"Cheetah" in an embroidered shirt

35 144 262
"Cheetah" in an embroidered shirt


Home


Several weeks after the start of the special military operation, specifically from late February to early March 2022, Germany made the first deliveries of so-called "non-lethal weapons" to Ukraine: protective helmets (CG634), body armor, medical kits, night vision devices, gas masks, winter clothing, footwear, as well as the first armored vehicles and fuel.



A sharp reversal in the range of supplies occurred at the end of February 2022.

On February 26–27, then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that Germany would supply Ukraine with "self-defense weapons" in the form of 1000 anti-tank missiles and 500 Stinger MANPADS. And in April of that year, Germany announced the delivery of Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer, or FlakPz), the first batch of which was confirmed by the German Ministry of Defense on July 25, 2022.

These were the first three ZSU "Gepard 1A2".


By the end of 2023, Ukraine received 52 Gepard air defense systems directly from Germany.

Germany purchased another 12 self-propelled guns from Qatar, where they were deployed in December 2022 to protect stadiums from possible air attacks during the FIFA World Cup.

In mid-2024, deliveries began for Defense The Ukrainian Armed Forces (VSU) Cheetah self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (modification 1A2), which translates from English as "Cheetah." Approximately 95 Cheetahs were assembled at Krauss-Maffei factories in Germany for the Royal Netherlands Army between 1976 and 1978.

And from 2014 to 2016, Jordan purchased 60 of these self-propelled guns from the Netherlands for some 21 million euros.

They served the Jordanian Armed Forces for a relatively short time, as in the summer of 2024, the Americans made the Jordanians an offer they couldn't refuse: they bought all 60 of them for $118,375,740 and sent them to Ukraine.

The average dollar-to-euro exchange rate at the time was 0,9216. So, the Americans "splurged" on the heavily used anti-aircraft guns for 109,062,000 euros. Arithmetically, the Jordanians "made" 88,062,000 euros! It's simply insane—one man's war, and another... However, it's not a given that the money went to the Jordanians.


Cheetah PRTL (Pantser Rups Total Luchtverdediging) somewhere in Ukraine. It translates as "Armored Tracked Air Defense System."

The Germans scraped the bottom of their litter once again and sent Gepards again, twice in small batches of three, in the fall of 2024 and the spring of 2025.

As a result, today in Ukraine there are between 118 and 133 Gepard/Cheetah family anti-aircraft self-propelled guns fighting.

Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany Oleksiy Makeyev, without hiding his joyful satisfaction, told journalists:

This means that most of the "Cheetahs" that could be caught in forests around the world have been captured and are now grazing on Ukrainian pastures.

History


The Gepards, developed in the 1970s, were primarily designed to protect mobile Bundeswehr units, as well as important stationary targets, from low-flying Soviet Air Force aircraft and helicopters. By the 1990s, there were approximately 200 Mi-24s in Eastern Europe alone, so the idea was viable.

The Soviet Union was dead, the Soviet Army withdrew from Eastern Europe, and in 2010, the Germans decommissioned the Gepards, but, just in case, they didn't scrap them all. These "remaining" ones ended up in Ukraine, and, to the Germans' surprise, they proved extremely effective.

In fact, the first Gepard prototypes began production and testing in late 1968, and on May 24, 1973, Kraus-Maffei received an order for 122 production vehicles, with an option for an additional 298 units. Ultimately, after several contract amendments, the contract was settled on 195 vehicles without laser rangefinders and 225 with laser rangefinders. The armored ZSUs were intended to effectively engage targets in any weather, day or night.

Development of the entire Gepard program, through to serial production, was entrusted to Oerlikon Contraves of Zurich, now part of Rheinmetall Defence. The ZSU itself was built as part of a joint project, with Krauss-Maffei serving as the general contractor and responsible for the chassis. Hamburg-based Blohm + Voss developed the turret and hull.

Siemens was responsible for the "fire control subsystem," which included the Siemens-Albis fire control computer and radar systems. Wegmann manufactured the turret, including the armament, and Krauss-Maffei handled its final assembly.

The self-propelled gun itself consisted of approximately 200,000 parts, the production of which involved approximately 2,000 companies in Germany and abroad.

On December 12, 1976, the first production Gepard ZSU was delivered to the Bundeswehr Air Defense Unit. A total of 420 self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were delivered to the German armed forces from 1976 to October 29, 1980.

Thus, the Bundeswehr equipped eleven air defense regiments with Gepards. Each regiment, in turn, consisted of eight batteries, including six firing batteries with six ZSUs each, for a total of 36 systems per regiment.


Cheetah B2s escort the convoy tanks Leopard 1 at NATO exercise REFORGER 1985

TTX ZSU "Gepard 1A2"


Crew: three people (driver, gunner, commander)
Dimensions (length, width, height in meters): 7,68 x 3,27 x 3,29 (with folded radar)
Weight: 47,5 tons
Chassis: Leopard 1

Engine:
The main, 10-cylinder, 37,4-liter, multi-fuel MTU MB 838 CaM-500.
Power 610 kW (829 hp). Fuel consumption 150 liters per 100 km.
Maximum speed: 65 km / h.
Power reserve: 550 km.

Auxiliary Daimler-Benz OM 314, 50 hp. Provides autonomous power supply for onboard systems. Fuel consumption is 20 l/hour.

Armor: homogeneous steel. Hull front up to 70 mm, sides 35 mm, rear 25 mm, bottom 20 mm. Turret 20–25 mm, roof 15 mm.


The driver's station. The automatic transmission control lever is visible on the right.

According to Ukrainians: “Driving a car is as easy as riding a bicycle.”

Armament: 2×35 mm L/90 Oerlikon-KDA automatic cannons.

When using conventional 35×228 mm projectiles, it effectively hits targets at a distance of up to 3,5–4,0 km.
When using special high-speed FAPDS/FAPDS-T projectiles (initial velocity 1440 m/sec) – up to 5,5 km.


Gepard turret with 2× 35mm L/90 Oerlikon-KDA guns

Equipment and means for target detection and acquisition:

Search radar — S-band (operating at a frequency of 2–4 GHz with a wavelength of approximately 15–7,5 cm), detection range up to 15 km (hemispherical, from the Latin hemisphaerium — “hemisphere”); provides an initial overview picture and the output of targets to the tracking system.


Search radar

Tracking radar — Ku/K-band (German version) with a tracking range of 13–15 km; the Dutch/CA1 version — X/Ka-band.

The radar is a monopulse, pulse-Doppler, with interference protection and an automatic targeting function.
I've provided this data specifically for those in the know. I'm sure the site has similar data, and I'd be interested in reading their comments on the characteristics of both radars.


Target tracking radar with laser rangefinder

Identification (IFF) - Integrated interrogator MSR-400 Mk XII for automatic identification of "friend or foe".

Optical (passive) subsystem / sighting devices - stabilized panoramic periscopes (commander/gunner) with variable magnification 1.5× → 6×, night TV/IR device and, in modernized versions, a thermal imager and laser rangefinder.

The optics can function as a backup and for visual target identification.


Throughout its stories The Gepard has undergone several modifications. Beginning in 1985, a significant portion of the Bundeswehr's B2 variants were upgraded with a laser rangefinder, bringing the fleet to 382 units.

Performance was improved through the use of a digital fire control computer, new ammunition, radio transmitters and ergonomic improvements with new control and display concepts, resulting in the FlakPz Gepard 1A2 version.


The latest modification of the ZSU "Gepard 1A2"

The decommissioning of the Gepard began in 2010, and by July 2022, the Bundeswehr had only a few dozen Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns remaining, either in reserve or in storage. These were "reanimated and brought back to life" for subsequent deployment to Ukraine.

Combat use in Ukraine


Qatar International news Al Jazeera media holding, citing Ukrainian sources, writes:

The greatest success in knocking down drones Ukraine achieved this by using the German 35mm Gepard anti-aircraft gun.

German Merkur.de adds:

The Ukrainian armed forces seem pleased with the performance, despite the old system: the Gepard is reportedly excellent at shooting down Russian drones such as the Shahed/Geran-2, and can also fight cruise missiles. rockets and helicopters. Especially compared to more expensive systems such as the US Patriot or the European SAMP/T, the Gepard is considered cost-effective and flexible.


Ukrainian FlakPz Gepard 1A2, German-made

German sources simply write joyfully that "The system, developed in the last century, is now shooting down even Russian cruise missiles in Ukraine, and loitering munitions like the Shahed have become a very easy target for this system."

To what extent the Geranium, which the Ukrainians stubbornly call the Shahed, is a loitering munition, the Germans probably know better, but the fact remains: the Gepard anti-aircraft mount has become an extremely important element of the Ukrainian army's air defense.

The crews underwent training in Germany. Most of the service members had no prior military training or experience. The course lasted six to eight weeks.


A Gepard gunner named Sergei enthusiastically shared with journalists how easy and convenient the Gepard is to use against Russian Army UAVs and cruise missiles: "Target acquisition, tracking, and fire." His crew is credited with downing 28 Gepards.


Workplace gunner

The Germans themselves describe the operation of the target search radar verbatim:

It spins at 60 rpm, no faster than a German washing machine, but just as silently and completely reliably.

The radar effectively acquires targets within a 15-kilometer radius. Once an object is identified as a target, the data is transmitted by a computer to the tracking radar. Both radars operate independently and are equipped with anti-theft software. EW enemy and an automatic system of self-analysis and verification of their work.


Target acquisition and tracking equipment display. It's noteworthy that this ZSU displays information in Spanish. It shows that target acquisition occurs at a maximum range of 14997 meters, at a target altitude of 664 meters, and at a speed of 203 m/s, or approximately 731 km/h.

The Gepard's onboard computer processes the received data and transmits it to the fire control system, which selects the optimal moment to engage the target and signals the start of fire. The operator simply presses the "Feuer" button.


A still from the famous video of a Ukrainian Gepard missile being shot down in December 2022.

True, the Germans admit that near the front line, where they work aviation The Russian Aerospace Forces, and considering other weapons used by the Russian Army, believe that the Gepard itself, rather than being a hunter of aerial targets, will likely become prey. As evidence of this, a video of the destruction of one of the systems was once published on Telegram. I believe it was the Lancet that fired the shots. To avoid this, almost all self-propelled guns operate primarily deep behind enemy lines, hunting for our drones and cruise missiles.

Despite all my attempts to find any further confirmed information about the destruction or defeat of the Gepards, I still haven’t found anything.

According to the military analysis blog and the Oryx database, Ukraine has not lost a single one of them, although some sources report damaged units. Ukraine has not officially published information on the losses of the Gepards.

Objectively, it must be acknowledged that the installations turned out to be truly effective.

The Weapons of Victory YouTube channel says:

The Gepard has found a second life in Ukraine, where it can easily detect and shoot down drones and subsonic cruise missiles. And he does it with absolute calm.

As indirect confirmation of this, one can easily find dozens of photographs on the internet of combat vehicles with marks on their turrets and hulls in the form of silhouettes of downed targets.


A "Cheetah" with marked hit targets. I don't think Ukrainians are drawing these just to show off to each other or for journalists.


Another one, with silhouettes on the tower


A "Cheetah" in the Ukrainian steppes. Photo taken in May 2023.

The YouTube channel Weapons of Victory, citing Ukrainians, reports that there is one ZSU near Odessa. "shot down ten air targets in a short period of time."


A Ukrainian soldier in front of downed Russian drones. It's unknown where this photo was taken or where the debris was piled up, but the photo undoubtedly depicts decoy Gerberas. The "hero" doesn't look very happy...

Speaking of shells


The Gepard is equipped with two L/90-Maschinenkanonen Oerlikon-KDA automatic cannons fed from a belt with 35×228 mm ammunition. The ammunition load is 640 rounds (320 for each of the two cannons).

In addition, there are 40 pieces of FAPDS / APDS / AP (armor-piercing) against light armored vehicles, as well as for the confident destruction of larger air targets, but this is in the form of emergency reserves.

The Germans proudly say that when working on ground targets, using these projectiles weighing 500-700 grams, the Gepard "Turns targets with up to 115mm of armor into Swiss cheese.".

In total, the full ammunition load is 680 rounds.

The total rate of fire of the two guns is approximately 1,100 rounds/min (18,33 rounds/sec).

Theoretically, with continuous firing at air targets, all 640 pieces would last for 35 seconds.

Of course, this is purely theoretical. In practice, the ZSU fires short bursts of 24-48 rounds, so the "real" combat time is much longer. Nevertheless, the Gepard's appetite is voracious. For example, 48 rounds take 2,6 seconds, while 96 rounds take about 5,2 seconds.

The Ukrainians boast that they can supposedly hit a Geranium at a range of three kilometers with eleven shots. Some report that in some cases two or three shells were enough. If they're not lying, they were apparently firing at point-blank range. Perhaps that's true...

Well, since, despite all attempts to use the ammunition sparingly, it sooner or later runs out, it takes at least 20 minutes to reload a full load of ammunition.


Reloading the Gepard

The main and most common ammunition is HEI / HEI-T (High-Explosive Incendiary / tracer) - high-explosive fragmentation incendiary tracer and HE / HE-F (High-Explosive / High-Explosive Fragmentation) - high-explosive fragmentation.

If I have not translated and labeled these ammunition in Russian quite correctly, I will gratefully accept corrections from specialists.

It was precisely with these munitions that problems initially arose. The shells were manufactured in Switzerland, a country officially neutral. Under Swiss law, the supply of weapons and ammunition manufactured in Switzerland to a country where military operations are taking place is prohibited without the permission of the country of origin.

Surprisingly, the Swiss dug in their heels and forbade the Ukrainians from supplying ammunition, saying, "The self-propelled guns are yours, do with them what you want, but the shells won't cross the border!"

In mid-2022, Germany officially requested Berne's permission to re-export 12,400 Swiss 35mm shells to Ukraine, but was denied. The Germans, along with the Netherlands, Denmark, and several other EU countries, then quickly launched production of the ammunition at their own factories.

Rheinmetall, naturally, was at the forefront. According to officially published data alone, the company manufactured and shipped at least 480,000 shells to Ukraine between 2022 and 2025.

These include not only high-explosive fragmentation, incendiary, and tracer rounds priced at €300–€550 each, but also the most effective and expensive AHEAD (programmable airburst) projectile—a programmable projectile that disperses multiple tungsten submunitions, each weighing 3,3 grams. Typically, these consist of 152 cylinders, creating a destructive curtain.
The price of one AHEAD reaches up to 1,200 euros per shot.

The projectile explodes at a precisely calculated distance by setting the required moment of explosion using an electronic timer, programmed during firing.


A diagram of the AHEAD programmable munition. Although the text is in English, I think everything is clear.

From 2022 to 2024, the Ukrainians experienced a rather serious shortage of AHEAD ammunition and used mainly HEI-T/HE.


HEI-T 35x288 projectiles. Yellow indicates high-explosive fragmentation, red stripe indicates tracer.

However, already in 2025, Rheinmetall significantly increased the production and supply of programmable 35×228 mm AHEAD projectiles, which significantly increased the effectiveness of target destruction.


A visual result of the use of the AHEAD (programmable airburst) munition.


The muzzle of the Gepard's left gun barrel, showing the muzzle velocity measuring device (muzzle velocity measuring device), which plays a key role in the use of AHEAD/programmable airburst ammunition. It is also used for gun testing and calibration, ballistic calculations, firing at moving targets, and checking the gun's performance after repairs or upgrades.

Subtotals


Naturally, we don't know the actual number of targets shot down by Gepards, and we probably never will, but the fact remains: they have firmly established their place in Ukraine's air defense system and are operating reliably and quite effectively.

The Ukrainian-German propaganda machine is ready to broadcast 24 hours a day about the superiority of German technology and weapons over everything and everyone. But, unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that the old "Cheetahs" have indeed demonstrated that their "fangs and claws" have not become dull at all.

Of course, we are not talking about “superiority”, just as it is absolutely wrong to call these ZSU “scrap metal from the last century”, which we initially heard more than once from the Russian media.

When a representative of the Belgian international military news publication Army Recognition asked a Ukrainian Gepard commander named Andrey which three systems he considered the most effective for combating Russian drones, the following answer was given: "Gepard, Gepard, and more Gepard."


This Ukrainian fighter tells German reporters that "This machine can be relied upon. Its effectiveness against Vladimir Putin's drones has proven impressive."The photo was taken near Odessa.

Ukrainian analytical agency Defense Express writes:

The Bundeswehr's old technology—the legendary Flakpanzer Gepard—inflicted heavy losses on Putin's army.

The Ukrainian military valued the German "oldtimer" so highly that they intend to establish their own production of self-propelled guns.

Anyone even slightly "in the know" understands that Ukrainians can't produce anything truly "indigenous" today. Take, for example, the much-hyped Ukrainian 2S22 Bogdana self-propelled gun. It was designed and assembled by Ukrainians with assistance and components from France (CAESAR self-propelled gun), the Czech Republic (Dana M2 self-propelled gun), Slovakia (Zuzana 2 self-propelled gun), Poland, and Turkey. Incidentally, it was put together very well at Ukrainian factories, and production, including the towed version, reached forty units per month in 2025. They claim that they at least make the gun barrels themselves, which is highly unlikely, given the disappointment with tank gun barrels.

In September of this year, Merkur.de correspondent Karsten-Dirk Hinzmann wrote:

Ukraine prioritizes practical, "reliable" weapons over complex, high-tech systems. Negotiations with KNDS regarding modifications to the Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft gun are already underway.

KNDS is a European defense concern formed in 2015 as a result of the merger of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) from Germany (known for the Leopard 2 tank, PzH 2000 self-propelled gun) and Nexter Defense Systems from France (Leclerc tank, Caesar self-propelled gun).

Kyiv has not yet commented specifically on this report, but they emphasized that the Gepard air defense system is already being serviced and repaired by KNDS in cooperation with Ukraine, and, it should be understood, on Ukrainian territory.

The current Minister of Defense, Denys Shmygal, while still serving as Prime Minister of Ukraine, also publicly announced plans for the joint production of a "Ukrainian Gepard."

It's unclear whether this is actually a new production facility or just a repair and upgrade of existing self-propelled guns, but information about these plans is increasingly appearing in German media. KNDS writes on its website:

The Gepard remains prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. The modern version of the Gepard is capable of countering all types of aerial threats—from aircraft and helicopters to guided missiles and drones. Its projectiles are protected from electronic jamming, and their fragments are guaranteed to hit their targets.

The manufacturer claims that the experience of the Ukrainian army, which successfully uses the Gepard, has become the best confirmation for KNDS that the "old anti-aircraft tank" is back in service.

Heirs of the Cheetah


While the Ukrainians are excitedly talking about what a fantastic combat unit the Gepard is and are trying to build their own version of the Gepard-Lite, loaded with updated electronics and modern radars and sensors, based on existing developments and combat experience, their German partners are implementing their own promising programs.

Skynex stationary air defense system



According to open sources, the Dusseldorf-based defense concern Rheinmetall, which calls itself "a key partner of the Ukrainian defense industry in the fight against Russian aggression", has already delivered two of the latest Skynex stationary air defense systems to Ukraine.

The first Skynex was delivered in 2023, and the second complex on April 29, 2024. This was officially confirmed by the German government.

On July 12, 2025, the Ukrainian Air Force released video footage showing the Skynex air defense system shooting down several Russian drones. According to the video, at least seven Geraniums were destroyed in the attack.


A Skynex weapon module in Ukraine

In a typical configuration, one Skynex system includes four 35mm Oerlikon Revolver Gun Mk3 cannons (one cannon per firing module), a radar station and a control post.

The radar and control station can theoretically be located at any distance from the firing modules: from "near the weapon" to tens of kilometers via Line-of-Sight (LOS) radio links, or hundreds or thousands of kilometers via cable, repeater, or satellite. This option avoids personnel losses in the event of direct damage to the weapon modules.


Components of the Skynex complex

Unlike multi-barreled revolver guns that operate on the Gatling principle, these guns are single-barreled, but equipped with a four-chamber revolver mechanism, similar to a classic revolver.

According to Rheinmetall, each gun is equipped with 252 programmable AHEAD rounds. To ensure a continuous supply of rounds at a rate of fire of approximately 1000 rounds per minute while also controlling the gun's consumption, the ammunition is fed into the drum chambers from seven-round magazines (cassettes). The ammunition hopper holds only 36 magazines.


Loading a magazine of shells into the hopper/magazine


The Skynex system effectively destroys air targets at a range of up to four kilometers.

And so, while the first Skynex stationary systems produced by Rheinmetall have been fighting in Ukraine for two years, the Germans, having collected and processed invaluable combat experience from the Gepard and Skynex stationary systems, and meeting the wishes of the Bundeswehr and their valued Ukrainian partners, have taken on the production of a modern mobile air defense system.

Simply "cloning" the old Flakpanzer is, of course, impossible. The Leopard 1 chassis and engine have long been out of production, and the requirements for an air defense system that must be effective in all respects and meet 21st-century standards are completely different. It became clear here that the key word in the phrase "dear Ukrainian partners" is "expensive».

And while the Ukrainians are raving about producing “their own” anti-aircraft self-propelled gun, Rheinmetall is offering them, and anyone else who wants it, a successor to the Gepard – a ZSU with the Skyranger 35 module.

ZSU Skyranger 35



Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger told German media that the corresponding contract would be signed on September 10, 2025, at the DSEI (Defense & Security Equipment International) international exhibition of weapons and security systems in London.

According to ZDF, the contract, according to Armin Papperger, will be worth "hundreds of millions of euros."

Bloomberg reported in an article dated September 9, 2025, that Rheinmetall plans to sign a contract for the supply of Skyranger systems worth approximately 500 million euros.

The potential parties to the contract could have been Rheinmetall as the manufacturer and the Ukrainian side (the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense), with a high probability of participation from the German government and other sponsoring states.
However, as of today, there is no publicly confirmed information that the contract was signed on September 10, 2025.

It's highly significant that deliveries to Ukraine will begin before the first production Skyranger 35 is manufactured for the Bundeswehr, with which a contract has not yet been signed. According to Defense Express, Rheinmetall expects to receive this contract (from the Bundeswehr) worth €6-8 billion this year.

And then, quite unexpectedly, a pan-European hysteria about Putin's ubiquitous drones began. Now's the perfect time to sell these systems to European partners and other interested parties. To paraphrase Vladimir Mayakovsky, "to the Danes and various other Swedes."

And... Oops, the Rheinmetall Skyranger 35 is already included in the European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI) project – a European shield against air threats!

Now let's take a little more detail about the ZSU itself.

The Skyranger system is a mobile anti-aircraft artillery complex of the Swiss company Oerlikon, now part of the Rheinmetall concern.

The system is a turret module that can be mounted on a wide variety of chassis types, both wheeled and tracked, such as the Mowag Piranha, GTK Boxer, Pandur Evolution, Lynx IFV, Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 tanks, and even trucks.


Skyranger 35 truck-mounted weapon station

The system is capable of monitoring an area of ​​up to 16 square kilometers and is particularly effective at intercepting low-flying targets, especially drones.

Each of these systems can provide complete protection for a four-by-four kilometer area—a drone-free zone.”
"Papperger said in an interview with the German television channel ZDF.

Unlike the Gepard with its two cannons, the Skyranger is armed with a single 35mm cannon integrated into a turret module, the same as the weapon module of the Skynex fixed-wing complex, but with a stabilization system, its own drives and an autonomous optical-electronic guidance unit.

This system includes a daytime camera (TV), a thermal imager (IR), a laser rangefinder, a sighting stabilization system for firing on the move, a high-speed video camera, and an automatic target tracker. For 360-degree coverage and detection of airborne targets at various altitudes, the Skyranger 35 uses a three-dimensional active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.


A Skyranger 35 demo car on a GTK Boxer chassis

Defense Express suggests that the Ukrainian variant will also be wheeled, for cost and maintainability reasons.

All potential parties to the contract are keeping mum about the Skyranger's price. Defense Express estimates that each system will cost at least €12 million, not including design and maintenance costs.

Some German sources claim the first orders for the Skyranger 35 were placed as early as 2024, though they don't specify who ordered them. Logically, they were from the same Ukrainians, or for the same Ukrainians, since the Germans are threatening to send the first vehicles to Ukraine this year.

Conclusions and thoughts out loud


To summarize, based on the above information, which is based exclusively on German media sources and documentary filming made in Germany and Ukraine, the following conclusion can be drawn:

- “The old Gepards have firmly and quite effectively taken their place in the Ukrainian air defense system.
- The initial problem with ammunition has been almost completely solved through supplies from Europe.
- Crew training and preparation takes place in a short time and is very effective.
- The system of equipment repair and maintenance is well-established.
- As a result of the use of the ZSU "Gepard", the production of a "Ukrainian" version cannot be ruled out.
- The European military-industrial complex has already been “restarted” according to the war preparation program and has significantly increased the production of both previous and the newest and most promising products.

And now, about what I can’t help but share.

I have quite a few relatives and friends living throughout the vast territory of the Russian Federation, from Sakhalin to the Black Sea.

Despite the shutdown of Russian television in Germany, I still have the opportunity to watch it.
I have a computer and a smartphone with YouTube, Telegram, ChatGPT, etc.

I regularly receive information from all the above-mentioned sources about what's happening in Russia and at the front. About how my loved ones are faring, how heroically the guys are fighting in the war with the strange name of "SVO." About how people are collecting a hundred rubles to help the front. About how air raid sirens sound in Russian cities, hundreds and even thousands of kilometers from the border with the crazed former Soviet Ukraine. About how "Ukrainian drone debris" has hit yet another oil refinery, factory, civilian facility, or even just a house. About the wounded and the dead.

The Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, Comrade V.I. Lenin, spoke at the Second All-Russian Conference on Work in the Village on June 12, 1920:

"The most dangerous thing is to underestimate the enemy and settle for the idea that we are stronger. This is the most dangerous thing that can lead to defeat in war, and it is the worst trait of the Russian character..."

The war will soon be four years old. The enemy is carrying out air strikes deep into Russia with absolute cold-bloodedness and brutality. Every day we hear of hundreds of Ukrainian drones shot down over Russian soil. But we don't know at what cost, and most importantly, and this makes it even more alarming, how many of them actually achieved their targets.

Maybe this is right, I won’t judge.

But the question arises: if the Germans and Ukrainians revived the aircraft of the seventies three years ago, if they are creating new air defense systems aimed specifically at combating drones, then where are the legendary Soviet "Shilkas", "Tunguskas", the new generation of "Pantsirs", where are even simple mobile fire teams?

We probably don't all need to know about this either...
262 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +24
    14 October 2025 04: 58
    The Gepard is certainly old, but the programmable projectile is new, and it's what makes the system effective. It's like the advent of radar fuses, which dramatically increased the effectiveness of anti-aircraft artillery.
    So where are the legendary Soviet "Shilkas", "Tunguskas", the new generation of "Pantsirs", where are even the simple mobile fire groups?

    Well, they haven't gone anywhere. It's just that there's no programmable projectile for them, and without one, they can't be effective.
    1. -22
      14 October 2025 05: 55
      Quote: Puncher
      The Gepard is certainly old, but the programmable projectile is new, and it is this that ensures the system's effectiveness.

      Judging by the attached photos... What's painted on the side? Five Geraniums and, say, three Kalibrs. If this plane fired that much in three years of war, it's not exactly that effective...
      1. +16
        14 October 2025 06: 49
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        If this plane fired this much in three years of war, then it’s not that effective...

        What if in 3 months?
        Or, let's say, 90% of the items flying within the affected area?
        Or let's each choose a period for themselves and not worry...
        1. 0
          16 October 2025 05: 10
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          What if in 3 months?

          So, every three months they erase it and start drawing again? wassat You have an interesting approach...
    2. 0
      14 October 2025 06: 45
      Quote: Puncher
      There is just no programmable projectile for them.

      The 23mm Shilka is not the 35mm Gepard; it's much more difficult to fit a programmable fuse into that caliber. There still needs to be room for the propellant charge and a sufficient number of submunitions, otherwise it's pointless.
      The ZSU-57-2 would have been far more promising in this regard, and it's also quite effective against armor; it should even be able to easily penetrate the sides of tanks. But are there any left in storage?
      1. +8
        14 October 2025 07: 13
        Quote: Nagan
        Were they still in storage?

        There are definitely S-60s in stock. But there are no shells.
      2. -5
        14 October 2025 17: 55
        Quote: Nagan
        , and it is also very effective against armor, even tanks, in theory, should be easily penetrated in the side.
        It depends on the tanks. If it's a Leopard, then it's quite possible. But ours are beyond her reach: our tanks have 80mm of main side armor (70mm around the engine bay) plus a bulwark with built-in ERA (now standard from the factory). That's guaranteed protection against a 23mm shell.
        1. -1
          14 October 2025 22: 36
          Oh, already two downvotes. Are you still struggling to explain what you disagree with?
          1. +2
            15 October 2025 00: 25
            ZSU-57-2
            weaponry
            Caliber and brand of gun ----------------------------------- 2 × 57-mm S-68
            Gun type: rifled small-caliber automatic gun
            ******************************************************************************
            The tank's side is 80 mm thick + armored bulwarks + DZ. Part of the side is covered by rollers.
            The photo shows a bulwark with ERA, which comes from the factory on all our tanks (T-72-80-90)
    3. +11
      14 October 2025 09: 00
      Quote: Puncher
      However, there is no programmable projectile for them, and without it, effectiveness cannot be achieved.

      You're not entirely right. As was already correctly noted further down the thread:
      Quote: Alexey 1970
      They're writing about programmable ammunition, I have a question (I'm not an air defense expert at all), How did they ever shoot anything down then?, or is it not about the shells and they can still shoot down?

      A programmer and remote detonation are certainly good. They increase fire efficiency, but in the sense that if you need to use five programmable rounds to hit a target, you'd need 50-100 conventional rounds. The advantages, of course, are hit probability, the time it takes to hit a single target (and, consequently, more targets per unit of time), and reduced barrel wear.
      So, of course: "It's better to be healthy and rich than poor and sick" with a programmer and projectiles with remote programmable detonation, BUT; "In the absence of a stamp, you can write on a simple one."
      Quote: Puncher
      Well, they haven't gone anywhere.

      Most likely, yes, they're sitting in warehouses, but only as armored hulls and barrels. Knowing our "thrifty" approach to preservation and desire to "make a buck," there's probably nothing left of the engines, transmissions, or electronics. Mice ate them. request laughing
      1. P
        -1
        14 October 2025 21: 29
        No, if you take into account that these cheetahs will be waiting for about 5 decoys, medium-altitude drones beyond the gun's capabilities and a couple of lancets, then your scheme is death.
      2. +1
        15 October 2025 00: 25
        Quote: Adrey
        that if you need to spend 5 programmable shells to hit a target, then you need 50-100 regular ones.

        If there are 5 programmable ones, then there are 13 regular ones.
    4. +2
      14 October 2025 10: 22
      Isn't shrapnel just fate? It's much more effective, and easy to make.
      1. +3
        14 October 2025 10: 48
        Quote: novel xnumx
        Isn't shrapnel just fate? It's much more effective, and easy to make.

        If you guess the target height and set the fuse correctly.
        1. P
          +2
          14 October 2025 21: 36
          The loader has 10 fingers on his hands, enough for one burst, then the automatic loader needs to be cleaned, and the loader needs to be written off and replaced with a new one
    5. +24
      14 October 2025 10: 33
      Quote: Puncher
      Well, they haven't gone anywhere.

      I served on the Shilka. Compared to the Gepard, it's crap. There's no optical night vision capability. The instruments are analog. The shell spread is huge, and the point-blank range is terrible. The base is weak. Basically, hitting something with the Shilka is a real challenge. And that's without even mentioning the programmable fuse. They can't even squeeze one into a 57mm tube, let alone a 23mm one. As a system for countering UAVs in the rear, the Germans have created the perfect solution. Instead of all those obscure and useless Burevestniks and Armatas, they should have made something like the Synex.
      1. P
        +5
        14 October 2025 21: 38
        New ammunition is needed, and it won't be available. Ammunition is science, it requires top-notch gold-medal performers for pilot production, it requires brilliant adjusters, metrologists, and quality control specialists. They're all dead now.
      2. -1
        15 October 2025 00: 15
        The Shilkas entered service in the 60s, with 6500 produced against 430 Cheetahs.
        When the Germans were churning out their cheetah, we developed the Tunguska, which is significantly cooler than any cheetah.
        And why the hell do we need some kind of programmable fuse if the Tunguskas and Pantsirs have guided missiles that fly further than any 37-57mm programmable projectile?
        1. +3
          15 October 2025 08: 22
          Quote: bushmaster
          They developed a Tunguska that is significantly cooler than any cheetah.

          I saw the Tunguska in action. Does it have a night video channel? The gun doesn't have a programmable fuse; it's just firing into nothing. In all fairness, as Pantsyr demonstrated, the gun can be safely removed; it's not much use.
          1. -1
            17 October 2025 22: 40
            Just like a cheetah, it has a radar.
            A programmable fuse is a very expensive German toy that almost no one in the world uses.
            The armored car's anti-aircraft guns are better than the geeta's, no need to touch anything.
      3. 0
        15 October 2025 00: 23
        Quote: qqqq
        Instead of all the incomprehensible and useless Burevestniks and Armatas, it would be better to make something like Sinex.

        What's wrong with Pantsir? Why bother with a German palliative instead of Pantsir?
        1. +5
          15 October 2025 08: 25
          Quote: Comet_1
          What don't you like about Pantsir?

          The Pantsir, as a non-cannon SAM system, is a great option, but it's expensive to use missiles for every cheap target. A programmable fuse is being developed to reduce costs. This makes it much cheaper to fire and hit a target.
          1. -1
            15 October 2025 23: 06
            Quote: qqqq
            Pantsir as a SAM system without guns, an excellent option,

            What about guns like the anti-aircraft missile and gun mounts? The anti-aircraft missile and gun mounts have a smaller near-field engagement zone than the anti-aircraft missile system. Is that a bad thing?
            Quote: qqqq
            but for every penny target with missiles, it’s expensive.

            What is a "penny target"? The effectiveness of air defense operations is measured by the damage prevented, not the cost of hitting the target.
            Quote: qqqq
            To reduce costs, a programmable fuse is made.

            To reduce the amount of ammunition needed to hit a target, a programmable fuse is being developed. But why would Pantsir need this reduction? Its cannons have plenty of ammunition, but they're rarely used; usually, the cannons aren't used.
            Quote: qqqq
            It turns out to be much cheaper to shoot and hit the target.

            But that's not a fact. The consumption of HE rounds is approximately 2.61065 times greater than that of programmable rounds (Polish comparative tests at a firing range; my post with a link is at the bottom of the discussion). And if the price of an HE round (according to the author of this material) is 300 euros, and a programmable round is 1200 euros, then using programmable rounds is approximately 1.5322 times more expensive.
            1. +4
              16 October 2025 08: 25
              Quote: Comet_1
              And what about the guns, like the ZRPK?

              He can't hit anything with his guns. There's even video of him firing in hothouse conditions at a firing range.
              Quote: Comet_1
              The consumption of HE shells is approximately 2.61065 times greater than that of programmable ones.

              I don't know how much more, but I've fired from a Shilka. At a stationary target at 600 meters (a helicopter, not a small one), 20 rounds is already excellent, if three hits are achieved from two launchers (40 rounds). For a third vehicle, one hit is enough for a second target. This is a stationary target, and no matter how many times we or others fired at an aerial target, I never saw a direct hit. We assessed how close the rounds passed the target. So, a programmable fuse is a lifesaver and the only solution for the ZPK.
              1. 0
                17 October 2025 22: 35
                Quote: qqqq
                He doesn't hit anything with his cannons.

                Come on! The SVO has shot down helicopters, UAVs, and attack aircraft with Pantsir guns.
                Quote: qqqq
                There is a video of shooting in hothouse firing range conditions.

                There's a video of a Pantsir shooting down a Phantom 3-type quadcopter from 500 meters with a short burst. The guns perform poorly against targets flying at high speeds and even at low G-forces. They perform poorly with any ammunition other than guided ones.
                Quote: qqqq
                I don't know how much more, but I fired from a Shilka. At a stationary target at 600 meters (a helicopter, not a small one), 20 rounds is already excellent, if two launchers (40 rounds) get three hits. For a third vehicle, one hit on the second target is enough.

                Something tells me these rigs need to be sent in for maintenance. When was the adjustment done before shooting? And after shooting?
                Quote: qqqq
                So, a programmable fuse is a salvation and the only way out for the ZPK.

                No, if the ZPK is malfunctioning, AHEAD won't help. AHEAD reduces ammunition consumption by approximately 2.61065 times. AHEAD is not a magic wand, or even a guided missile.
                1. +2
                  17 October 2025 22: 49
                  Quote: Comet_1
                  When did you adjust the sights before shooting? And after shooting?

                  They did it before every shooting. Not after.
                  1. +1
                    17 October 2025 22: 51
                    Quote: qqqq
                    They did it before every shooting. Not after.

                    So, this is supposedly a routine maintenance operation, not before every shooting session. Well, in any case, if that's the case, then it's time for maintenance, and then they'll decide what to do next. The installations are inoperable.
                    1. +2
                      17 October 2025 23: 06
                      Quote: Comet_1
                      The installations are inoperative.

                      It's not even the barrel that's the issue. A very short, direct shot of 400 meters, and the effective range is 1.5-2 km. After the first round, the barrel drifts significantly, so we tried firing 2-3 rounds in a burst; any more than that, and the shots just hit nothing. It's hard to tell where the rounds are going; you can only see their direction, and how much they're overshooting or undershooting is a matter of eyeballing. As for the inoperability, it's an analog system, so the automatic aiming errors are simply appalling.
                      1. +2
                        17 October 2025 23: 30
                        Quote: qqqq
                        It's not even about the barrel. A very small straight shot at 400 meters.

                        What is the target height and barrel elevation angle for a direct shot?
                        Quote: qqqq
                        As for the inoperability, it’s an analog system, so the errors in automatic targeting are simply appalling.

                        Analog has nothing to do with accuracy. The difference between digital and analog is adaptability.
                      2. 0
                        18 October 2025 10: 00
                        Quote: Comet_1
                        What is the target height and barrel elevation angle for a direct shot?

                        It doesn't matter, the point blank range for the gun's angles wasn't specified. Just the point blank range.
                      3. +1
                        20 October 2025 23: 15
                        Quote: qqqq
                        It doesn't matter, the point blank range for the gun's angles wasn't specified. Just the point blank range.

                        There is something wrong with your information...
                        There's no such thing as "just point blank range." If the elevation angle isn't specified, then the target's height is. And the dispersion of shells isn't measured by the first hit, but rather by either the median deviation or the area of ​​50% of hits. Something's not right...
                      4. 0
                        21 October 2025 08: 49
                        Quote: Comet_1
                        There is no such thing as "just point blank range." If the elevation angle is not specified, then the target height is specified.

                        I don't quite understand. What does point blank range have to do with target height? A point blank range is when the projectile flies in a straight line, then physics kicks in and the flight follows a parabolic curve. When shooting at a target, its height is indicated along with the approximate range (I could be wrong: 800-1000 m, altitude 15-20 m).
                      5. +1
                        27 October 2025 01: 35
                        Quote: qqqq
                        A straight shot is when the projectile flies in a straight line, then physics kicks in and the flight follows a parabola.

                        A point blank shot is when the average trajectory does not rise above the target height throughout the entire point blank range.
      4. +4
        15 October 2025 11: 50
        The Tunguska is even more problematic. I saw it during training. Not a single hit. Even though it's a newer system. And about the Shilka... The Poles, so hated here, turned out to be pragmatic people and modernized the Shilka, installing a new radar and control system.
      5. -1
        15 October 2025 23: 13
        Quote: qqqq
        The dispersion of shells is huge,

        What is the spread of the shells?
        Quote: qqqq
        As a system for working against UAVs in the rear, the Germans have created an ideal option.

        Pantsir is better: it has a greater range and altitude of target destruction, and a greater target channel.
        1. +2
          16 October 2025 08: 35
          Quote: Comet_1
          What is the spread of the shells?

          At 600 m, from a long burst of 20 shells at a 2x3 m target, with perfect aiming, the first 1 shell will hit.
          1. +1
            17 October 2025 22: 37
            Quote: qqqq
            At 600 m, from a long burst of 20 shells at a 2x3 m target, with perfect aiming, the first 1 shell will hit.

            Got it. First, get it adjusted. If that doesn't help, send it to the service center.
            1. +1
              17 October 2025 22: 52
              Quote: Comet_1
              First, get it adjusted. If that doesn't help, send it to the service center.

              They did it before shooting. Every few shots (not many, I think), the barrel was replaced. They were taken from the reserve and stored in the TZM. The old ones were put there too. So, I don't know how new the new ones were.
              1. +1
                17 October 2025 22: 54
                Quote: qqqq
                They did it before shooting. Every few shots (not many, I think), the barrel was replaced. They were taken from the reserve and stored in the TZM. The old ones were put there too. So, I don't know how new the new ones were.

                I see. But now the entire mechanics need to be overhauled. The installation is inoperable.
                1. +1
                  17 October 2025 22: 59
                  Quote: Comet_1
                  The installation is inoperative.

                  More than one division came to the shooting range. Everyone shot identically. And the shooting score was 3+1 hits, assuming a perfect barrel.
                  1. 0
                    17 October 2025 23: 16
                    Quote: qqqq
                    More than one division came to the shooting range. Everyone shot identically. And the shooting score was 3+1 hits, assuming a perfect barrel.

                    Well, the reason can't be revealed in the discussion on the website, but it doesn't align well with the results on BV.
        2. 0
          16 October 2025 08: 36
          Quote: Comet_1
          Pantsir is better: it has a greater range and altitude of target destruction, and a greater target channel.

          When firing missiles, of course. But when firing cannons, it's inferior in every way.
          1. +1
            17 October 2025 22: 42
            Quote: qqqq
            When firing missiles, of course. But when firing cannons, it's inferior in every way.

            I don't understand. It was like this:
            Quote: qqqq
            How to system While working on UAVs in the rear, the Germans created the ideal option.

            I answered in the sense that how system The work on UAVs in the rear is much better than the Gepard. And you suddenly moved away from considering how system and jumped to the elements.
            P.S. Have you noticed that the Gepard's SOC doesn't determine the target's elevation angle?
            1. +1
              17 October 2025 22: 57
              Quote: Comet_1
              I responded by saying that as a system for combating UAVs in the rear, the Pantsir is much better than the Gepard. But you suddenly moved away from considering it as a system and jumped to just its components.
              P.S. Have you noticed that the Gepard's SOC doesn't determine the target's elevation angle?

              It all started with a question about the programmable fuse. The missiles weren't touched. The Pantsir is an excellent air defense system, but its cannon is a useless contraption. They apparently removed it in the latest modification and increased the number of missiles. That was the right decision. The question was specifically about the cannons; how the Pantsir system is clearly superior with its missiles. I can't imagine how it's possible for target acquisition, especially for a cannon, to not detect the elevation angle. I think they simply missed that question in the description.
              1. 0
                17 October 2025 23: 06
                Quote: qqqq
                It all started with a question about a programmable fuse. The missiles weren't touched.

                It was written "system." And a system is everything that exists, not something separate.
                Quote: qqqq
                The Pantsir is an excellent anti-aircraft missile system, but its gun is a useless contraption.

                No, it's not a useless gadget. I already wrote that there are downed helicopters, UAVs, and attack aircraft.
                Quote: qqqq
                In the latest modification, it seems they removed it and increased the number of missiles.

                On the latest modification (Pantsir-SM) they did not abandon the guns; the guns are still in place.
                Quote: qqqq
                I can’t imagine how it’s possible for a gun, especially for target designation, not to determine the elevation angle.

                The guidance station first carries out a final search for the target across the entire elevation angle of the SOC, captures the target and determines all its coordinates.
                Quote: qqqq
                I think this question was simply missed in the description.

                No, the SOC simply has a mirror and one irradiating horn.
                1. +1
                  17 October 2025 23: 13
                  Quote: Comet_1
                  The guidance station first carries out a final search for the target across the entire elevation angle of the SOC, captures the target and determines all its coordinates.

                  Yes, basically, it's the same with the Shilka. It's a very narrow beam, you set the elevation roughly and move it in azimuth, gradually adjusting the power gain. Locking on to a target is quite a challenge. Once you get some practice, it gets easier. The key is to lock on to a target at a great distance (the power gain is small, but it doesn't change much), and the higher it flies, the more difficult it is. Once you've locked on to the target in azimuth and power gain, you fine-tune the range, and then you lock on.
                  1. -1
                    17 October 2025 23: 19
                    Quote: qqqq
                    Yes, in principle, it’s the same on Shilka.

                    This is true everywhere, except that the SOC's elevation angle is smaller than the guidance station's (GS) secondary search area. Starting with Tor, the GS performs secondary searches automatically.
      6. 0
        18 October 2025 04: 10
        Quote: qqqq
        And that's without even mentioning the programmable fuse. They can't squeeze that into a 57mm shell, let alone a 23mm one.



        And it seems that a programmable detonator was developed for the LShO long ago.

        https://dzen.ru/a/ZOt9WE89SV5M7uTA
        1. +2
          18 October 2025 10: 11
          Quote: Eng Mech
          And it seems that a programmable detonator was developed for the LShO long ago.

          Apparently, they stuck it in a universal projectile, and it turned out to be expensive. And we have a problem in all our industries. They make a prototype, they rake in the cash, but it can't go into production because it's full of bugs that no one wants to polish. They won't pay much for it, and they'll also hold you accountable for the results. It's better to present another wunderwaffe and ask for more money. So, until it's in production, it's safe to say it doesn't exist at all.
    6. -13
      14 October 2025 11: 06
      If he is so good, why do factories, warehouses, thermal power plants, etc. burn?
      1. +15
        14 October 2025 11: 08
        Quote: TermNachTER
        If he is so good, why do factories, warehouses, thermal power plants, etc. burn?

        Well, its radius is small, to cover all the approaches you need thousands of them.
        1. -17
          14 October 2025 11: 10
          So, he's not that good after all? And regarding the marks of destroyed targets, I saw a Bandera slug somewhere with dozens of them on it. I wonder if they themselves find it funny?
          1. +16
            14 October 2025 11: 22
            Quote: TermNachTER
            So, he's not that good?

            You wouldn't complain to the S-400 air defense system stationed near Moscow for not shooting down a UAV over Belgorod, would you? All systems have limitations on altitude, speed, and range. This is probably a drawback, but it must be accepted.
            1. -12
              14 October 2025 11: 27
              The S-400 isn't designed for anti-UAV engagements. The point is, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of targets to cover in Banderland, and 150 German tachankas won't cut it. Why would it need a tracked chassis and 70mm of armor near Lviv?
              1. +9
                14 October 2025 11: 30
                Quote: TermNachTER
                The S-400 is not designed to operate against UAVs.

                The question is not about the type of computer center, but about the possibility.
                Quote: TermNachTER
                and one hundred and fifty German tachankas won't help here.

                And there is
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Why does he need a tracked chassis and 70mm armor near Lvov?

                Well, they took what they were given. The Gepard is basically a military air defense system on the move, not a target-based one.
                1. -13
                  14 October 2025 11: 38
                  So let's not pass off necessity as virtue. I understand—the Germans sold their scrap metal for good money—they're happy. But what about the Bandar-logs? Their firing range is 4 km, meaning two or three vehicles are needed to cover even one, not very large, target. If the target is large enough, then four or more. For example, the port of Odessa—from Peresyp to Illichivsk—is over 80 km long alone, and in some places, the width is also over 10 km. How many vehicles are needed? I certainly understand that something is better than nothing at all, but the "Gepard" is a military air defense system, and it seems ridiculous for covering columns on the march and in the rear.
                  1. +1
                    14 October 2025 12: 19
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    Of course, I understand that something is better than nothing at all.

                    Well, these are the kind of allies they have.
                  2. +2
                    14 October 2025 17: 41
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    The Germans sold their scrap metal for good money

                    For what money? Either it was simply a gift, or a loan that Kuev will repay who knows when and how.
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    they are happy
                    And even if they are not happy, who asked them?
                    1. +1
                      14 October 2025 17: 46
                      For European or budget German ones. Do you think Rheinmetall worked for free?))) Rheinmetall's main shareholders live in the US—they'll squeeze their dividends out of anyone.)))
                      1. +2
                        14 October 2025 17: 55
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Rheinmetall shareholders live
                        Almost all over the world, I wouldn't be surprised if even a few Russians own some shares. I might even have some, though not directly, but through pension funds—I'm not interested in the details of their portfolios.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        for budget German ones
                        But no one asked the German taxpayers, who paid for the banquet.
                      2. -1
                        14 October 2025 18: 48
                        The main ones are those who have a bag, not 10 pieces. 7 out of 10 live in the USA.
                  3. +3
                    14 October 2025 17: 48
                    Oil refinery owners would also like to buy a few, but no one is selling.
                  4. 0
                    15 October 2025 00: 21
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    Firing range - 4 km,

                    And the calculated probability of hitting a target with an area of ​​5 m^2 at this range, if I remember correctly, is 0.17.
    7. +5
      14 October 2025 11: 13
      Quote: Puncher
      However, there is no programmable projectile for them, and without it, effectiveness cannot be achieved.

      The article seems to say that the system is effective even without a programmable fuse, and with one, it's even more effective. And that's another interesting question. Is such an expensive projectile really needed against, say, the Lyuty UAV, which is slow and highly visible at 15 km? For cruise missiles, it's probably necessary; after all, their speeds are around 1000 km/h.
      1. -8
        14 October 2025 11: 27
        Quote: Zoer
        It seems like the article says that even without a programmable fuse, the system is effective

        They lie like they breathe. Look at the gun barrel placement; they're spaced apart from the center of gravity. Every shot creates a torque that throws off aiming. Whoever came up with that barrel placement should have lost their college degree...
        As you can see in the Skyranger, the barrel is located at the center of gravity, this is what the ZAK of a “healthy person” looks like, not a “smoker”
        1. +9
          14 October 2025 11: 58
          Quote: Puncher
          They lie like they breathe. Look at the placement of the gun barrels; they're spaced apart from the center of gravity. Every shot creates a torque that disrupts aiming.

          Wow!!! Are you really that skilled in strength of materials? Do you know the recoil mechanics of the geetah rifle? Or at least the firing algorithm? Or maybe they fire synchronously from both barrels?
        2. +1
          14 October 2025 15: 30
          Your comment is clearly that of a "smoker".
    8. 0
      18 October 2025 04: 01
      Quote: Puncher

      Well, they haven't gone anywhere. It's just that there's no programmable projectile for them, and without one, they can't be effective.


      And it seems that a programmable detonator was developed for the LShO long ago.

      https://dzen.ru/a/ZOt9WE89SV5M7uTA
  2. +13
    14 October 2025 05: 02
    To combat the UAVs of the Ukrainian Reich, the Shilkas, the Tunguskas, the DShKs, and the ZPU-14,5 would be useful... But really, where are they?
    1. +2
      14 October 2025 05: 24
      Quote: Grencer81
      To combat the Ukroreikh's UAVs, all the Shilkas, Tunguskas, DShKs, and ZPU-14,5s would be useful...

      They don't have programmable projectiles, and hitting a high-speed, low-flying missile is very difficult.
      1. +8
        14 October 2025 08: 51
        Quote: Puncher
        Quote: Grencer81
        To combat the Ukroreikh's UAVs, all the Shilkas, Tunguskas, DShKs, and ZPU-14,5s would be useful...

        They don't have programmable projectiles, and hitting a high-speed, low-flying missile is very difficult.

        Excuse me, Evgeniy, but where have you seen a high-speed, low-flying drone? And the speed of those Tomahawks is somewhere around 800 km in a straight line, and when flying over rough terrain, the speed drops. As for the impossibility of shooting down a low-flying, high-speed target with a Shilka without programmable projectiles, tell that story to the Israeli pilots who, with a poorly designed kismet, came under fire from Shilkas in 1973. And for fighting a slow-flying drone, and generally in a straight line (no more than 200-300 km/h), regular OFZs are quite sufficient. With a rate of fire of 4000 rounds per minute, a standard 23mm projectile is quite sufficient for those same straight-flying "fierce" and similar aircraft. Especially since they fly in a virtual cloud (the projectiles). 66 projectiles are in the air per second. The problem is detection and guidance. It's unlikely that the Shilka's (standard) radar can do this. After all, it was developed a long time ago, when stealth technology wasn't even a thing. But in good weather, the Belarusian version, with its optical-electronic detection system and Igla missiles (which, by the way, the Belarusians added to increase the kill zone), is quite effective at protecting an oil refinery, for example. And if the military-industrial complex can install a modern radar, it will create a very effective air defense system for shooting down long- and medium-range UAVs. The problem is probably that the condition of the Shilkas in storage (under the open sky) is appalling (if they weren't decommissioned and scrapped back in Taburetkin's time). That's why we don't see them.
        1. +3
          14 October 2025 08: 53
          Quote: nedgen
          This is a fairy tale for Israeli pilots.

          Well, their cars are much bigger than Geranium or Tomahawk.
          Quote: nedgen
          The problem is probably that the condition of the Shiloks in storage (outdoors) is appalling (if they weren't decommissioned and scrapped back in Taburetkin's time). That's why we don't see them.

          The Tunguskas are still there. Although I read a review that their integrity isn't great.
          1. +1
            14 October 2025 08: 56
            Quote: Puncher
            Quote: nedgen
            This is a fairy tale for Israeli pilots.

            Well, their cars are much bigger than Geranium or Tomahawk.

            But I wrote about the radar! Couldn't they have asked our Belarusian brothers for a couple of modernized Shilok batteries to try it out?
      2. 0
        14 October 2025 08: 58
        Well, the long-range Bandar-logo UAVs aren't that fast, judging by their performance characteristics on the internet - just right for the Shilka... That's roughly what it was once designed for.
      3. +6
        14 October 2025 10: 16
        Evgeny, the main issue isn't the lack of programmable projectiles, but the lack of modern automatic target acquisition and designation systems. Accurate impact has always been a consequence of aligning the striking element with the target, both in location and at what time. If this is done by a human, then yes, successful target engagement depends on the shooter's experience and reaction time, with the highest possible rate of fire. However, if detection, velocity determination, calculation and adjustment, aiming, and finally the shot itself are performed electronically (as, for example, in the American Bullfrog system), then the use of programmable projectiles is more of a "nice bonus" to conserve ammunition.
      4. +1
        15 October 2025 11: 55
        I would ask, where are they in our country? They can be used for protecting objects. Especially since the targets are clearly not high-speed.
    2. +7
      14 October 2025 07: 03
      Regarding the Tunguskas, I'll add my voice to the question. Where are they? I've never seen them in combat footage. As for the DShKs, or NSVs (Utes, in infantry), they're in service with our mobile air defense groups. I've seen them myself, mounted on pickup trucks.
      But the Shilkas, I believe, are hopelessly outdated.
      1. +1
        14 October 2025 10: 00
        Flintlock rifles are hopelessly outdated, but the Shilka was written off early, as were many other useful things.
        1. +4
          14 October 2025 10: 08
          The Shilka, correct the air defense forces, doesn't have a radar that meets modern requirements. It was good for battles on the scale of WWII. Now, however, it's hopelessly outdated. Perhaps it could somehow counter helicopters, because they don't fly high, they're noisy, and they're not fast. But that's all, sorry.
          1. +2
            14 October 2025 10: 13
            As our political officer said: "Everything will be in the cemetery."
            And it will be possible to say everything or not only after it is used against the CC in the SVO and inside the Russian Federation.
            1. +2
              14 October 2025 10: 20
              I remember people even here were making fun of us when the T-54s showed up in the SVO. They're suggesting the same thing about the Shilka.
              I remember when I served in the late 80s, we also had Shilkas in our regiment. Several in storage. And one for combat training. Apparently, I tell you, it was depressing. A real dinosaur. That rumbling noise. Cracked hatch seals. And the gun mantlets too.
              1. +2
                14 October 2025 13: 23
                It is proposed to protect important objects from UAVs...
          2. 0
            15 October 2025 00: 25
            And how did they shoot down Israeli planes in 73 without a Shilka radar, by eye?
      2. +5
        14 October 2025 12: 36
        "As for the Tunguskas, I will join the question. Where are they?"
        At the end of 22, there was a video posted on Telegram showing Tunguska tanks being brought from storage to the front somewhere. The person filming the video swore that they were all unfit for combat, stripped of all components, and wouldn't start. In short, they were officially in storage, but in reality, all valuables had been stripped and sold for scrap metal.
      3. +2
        14 October 2025 22: 41
        As for Tunguska, I will join the question. Where are they ? I've never seen it in combat footage.

        But in 23 we saw archaic ship-mounted 2x25s, the cylindrical modules of which were attached to the top of the motor lugs.
    3. +2
      14 October 2025 10: 36
      Quote: Grencer81
      But really, where are they?

      Judging by everything, they were sold off long ago. Russia, like Ukraine, was very active in selling off Soviet assets. In all fairness, I wouldn't count on them for countering UAVs.
      1. +3
        14 October 2025 13: 24
        Surely jars of cucumbers and tomatoes are safer? Better something bad than something bad...
        1. +4
          14 October 2025 15: 37
          Quote: Grencer81
          Better something bad than something nothing...

          I certainly agree with that. The issue, however, isn't so much what's bad as the fact that it's simply not available. Until recently, everything that could be sold was sold, and what couldn't was melted down. We're ruled by traders, and they need to sell anything that needs long-term storage, not spend money on preserving it. The proverbial "what we need, we'll buy," judging by the way import substitution is progressing, hasn't been abolished.
  3. +10
    14 October 2025 05: 08
    I'll be honest, it's a good and reliable machine; when used correctly, it's simple and reliable in the fight against drones; this must be taken into account and acknowledged.
  4. +10
    14 October 2025 05: 15
    Where are the legendary Soviet "Shilka" and "Tunguska"
    Surely everything has already been sold, and the money has been stuffed into the right pockets (much the same as with the equipment from Soviet factories).
    1. +4
      14 October 2025 05: 58
      Quote: marchcat
      Surely everything is sold out already

      That doesn't solve the question. Even if they're sold out, where are they?
      1. +6
        14 October 2025 08: 54
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        Quote: marchcat
        Surely everything is sold out already

        That doesn't solve the question. Even if they're sold out, where are they?

        Where does it matter? Abroad or in open-hearth furnaces.
  5. +2
    14 October 2025 05: 29
    It would be interesting to read an article comparing the Cheetah and the Shilka
    1. -1
      14 October 2025 05: 59
      Quote: sir Galant
      It would be interesting to read an article comparing the Cheetah and the Shilka

      What's stopping you? There are tons of articles like this online!
      1. kig
        +6
        14 October 2025 06: 29
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        What's stopping you? There are tons of articles like this online.

        Rentv: Why the much-hyped German "Gepards" proved useless in the SVO zone

        We read, watch and enjoy.
        1. -3
          14 October 2025 10: 21
          Well, judging by the photos, let's compare: the F-16 is six months old and half its side is decorated with silhouettes of almost every type of UAV, at least 40-50. Here are photos of the Cheetahs - four years old - with 3-4 conditional geraniums or calibers on board (I'm laughing) - it doesn't quite work out like a "stone flower."
        2. -1
          16 October 2025 05: 06
          Quote: kig
          We read, watch and enjoy.

          Well, read, watch, and be upset by this article. What difference does it make? Neither your emotions nor the emotions of other site readers in any way influence the conduct of military operations...
    2. +4
      14 October 2025 19: 42
      It's like comparing a Zhiguli to a Volkswagen, not a Mercedes. The Shilka loses on every level, except perhaps on price. But the question is, which is better—expensive and effective, or cheap and unremarkable?
      1. +2
        15 October 2025 01: 15
        The ZSU-23-4 was used in the following armed conflicts:

        War of Attrition (1969–1970) — as part of the Egyptian air defense. On June 4, 1970, in the Qantara area, an Israeli Mystere IV aircraft (tail number 44) was shot down by a Shilka. Pilot Zvi Kanor ejected and was evacuated[51].
        Vietnam War (1964-1973) - as part of the air defense of North Vietnam in the last years of the war.
        Arab–Israeli War (1973) — as part of the air defense of Egypt and Syria. According to Western sources, 30 to 43 percent of Israeli aircraft losses were due to ZSU-23-4 fire.[52] According to Russian data, 27 Israeli aircraft were shot down by Shiloka fire.[53] In particular, the 116th Skyhawk Squadron alone lost six aircraft shot down or damaged.[54] Due to the actions of the Shilokas, Israeli aircraft were forced to fly to higher altitudes, where they automatically came under fire from anti-aircraft missiles.[55]
        Battle of Mount Hermon (1974) – On April 19, an Israeli A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft was shot down by fire from a Syrian Shilka, and the pilot died in the plane.[56]
        The First Angolan Civil War (1975-1991) was used by the Angolan side.
        Egyptian–Libyan War (1977) – part of the Libyan air defense. An Egyptian Mirage 5 fighter was shot down by Shilka fire[57].
        Ethiopian-Somali War (1977-1978) - part of the Somali Air Defense Force.
        Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) – used by the Iraqi army.
        Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990) — as part of the Syrian faction in Lebanon. In September 1983, Syrian Shilkas shot down a Lebanese Air Force SRS-126, killing all pilots.[58]
        They took part in repelling the American aircraft attack on Libya in April 1986. Their fire shot down one American F-111 and damaged one.[59]
        Gulf War (1991) – used by the Iraqi army. It is known that Iraqi Shilkas shot down a Kuwaiti A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft (the pilot was captured).[60]

        The Shilka has proven its effectiveness against low-flying, high-speed targets.
        A cheetah shoots down plastic piston airplanes, what a guy!
        It's unclear about the cruise missiles. You watch the video, something flies straight at the cheetah, it doesn't shoot it down right away, something explodes and flies burning in a large parabola toward the ground.
        It seems to me that if a cruise missile is flying at about 800 km/h, then in the event of a hit, the missile fragments should fly forward another half a kilometer due to kinetic energy at an acute angle, and not plop down next to the ZSU like a shot down biplane from the First World War.

        The geetah was designed to be used against large targets (helicopters, attack aircraft), and the 37mm caliber isn't the best option.
        Any good anti-aircraft gun should create a cloud of shells into which the target flies, and the more shells the better, but here there are two 37mm barrels, with a rate of fire of over 1000 rounds per minute for both barrels, which is somehow modest. The point is for a 37mm shell to simply fly past the target without damaging it in any way.
        For high-speed small-sized targets, various multi-barrel systems such as the Vulcan 20-30mm and with a rate of fire of 5-6 thousand rounds per minute are usually used.
      2. -1
        16 October 2025 05: 15
        Quote: qqqq
        But here the question is, what is better: expensive and effective or cheap and useless.

        Could you elaborate on the effectiveness? How do you measure it? Judging by the marks on the aircraft's sides for downed targets, not for the entire period, it's not that effective...
        1. -1
          16 October 2025 08: 42
          Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
          How do you measure it?

          Neither we nor they will ever reveal the truth. We don't know how many targets were in the kill zone or how many they hit. The kill zone is small, approximately a circle with a radius of 3 km. Therefore, the images only show that they shot down some, and with what effectiveness, as I described above. But the fact that they hit such a small target as a UAV with a cannon speaks volumes.
          1. -1
            17 October 2025 07: 38
            Quote: qqqq
            But the fact that a cannon hit such a small target as a UAV already says a lot.

            What small? Let's compare the Geranium 2, for example, to the Yak-1 from WWII. The Geranium is half the length of the Yak-1, its wingspan is three times smaller, yet its speed is three and a half times (!!!) slower than the Yak-3! And cannons and machine guns were the only air defense systems of the time that were effective against piston-engined aircraft!
  6. +3
    14 October 2025 06: 03
    I agree with the author.
    The war will soon be four years old. The enemy is carrying out air strikes deep into Russia with absolute cold-bloodedness and brutality. Every day we hear of hundreds of Ukrainian drones shot down over Russian soil. But we don't know at what cost, and most importantly, and this makes it even more alarming, how many of them actually achieved their targets.

    The article about the "Gepards" is only a small part of the NATO weapons at war with our country.
  7. +9
    14 October 2025 06: 07
    Some people always think the Ukrainians are mentally retarded and just can't handle NATO's cosmically advanced technology. It's so complex that it's beyond the capabilities of even the most incompetent.
    I don't even know why they do this. Anyone who deals with modern technology—anyone—knows that, first of all, it's easier to operate than the old stuff. You had to know how to drive a ZiS-5, but now, bam, anyone can do it. It's the same with normal military equipment, too. Especially with today's sighting systems.
    1. +4
      14 October 2025 06: 56
      Quote: MCmaximus
      Anyone who deals with modern technology - anyone - knows that, first of all, it is easier to operate than the old one.

      Most Americans don't know how or even understand how to drive a manual transmission; automatics are now the default on everything, even the Jeep Wrangler—the successor to the legendary automatic Willys. Manual transmissions are optional on a very few models, especially for enthusiasts. And frankly, while manuals are nicer, they're impractical where I live (a New York suburb). When the road was so congested in 2000 that I had to crawl in first gear stop-and-go for five miles, uphill and in the scorching heat, burning out my clutch, I cursed my decision to buy a manual, and have only had an automatic ever since.
      1. +2
        14 October 2025 15: 42
        If all cars have automatic transmissions, there's simply no need for manual transmissions. You can love them or hate them, but they're no longer a novelty. Especially since our factories can't make manual transmissions. It's a disgrace.
      2. +1
        14 October 2025 18: 12
        But many Europeans, in France (and other countries for that matter), prefer manual transmissions because they save money, as cars are cheaper (and their trim levels are generally lower) and they save more on fuel. When I was traveling on business, my colleagues and I were initially surprised by the majority of cars with manual transmissions, but in conversations they always said the same thing: they save money. In the US, yes, automatic cars are the norm.
  8. +5
    14 October 2025 06: 15
    Projectiles with programmable detonation times—that's what could radically improve the effectiveness of old air defense artillery systems! We've never developed anything like that, although there have been attempts!
    1. +1
      15 October 2025 01: 18
      1200 euros per piece???
      Instead of several such projectiles, it can fire an anti-aircraft missile at a target, like on the Pantsir
      1. +1
        15 October 2025 04: 22
        Quote: bushmaster
        1200 euros per piece???
        Instead of several such projectiles, it can fire an anti-aircraft missile at a target, like on the Pantsir

        Maybe we shouldn't compare apples and oranges?
        How much does their missile, similar to the ones on the Pantsir, cost in euros?
        Or do you want to buy shells from the West?
        1. 0
          15 October 2025 23: 21
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          How much does their missile, similar to the ones on the Pantsir, cost in euros?

          Not at all; they don't have missiles similar to the Pantsir's. They also don't have radars similar to the Pantsir's SSR.
  9. +3
    14 October 2025 06: 30
    If the Germans and Ukrainians revived the aircraft of the seventies three years ago, if they are creating new air defense systems aimed specifically at combating drones, then where are the legendary Soviet "Shilkas" and "Tunguskas"

    But we have "revived" the T-55/T-62 tanks, apparently they are more needed in LBS.
  10. +3
    14 October 2025 07: 00
    As bitter as the article's conclusions may sound, unfortunately, that's the way things are. Regarding the Shilka missiles, a cruise missile is certainly a fast target, but is it really faster than the aircraft that the ZSUs are designed to counter? And aircraft-type drones with internal combustion engines—well, that's clearly not such a fast target. They write about programmable munitions, but I have a question (I'm no air defense expert): how did they ever shoot down anything, or is it not the munitions that are responsible and they can actually shoot down anything? Then the damn question arises: where are they?
    1. +3
      14 October 2025 08: 31
      For example, the Shilka's hit probability against a MiG-17 at a range of 500 meters and an altitude of 200 meters was 0.28. Drones have a lower speed, but they also fly lower.
  11. +8
    14 October 2025 07: 01
    To effectively combat cruise missiles and drones at modern (I emphasize, not systems from the 1980s or 1960s) levels, programmable projectiles and fairly standard (again, for today) detection systems—locators, IR optics—are quite sufficient. And guns (they have them) of at least 30mm caliber—the longer the range, the better.
    And software.
    Anyone with even a passing understanding of, say, industrial automation understands that this isn't an Einstein-level problem, but a routine engineering development. Which is what they did afterward, "and never even started."
    The problem is contracts, paperwork, approvals, and whether it's really necessary, what interests to take into account, and which company to give it to.

    But the protection radius is clear: the firing range is just a few kilometers. So, there won't be a splatter of dozens of downed missiles on the hull—we need to protect a valuable asset, so that many missiles can rain down on it within the kill radius. Therefore, we need many installations.
    And we're not worried about the Ukrainians, but about ourselves... We don't see any such systems on the horizon...
    1. +2
      14 October 2025 08: 06
      Yes, 2S38 and the AU-220M combat module. But there are no required shells in that caliber.
    2. 0
      15 October 2025 00: 16
      Quote from tsvetahaki
      To effectively combat cruise missiles and drones at a modern level (I emphasize, not systems from the 1980s or 1960s), programmable projectiles and quite ordinary (again, in our time) detection means - locators, IR optics - are quite sufficient.

      The missile is much more effective, especially when the target is maneuvering.
      Quote from tsvetahaki
      And we're not worried about the Ukrainians, but about ourselves... We don't see any such systems on the horizon...

      Why are you worried? There are Pantsirs with different SAMs.
    3. 0
      15 October 2025 01: 26
      A programmable projectile costs 1200 euros apiece, and they fire them in bursts, not counting the cost of the entire system and the very short range of the projectile.

      Rostec State Corporation announces the start of deliveries of the latest small-sized short-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) for the Pantsir family of missile systems.

      The High-Precision Systems holding company's development is designed to combat a wide range of threats, including drones, cruise missiles, and light air targets, according to Rostec's press service.

      One container with four mini-missiles takes the place of a standard Pantsir missile, increasing the ammunition load to 48. Crews will be able to combine conventional and mini-missiles depending on the mission. The new munitions are optimized for engaging targets at close ranges, which is especially important in the context of widespread UAV use.
      1. 0
        15 October 2025 06: 16
        Rocket, projectile...
        It's all about price. And for us, a rocket might actually be more cost-effective (or, more likely, the only viable option).
        The missile's downside is guidance. Homing is expensive, but versatile.
        Command guidance - against drones and far from the front lines (no electronic warfare) is the simplest and can be very cheap.
        The projectile and gun are versatile and cheap (don't just talk about the 1200-euro projectiles! A pilot batch, etc., taking R&D into account—maybe a large-scale production run—no need for fluff. It's not that difficult to manufacture). The downside is that you need an accurate gun, a high-velocity projectile (barrel wear), and good electronics, a ballistic computer, etc. But that's also pretty much it.

        I think we did what we could. Unfortunately, the enemy has much more flexibility in choosing optimal solutions.
        1. 0
          15 October 2025 23: 39
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          Rocket, projectile...
          It's all about the price.

          Oh, you accountants... It's not about the price, but about the rate of production and consumption.
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          Moreover, for us, a rocket may be more profitable (or rather the only real option).

          The rocket is more profitable for everyone, it’s just that not everyone has it...
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          (or rather the only real option)

          A rocket is the best physically feasible option; the rest is a palliative.
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          Projectile and gun - universal, cheap

          At the same time, the range, altitude, speed, and target acquisition are significantly reduced. Tactically, a gun and projectile are inferior to a missile in every way.
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          Don't just talk about the 1200 Euro shells!

          Why not talk about it? We need to talk about the cost of the AHEAD compared to a conventional round. And the cost-to-target ratio. But the manufacturer is officially silent on this. Only the Poles have publicly presented the results of comparative tests.
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          A pilot batch, etc., taking into account research and development work - maybe a large-scale production - no need for nonsense

          What other excuse are you going to come up with? "A pilot batch..." – You could at least look at the timeline...
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          I think we did what we could.

          It really reminded me of the views of Russian reformers of the 90s... In the air defense, we did what was necessary, and they are doing what they can.
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          Unfortunately, the enemy has much more flexibility in choosing optimal solutions.

          The enemy doesn't have the necessary missiles or radars. We have to make do with a makeshift solution.
          1. 0
            16 October 2025 06: 35
            Quote: Comet_1
            The enemy doesn't have the necessary missiles or radars. We have to make do with a makeshift solution.

            Do you seriously think they're incapable of making "the necessary missiles"? I understand it's pointless to argue, but just think about who has the best gunpowder (rocket fuel), electronics, and industry...
            The rocket is more profitable for everyone, it’s just that not everyone has it...

            Do you think 5-10 shells for a cheap drone are more expensive than a rocket?
            There's no arguing about the radius, I wrote it myself, but in the front lines, 1-2 km of cover, for example, in columns, with serious enemy electronic warfare and lots and lots of drones - there won't be enough missiles or money.
            A grenade launcher is better as a primary infantry weapon than an assault rifle – according to your criteria... laughing
            1. 0
              17 October 2025 22: 24
              Quote from tsvetahaki
              Do you seriously think that they are incapable of making the "right missiles"???

              How else are we supposed to calculate them if they're needed and not available? Actually, what's needed isn't the missiles themselves, but the missiles and the radar. We have neither.
              Quote from tsvetahaki
              I understand it's pointless to argue.

              Why is it useless? We just need to provide a sample of the missile and radar as an argument.
              Quote from tsvetahaki
              But just think about who has better gunpowder (fuel for rockets), electronics, industry...

              Why bother thinking about the propaganda platitudes of Russian reformers in the 1990s? The USSR developed a short-range phased-array air defense system back in 1986. Development began, if I remember correctly, in 1976. In the late 2000s, they modernized that radar and developed a new phased-array radar. It's 2025, and the West still doesn't have such a radar. And they don't even have the hardware for the Pantsir-class SAM system. The States had the technology, but they apparently junked it, and Europe never had it. Even this article by Eugen Renk (Fachmann) notes:
              The Dutch/CA1 version has X/Ka-band

              The same thing happened with the first version of the Pantsir in the 90s. The Ka-band hardware at the time didn't allow for its exclusive use. The development of Ka-band hardware in Russia not only made it possible to eliminate the additional X-band, leaving only the Ka-band, but also to develop an excellent phased array radar (PAS) in the Ka-band. In Europe, not only is there no phased array radar in this band, but they still haven't been able to eliminate the additional use of the X-band.

              P.S. For your own education, compare the acceleration time, maximum speed, and average deceleration per kilometer of the 57E6 and VT-1.
              Quote from tsvetahaki
              Do you think 5-10 shells for a cheap drone are more expensive than a rocket?

              1. What is a "penny drone"?
              2. The Poles, in comparative firing ranges, found that while the AHead requires 5-10 shells, conventional HE shells require 13-26 shells. And according to this material, the cost of this number of HE shells appears to be less than the cost of the corresponding number of AHeads.
              Quote from tsvetahaki
              but in the first lines there is 1-2 km of cover, columns for example,

              1-2 km from the line of contact? They'd be shot down with artillery there. There were no Gepards in the columns during the counteroffensive. The firing range of the Vikhr and LMUR missiles is greater than that of the Gepard.
              Quote from tsvetahaki
              in case of serious enemy electronic warfare

              1. What is it and where does it come from?
              2. Why doesn't this electronic warfare work on the Gepard?
              Quote from tsvetahaki
              and lots and lots of drones - there won't be enough missiles or money

              1. On the contrary, in this case, only missiles will help. Missiles can hit multiple drones simultaneously, while a cannon can only hit one. The higher the attack density, the greater the advantage of missiles.
              2. Let me repeat: in war, the ratio of expenditure to production is important. Money is not important. If you lose, you lose everything; if you win, you make up for it all at the expense of the loser.
              Quote from tsvetahaki
              A grenade launcher is better as a primary infantry weapon than an assault rifle – according to your criteria...

              Infantry weapons aren't my thing. But it seems to me that a grenade launcher and an assault rifle have different purposes, while air defense systems serve the same purpose.
              1. 0
                18 October 2025 06: 22
                Little by little.
                1. "They don't have the element base" laughing laughing What generation of GaN and SiC transistors are produced and where? What radars use F22 and F35?
                Or don't they know what FAR is? Check out Starlink.

                2. "How else should we count if they are needed, but they are not there?"
                I hope you're not from Hurray...
                I'm simply amazed how even Russian engineers who haven't worked with or worked for American firms fail to see the obvious discrepancy. The discrepancy between the standards of civilian and military models... If in the 80s, military meant better, then now...
                And the thing is, "...if they're needed..." Who needs them? The States didn't need them—that's who hasn't started yet.
                Regarding rockets specifically, you should know that their propellants (fuel) are significantly better. Both theoreticians and practitioners are better. Aerodynamics are better, too. Electronics are better, too. Why aren't there better examples?
                Try to think without the hurray-hurray and our "best secret physicists".
                1. 0
                  20 October 2025 23: 06
                  Quote from tsvetahaki
                  1. "They don't have the component base." What generation of GaN and SiC transistors are produced and where? What radars use F22 and F35?
                  Or don't they know what FAR is? Check out Starlink.

                  These technologies are currently unsuitable for creating a radar like the SSCR Pantsir. That's why they don't have a radar like the SSCR Pantsir. Well, they don't have such a radar.
                  Quote from tsvetahaki
                  And the thing is, "...if they are needed..." Who needs them? The States didn't need them.

                  The US doesn't need it? The US first tinkered with Mauler, then with ADATS. Neither worked. They didn't have a radar. They started borrowing from the Europeans... And the Europeans... In 1986, the Tor implemented half-rectification. Now, Russian short-range air defense systems with the TU1 have implemented more complex lead-guidance methods, but all Western short-range air defense systems with the TU1 have only had the "three-point" method, and still do. There's no radar for other methods.
                  Quote from tsvetahaki
                  Regarding missiles more specifically, you should know that their gunpowder (fuel) is much better.

                  This is all blah-blah-blah. But in fact, the 57E6E accelerates to higher speeds in less time than the VT-1.
                  Quote from tsvetahaki
                  Aerodynamics too.

                  The deceleration rate per kilometer of the 57E6 is less than that of the VT-1.
                  Quote from tsvetahaki
                  Electronics - the same.

                  They don’t have a radar similar to the Pantsir’s SSR, and they don’t have any SAMs similar to the Pantsir’s SAMs either.
                  Quote from tsvetahaki
                  Why are there no better examples?

                  Because they don't have the necessary components. What they have is currently unsuitable for creating a radar like the Pantsir's SSCR. They can't even get rid of the auxiliary X-band in the target tracking radar of the self-propelled anti-aircraft gun.
  12. 0
    14 October 2025 07: 34
    Long before Gepard, the Yenisei River was created in the USSR. But father and son Khrushchev squandered it.
    1. +1
      14 October 2025 18: 26
      Khrushchev screwed up, so what does his son have to do with it? Because of Khrushchev, a ton of planes were literally scrapped, as the instructor told me. He served when Savitskaya's father (the only flying Air Marshal in the country's Air Defense Forces) was a soldier. He was just telling me how they were at a morning parade ground formation, and a pair of MiG-17s (call sign "Dragon") landed at the airfield. At first, no one realized what they were. The air defense had screwed up, and by evening (according to the instructor, V. Z. Manzhos), only one sentry was guarding the regimental flags (the regiments were merged). He might have been exaggerating, according to him.
  13. +5
    14 October 2025 08: 36
    The question arises: where are the programmable projectiles for the Pantsir's guns?
    It all looks like the Ministry of Defense is aware that there will be no programmable projectiles and has abandoned guns altogether in the new Pantsirs.
    1. +6
      14 October 2025 09: 04
      Quote from iommy
      The new armored vehicles have completely abandoned guns

      The guns there are "crooked." The hit probability is near zero, so they were logically removed in favor of increasing the missile ammo capacity.
      1. +1
        14 October 2025 09: 58
        They're not crooked, it's just that the probability of hitting a UAV with cannons is zero, and there's no time to fire again at a low-flying target. A projectile will inevitably deflect, plus the drone itself is constantly moving in altitude due to the air. At a range of 2 km, such deviations will result in a miss unless you fire a very long burst. It's easier to hit with a small missile, which is what the latest Pantsir uses.
        1. +5
          14 October 2025 14: 07
          With programmable projectiles, a direct hit is not necessary; 5-7 30mm explosions 2-3 meters from the drone will cut it into a colander.
        2. 0
          15 October 2025 08: 29
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          They're not crooked, it's just that the probability of hitting a UAV with cannons is zero, and there's no time to fire again at a low-flying target. A projectile will inevitably deflect, plus the drone itself is constantly moving in altitude due to the air. At a range of 2 km, such deviations will result in a miss unless you fire a very long burst. It's easier to hit with a small missile, which is what the latest Pantsir uses.

          The same "Cheetah" looks at you with surprise.
    2. 0
      15 October 2025 00: 34
      Quote from iommy
      The question arises: where are the programmable projectiles for the Pantsir's guns?
      It all looks like the Ministry of Defense is aware that there will be no programmable projectiles and has abandoned guns altogether in the new Pantsirs.

      Are AHeads really necessary for Pantsir? Wouldn't it be better to just make more "nails" instead of AHeads?
    3. -1
      15 October 2025 01: 29
      too expensive and the projectile's range is too short
  14. +9
    14 October 2025 08: 48
    Thank you, author, for a well-written article. I appreciated and supported it.
    1. +7
      14 October 2025 14: 45
      Andy hi, thanks for your rating.
      I read the comments and see that I’m not the only one who is feeling this pain.
      I would really like to see concrete actions from those responsible (at least on the topic of air defense facilities).
      Best regards drinks
  15. +2
    14 October 2025 09: 43
    A shot isn't exactly pricey—I'm talking about a standard one—500 euros. With a caliber like that, it's certainly profitable to produce a smart round, even if it's 2-2,5 times more expensive. It's more complicated here; we're lagging behind... And it's hard to fit anything into a 23mm caliber. The only option left is 30mm, but not yet...
    1. +2
      14 October 2025 09: 59
      No smart projectile will significantly improve accuracy with a small caliber. It's easier to use small missiles with a range of up to 5 km.
  16. -3
    14 October 2025 09: 56
    Oh, those storytellers. You can shoot down a UAV with cannons, but only from a kilometer away, and radar won't lock on to it from 15 kilometers away—the target is too small and made of plastic.
  17. 0
    14 October 2025 10: 33
    In Tunda, the Gepard has a very nasty anti-aircraft gun that will tear any main battle tank to pieces.
  18. +2
    14 October 2025 10: 57
    I'll allow myself a seditious thought: at low altitudes and distances (H < 500 m, L < 1,5 km), a solid-state projectile/bullet would likely be more effective. Rate of fire (leaving detection aside) would play a much more important role. The sheer number of 14,5mm bullets could easily compensate for a proximity fuse. And another seditious thought: by reducing the accuracy/increasing dispersion, one could create a larger kill cloud, which would also somewhat compensate for the proximity detonation of the ammunition. But this is just a thought; everything needs to be calculated and verified through actual firing, which fortunately isn't too difficult.
    1. +1
      14 October 2025 11: 35
      But the ZPU-2 and ZPU-4 anti-aircraft machine gun mounts with two and four 14,5mm machine guns were actually produced in towed versions. And the same Zu23 could be equipped with a new fire control system... all these systems exist, they could be upgraded and deployed en masse to cover the rear.
  19. -1
    14 October 2025 11: 37
    If the Gepard is so effective against UAVs, then the Geraniums need countermeasures (electronic countermeasures, radar targeting, etc.).
  20. 0
    14 October 2025 11: 43
    Well, purely theoretically, of the new systems there is the 57-mm "Derivation-PVO", and programmable and adjustable shells with remote detonation have been developed for it.
  21. +3
    14 October 2025 12: 43
    Hi bro, where is it in Africa?)) Half the world is littered with shilks. Who knew that the Khinzir wouldn't greet us with flowers?))
  22. +4
    14 October 2025 12: 51
    I am writing before reading the comments.
    Why Tunguska? Why Shilka?
    There is Derivation, which is essentially the same revival of an old weapon through new sights and ammunition.
    Needed yesterday and needed en masse
    1. +1
      14 October 2025 13: 08
      Just as I thought. Shilka Tunguska Tunguska Shilka. Machine gun Machine gun Pulnmet.
      What a wonderful desire to look into the past.
      What kind of stubborn desire is this to squander a ruble by proving that a penny is better?
      There is something that meets the needs. And it needs to be developed. Through tribunals. Through repression, force those responsible to bring the equipment up to working condition. Establish production.
      1. 0
        14 October 2025 13: 39
        A homing missile offers a higher probability of hitting UAVs than the Gepard's projectiles. The airborne radar and optical-infrared detection and guidance systems provide greater range and accuracy than the ground-based Gepard's. The Shilka and Tunguska missiles are simply outdated and less useful. The airborne carrier must be capable of long-term patrols and compatible with air defense systems.
        1. +2
          14 October 2025 13: 50
          Object air defense has not been cancelled.
        2. P
          0
          14 October 2025 22: 42
          It's for smart people like you that tricks are invented
    2. 0
      14 October 2025 21: 05
      Where is it and where is the ammunition?
      1. +1
        15 October 2025 08: 23
        After four years of war, it should be in production. But in reality, it's just a dream.
    3. +1
      15 October 2025 01: 31
      derivation of something living at exhibitions is economically unprofitable
      the shell is better
      1. 0
        15 October 2025 08: 24
        The shell is not better. The shell is different. They should complement each other.
        1. -1
          17 October 2025 22: 27
          The Pantsir has 30mm machine guns, it doesn't need a 57mm cannon with gold shells.
          1. 0
            18 October 2025 07: 56
            The Pantsir's 30mm cannons are of very little use.
            And in 57mm caliber, a projectile with a controlled detonation will definitely not be golden.
            1. 0
              18 October 2025 21: 21
              The 30mm cannons were removed from the Arctic version, SM-TBM and SMD-E, because the cannons take up space and operate from zero to 4 km, that is, after all the missiles have been expended and for self-defense.
              They decided that instead of guns it would be better to install more missiles, because a missile is much better than a shell
              A 57mm projectile needs time to reach its maximum range and altitude, and it cannot turn to the target; the maximum target speed is limited to 500 m/s. The S-60 anti-aircraft gun has a maximum speed of 300 m/s, while the Pantsir missiles have a maximum speed of 1000 m/s.
              And the most important thing is the capabilities of the 57mm gun itself, which is supposed to fire bursts of such shells, but is it even capable of placing shells even close to the target at a range of at least 5 km? The 57mm caliber does not have a particularly powerful warhead, so as to forgive the low accuracy of the gun, built on the basis of the S-60, developed in the late 40s.
              The fact that a 57mm gun can, in principle, place a projectile next to a target at a distance of 2-3 km due to some cool guidance systems is, well, possible, but the further the projectile has to fly, the greater the dispersion. This applies to any barrel system, whether a Kalashnikov assault rifle or an anti-aircraft gun.
              1. 0
                19 October 2025 09: 30
                Experience has shown that the 30mm on the Pantsir is pointless. That's why they were abandoned.
                Replaced with inexpensive and compact short-range missiles, colloquially known as "Nails."
                But it's still expensive. The S-60 cannon's accuracy, precision, and rate of fire make it ideal for anti-drone air defense. Drones are a typical target for it. Detonating the cannon mid-trajectory will reduce ammunition consumption and increase its effectiveness.
                1. 0
                  19 October 2025 15: 23
                  I said that they abandoned guns in favor of more effective missiles.
                  The S-60 cannon was designed to hit large targets like future airplanes and helicopters, so talking about accuracy against small targets is ridiculous.
                  especially if the 30mm machine guns of the Pantsir, which rely on a high density of fire, are also ineffective against small targets, and here we have an ancient cannon with a low rate of fire and low accuracy
                  Besides, you can't just mount a 57mm cannon on anything; you need a fairly stable platform that won't wobble when firing.
                  A missile is best, because UAVs fly practically above the trees, and for that, a 57mm cannon would have to be mounted either on some towers, roofs of buildings, or, if you're lucky, on hills.
                  and for machine guns and 23-30mm cannons, a close air defense zone of 1-2 km must be left
                  There is a great cartridge for small targets.
                  The bullets of the 14,5 MDZ and 14,5 MDZM cartridges consist of a bimetallic shell with a tip and an explosive charge in a lead-jacketed cup. A detonator cap with a device for detonating it is located in the bullet's head, in front of the cup.

                  When a 14,5 MDZ or 14,5 MDZM bullet hits its target, the explosive charge is ignited. Bullet fragments and blast debris penetrate the skin of the aircraft or helicopter, creating a hole 20–40 cm in diameter. A stream of fire and shrapnel enters the resulting hole, damaging instruments and personnel. When the bullet hits fuel tanks, the fuel ignites instantly. The upgraded cartridge has an increased incendiary effect.
                  1. 0
                    20 October 2025 08: 13
                    You are a sofa expert, sir.
                    This is a real general of the sofa troops.
                    Derivation is a stable platform. A 57mm projectile with a controlled detonation and a GPE will produce a fragmentation field diameter of 10 meters.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. 0
                      21 October 2025 01: 22
                      The BMP-3 chassis is expensive and not for everyone.
                      Where is the GPE located? The Germans have tungsten shrapnel.
                      What other 10-meter fragmentation field is there, what does it look like?
                      1. 0
                        21 October 2025 07: 27
                        Read about the new 57mm caliber shells.
                        There's a lot of new stuff going on there. Including a German analogue with a GPE. Which, boom. And instead of a projectile, a swarm of rollers flies. The Germans have 300, I think, and the 57mm has more than 1000.
                      2. 0
                        24 October 2025 23: 18
                        The Germans are flying forward in a cone, but on the posters the MFS looks like a regular OFS, and therefore the shrapnel from it will fly in all directions.
                        No need to guess, use the manufacturer's information
                      3. 0
                        25 October 2025 07: 55
                        Or maybe a poster?
                        Precisely with new shells.
                        And not old, over-sophisticated ones.
                      4. 0
                        25 October 2025 22: 51
                        I mean, you can just go ahead and provide your new shells yourself.
                        And since the derivation doesn't have any radar, but only an optical-electronic system, at what range can it detect a drone even about a meter in size, I won't even mention the FPV, and at what range can it determine the distance to the target to calculate the projectile's detonation?
                        What to do if the target is difficult to see with a thermal imager
                      5. 0
                        26 October 2025 08: 06
                        FPV drones are extremely difficult to detect by radar.
                      6. 0
                        26 October 2025 21: 35
                        I didn't see any new shells
                        derivation can work on something large and preferably hot
                        How can I put it? There are counter-battery radars that can detect shells and mines, which means the radar's capabilities allow it to detect small objects.
                        If the derivation is so semi-blind against small objects, then why does it need 57mm? It needs a smaller caliber and a range of up to 2 km and a cheaper chassis.
                      7. 0
                        27 October 2025 10: 26
                        Counter-battery radars detect steel mini-missiles with shells. But plastic drones.
                        And why do you think it's half-blind against small targets? What's the basis for this assertion?
                      8. 0
                        27 October 2025 22: 55
                        Nowadays, virtually all drones are made of plastic or composite materials, whether Ukrainian or Gerani, and modern radars can easily detect them.

                        Optical-electronic detection and targeting system - developed by Peleng JSC
                        The detection range of a target measuring 2,3 m x 2,3 m using a thermal imaging channel with a probability of 80% is 10,000 m;
                        The recognition range of a target measuring 2,3 m x 2,3 m using a thermal imaging channel is 4,000 m;
                        What if the object is up to a meter and not very hot?
                      9. 0
                        29 October 2025 15: 08
                        This is strange. These arguments are so far-fetched and tugged at the ears.
                        Moreover, such that they both confirm and refute your point of view.
                        Russia currently needs a mass-produced, and therefore affordable, air defense system capable of operating at ranges of 5 km against UAV-type targets in the broad sense of the word. This also means it can also operate against aircraft-type targets, as well as future ones.
                        And Derivation is suitable for this role as the executive body. The same Carapace as a control node and several Derivations for multi-channeling and perimeter creation.
                        Covering important rear facilities.
                      10. 0
                        1 November 2025 22: 01
                        derivation is not cheap in any sense
                        It's questionable to operate against an aircraft-type UAV at a range of 5 km.
                        To do this, anti-aircraft guns must be placed on high ground or towers must be built to shoot down UAVs flying at treetop level.
                        and this is provided that the accuracy of the gun will allow the shells to be placed next to each other
                        Up close, the derivation armor won't be able to protect against small FPVs because it won't be able to see them with its thermal imager.
                      11. 0
                        2 November 2025 09: 34
                        Compared to Pantsir, it is cheaper both in itself and in ammunition.
                      12. 0
                        2 November 2025 22: 57
                        The armor is a longer-range and more effective system that has already been put into production.
                        Derivation is something completely incomprehensible, an electro-optical system designed to shoot down something like a Bayraktar, but it can fly higher and can be the first to hit a derivation at 8 km.
                        It cannot shoot down Ukrainian drones flying over the forest.
                        We've been hearing about derivation for about 10 years now, but we still haven't seen any smart munitions in use; apparently, it's very expensive and ineffective.

                        A much better solution would be a modernized Shilka, but there are practically none of them
                      13. 0
                        3 November 2025 07: 46
                        Gy shy gy gy gy.
                        Modernization of Shilka.
                        How do you imagine that?
                        What can I cram into it? So that it can do at least something?
                      14. 0
                        3 November 2025 22: 15
                        Just like with the derivation, a new targeting system and that's it. 23mm cannons are enough to cover drones with a cloud of shells up to 1-2 km away, and that's all you need. Missiles will do the work beyond that.
                      15. 0
                        6 November 2025 10: 45
                        A cloud of shells, several hundred or even more in number.
                        It was thought up a long time ago. For small targets, many small striking elements. So that there are at least two per target projection.
                        What's ideal for this? A shotgun. A shotgun with a container. And a 57mm with a directional fragmentation field is the same shotgun. Just a bigger one.
                        The most expensive part of the equipment is the sights. A Shilka with fancy sights will cost as much as a Derivation, but it can hit much less.
                      16. 0
                        8 November 2025 22: 36
                        The AK-630 and M61 Vulcan were invented a long time ago, but a quadruple Shilka mount would work too.
                        This type of projectile is named after Henry Shrapnel (1761–1842), an English officer[1] who created the first projectile of this type in 1803[2]. A distinctive feature of the shrapnel projectile is its detonation mechanism at a predetermined distance.
                        A Shilka for shooting at 1-2 km doesn't need particularly sophisticated sights.
                      17. 0
                        9 November 2025 09: 10
                        You're wrong. Cool sights are only half the battle. You need cool detection tools.
                        And 57 mm of GPE will be more useful than a bucket of 23 mm shrapnel.
                        No matter how you look at it, small caliber loses.
                        The AK-630 had one purpose in the air defense sphere: to destroy armor-piercing and semi-armor-piercing warheads, which is why its combat protection included anti-aircraft shells.
                      18. 0
                        9 November 2025 19: 45
                        Cool detection tools are something that derivation doesn't have; it sees something two meters long and hot, preferably in clear weather.

                        There is the ZSU-23-4M4 "Shilka-M4" and ZSU-23-4M5 "Shilka-M5" unlike the derivative they have a modern radar, and the M5 also has an optical-electronic control system
                        What the hell are 23mm shrapnel, regular 23mm OFZ and BZT?

                        All self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, including the Gepard, fire conventional shells to this day. If shells with GPE were so cool and superior, they would have appeared back in the Soviet era. By now, all NATO would have switched to shells with remote detonation. But even in NATO, this isn't happening because they're expensive and ineffective crap.

                        The AK-630 is designed to cover stealthy and high-speed cruise missiles with a cloud of shells, and all sorts of obscure remote-detonated projectiles are of no use to anyone.

                        And in general, these GPEs are just rubbish. If a drone's payload of about 1 gram is enough to increase the probability of hitting a small target, then for large targets, elements of 10 grams or even more are needed to generate enough kinetic energy to stop a helicopter or a cruise missile. Large targets won't be impressed by dust from gram-sized fragments. Does the military really need all this hassle of selecting the GPE size for a specific target? Of course not.
                      19. 0
                        9 November 2025 20: 01
                        How far you are from reality.
                        Especially regarding the West.
                      20. 0
                        9 November 2025 21: 50
                        You're right, there's no point in confusing your dreams of a 57mm shell with a remote detonator with reality.
                      21. 0
                        9 November 2025 22: 49
                        There is such a concept as Retrograde.
                        The extreme degree of Conservatism taken to the point of absurdity.
                        Many people suffer from this. And the saddest thing is, this affliction gnaws at the brains of those responsible for security.
                        Old methods. Old strategies. Old approach.
                        The innovators even put a shrapnel charge into the 5 45x39.
                        And Retrogrades refuse 57 mm.
                      22. 0
                        10 November 2025 00: 49
                        Zoomer doesn't understand the concepts at all, and yet he's trying to prove something.
                        5,45 shotgun pellets, meaning buckshot, not shrapnel.

                        S-5S, S-5SB - 57-mm unguided aircraft rocket. Contains 1000-1100 flechettes weighing 1,26 g, 40 mm long. Equipped with a remote fuse. Used with the ORO-57, UB-16, UB-32 suspended rocket pods.[17][18]
                        The S8S is an 80mm unguided aircraft rocket. It contains 2000 flechettes weighing 1,26 grams and measuring 40 mm in length. It is used with all modifications of the B-8 rocket pod.
                        100 mm – 3Sh5 Kilka-1 projectile as part of the 3USh1 round. The projectile is equipped with 1800 striking elements weighing 1,26 g. It is used in tanks and self-propelled guns with the D-10 rifled tank gun and its modifications[20].
                        The 115mm 3Sh6 Kilka-2 projectile, part of the 3USh2 round, is equipped with 4500 fragmentation elements weighing 1,26 g. It is used in tanks and self-propelled guns with the U-5TS Molot (2A20) smoothbore tank gun.
                        122 mm - 3Sh1 "Lepestok-1" projectile, part of the 3VSh1, 3VSh3, 3VSh4 rounds[22][23]. Adopted in 1973. The projectile is equipped with 7000 striking elements[24]. Applications - D-30 howitzer, 2S1 "Gvozdika" self-propelled gun and their licensed and modernized versions[15].
                        125 mm - 3Sh7, 3Sh8 projectile for shots of tank smoothbore guns 3VSh7, 3VSh8 - modifications of tanks T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, T-72UA, BM "Oplot". 3Sh7 "Voron" - is used in tanks with smoothbore gun 2A66 (D-91) and its modifications. Adopted in service in 1975. Detonation setting time is mechanical. 3Sh8 "Ainet" - is used in tanks with smoothbore gun 2A26 (D-81), 2A46 (D-81TM) and their modifications. Adopted in service in 1988. Used with automatic time interval setter "Ainet" or "Kalina" (T-80U, T-90A). The 3Sh7 and 3Sh8 shells contain 4700 flechettes weighing 1,26 g.[25]
                        152 mm - 3Sh2 "Lepestok-2" projectile, part of the 3VSh2, 3VSh5 rounds[26]. Adopted in 1975. The projectile is equipped with 8500 striking elements[27]. Applications - 2A65 Msta-B howitzer, D-20 gun-howitzer, 2S3 "Akatsiya" self-propelled gun and their licensed and modernized versions[15].

                        who refused shrapnel shells, they are simply rarely used
                        And in general, the larger the caliber, the greater the GPE, and no one even thought about the 57mm shell in terms of GPE
                        No one thought about 57mm in terms of remote detonation
                        Here's a naval AK-726, 76mm caliber.
                        The UZSB-62RP anti-aircraft round with a ZS-62 projectile loaded with 0,4 kg of explosive is equipped with an AR-51L radio fuse, which is triggered at a distance of up to 8 m from the target.
                        or 100mm AK-100
                        The UZS-58 and UZS-58R anti-aircraft rounds are designed for firing at cruise missiles and aircraft. The UZS-58 round uses a ZS-58 projectile with a DVM-60M1 remote fuse, while the UZS-58R round uses a ZS-58R projectile with an AR-32 radar fuse. The radar fuse detonates the projectile at a distance of 5 meters from a cruise missile and 10 meters from an aircraft.

                        The 57mm caliber is crap.
                      23. 0
                        10 November 2025 09: 51
                        I've been studying Wikipedia brilliantly. Now I just need to learn how to apply the knowledge I've gained.
                        30mm and below are crap. The optimal caliber is 40-45mm. But Russia doesn't have those calibers. That's just the way it is.
                        The rest is 57 mm, which is a little excessive, but becomes a universal one.
                        And which, in its capabilities, exceeds all small calibers by a multiple margin.
                        And most importantly, it can be really cheap.
                      24. 0
                        11 November 2025 00: 57
                        Your caliber is insufficient, you simply don't have enough GPE to even hit a UAV.
                      25. 0
                        11 November 2025 07: 42
                        A 57mm projectile weighs 3 kg. Of this, the GPE can account for 2 kg.
                        If we take 1,5 gram rollers, which are enough to destroy light UAVs, then there will be 1333 of them.
                      26. 0
                        11 November 2025 08: 10
                        Sorry we got distracted.
                        At a density of 1 GPE per 1 sq. Dm, this will give a circle with a diameter of more than 4 meters.
                        Do you really think that one shell covering such an area is not enough?
                        An acceptable miss of 2+ meters is not enough.
                        Is the GPE speed of 750 m/s not enough?
                        And I repeat this with 1 damaging element per 10 x 10 cm square.
                        This is enough for any technique.
                      27. 0
                        12 November 2025 22: 50
                        Contains 1000-1100 flechettes weighing 1,26 g and 40 mm long.

                        rollers weighing 1,5g will not be so small that a thousand of them will fit into a projectile
                        Plus, the shape of a ball or tablet is not optimal; there will be a lot of empty space between the GPEs, which will reduce the number of elements per projectile. Then, due to the shape, the GPE will significantly lose speed due to air resistance.
                        One GPE per square decimeter doesn't mean anything, because it's unclear at what distance the beam of scattering GPE will be from the drone. If it's too close, the beam is still too narrow; if it's further, it's too wide and the GPE density will already be lower than the calculated one.
                        For this purpose, the anti-aircraft missiles have a radio fuse that detonates at a certain distance from the target.

                        for a regular gun operating at 6 km, where the projectile needs to reach this distance, and this time
                        If we shoot from a kilometer away, then with every hundred meters the projectile will deviate more and more from the aiming point, then even a circle of four meters will not be enough
                        at a distance of up to a kilometer, it might make sense to count on something
                        The equipment needs a heavier GPE
                      28. 0
                        13 November 2025 13: 17
                        Well, the points are:
                        1. The roller can be made hexagonal instead of round. Like a honeycomb. There won't be any voids at all. But that argument is entirely far-fetched, since a flashlight is the same roller, only elongated.
                        2. The speed loss won't be as great. However, the damage inflicted on the target will be greater.
                        3. The dispersion angle is 15-20 degrees from the projectile's longitudinal axis. The damage zone will be a fairly large cone. And controlled detonation will allow the projectile to be detonated in advance, so that the target is hit by an optimally dispersed fragmentation cloud. This was all developed back in the 80s for tank shells, using the basic technology of those days. Now it's a piece of cake.
                        4. A proximity fuse is unnecessary. The missile chases the aircraft. It maneuvers. The projectile creates a fragmentation field where the targeting system predicts the target will be at the moment of impact.
                        5. For the C 60 at a distance of 6 km the accuracy is quite sufficient.
                        6. Derivation can easily cover a circle with a radius of 5 km with guaranteed damage and a circle with a larger radius with increased shell consumption.
                        No smaller caliber can do this.
                      29. 0
                        15 November 2025 00: 20
                        I've never seen hexagonal GPE anywhere, no one cares about it, they just take it for granted that the filling density of the GPE will be like this
                        The flechette, due to its thin body, has a smaller diameter and a greater projectile weight, and better aerodynamics
                        The roller's speed loss is significant, essentially a flying brick
                        What's going on is all bullshit, sucked out of a finger, what's really going on?

                        Several variants of the 35mm AHEAD ammunition with varying numbers of submunitions were developed. The first variant, designated PMD062, has a length including the case of 387 mm and a weight of 1,77 kg. The projectile weighs 0,75 kg. The muzzle velocity of the projectile is 1050 m/s. The projectile contains 152 prefabricated cylindrical submunitions weighing 3,3 g, 5,85 mm in diameter, and made of tungsten carbide (Fig. 2). The submunitions are arranged in 8 rows of 19 submunitions each. The total weight of the prefabricated submunitions is 500 g. The base of the submunition contains the take-up coil 1, the programmable electronic fuse 2, and the expelling charge 3, containing 0,9 g of explosive.

                        Upon approaching the target at a predetermined time, the propellant charge detonates and ejects the projectile's fragments. The projectile's outer shell breaks into six fragments (Fig. 3). The projectile's rotation causes the fragments to spread out in a cone with an opening angle of 10° to 15°.

                        For example, at a distance of 30 m, a cloud of fragments with a diameter of 5,25 m and an area of ​​21,6 m² is formed, with 7 fragments per m² [1]. Therefore, the detonation time or the distance from the detonation point to the target is selected based on the target type, in order to inflict maximum damage. Detonation typically occurs between 10 and 40 m from the target.

                        Research has shown that fragmentation elements weighing 3,3 g are optimal for engaging airborne targets such as anti-ship missiles, aircraft, and helicopters. The developer estimates that approximately 25 AHEAD projectiles are required to engage an anti-ship missile, creating a fragmentation field of 3800 fragmentation elements.

                        The third type of 35mm PMD375 munition was developed to increase the kill probability of small reconnaissance UAVs, as well as rockets and mortars. The munition contains 860 cylindrical fragments weighing 0,64 g. It is assumed that even if a fragment does not penetrate the mortar shell, the high-density fragmentation field created by multiple munitions will ensure that one or more fragments hit the mine's fuse, disabling the fuse.

                        When firing at a point target, it is desirable to achieve the maximum fragmentation field density, which requires that all projectiles detonate at a given point in space. However, from shot to shot, due to manufacturing tolerances, barrel heating, and other factors, there is a spread in projectile muzzle velocity and, consequently, a spread in detonation points. For example, when firing 35-mm AHEAD projectiles from the Millennium system at a range of 1600 m, with the fuse set to the same detonation time, without taking into account the change in muzzle velocity of the projectiles from shot to shot, the spread in detonation points of eight projectiles was 20 m (Fig. 7) [1].
                        Measuring muzzle velocity allows for varying the detonation time so that projectiles with different muzzle velocities travel the same distance and detonate simultaneously at a given point in space. By accounting for muzzle velocity variations, the range spread when firing 35mm projectiles at the same distance was reduced by a factor of four—from 20 to 5 meters—which significantly increases the fragmentation field density (Fig. 7). This is especially important when firing at small aerial targets, such as UAVs and missiles.


                        So, the scattering angle of such shrapnel is very narrow, you need to aim very carefully and even that won't help much
                        Large targets and UAVs require completely different GPE sizes, meaning two different projectiles. For AHEAD, there are three projectile options with different GPE numbers. For the army, having three versions of the same projectile is, well, so-so...
                        Even taking into account the muzzle velocity, high-quality manufactured projectiles were able to reduce, but not eliminate, the dispersion of projectiles at range from 20 m to 5 m
                        In our Russian reality, where there is no muzzle velocity programmer, the quality of the shells is questionable, and the 57mm cannon has significant recoil compared to the 35mm, it's no wonder the troops don't have derivation training with such shells. It would be an overuse of shells with rather low effectiveness.
                        It's no surprise that they wanted to create a controlled OFS for derivation. Considering the gun's not-so-accurate nature and the problematic remote-detonated projectiles, this would have offered a real chance of hitting UAVs with a high probability.
                        The radio fuse doesn't care about the muzzle velocity or the quality of the projectile; it will detonate at a fixed distance from the target for maximum efficiency.
                        For the S-60, the accuracy at 6 km is indeed quite sufficient for firing at group targets, that is, at a group of bombers from the Second World War, a concentration of equipment and manpower, and all
                        Derivations with their 57mm shells, which are nowhere to be found, are as far away from the 35mm AHEAD as the moon is from the sky.
                      30. 0
                        15 November 2025 09: 42
                        What a guy. You found something online that I've been trying to explain to you for a week now.
                        I just forgot to scale 35mm to 57mm and 1kg to 3kg.
                        And suddenly it turns out that 1 57 mm shell is more effective than 3-4 35 mm shells.
                        That's one. Two. Damage from several types of projectiles.
                        Destroying anti-ship missiles requires serious resources. They're usually heavy and very durable. That's why they're so heavy. Derivation isn't going to fire at anti-ship missiles; one type of projectile is enough for it to hit everything above the battlefield, from plastic drones to helicopters. And when used as an object-based air defense system, one type of projectile is also sufficient. The one I described.
                        The caliber and number of fragments perfectly cover the deviation and error in range.
                      31. 0
                        15 November 2025 16: 07
                        I couldn't find any information about the AHEAD projectile online. That's your problem.
                        Why 1 kg, why 3 kg...
                        What is there to scale?
                        The 35mm high-explosive incendiary weighs 550g and contains 112g of explosive, the 35mm AHEAD weighs 750g and has a propellant charge of 0,9g.
                        The 57mm OR-281U projectile weighs 2,8 kg and has only 153 grams of explosive, meaning it's just a thick steel ingot with a minimal amount of explosive.
                        It is stated that the 57mm guided projectile will weigh just over 2kg and contain 400g of explosive
                        There is no 57mm programmable projectile and nothing is heard.
                        There is no information on the 57mm programmable, so it can't be more effective than the 35mm.
                        Conducted studies have shown that for the destruction of air targets such as anti-ship missiles, aircraft and helicopters, the most optimal are striking elements weighing 3,3 g.

                        An anti-drone projectile from a helicopter can only scrape off paint; the kinetic energy isn't enough for more.
                        If the projectile has large GPE, then due to the small amount of GPE the drone simply won't hit
                        one type of shells is not enough
                        There is no 57mm programmable projectile, so the GPE quantity is unknown.
                        The S-60 cannon's accuracy is insufficient for a bi-amplifier; muzzle velocity is not measured; Russian-made shells are expected to be significantly worse than Swiss ones.
                      32. 0
                        15 November 2025 19: 27
                        Blah blah blah. Just the same old regurgitation of stupid theses.
                        Without the participation of thinking.
                        35 mm is more effective than the three times larger 57 mm.
                        Stupidity as it is.
                      33. 0
                        15 November 2025 21: 58
                        35mm is more effective simply because it exists, there are specific characteristics, there are real tests of its effectiveness
                        Unlike the 57mm fragmentation grenade of the 40s and 50s, which the 35mm is compared to, because there is no programmable 57mm projectile and it is unlikely to be mass-produced
                        It's stupid to watch videos of derivatives that fire projectiles developed in the 40s and 50s and chatter about some incredible abilities.
                      34. 0
                        16 November 2025 09: 16
                        The new shells were reported a long time ago.
                        As well as the fact that work on the managed one is ending.
                        And the question isn't whether it exists or not. The question is why this mass isn't present in the troops.
                      35. 0
                        16 November 2025 20: 39
                        Quote from Savage3000
                        25th year. And where is this system? Where are the smart shells?

                        A person in the thread about derivation projectiles is wondering where they are...

                        reported that they are thinking a lot about their development
                        We can't make a 30mm BOPS for the ubiquitous 2a42/2a72, and here we have such nanotechnology
                        These shells are not in widespread use in the military because they haven't been created yet, it's all logical
                      36. 0
                        17 November 2025 10: 31
                        And again the same thing.
                        The 30mm ZUBR11 was unveiled about 10 years ago. Its 50mm armor penetration is on par with the Erlikonovka, developed for countries that left the Warsaw Pact.
                        According to reviews, it's a good projectile.
                        But it's not in the troops. Either not at all, or not widely available.
                        That's the problem.
                        And for Derivation, everything has long been worked out. Shown. Told. And not yet put into production.
                      37. 0
                        19 November 2025 23: 00
                        The Russian army won't get a 30mm BOPS because it's an expensive toy that no one knows where or how to produce.
                        Nothing has been developed for derivation, where are at least the experimental prototypes of these smart projectiles, where are the videos of these projectiles being tested
                        Programmable detonation projectiles are one of the most expensive technologies currently in use, so it's no surprise they've been abandoned, considering the high cost means you can't expect any outstanding results.
                      38. 0
                        20 November 2025 09: 30
                        Article from October 18, 2016.
                        Testing of 57mm projectiles with programmable detonation has begun.
                        Printed here on VO.
                        Later, there were also discussions about the successful completion and prospects.
                        Especially since something similar was already in widespread use for tank guns back in the 80s. And it's just a matter of reducing the size.
                        So do not panic.
                        Engineers can and tests have proven that the efficiency is high.
                        But it didn't reach the troops. And that's a crime.
                        There's nothing expensive about these shells. They're more expensive, but the price isn't astronomical.
                      39. 0
                        22 November 2025 20: 17
                        Yes, next year we will celebrate the 10th anniversary of testing projectiles with a programmable fuse.

                        They developed regular shrapnel for tank guns, nothing special.

                        interferes with efficiency
                        The gun lacks a muzzle velocity programmer, which means the projectile will fire in an unknown location relative to the target.
                        There are also questions about how well they can produce the shells.
                        the lack of projectiles with different GPE masses, due to which the complex cannot be equally effective against both conventional aviation and
                        UAV
                        It is based on a gun from the 40s and 50s with questionable accuracy ratings at the moment.
                      40. 0
                        23 November 2025 19: 43
                        It doesn't matter what happened to the tank ones. There was a detonation at a specific point along the trajectory. It was the fuse. The tank ones had a revolution counter. And it did its job.
                        The projectile velocity meter is on the Pantsir. Google it.
                        Projectiles with different GPE weights are not required. The targets are the same type of UAV. This is the main difference between our concept and the German one.
                        The modern Baikal is not a cannon from the 50s. It's a modern weapon based on...

                        I'll leave the quality issue for the end.
                        Where does this belief come from that the quality will be unacceptable???
                      41. 0
                        23 November 2025 23: 03
                        the projectile does not know that it is at a specific point
                        The revolution counter doesn't know the speed at which the projectile was fired and doesn't know how the weight of this projectile differs from the reference sample.

                        The velocity meter is there to make adjustments to the aiming system; the velocity meter doesn't make any adjustments to the projectile that's already fired, and there's nowhere to make adjustments to a 30mm blank; there's no electronics there.

                        A projectile with a large amount of GPE is more likely to hit a UAV, but is practically harmless to helicopters and cruise missiles, and will be ineffective against ground vehicles and soldiers.
                        A projectile with a lower GPE content is dangerous for helicopters and missiles, but it will be very difficult to hit a UAV
                        The Swiss wouldn't have created three types of the same projectile unless there was a specific need, as tests have shown, to be highly effective, with different ammunition for different purposes.
                        No one has seen or touched our concept, it's just a scam

                        The only modern thing there might be is a muzzle brake, but everything else is ordinary Soviet hardware, like the tank guns of our tanks and the ubiquitous 2a42/2a72

                        Because the army is supplied with mass-produced, affordable items, they can't even provide a 30mm BOPS. Our industry can't handle high-quality, expensive equipment, let alone NATO, Swiss, or German standard. It's an overpriced toy, situational, and of questionable effectiveness.
                        so we will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the trials
                      42. 0
                        24 November 2025 19: 15
                        The rev counter doesn't even need to know the speed. That's the advantage.
                        A speedometer is a useful thing, but not essential.
                        But they are useful. They reduce consumption.
                        A projectile with a small GPE is designed for specific targets. There are missiles for helicopters and anti-ship missiles. It will also be effective against cruise missiles, which are essentially plastic. Again, one type of projectile is sufficient for targets like UAVs, that is, for MAIN targets.
                        So are you talking about accuracy or grouping? Accuracy can be improved with a modern scope. Their grouping was already pinpoint.
                        That's what I was talking about from the start. What needs to be there is on paper. Better than in the West, more modern. But only on paper, not in practice.
                      43. 0
                        29 November 2025 23: 21
                        The revolution counter doesn't need to know the speed because it's triggered after a certain number of revolutions, meaning the projectile's flight time is only measured. The projectile's speed and mass are unknown, so at best, the projectile will miss the target by tens of meters.
                        There is no muzzle velocity meter, no adjustments to the gun's guidance system, the projectile again flew past the target

                        A projectile with a small GPE is designed for small targets, because even a Swiss projectile does not fly precisely to the target, and only a burst of several beams of a large number of GPE can guarantee coverage of a UAV
                        The derivation does not have missiles for helicopters and cruise missiles
                        Derivation for UAVs alone is too expensive a toy, which the Ministry of Defense will never order. Pantsir's TKB-1055 anti-drone missiles are better.
                        any sight is not capable of producing greater accuracy than that which the gun and shells can produce
                        It wasn't for nothing that they developed a guided missile for derivation, because putting a missile not just directly at an air target, but next to a target more than a kilometer away is no longer easy
                        Even an automatic cannon of the bearded years can't have super-accuracy, besides, the heavier the projectile, the better it maintains its trajectory at long range; 57mm is so-so, but 85-130mm is a different matter.
                        It won't work in practice because it's very expensive and the technology is too problematic to implement.
                      44. 0
                        1 December 2025 19: 03
                        It's strange. How did they manage to end up back in time, before electronics? You're either a naive victim of the Unified State Exam, or something even worse. In 99, I saw ordinary conscripts firing S-60s at shields at sea. They scored 3 out of 5 hits within a 2-meter circle from a distance of 1,5 kilometers.
                        Let me repeat: CONSEQUENTIAL WORKERS. You love stories about miracle electronics that certainly make life easier, but aren't essential in some cases.
                        What caliber is the West and what is the number of GPEs? Where 35mm is needed, five will suffice, one 57mm.
                        The Derivation projectile will easily suffice for a cruise missile, a helicopter, and a heavy drone. And even for small GPEs, simply due to their quantity. And if they can master a guided projectile, that would be truly amazing. The system will immediately become a versatile short-range weapon. And given the proliferation of UAVs, its potential will last for decades to come.
                        You immediately switched from 35 mm to 130. You got carried away.
                        Let me reiterate, the optimal caliber for counter-UAV use today is 40-45mm. But since this caliber is unavailable in Russia, 57mm is the only option.
                      45. 0
                        3 December 2025 23: 58
                        In ancient times, guns like the S-60 fired barrages in BATTERIES.
                        What other circle, a 2x2m shield, naturally fired single shots, not bursts, at a stationary target, and even so, the cannon's accuracy goes beyond 2x2m, not to mention air targets at 4 and 6 km, and especially UAVs, a meter or less in size
                        Electronics speed up and simplify aiming, but the initial accuracy provided by the gun and projectile cannot be improved
                        A burst of 35mm shells will fan out over a distance, thereby increasing the overall fragmentation field and increasing the likelihood of hitting a target.
                        one 57mm shell cannot be equivalent to five 35mm shells, probably two, maximum three
                        and such a projectile has very big problems, because its effectiveness depends greatly on the point at which it fires relative to the target, unlike a burst of 35mm shells that overlap each other
                        The derivation projectile does not exist, no one has seen or touched it, and the quantity and size of the GPE have not been checked
                        Small GPEs have less mass, and therefore less kinetic energy. If they can penetrate even the skin of a helicopter or a missile, that would be an achievement, but nothing more.
                        The larger the fragment of a shell, mine, or grenade, the higher its lethality and armor penetration, so don't fool physics with your GPE sand.
                        If we're considering an alternative to a burst of five 35mm shells, it would have to be something truly large-caliber, not just a single 57mm shell.
                        The Swiss have already demonstrated the optimal size for fighting small targets; increasing the caliber will not achieve anything.
                      46. 0
                        5 December 2025 19: 16
                        1 to 3-5 is by weight of the GPE.
                        For 57 mi this will be the dispersion circle.
                        5 pieces of 35 mm may not have a solid circle of comparable diameter.
                        In front of my eyes, conscripts were dismantling shields from 1,5 km away.
                        I personally installed these shields for them on the boat. The S-60's accuracy is quite good.
                      47. 0
                        6 December 2025 21: 50
                        No one has seen or touched a derivation projectile with GPE, it’s unclear what it could be like
                        For Swiss 35mm, when using large, heavy GPEs, it is claimed that there will be around 3-4 fragments per square meter.
                        and at the same time, we must not forget that without a muzzle velocity programmer, the projectile can fire tens of meters before the target, which further reduces the probability of hitting
                        Considering the high quality of the gun and shells, at a distance of up to 4 km there could very well be one continuous field of fragments
                        They dismantled the shields, but they couldn't lay down all the shells in a 2x2 meter area with single fire
                        The S60's accuracy is sufficient for large targets, but what about UAVs?
                      48. 0
                        7 December 2025 19: 11
                        3-4 pieces per square meter.
                        What nonsense. Is this enough? For real purposes?
                        This is not enough.
                        How much is tens? 40 or 20?
                        Huge difference.
                        And I repeat again. The speed indicator has been installed on the Pantsir for a long time.
                        2 by 2 meters. The conscripts fired with regular scopes. Old ones. From ancient jalopies.
                      49. 0
                        7 December 2025 21: 56
                        A 35mm shell produces such a large number of fragments, which is why three types of GPE have been developed for different purposes, because there is no other way
                        and that's not to mention that the GPE was made of tungsten
                        20 meters for 35mm, for S-60 with their quality of gunpowder and shells, then all 50m
                        learn materiel
                        The projectile's fuse programming, i.e., the data input to the fire control system's ballistic computer, is inductive, using a programmer coil on the muzzle. The fuse setting time is calculated after measuring the projectile's muzzle velocity, taking into account the variation in muzzle velocities of individual shots to ensure precise projectile detonation. Using the projectile's muzzle velocity and target range, the ballistic computer calculates the precise time for the propellant charge to initiate, which is transmitted by the programmer to the fuse. For this purpose, the gun's muzzle device includes three inductive coils: two are muzzle velocity sensors, and the third coil, the fuse setter (programmer), sets the projectile's timer. The projectile's precise flight time is calculated to a fraction of a second.
                        The speed sensor is on the armor, you can stick it wherever you want, it only affects the gun's aiming
                        and they couldn't even fit a whole 5-round magazine into such a shield
                      50. 0
                        8 December 2025 11: 53
                        The heavier the projectile, the more stable it is. You said that yourself.
                        There are already stupid arguments.

                        Are you saying that while the projectile is in the barrel, both the velocity is measured and the projectile is programmed?
                        Can I have proof of this kind of modernization?
                        Conscripts from optics?
                        Ha... Your arguments are becoming more and more inadequate.
                      51. 0
                        Yesterday, 22: 14
                        Are you a drug addict or something?
                        57mm is a bit small, but a 100mm shell is pretty good.
                        Programming of the projectile fuse, i.e. input of data from the ballistic computer of the fire control system (FCS), is inductive using a programming coil on the muzzle.

                        It's so bad, we can't even read anymore.

                        I'm being told about inadequacy by a character who's seriously discussing the characteristics of a yet-to-be-created projectile for diverting and also says that a 57mm cannon is just right for shooting at UAVs, although such small targets are successfully handled by a correspondingly small caliber
                      52. 0
                        Today, 08: 05
                        I asked for proof. About the Cheetah's shells. I wanted you to read it yourself. And I was convinced it's 80s technology. Which isn't even entirely digital.
                        And you think that the modern Russian military-industrial complex cannot repeat this?
                        Well, here are the official data.
                        A regular shell costs 400 euros, but the one you're talking about costs 1400 euros, so the price of a programmable fuse is 1000 euros.
                        5 35mm shells are 5000 euros and 1 57mm shell is 1000 euros.
                        For the same purpose.
                        Use your brain. This is logic and economics.
                  2. 0
                    20 October 2025 23: 26
                    Quote: bushmaster
                    I said that they abandoned guns in favor of more effective missiles.

                    The cannons on the Pantsir air defense missile and gun system have not been abandoned. The cannons are not on the two air defense systems based on the Pantsir air defense missile and gun system. The operating conditions of these air defense systems are not suitable for the use of cannons.
                    Quote: bushmaster
                    especially if the 30mm Pantsir machine guns, which operate with a high density of fire, are also ineffective against small targets,

                    At what range are they ineffective? At what range are the missiles effective? The Pantsir's guns are designed to reduce the near-miss zone.
                    1. 0
                      21 October 2025 01: 28
                      on three
                      guns were abandoned in favor of missiles
                      The missiles operate from 500 meters away, so they decided that additional missiles were a better solution than cannons.
                      1. 0
                        27 October 2025 01: 24
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        on three

                        On two. Two air defense missile systems were created based on the Pantsir air defense missile and gun system.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        guns were abandoned in favor of missiles

                        Cannons weren't abandoned in favor of missiles. The Pantsir-SM (S1M) has both "nails" and cannons, and this version of the Pantsir is the latest version.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        They decided that additional missiles were a better solution than guns.

                        This is an incorrect statement. The Pantsir-SM refutes it. On the Pantsir, the guns serve to reduce the near-miss area.
                      2. 0
                        27 October 2025 22: 48
                        The Pantsir-SA is an Arctic modification based on the DT-30 two-link tracked carrier. It was first presented to the general public at the Victory Day military parade on Red Square on May 9, 2017.[53][54] Unlike the base model, it lacks an anti-aircraft gun, the number of missiles has been increased from 12 to 18, and the target acquisition station has been modernized.[55]
                        The Pantsir-SM-TBM is a modification with an increased number of missiles from 12 to 24. The anti-aircraft guns and detection radar have been removed. Detection will be carried out from other vehicles in the battery or from command posts [59], while guidance can also be performed from the vehicle itself using the integrated radar and electronic countermeasures.
                        The Pantsir-SMD-E is an ultra-short-range modification in which the standard 20-km missiles can be replaced with a full complement of 48 BP TKB-1055 missiles with a range of 7 (8) km. This version also lacks the 2A38M anti-aircraft guns, making the system more compact and mobile.[60]

                        guns were abandoned in favor of missiles
                      3. 0
                        31 October 2025 22: 46
                        bushmaster, Wikipedia is a bad source.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Pantsir-SA is an Arctic modification based on the two-link tracked transporter DT-30.

                        Pantsir-SA is not a modification, it is an air defense system designed for operation in Arctic conditions and on soft soils.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Unlike the basic model... the target detection station has been modernized

                        The Pantsir-SA's radar and target acquisition system is identical to that of the Pantsir-S—a dual-sided PFAR with two-dimensional scanning. The Pantsir-SA's radar and target acquisition system is similar to that of the Pantsir-SM and Pantsir-M prototypes, and is also found on the combat vehicle of the Pantsir-S.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Pantsir-SM-TBM is a modification with an increased number of missiles from 12 to 24; the anti-aircraft guns and detection radar have been removed from the system.

                        The Pantsir-SM-TBM is not a modification, but a Transport and Combat Vehicle (TBM) from the Pantsir-SM air defense missile and gun system. It is neither an air defense missile and gun system nor a surface-to-air missile system. It is not in serial production.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Pantsir-SMD-E - ultra-short-range modification

                        A surface-to-air missile system based on the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft gun and gun mount system. Designed for the defense of stationary targets, with the ability to mount its combat module on building roofs and truss towers. The Pantsir-S's secondary anti-aircraft missile system is a lightweight, lighter SOC.
                        Total: 2 SAM systems - Pantsir-SA and Pantsir-SMD. Pantsir-SM-TBM is not an SAM system.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        guns were abandoned in favor of missiles

                        Cannons haven't been abandoned in favor of missiles. The Pantsir-S and Pantsir-SM are in serial production. The Pantsir-SM is the latest version of the land-based Pantsir, with the most advanced electronic countermeasures. Cannons are not installed on the two SAM systems based on the Pantsir-S SAM/GPRK system due to the operating conditions of these systems, which prevent the effective use of cannons. The Pantsir-SM-TBM also serves as the transport vehicle for the Pantsir-SM SAM/GPRK system, while the cannons are not transported in the Pantsir-SM SAM/GPRK system.
                      4. 0
                        1 November 2025 22: 23
                        So, the SAM became an SAM when the guns were removed, logically, but everything else is still the same armor, when you don't know what to say, you have to dig down to the letters)))

                        The USSR socialist system, in short, is still the same shell.

                        In addition, the air target detection station had to be abandoned: in combat formations, the Pantsir-SM TBM will receive target designation from other vehicles in the battery or from echeloned air defense command posts.

                        It has also been reported that compact anti-aircraft guided missiles are being developed to counter small drones and copters. Four compact missiles can fit into a single standard Pantsir launch container.

                        At its maximum load, the Pantsir-SM heavy tank destroyer (TBM) can fire a salvo of 96 missiles, repelling attacks by several drone swarms. Furthermore, the TBM is equipped with a loading device that allows the crew to independently reload their own combat vehicle or other vehicles in the battery.
                        The tasks of TBM as part of the complex are quite simple. First of all, it is an auxiliary tool that ensures the operation of the main combat vehicles. With the help of its own crane, the TBM is able to reload the TPK from its launcher or from any transport to the 72V6M combat vehicle. This eliminates the need for a separate machine with crane equipment.

                        The 72V6MT machine is capable of performing combat missions, but its functions and tasks are significantly limited. TBM needs the assistance of a combat vehicle or command post - they are responsible for remote control, send target designation and issue a launch command. Then the TBM must independently take the target for escort, launch the missile and direct it.
                        In addition, TBM can supplement combat vehicles in a firing position. In terms of the size of the ammunition load (in the case of full-size missiles), it is twice as large as the 72V6M vehicle, which gives certain advantages. At the same time, several transport-combat vehicles can accompany one combat vehicle. Other options for the combat composition of the platoon / battery are also possible. In all cases, additional pieces of equipment with launchers and a large number of missiles will be useful.

                        Machines 72V6M and 72V6MT can be located at the same position or at a distance from each other. In the latter case, the TBM turns into a remote launcher with known advantages. By dispersing the means over the terrain, it is possible to increase the covered area of ​​fire and / or reduce the risks for other means of the complex and their calculations. With all this, it does not require the involvement of more complex combat vehicles with a full complement of equipment.
                        a total of three air defense missile systems

                        Judging by the modifications, there is a trend towards abandoning guns in favor of more effective missiles
                        It's easier to create a separate, simpler vehicle for cover with double-barreled machine guns than to weaken the armor
                      5. 0
                        12 November 2025 22: 28
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        So, the SAM became an SAM when the guns were removed, logically, but everything else is still the same armor, when you don't know what to say, you have to dig down to the letters)))

                        The ZRPK system is still in production. The ZRPK system was not produced to replace the ZRPK system. And you need to understand the meaning behind the letters. These letters are from the documentation.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        In addition, the air target detection station had to be abandoned: in combat formations, the Pantsir-SM TBM will receive target designation from other vehicles in the battery or from echeloned air defense command posts.

                        TBM is a transport and combat vehicle. It has no guns because they are not transportable in the Pantsir-SM air defense missile and gun system. The Pantsir-SM TBM is part of the Pantsir-SM air defense missile and gun system. Unlike the Pantsir-SM BM, the Pantsir-SM TBM cannot conduct combat operations independently.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Machines 72V6M and 72V6MT can be located at the same position or at a distance from each other. In the latter case, the TBM turns into a remote launcher with known advantages. By dispersing the means over the terrain, it is possible to increase the covered area of ​​fire and / or reduce the risks for other means of the complex and their calculations. With all this, it does not require the involvement of more complex combat vehicles with a full complement of equipment.
                        a total of three air defense missile systems

                        Two air defense missile systems. By definition, the Pantsir-SM TBM is not a SAM system. There is no system consisting of a target acquisition system, a launcher, and a TBM. And the TBM itself is not mass-produced.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Judging by the modifications, there is a trend towards abandoning guns in favor of more effective missiles

                        There's no trend toward abandoning cannons in favor of missiles. Removing cannons increases the short-range engagement range of a target. The only Pantsirs capable of using all missiles (and equipped with the most modern electronic countermeasures) are the Pantsir-SM and Pantsir-M, which are air defense missile and gun systems. Cannons have been removed from the variants whose operating conditions are unsuitable for cannons, such as the Pantsir-SA and Pantsir-SMD.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        It's easier to create a separate, simpler vehicle for cover with double-barreled machine guns than to weaken the armor

                        How could this be simpler? You'd need another chassis. And in the direction of the Pantsir, that gun mount would have a dead zone. A completely harmful idea.
                      6. 0
                        12 November 2025 23: 38
                        Not immediately, but the SAM will replace the SAM-3. No one is saying that the SAM-3 should be abandoned immediately; its production will be phased out gradually.
                        It's just that guns don't have any significant advantages that would require allocating space and specially designing a mount to withstand the recoil of machine guns.

                        The Pantsir TBM is a launcher that not only carries missiles, but can also fire them using external targeting, even without the aid of another full-fledged Pantsir. So it's an air defense missile system. It's not called a transport-combat vehicle for nothing, as opposed to a TZM (transport-loading vehicle).
                        Fighting as part of the battery: one "Shell-C1" works as a combat vehicle and at the same time as a command post. From 3 to 5 "Shell" can be connected to it and receive target designation for the subsequent execution of the task.
                        Combat operations with the command post: the command post sends target designations to the “Shell-C1” installations for the subsequent execution of the task.
                        Combat operations as part of a battery with a command post and an early warning radar (its own highly mobile early warning radar 1RL123[30][31]): the command post receives the air situation from the early warning radar and sends target designations to the Pantsir-S1 installations for subsequent execution of the task.
                        that's what they say
                        It's now the end of 2025. The DT-30PM-based Pantsir-SA, without guns, has yet to be accepted into service. Instead, a missile-gun modification on a Kamaz chassis, under the name Pantsir-SA, is being fielded by the 80th Arctic Brigade. The author doesn't understand the matter and writes nonsense.
                        The Pantsir-SA and TBM will probably be put into production after the war, but there are modifications.

                        They will abandon cannons because cannons have not proven very effective against drones. If the enemy gets within cannon range of the complex, then firstly, this is the task of the units guarding the complexes, and secondly, the complex does not have any reasonable armor protection to withstand an attack.
                        The Pantsir is becoming more long-ranged, so it can keep its distance from the enemy rather than ride in a column with tanks, like the Shilka.

                        It's easier because for the distance at which you need to engage the enemy with cannons, it needs to be an armored tracked vehicle, like the BMP-3, although it could even be the BTR-80, but not a huge barn without armor weighing up to 30 tons
                        In any case, it will be too expensive to weigh down the turret with radar and missiles with armor to protect it from fragments and bullets.
                      7. 0
                        12 November 2025 23: 55
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Not immediately, but the SAM will replace the SAM-3. No one is saying that the SAM-3 should be abandoned immediately; its production will be phased out gradually.
                        It's just that guns don't have any significant advantages that would require allocating space and specially designing a mount to withstand the recoil of machine guns.

                        The guns on the Pantsir are designed to reduce the immediate range of the kill zone. With the guns, it's 200 meters. Removing the guns increases the immediate range of the kill zone. Why is this?
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        The Pantsir TBM is a launcher that not only carries missiles, but can also fire them using external targeting, even without the aid of another full-fledged Pantsir. So it's an air defense missile system. It's not called a transport-combat vehicle for nothing, as opposed to a TZM (transport-loading vehicle).

                        Maybe, of course... But no one needs it...
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        so it's a SAM,

                        No, the term SAM has a definition, and Pantsir-SM TBM, according to this definition, is not an SAM.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        They will abandon guns because guns have not proven very effective against drones,

                        They performed quite well at the required ranges.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        It's easier because for the distance at which you need to engage the enemy with cannons, it needs to be an armored tracked vehicle, like the BMP-3, although it could even be the BTR-80, but not a huge barn without armor weighing up to 30 tons

                        Hmmm. Looks like a clone of AlexanderA (Alexander), the same misunderstanding... The guns on the Pantsir are for reducing the near-miss zone. That's all! The guns themselves are completely unnecessary.
                      8. 0
                        13 November 2025 01: 58
                        Near field reduction, near field reduction, it's jammed
                        Who should I shoot at at 200m???
                        Missile armament (BP TKB-1055)
                        Guidance: Radio Command
                        Range to target: 500 m - 7 km
                        Target Altitude: 15 m - 5 km
                        It's better to use a missile that doesn't have projectile dispersion
                        If the armored vehicle is also located on a hill, which is desirable, then the dead zone of the guns will be even larger due to the height of the complex relative to the terrain
                        If you fire at infantry or vehicles with cannons, the armored vehicle is likely already a corpse, because such a shed is hard to miss and its crew will quickly flee to avoid being burned along with the complex.

                        The Pantsirs in the battery and at the command post do just that, target designation from one radar and all the other Pantsirs work purely as launchers
                        The Pantsir TBM is a way to increase the battery's salvo and at the same time save on expensive electronics, considering that Pantsirs don't use their radars anyway when operating in batteries.

                        Yeah, then you'll tell me how any other transport-loading vehicle is capable of firing the ammunition it carries for other combat vehicles.
                        It's your problem with definitions if the TBM is capable of shooting down air targets using external target designation.

                        Have the guns with a claimed range of 4 km proven themselves to be effective anywhere?
                        Why then invent special anti-drone missiles if guns are a cheaper way to hit simpler targets?
                        where is the logic???

                        you're a clone yourself
                        A machine with cannons is needed like a Shilka, to protect both troops on the front lines, where a regular Pantsir would be simply burned by a regular artillery strike, and to guard and protect the Pantsir air defense missile systems themselves.
                        You'd have to be a really stupid commander to put the Pantsir in a situation where the system would have to fire on the enemy with cannons. The Pantsir's very, very, very expensive electronics aren't worth the risk. Russian industry isn't capable of churning out thousands of Pantsirs so they could be destroyed so easily.
                        But an armored gun-mounted ZSU with simpler electronics is just what can be used for firing guns at a range of 4 km.
                      9. 0
                        18 November 2025 22: 04
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Missile armament (BP TKB-1055)
                        Guidance: radio command
                        Range to target: 500 m - 7 km

                        For Pantsir, 500 m is the "minimum of minimums".
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        if the shell is also on a hill, which is desirable,...

                        What? The shell - on the hill?!
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        If you fire at infantry or vehicles with cannons, the armored vehicle is likely already a corpse, because such a shed is hard to miss and its crew will quickly flee to avoid being burned along with the complex.

                        But the reality is completely different.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        The Pantsir TBM is a way to increase the battery's salvo and at the same time save on expensive electronics, considering that Pantsirs don't use their radars anyway when operating in batteries.

                        The Pantsir-SM TBM is not mass-produced; no one needs it.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        a vehicle with cannons, needed like a Shilka, to protect troops on the front lines, where a regular armored vehicle would be simply burned by a regular artillery strike,

                        And the vehicle with the cannons on the front line will be burned by an artillery barrage. There are no vehicles on the front line.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        and for the protection and defense of the Pantsir air defense missile systems themselves

                        It's completely unnecessary, the Shell itself guards and protects each other.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        You'd have to be a really stupid commander to put the Pantsir in a situation where the system would have to fire on the enemy with cannons. The Pantsir's very, very, very expensive electronics aren't worth the risk. Russian industry isn't capable of churning out thousands of Pantsirs so they could be destroyed so easily.

                        You're not from Russia? What a torrent of talk about the Pantsir, considering that the Pantsir's guns are capable of engaging various air and ground targets.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        But an armored gun-mounted ZSU with simpler electronics is just what can be used for firing guns at a range of 4 km.

                        Pure cannons are a makeshift solution when there are no missiles. Cannons perform poorly against targets with specific parameters. The higher the target's parameter, the worse the cannons perform.
                      10. 0
                        20 November 2025 00: 05
                        the enemy should not be allowed to come within at least 5 kilometers of the shell
                        so that there wouldn't even be a chance to hit the shell, because it's a very expensive thing to risk it like that, but apparently many people don't get it

                        It is logical to place the radar on a hill so that the terrain does not create obstacles

                        is the reality that the shell is being destroyed?

                        The Pantsir TBM is not being produced, nor is the Arctic version, because there aren't enough regular Pantsirs with radars to plug all the holes in the air defense system. The wider the front, the more targets need to be covered, the more radars are needed.

                        A vehicle with cannons won't have tubes with missiles that could catch fire and explode from shrapnel and bullets, there won't be huge vulnerable radars, and basically a simpler electronic system.
                        and at the same time the vehicle is well protected by armor, which the armored vehicle simply does not have
                        The shell can be destroyed with a machine gun or assault rifle, but you'll need a lot of bullets

                        What are they protecting each other from there???
                        A Pantsir can be burned from five kilometers with an ATGM, killed from a kilometer with a heavy machine gun or a sniper rifle, an BMP with a cannon will easily knock it out from two kilometers, maybe even three or four, the Pantsir has no armor protection anyway.

                        I don't care about the Pantsir's guns, the system is being developed with more powerful radars and missiles, and they will continue to improve the radars and missiles.
                        The guns are ballast, which prevents the installation from being made more compact and lighter and from installing more missiles.
                        No one in their right mind would attach guns to a Tor SAM system, even though it has a short range. They're all focused on missiles and radars.
                        The guns are a heavy legacy of the Tunguska, which were bolted to the armor just to be

                        So if the guns aren't working well, then we need to concentrate on using missiles, and use purely gun-equipped armored vehicles to protect the shells and accompany tanks and other equipment.
                        The same gun vehicles can be given small-sized TKB-1055, which, in conjunction with a radar, will be sufficient for a maximum range of 10 km
                        The Pantsir will function as a long-range air defense system, which is what it is doing now.
                      11. 0
                        24 November 2025 00: 39
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        It is logical to place the radar on a hill so that the terrain does not create obstacles

                        You weren't talking about the radar above, as here, but about the Pantsir. Which is completely different.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        A vehicle with cannons won't have tubes with missiles that could catch fire and explode from shrapnel and bullets, there won't be huge vulnerable radars, and basically a simpler electronic system.
                        and at the same time the car is well protected by armor,

                        But this machine with guns is completely unnecessary. That's why they don't make them. The Pantsir's guns are only there to reduce the immediate area of ​​effect. Everything else is a byproduct of having those guns.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        The guns are a heavy legacy of the Tunguska, which were bolted to the armor just to be

                        This is a technically illiterate text.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        So if the guns aren't working well, then we need to concentrate on using missiles, and use purely gun-equipped armored vehicles to protect the shells and accompany tanks and other equipment.
                        The same gun vehicles can be given small-sized TKB-1055, which, in conjunction with a radar, will be sufficient for a maximum range of 10 km
                        The Pantsir will function as a long-range air defense system, which is what it is doing now.

                        This is sheer ignorance. The Pantsir is a short-range air defense missile system, not a long-range air defense system. There's no way the Pantsir can be a long-range air defense system.
                      12. 0
                        26 November 2025 02: 03
                        The Pantsir does not use radar as its primary means of detection and guidance, which is unthinkable.
                        By the way, the photo shows a fragment of the Atakams, and in the background is a huge mound on which the armored carbine is located. Wow, it turns out that radars and air defense missile systems with radars need to be installed on high ground, who would have thought?

                        I need a car, but there's no money for it, as usual, just like there is for modifications to the armor.
                        I repeat once again for those who are especially attentive, in principle, nothing should be allowed to approach the shell from two kilometers or closer
                        If the armored vehicle had to use cannons, then it was someone's miscalculation, someone's mistake, and whoever is responsible for protecting these installations must answer for it.
                        A huge unarmored shed with very very very expensive equipment should not be at risk of being destroyed because of someone's desire to play Shilka.
                        As a last resort, there is TKB-1055, period.

                        It's not my problem if people don't understand one simple truth: they don't suddenly install guns on every air defense system to reduce some kind of near-field destruction zone; that's the job of the units that guard those air defense systems.

                        The Pantsir with its missiles has a range of 20 km, so in principle it could be used for short-range air defense
                        But what to do with short-range air defense, which is up to 15 km, in fact 10-12 km, where the Shilkas, Tunguskas, Osas-AKMs, Sosna SAMs, Tor SAMs, and all the MANPADS are listed, and there are somehow not enough guns here at all, despite the air defense being as close as possible
                        and then there's the armor, which has an order of magnitude longer range than all of the above, and with guns...
                      13. 0
                        26 November 2025 23: 06
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        And in the background there's a huge mound of earth on which the armored car is located. Wow, it turns out that radars and air defense missile systems with radars need to be installed on high ground. Who would have thought that?

                        The hill is not huge, considering the depression of the Pantsir guns is -9 degrees.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        I need a car, but there's no money for it, as usual, just like there is for modifications to the armor.

                        SM-TZM? Nobody needs it. Neither Russia nor foreign customers.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        I repeat once again for those who are especially attentive, in principle, nothing should be allowed to approach the shell from two kilometers or closer
                        If the armored vehicle had to use cannons, then it was someone's miscalculation, someone's mistake, and whoever is responsible for protecting these installations must answer for it.
                        a huge unarmored shed with very very very expensive equipment should not be at risk of being destroyed,

                        But in reality, if there were no guns on the Pantsir, then it would be the end not only of the Pantsir, but also of a certain unit.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        It's not my problem if people don't understand one simple truth: they don't suddenly install guns on every air defense system to reduce some kind of near-field destruction zone; that's the job of the units that guard those air defense systems.

                        It is your problem that you do not know the technical details regarding the boundaries of the Pantsir's kill zone for different target speeds and altitudes.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        The Pantsir with its missiles has a range of 20 km, so in principle it could be used for short-range air defense
                        but what to do with short-range air defense, which is up to 15 km, in fact 10-12 km,

                        Pantsir is a short-range air defense system with a range of 10-12 km, and 6-8 km for cruise missiles and anti-aircraft missiles.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        and then there's the armor, which has an order of magnitude longer range than all of the above, and with guns...

                        Here is Pantsir at 10-12 km, just like Thor.
                      14. 0
                        30 November 2025 00: 15
                        Considering the size of the armored shed, the hill is clearly somewhere around 15-20m high, they clearly got carried away with preparing a combat position
                        The operating sector for the UES is from -5° to +82° vertically
                        It's doubtful that the guns will be lowered to -9, because why the hell???
                        The dead zone for guns is still as huge as the hill itself.

                        The Pantsir SM TBM isn't just a missile carrier; it has a rotating platform with launchers and a guidance radar that looks exactly like the one on the Pantsir SA.

                        But in reality, if the Pantsir was unable to hit the target with missiles, then the guns, whose effectiveness is significantly worse than that of missiles, will not save the Pantsir either
                        Former commander of the anti-aircraft missile forces, Lieutenant General Alexander Gorkov, explained to Vzglyad newspaper the conditions under which the Israelis could have destroyed the Pantsir. "These systems are usually destroyed when the ammunition is being reloaded."

                        "That is, they've completed their training, are preparing to replenish their ammunition, and they have no weapons on board. The Pantsir's ammunition complement is 12 missiles. Consider that two missiles are fired per target, six shots have been fired, and the seventh or eighth target won't be able to be hit by the combat vehicle alone; it needs to be reloaded. This can take 10 to 20 minutes," Gorkov explained.

                        According to him, at this moment the complex requires cover from other air defense units.

                        How is it possible that the Syrian army is unable to fight back with cannons?
                        It can't be, does the Pantsir really need the cover of other air defense installations while reloading? The guns on the Pantsir itself are useless while reloading. Who would have thought?

                        Well, in terms of hardware, there are two types of missiles, the main one and the one for close range. It's just that the TKB-1055 only appeared recently, while the cannons have been there since the very beginning and should be phased out soon.

                        Up to 10-12 km is short-range air defense, and Pantsir is short-range air defense, and the Pantsir-SM modification claims a target range of 40 km.
                        So why the hell does a system that works up to 20 km, or up to 40 km, need guns???
                        Why not attach cannons to the S-300 and S-400, just to reduce the close range of something or other, in case it comes in handy?
                        At the same time, the closest-range air defense systems, the OSA-AKM, Tor, and Sosna guns, are stubbornly avoided, although it would seem that they need guns much more than the short-range air defense of the Pantsir

                        The Pantsir now works up to 20 km and up to 40 km, but the Tor can't work at such a distance.
                      15. 0
                        Yesterday, 22: 25
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        The operating sector for the UES is from -5° to +82° vertically

                        From -10° to +82° vertically.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Considering the size of the armored shed, the hill is clearly somewhere around 15-20m high, they clearly got carried away with preparing a combat position
                        ...
                        The dead zone for guns is still as huge as the hill itself.

                        Remember your trigonometry. At 200 m and -9°, a 20 m hill doesn't change anything.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        How is it possible that the Syrian army is unable to fight back with cannons?

                        What is it?
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        Well, in terms of hardware, there are two types of missiles,

                        Three types of missiles. You have a problem with your hardware.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        up to 10-12 km is short-range air defense,

                        This is a short-range air defense system. The Strela-10 is a short-range air defense system.
                        Quote: bushmaster
                        The Pantsir-CM modification claims a target range of 40 km.

                        Pantsir, any, with air defense capabilities – 10-12 km. Tor – similar. Although they can hit some targets at greater ranges.
        2. 0
          20 October 2025 23: 29
          Quote: garri-lin
          They should complement each other.

          The Pantsir doesn't need a ZSU add-on. Instead of the Derivation, we need Pantsirs.
          1. 0
            21 October 2025 07: 24
            Price. The most important parameter is price.
            1. 0
              27 October 2025 01: 29
              Quote: garri-lin
              Price. The most important parameter is price.

              If price is the most important parameter, then you need poles, they are cheaper.
              1. 0
                27 October 2025 10: 27
                With that attitude, you should be in the General Staff. Or the Ministry of Finance.
                Although no. There are already plenty of them.
  23. kig
    +4
    14 October 2025 12: 55
    The enemy is carrying out air strikes deep into Russia with absolute cold blood and cruelty.
    I'm surprised by you. It sounds like "Why us?" You said it yourself, the war is on, and shells are flying in both directions. Why is it still going on, why "oh, we were deceived," why... There are so many whys. I hope someday they can be addressed to a specific address.
  24. +6
    14 October 2025 13: 11
    Unfortunately, the situation in Russia and the Ukrainian Reich is strikingly different. Whereas de facto sabotage by a Russian official is met with a shrug, as if to say, "Well, what can you do, he's so slow?" in the Ukrainian Reich, the Ukrainian Gestapo, or rather the SBU, comes to see such a "slow-witted" person. And then, in the basement, next to a bloody corpse, the officials ingratiatingly ask why he harmed the Ukrainian Reich and how much he sold out to Russia for. Therefore, the official there has no intention of doing anything wrong when it comes to the Ukrainian Wehrmacht; there are no suicides. It seems there are no-go zones where stealing is allowed, but slowing down and sabotaging is mortally dangerous. In Russia, however, impunity and irresponsibility flourish. After all, every official is a creature of a high-ranking person, and if you touch the official, then this person will come to the Kremlin and start asking with partiality, like, why are you disturbing this “stability” by touching my protégés?
    Of course, in the fourth year of the war, the Kremlin began to realize that something was wrong. But they were afraid to touch the sacred cow of "stability."
    This is precisely why the Ukrainian Wehrmacht is carrying out terror not even with cruise missiles, but with low-speed UAVs.
    And, by the way, NATO is watching this closely and drawing conclusions.
    And, by the way, it would be a good idea to take Taburetkin by the nose and ask him some pointed questions: why did he so zealously try to eliminate the equipment and weapons storage bases housing those same ZSU-23-4s and S-60 57mm anti-aircraft guns? After all, today, mobile groups from a ZSU-23-4 platoon could have been a lifesaver in repelling UAV strikes on the oil refinery. Or the S-60 regiments deployed around the oil refinery, for which the slow-moving UAVs would have been easy targets.
    And finally, it's a shame that the apologists for a "compact contract army"—who bitterly denounced the "despicable Soviet Union" and proclaimed that Russia's meager number of air defense units would be more than sufficient for its entire territory—can't be brought into the public arena. After all, these apologists fervently asserted that only the notorious "international terrorism" was a threat, and forbade even a hint of a possible clash with "respected Western partners."
    1. +1
      14 October 2025 21: 04
      I once wrote about air defense destruction, and they started shooting me down...
    2. 0
      15 October 2025 01: 34
      Defending the oil refinery with anti-aircraft artillery is somehow unsafe; an anti-aircraft shell that misses its target will fly towards the city and fall on someone's head.
      It's better to shoot down blah blah blah with blah blah
  25. +1
    14 October 2025 16: 04
    The esteemed author mentioned our ZSUs, of which, as I understand, we have quite a few stored at bases. Like the author, I'm surprised because there's no information about the presence or availability of these generally inexpensive systems in the air defense zone. Their firing range and firepower are sufficient to destroy any drone. Perhaps we should really consider creating mobile groups consisting of several Shilka ZSUs, deployed in drone-prone areas. And leave new systems of this kind for our Western partners...
  26. -1
    14 October 2025 16: 16
    Naturally, we don't know the actual number of targets shot down by Gepards, and we probably never will, but the fact remains: they have firmly established their place in Ukraine's air defense system and are operating reliably and quite effectively.

    That was in the past, before our "geraniums" swooped low. As soon as they raised their altitude to five kilometers, the squeals of praise directed at the "cheetahs" began to fade.
    Again, our Tunguskas are no worse, and in many ways better, both in the range of detection and tracking of targets, and their destruction due to the presence of missiles with a longer range than artillery barrels.
    1. +2
      14 October 2025 17: 37
      Quote: K-50
      Again, our "Tunguskas" are no worse, and in many ways better.

      I agree. But where are they?
      1. +2
        14 October 2025 21: 03
        Where did the Tunguskas go is a big question, because there were quite a few of them?
  27. +5
    14 October 2025 17: 02
    Good questions raised. The most interesting of them is "when?": on practically any topic. My answer is: not until the government in Russia changes, the same one that has been unchanged for 25 years now—no, 26 years under the same ruler, and 30 years if you include his predecessor and patron. Nothing in Russia will change for the better—under the same ruler who has ruled Russia for over a quarter of a century. What change for the better? in Russia What do you expect from him when he sends monthly? to Israel a pension of 450,000 rubles to the State Counselor of the Russian Federation, 1st class (equal in benefits and pay to the rank of Army General - see the current rank of the Ministry of Defense Andrei Belousov) and order bearer A. Chubais (Sagal - in Israeli)
    Chubais receives 450 rubles from Russia every month. Where's the retribution for all this?
    https://tsargrad.tv/dzen/kazhdyj-mesjac-chubajs-poluchaet-iz-rossii-450-tysjach-a-gde-zhe-vozmezdie-za-vsjo_1394356

    Or the same quarter-century of funding from the eternally impoverished Russian budget ("There's no money, but hang in there") of two Yeltsin centers - in Moscow and Yekaterinburg - constantly preaching a clearly hostile ideology. Or the liquidation over the same quarter-century by this same ruler of Russia of about 35 military schools and military institutes, including the unique all-Russian training and testing ground near Moscow, opened back in the tsarist era - the "Vystrel" Artillery Courses - destroyed by decision of the current ruler of Russia in 2009, despite the protests of the officer and veteran community - see materials on the Internet. ... And why wouldn't we have This year, statistical data on Russia's population decline has been classified again. ? Why isn't it that, while the people are becoming impoverished, 1) the banks are getting richer, 2) the parasitic oligarchs who have appropriated the proceeds from the public purse are getting richer? The answer is simple, and has been given by all the world's leading economists. Because: 1) the unpunished head of the Central Bank of Russia, E. Nabiullina, consistently maintains the cost of borrowed capital at a rate three times more lethal for any industrial production - above 20%. By killing production, reducing the output of goods, she drives up inflation - despite her lies! 2) Because the ruler of Russia simultaneously consistently protects the parasitic incomes of the richest owners - a 22% tax rate on excess profits, as in Russia, is not used in any successful country , not in Europe, not in the US, not in China, nowhere where countries live and don't perish, like Russia under its current ruler. And as long as this is the case, it will continue to be so. Until the very end of Russia. Otherwise, at all these pompous gatherings in glittering UNTIL In the gold-and-malachite-columned chambers, they like to remind us that "Russia is the successor of Byzantium." In the very near future, Russia, perishing for the same reason that Byzantium perished—see above—will bid adieu, providing the "decomposing West" with a few more centuries of tolerable existence. As for the glittering "Kremlin chambers," in the coming weeks, our "common favorite," the "good peacemaker," Uncle Donald, will give the order, as he did with Iran a couple of months ago, and the Tomahawks flying toward Moscow will raze these golden "Byzantine-Moscow choirs" to the ground.
    [media = https: //vk.com/video10903462_456239384]
    1. -1
      15 October 2025 00: 00
      Quote: SergM
      You've raised some good questions. The most interesting of them is "when?"—on practically any topic. My answer is: not until Russia changes power, the same one that has been unchanged for 25 years now, not 26 years under the same ruler, and 30 years including his predecessor and patron.

      What does this have to do with the ZSU Gepard?
  28. +2
    14 October 2025 17: 03
    It's hard to disagree with the author. Launching hundreds of different types of missiles daily for 3,8 years without end, the desert should have long since disappeared, but... but... but... At least they could stop blaring that "all targets have been hit."
  29. -8
    14 October 2025 17: 19
    Well, that's what I expected on the "Military Review" website. 2025, full-blown war, and here we have a direct advertisement for enemy weapons. They were all over the place before the war, quieted down at the beginning of the conflict, and now they're crawling out again. It's hard to imagine German Tigers advertising WWII here. Scary.
    Nothing will work out for you. Victory will be ours.
    1. +2
      14 October 2025 19: 45
      Yeah, right... It's scary to think that victory will go to people like that. Stupid and illiterate. You, poor thing, should go and brush up on your Russian first so you can be understood, and then start howling here. Or just run off and start writing complaints, our Pavlik Morozov. Have you forgotten how to address someone? Reading this illiterate drivel is so sickening it makes my teeth ache.
  30. +2
    14 October 2025 17: 26
    It is clear that the Germans know how to make high-tech hardware.
    It's a shame that we still haven't been able to come up with proper programmable projectiles.
    Can anyone tell me how things are going with the vaunted Coalition SV, with the shells for it, and how many have already been released and are they currently beating the enemy at the front?
    Yes, it is possible to lift Geranium higher than 4 km into the air, as an option.
    But other balas fly much lower, like the Lancet and drones on the wholesale market.

    In our case, the Ukrainians are fighting off UAVs with small arms.
    And this is a shame. If only Ukrainians if we had our Geraniums3, they would have shot down even less.
    It's good that Ukraine is making a ball out of sh... and sticks.
    1. -1
      14 October 2025 23: 58
      Quote: shuragr
      It's a shame that we still haven't been able to come up with proper programmable projectiles.
      Can anyone tell me how things are going with the vaunted Coalition SV, with the shells for it, and how many have already been released and are they currently beating the enemy at the front?

      Why bother? There's the Pantsir and its "nails." Or do you want to reduce production of Pantsirs and "nails"?
  31. +3
    14 October 2025 19: 03
    The situation described in the article simply shows that we have no tactics for deploying geraniums. The first geraniums should knock out air defense systems, and only then should the next ones hit the target objects.
    .
    I would write how, but also Ukrainians I don't want to teach, and our people aren't idiots. It might take a year, but they'll figure it out.
    .
    We have all the technical means to implement this tactic in our country.
  32. +1
    14 October 2025 20: 28
    The price of one AHEAD reaches up to 1,200 euros per shot.
    I thought it was 10 times more expensive...
    We need to make adjustable Gerani missiles (controlled via a Ukrainian SIM card or a SIM card in roaming) to destroy similar enemy air defense systems.
  33. 0
    14 October 2025 20: 41
    Quote: Andrey62
    Khrushchev screwed it up, but what does that have to do with his son? ....


    There was a comment on the Yenisei story that Khrushchev's father made the decision, following his son's advice, not to release the Yenisei.
  34. +3
    14 October 2025 21: 00
    The barrels are stabilized by an additional casing, an obvious solution; the Pantsir has two bare barrels, which is kind of sad.
  35. +1
    14 October 2025 22: 50
    The system is undoubtedly effective against low-flying targets. But the Geraniums have started flying higher, plus the ZPK consumption of 3-4 unitary fuel... ridiculous. There, 20-30 is the best case scenario: head-on collision, minimum altitude, etc.
    Yes, the system is harmful and effective, but it won't solve all the problems.
  36. +1
    14 October 2025 23: 10
    These include not only high-explosive fragmentation, incendiary and tracer rounds priced at 300–550 euros each, but also the most effective and expensive AHEAD...
    The price of one AHEAD reaches up to 1,200 euros per shot.

    Let's remember the prices and look here:

    https://topwar.ru/252465-vysokaja-tochnost-porazhenija-celej-polsha-predstavila-zenitnuju-ustanovku-sa-35mm-dlja-borby-s-dronami.html

    Using the data from this link (or you can find and use the original), we find that for the same probability of hitting a target, approximately 2.61065 times more HE rounds are needed than AHEAD. Then, using the efficiency criterion as the ratio of effect (result) to cost, we obtain:
    - if the price of an HE shot is 500 euros, then the use of HE is approximately 1.08777 times more effective than the use of AHEAD;
    - if the price of an HE shot is 300 euros, then the HE is more effective than AHEAD by approximately 1.5322.
    That is, using HE rounds is more efficient than using AHEAD rounds at these prices. It would also be useful to know the ratio of HE and AHEAD round production rates.
    1. -1
      15 October 2025 00: 10
      Quote: Comet_1
      then, according to the efficiency criterion in the form of the ratio of the effect (result) to costs, we obtain:
      - if the price of an HE shot is 500 euros, then the use of HE is approximately 1.08777 times more effective than the use of AHEAD;
      - if the price of an HE shot is 300 euros, then the HE is more effective than AHEAD by approximately 1.5322.
      That is, using HE rounds is more efficient than using AHEAD rounds at these prices. It would also be useful to know the ratio of HE and AHEAD round production rates.

      Damn, I wrote it backwards in point 1 last night...
      1. If the price of a HE shot is 500 euros, then the use of AHEAD is approximately 1.08777 times more effective than the use of HE;
      Quote: Comet_1
      That is, the use of HE shots is more effective than the use of AHEAD shots at such prices for the corresponding shots.

      Only if the OF price is not higher than 459.66 euros.
  37. -1
    14 October 2025 23: 55

    Gepard ZSU radar and weapon operating zones (perspective view)

    Where did this picture come from? It doesn't correspond to reality.
    1. The upper limit of the Cheetah's kill zone is 3.5 km. For example, here:
    https://knds.com/en/products/systems/gepard
    2. The maximum target parameter cannot be greater than the upper limit of the affected area, it is definitely less.
    3. The maximum elevation angle of the guns is 85 degrees.
    4. The detection zone of the SOC by elevation angle cannot be 90 degrees.

    The probability of hitting a target at a range of 1 km and 4 km will differ significantly.
  38. +2
    15 October 2025 03: 06
    Where are the legendary Soviet "Shilka" and "Tunguska"
    ?
    Let me put it more simply: where are our equivalents (in any caliber) of the AHEAD projectiles—programmable air-bursting projectiles? Why aren't they here yet?
    1. -3
      15 October 2025 23: 09
      Quote: PavelT
      Let me put it more simply: where are our equivalents (in any caliber) of the AHEAD projectiles—programmable air-bursting projectiles? Why aren't they here yet?

      But for the Shell they are not so necessary, so they are in no hurry.
  39. +2
    15 October 2025 22: 57
    This is a good article. We need more information like this about all types of equipment.
  40. -2
    17 October 2025 00: 16
    Quote: MCmaximus
    Our factories can't make mechanics.

    What kind of factories can't make mechanics?
  41. +1
    18 October 2025 22: 15
    EXCEPTIONALLY EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY. REAL GERMAN QUALITY. TIGER among ZSU.
  42. 0
    3 November 2025 11: 19
    In Germany, you really don't need to know about this.