Talk:ZSU-37

Shilka vs Yenisei
I have read, I believe in Pekka Kantakoski's most excellent book Punaiset Panssarit ("Red Tanks") that when the ZSU-37-2 and ZSU-23-4 were set up in a test against each other, that the Shilka was totally superior in all fields. (I take this from memory...as usual I don't have my books with me when I would require them. ) THerefore I would be a little careful with the superlatives regarding that vehicle. --MoRsE (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ZSU-37-2 developed in the end of 1950s had nothing common with ZSU-37 of WWII period but we just mentioned ZSU-37-2 in the article to avoid possible future mistakes of readers in similar designations.

No, P. Kantakoski (whose books I consider as quite good) is very wrong here if you cite him correctly. According to the original Soviet reports about the ground tests of ZSU-23-4 Shilka and ZSU-37-2 Yenisei (these reports are also cited in some modern Russian books about AFVs) the Yenisei showed excellent specifications during some exercises of ground tests. Formally, they were not competitors as ZSU-37-2 was developed initially for AA defense of tank units at altitudes up to 3000 m while ZSU-23-4 - for AA defense of motor rifle units at altitudes up to 1500 m. The tests of both vehicles took place in parallel but according to differ programs. The 500P 37 mm autocannon developed by A. Nudelman and used in ZSU-37-2 had unique ballistics in comparison with other known 37 mm autocannons that time. The official tests demonstrated that 500P Angara twin 37 mm liquid-cooled autocannon of ZSU-37-2 was very reliable (0,03% of jammings [2] and 0.06% of small failures [4] during intensive fire, 6266 shots were performed total) and a single ZSU-37-2 was more effective than four ZSU-57-2 at altitudes more than 1000 m. On the other hand, Shilka is 1.5 and 2 times more effective than Yenisei at altitudes 500 and 200 m, correspondingly (because quad 23 mm autocannons had very high rate of fire).

The official conclusions after all ground and official tests (briefly as the document is quite long) were the following: radar Tobol of ZSU-23-4 and radar Baikal of ZSU-37-2 can not provide the efficient search targets in automatic mode and improvements are needed; ZSU-37-2 can provide the effective AA defence of tank units during all types of combats at stationary positions and on the move (up to 25 km/h off-road for effective AA fire) at an altitude up to 3000 m while ZSU-23-4 is the most effective SPAAG by the time at an altitude up to 1000 m (MiG-17 and Il-28 were used as test targets); it is proposed to use Yenisei for AA defence of anti-aircraft self-propelled missile launchers Krug and Kub as thy have dead zones where Yenisei is the most effective; the weight of Yenisei is 8.5 tonnes more than of Shilka which is unacceptable for using Yenisei by motor rifle units and airborne troops; ZSU-37-2 Yenisei is better for AA defense of tank units than ZSU-23-4 Shilka because Yenisei has excellent cross-country ability, can provide effective AA fire at altitudes up to 3000 m and direct ranges up to 4500 m and the use of Yenisei makes almost impossible enemy pinpoint bombing of tanks because of powerful HE-Frag 37 mm rounds which Shilka can not provide; as for the unification with already produced chassis and autocannons - Shilka will be better as Yenisei's autocannon is a small-series sample and chassis (experimental SU-100P SPG) is only planned to be produced by 2-3 works; the costs of both vehicles are quite comparable (300,000 rub for Shilka and 400,000 rub for Yenisei).

The State Commission recommended both vehicles to pass into army service as official tests showed no clear priority of one SPAAG over another one, ZSU-23-4 is better suitable for AA defense of motor rifle and airborne units while ZSU-37-2 - for AA defense of tank units. But according to the resolution of the Ministry Council of USSR No. 925-401 from 05 September 1962 only Shilka was recommended for serial production and all work on Yenisei was ordered to stop. 22 September 1962 both design bureaus were awarded equally (!) for the development of new radar-guided SPAAGs. The exact reasons why Yenisei was rejected despite of successful ground and state tests (and superiority over Shilka at long distances and effective defense of tank columns against enemy bombers while on the move) are still not very clear but there are assumptions that was the result of strong intrigue among competitive high-rank engineers (I read somewhere that designers of Shilka were supported by Khrushchev's son Sergey).

P.S. I have a scans of large tables (from original test reports) about comparison of a huge amount of differ specifications and fire regimes of ZSU-23-4, ZSU-37-2, ZSU-57-2, towed S-60 57mm autocannon and Osa AA missile launcher. And I completelly agree with statements that Yenisei was a very good vehicle as replacement of ZSU-57-2 for AA defense of tank units and it was better than Shilka for that role at long distances to targets while Shilka was more effective at short distances.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, as I said I am just taking this from memory, so I would need to read the book again. I could be wrong. --MoRsE (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome! P. Kantakoski could also be unaware with the original Soviet reports and conclusions about those tests and he could use sources which glorify Shilka (a very successful vehicle during its military career indeed) too much as competitor of other SPAAGs of that time. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)