Talk:ZSU-23-4 Shilka

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

NATO Codename Error

The NATO Codename "Awl" is assigned to a Soviet/Russian Air To Air Missile. For the time being I have removed the sentence saying that the "Awl" codename is applied to the ZSU-23-4, unless someone out there can provide proof that it is so. Wikiphyte 12:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. AA-4 AWL is the NATO reporting name for the Raduga K-9 long range missle carried by the MiG Ye-152, both of which never left the prototype stage. In my experience armor and ground vehicles never have NATO reporting names. Should have caught that one myself. Thanks and cheers. L0b0t 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate! I was beginning to doubt my fragmented memories with regards to NATO reporting names. Maybe someone should start an article on that one, if there isn't one already. Wikiphyte 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be on to something there. Awhile back one of the cable networks had a documentary about the MiG-15, and not once in the whole hour did they mention the NATO repoting name "Fagot" (I can only guess this was some kind of misguided nod to political correctness.) Cheers. L0b0t 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love PC eh! Was it the History Channel? I seem to remember watching a doco on the air war in Korea, or something related to it, and I'm sure they didn't say the word "Fagot", just the MiG-15. I'd like to know who was the person who came up with that name in NATO. He must have really hated the communists LOL:P! Wikiphyte 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I think it was History Channel. I spent some time as an air defender in the U.S. Army and every Friday we had to take a VACR (visual aircraft recognition) test: 100 silhouettes, 100 photos, and 100 tail roundels. One had to get at least 80 correct in each section or you got to spend your weekend studying and performing unpleasant work details (KP, gate guard, picking up trash). Sometimes the reporting names appear in my dreams (Fagot, Farmer, Fishbed, Flogger, Frogfoot.....) Cheers. L0b0t 14:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe ADA guy! They must have really drilled it into you fellas! What did you qual in? Chapparal, Patriot, Hawk, Vulcan? Wikiphyte 12:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was 16-R/S, M167 Vulcan cannon, Stinger missile. Arrived for the change over from the Gama Goat to the HMMWV and left during the switch from Vulcan to M1097 Avenger. During Just Cause, my squad sank a Panamanian Vosper PT-boat with our Vulcan (our gun is now at the Ft. Bliss ADA museum in El Paso, Texas.) Thanks for the kind words on my talkpage. I may well return, but for the next year or so I will be the asst. mess chief and head baker aboard whatever ship I get asssigned to. Cheers. L0b0t 14:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries buddy! So you switched from Army to Navy? Now that you have experienced both worlds which one would you think is better? I bags the navy. I don't know how it works in the US but over here Down Under it is always the Army who gets the scraps of the defence budget...until recently that is with the GWOT and our guys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh well, take care and we'll see you around! Wikiphyte 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZSU-30?

I found a few references to a vehicle called a ZSU-30. Apparently, it's an antiair track used by the Soviet Union around the 80's. Its armament is a 30mm Gatling gun, but I've seen no other stats. If someone can find the stats about that vehicle and post it somewhere on Wikipedia, it's be much appreciated. Thanks. 75.27.191.73 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ZSU-30-4 was a Sov SP ADA gun system that was to replace the ZSU-23-4. It used 30mm guns instead 23mm, but never left the drawing board. The project morphed into the Tunguska-M1 , there is a great history of the project here. Cheers. L0b0t 02:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"NATO Reporting Name"

"Gundish" is not the reporting name for this vehicle, it's the reporting name for the radar set attached to the vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.117.106 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use during Vietnam War

A North Vietnam Army Shilka opened fire against a F-8 in ~1970, during the Vietnam war. The pilot barely avoided the burst. I read it in an aviation magazine, can not remember which one and which issue in particular. But I had to mention this, because it indicates that the Shilka was used in Vietnam War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.58.145 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages and Problems

The Advantages and Problems are quite repetitive and don't really bring anything. I suggest the removal of this chapter. At least, don't include it in the Description Chapter...

Germ (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This chapter contains quite important information about advantages/problems of ZSU-23-4 described in a corresponding literature. But I am planning to modify/improve this chapter indeed (when I have time for this); perhaps, all mentioned info will be placed in corresponding paragraphs of the Description Chapter and "Advantages and Problems" sub-chapter will be removed. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]