g. at Khe Sahn, the M42s and .50s would have engaged the NVA aircraft if the opportunity presented itself. In the Cold War when I served '79-'90. Russian ADA/AAA systems were priority targets for ground troops. For the obvious reason that if there was not an ADA/AAA threat. NATO CAS could go in on strikes without taking WP ADA/AAA fire. |
badger22 | 25 Nov 2016 6:49 a.m. PST |
As legion pointed out above, if you let enemy ground forces get in range of them, it is by definition an emergency situation. I went to school with an ADA guy who lit up 2 BTRs with everything he had. he was in one of those ADA bradleys, and I donrt remember what they mount. I think it is the 25mm and stingers, but could be wrong. the way I understood him, he cut loose a stinger hoping they would think it a TOW, and bail. Of course they could have just popped the weapon that was up, instead of taking the time to switch. he said it was well under 1000m when they popped up. Owen |
Legion 4 | 25 Nov 2016 8:51 a.m. PST |
an ADA guy who lit up 2 BTRs with everything he had. The Brad ADA version still packs the 25mm … M6 Linebacker An air defense variant, these vehicles are modified M2A2 ODSs with the TOW missile system replaced with a four-tube Stinger missile system.
|