Talk:ZSU-57-2

Untitled
This article seems to contain a history of many SPAAGs, not just the subject one. The article should either be renamed or a lot of the content moved. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be moved at a later date. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that quite significant place was given to the previous development of Soviet SPAAGs (nevertheless, this is quite important - to understand the whole picture as ZSU-57-2 represented the first Soviet massproduced SPAAG on track chassis). I will shorten the corresponding info about development of Soviet SPAAGs soon. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with DJ C and Vladimir here; if an article is needed on Red Army SPGs or on AAA vehicles, let's create it. Putting that general content in this article is a mistake. The same error is being committed on the SU-122 page. The content is valuable but not in the individual vehicle articles. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos
How many lousy photos do we need in this article? The lead photo, which is excellent by the way, is of a Polish vehicle. Therefore it is difficult to see what two other, much poorer photos of Polish vehicles adds to this article, which, after all, is about a Soviet-designed piece of equipment. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DMorpheus that there is no need in many photos of Polish (and other foreign) ZSU-57-2 as it was Soviet-manufactured vehicle. For each foreign operator 1-2 photos is absolutely enough. Perhaps, it will be useful to add 1-2 native (Soviet) photos of ZSU-57-2 but I don't know exactly how to get the permission for this, and I also don't have enought time for such kind of communications with site owners. By the way, the native sources almost always represent the best possible sources about the native vehicles and such sources also contain a lot of original photos (see reference list). But as for the photos we have in the article now - I think that at least left Polish photo should be preserved: black-and-white photo represents, probably, ZSU-57-2 of Warsaw Pact-period which is important from historical point of view as use of ZSU-57-2 that time. The modern colour photo represents the preserved vehicle which is interesting but the whole photo is too large and the vehicle on it is too small; also we already have the photo of preserved Polish ZSU-57-2 here (lead photo). Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright?
From the article: "The driver is seated on the left hand side of the front of the hull and has a single-piece hatch cover that opens to the left. In front of it there are two periscopes, one which can be replaced by the TVN-1 infrared periscope which is used in conjunction with the infrared headlamp mounted on the right side of the glacis plate.[8][7]"

From the source (http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/armored_vehicles/zsu-57-2 ): "The driver is seated at the front of the hull on the left and has a single-piece hatch cover that opens to the left, in front of which are two periscopes, one replaceable by an infrared periscope which is used in conjunction with the infrared headlamp mounted on the right side of the glacis plate. "

DMorpheus (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There we go, rewritten. Phew. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Most serious" flaws?
What do the sources say was the most serious flaw of this vehicle - lack of fire control radar, lack of overhead cover, poor firepower, or something else entirely? Whatever it is should be sourced and should be written in such a way as to reflect the meaning. Right now we have an edit comment saying it was the lack o radar but nothing in the article to support that. I would think we'd list the radar issue first in the flaws section if that is indeed considered the worst aspect of the system. Thanks, DMorpheus (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Russian literature sources describe the flaws of ZSU-57-2 one by one without differentiation which was the most serious, but all sources mention that ZSU-57-2 was replaced with much more successful ZSU-23-4 after the development of new radar-guided SPAAGs was finished in USSR. Soviet design bureau's documents clearly indicate that engineers considered the lack of radar as the most serious disadvantage of powerful ZSU-57-2 when its series production was not started yet. Poor firepower wasn't the flaw of ZSU-57-2 as it was the most powerful SPAAG of that time (single hit of 57-mm HE-Frag projectile could destroy a jet fighter and heavily damage a strategical bomber even) - the problew was relatively low rate of fire of 57-mm twin autocannon with manual loading for AA defense against enemy jet attack aircraft. I would think that we should accent more attention on the fact that the development of Soviet radar-guided SPAAGs started almost the same time when ZSU-57-2 entered service, and the development of necessary radar stations for ZSU-57-2 batteries were not finished because new radar-guided SPAAGs should enter service soon. ZSU-57-2 without a radar was a some kind of stopgap measure in the end of 1950s because of the long-time development and improvements of 57-mm autocannons. In the end of 1940s when its development started it would be the very successful vehicle, in the end of 1950s - it became obsolete already and that is why the vehicle was produced during 3 years only and was completelly replaced in the Soviet Army by ZSU-23-4 in several years. As for the "order of the flaws" - as we should mention its predecessor (ZSU-37) with the open turret, it seems to be that it will be better to list the lack of overhead cover of the turret as the first one. What is your opinion?

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My thinking is that in the interest of clear writing, we should list the most serious flaw first, then the next most serious, and so forth. So if the lack of radar is the #1 flaw, I would guess ther open-topped turret is #2, because most Soviet AFVs of the 1960s were replacing open tops with fully-enclosed layouts (e.g., BTR-60, BTR-50, BRDM series.....) . Agreed? DMorpheus (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I will think tomorrow how to write the flaws sub-section in the most clear way. Yes, open-topped turret was a significant flaw for 1960s because of possibility of nuclear war during that "cold war" time - ZSU-57-2 SPAAGs were intended for AA defense of tank and motor rifle units but they couldn't perform this in NBC conditions while Soviet tanks, IFVs and modernized APCs (as you've mentioned absolutely correct) had NBC protection systems and could operate in NBC conditions. I suggest the following order (this corresponds with the literature sources also): #1 - absence of radar (not effective fire control system for the end of 1950s); #2 - not so high rate of fire as needed for AA defense against high-speed aircraft at low altitudes, manual loading, impossibility to fire on the move; #3 - open-topped turret (this is very important flaw in the case of nuclear war but that was never happened). Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph needs re-write
I suggest the following paragraph needs a re-write. I attempted one yesterday but it has been reverted. Frankly I don't think it makes a lot of sense as written but maybe someone else can improve it.

"The final design of the ZSU-57-2 (Ob'yekt 500), based on a modified T-54 medium tank chassis, was finished in autumn 1948. Prototypes of the ZSU-57-2 were tested and improved between 1950 and 1953. The first two prototypes were built in 1950. After trials which took place between 27 January and 15 March 1951, six more prototypes of the ZSU-57-2 were built after some improvements were made. The state tests, in which two vehicles participated, were finished in December 1954 due to delays in the development of drives for the S-68 twin AA autocannons. The ZSU-57-2 officially entered service in the Soviet Army on 14 February, 1955."


 * Trials/testing two different things? How can we simultaneously write that testing took place between 1950 and 1953, and then only from Jan-Mar 1951? Which is it?
 * Then we say "state tests" took till Dec 54?
 * Wouldn't it make more sense to write that the prototypes were built before we say they were tested? it doesn't make a lot of sense to include this afterwards.
 * overall I think this is an unnecessary level of detail anyway.

DMorpheus (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph is very important as it describes the development of ZSU-57-2 SPAAG and we have the corresponding subsection in the article (ZSU-57-2 prototypes) even.


 * Trials and testings are synonyms here. I changed all on tests in the article. Between 1950-1953 factory and official tests took place (official tests - in Jan-Mar 1951). The following procedure of tests was in USSR - at first there were 1) factory tests, if works/design bureau engineers believed after them that their vehicle is OK, the 2) official tests took place. That was very important as state commission inspected the vehicle under all possible conditions and found disadvantages could cause the full rejection of the project and future problems with the responsible design bureaus who wasted state money. If the vehicle passed the state trials successfully it was recommended for series production, if not very successfully or some improvements were needed - the vehicle was improved and tested by factory again and again till the vehicle was considered to be rady for new official tests. The final stage - 3) service tests by army units which cas ask for some improvements also as they were interested in reliable and effective vehicle, and should use it in future.
 * Sorry, in December 54 there were not official (state) tests but service (army) tests.
 * It is necessary to give the data when two prototypes were built as well as the data of their official tests.
 * The development of ZSU-57-2 and tests of its prototypes is described in Wikiarticle shortly, without any significant level of detail. For example, there is an article (on Russian) about the development and tests of prototypes, with much more deep level of information - http://pvo.guns.ru/book/uvz/index.htm

Overall the paragraph have been modified a little bit.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's much better. Still a little oddly worded but better than it was, for sure. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed copyright vio
I removed the short section on the driver's station for two reasons. The most important is: it was a very close copyright violation/plagiarism from the 1993-94 edition of "Jane's Armour and Artillery", p. 24. Second, it seems unnecessary. We don't describe other crew positions in detail. If someone wants to rewrite descriptions of all the crew positions with non-copyvio content that is totally OK with me, I just felt that, given the recent copyvios on some of these soviet AFV articles, it had to go immediately. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...The driver's station subsection seems to be necessary. As for other crew positions - all other five crewmembers  are located in fighting compartment (turret), their positions are described in the armament subsection. I suggest to create the corresponding subsection - fighting compartment and relocate the corresponding info there. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Relocating" is fine. Copyright violation is quite another matter. If we have a section with crew positions (which is completely unnecessary in my opinion, but I do not strongly object) it must be written from scratch. There is an entire set of Soviet AFV articles (T-80, T-55, BMP, etc) at risk of copyright violation in my opinion. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for reverting a good-faith edit just now, but the text is still so close to jane' (1993-94, p. 24) that I had to revert it. Regardless of what else is cited here I fear a copyright violation. DMorpheus (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation is an important thing, as for me - I am very carefully observe this always. But in my opinion there is no copyright vio in driver's station subsection created by Supertank17 as this subsection is very basic and short, all authors are using the similar words to describe the position of driver ("to the left side in the front of the hull", for example) and location of his hatch. If you decide to write the corresponding sentence from scratch in your own words (and correct grammar!) you will receive the same :) I have changed the paragraph a little bit and added the original sentence. If you still see some problems - help with it instead of deletion but I am really surprised how it is possible to find any copyvio in the very basic description. But I completelly agree with you that T-80, T-55 and BMP-1 (especially) articles contain a huge amount of copyright violation (direct copy of the entire set of paragraphs from online English-language sources). As I prefer to use original Soviet/Russian sources in terms of technical descriptions of our native vehicles (as for the results of combat use - the info from both sides in the form of careful research articles must be used always if possible as both sides often tried, try and will try to minimize their own losses and to increase the enemy ones), I am only translating the corresponding information, trying to present it as much correct as possible in my own words, nevertheless (which is not always very easy because I am not an English native speaker).

I have created a turret subsection with the corresponding information relocated from the armament (crew positions) and equipment (tarpaulin cover) subsections. I will add some info to the turret subsection soon as I found an original army manual for ZSU-57-2 crews with the large chapter about the turret and its equipment.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph is still a copyright vio. Can you think of some reaosn why the page or section should not be so flagged? I can't. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DMorpheus, I don't see any copyright vio in the paragraph at all (see above). This is really funny (especially taking into consideration the copy of whole pages with the complicated information from online sources in some another Wikiarticles). I will be very pleased if you show us how to describe the two corresponding sentences in another way. I can't. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, the reason I consider this a copyright violation is that the wording is very close to what appears in Jane's. I don't consider that funny, I consider it a real problem that we should solve. DMorpheus (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DMorpheus, I consider the general copyright violation for Wikipedia as a very important thing/problem and I consider the particular aforementioned case (2 general sentences(!) written by own words with my addition of 3rd sentence never mentioned by Jane's) as annoying nonsense, sorry. But the "problem" will be solved soon as I am going to write the short paragraph about the driver's compartment from the army manual. Try to find any "copyvio" made by Jane's 1993-94 as the manual dated 1958. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

57 mm cannons
I suggest a new article be created devoted to the 57 mm guns mounted on this vehicle. That way this article could be shortened and simplified considerably. DMorpheus (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DMorpheus, I am agree with you in the majority of cases, of course. But here, perhaps, not. Ar first, the article about S-60 AA autocannon already exists. As for twin S-68 autocannon - the gun should be described together with ZSU-57-2 only as it was developed for that SPAAG and never existed separately (as towed gun, for example). And that short description results in the improvement of ZSU-57-2 article only, nothing more. All good sources about ZSU-57-2 I know do this, giving the description of autocannon and its rounds in the corresponding paragraph(s). The info about ZSU-57-2 and S-68 autocannon can not be presented separately. No any need to short or simplify the article, it is quite good. To say more - Wikiarticles must be more detailed but, of course, easy to read in parallel. What is the need to make the ZSU-57-2 article worser and unclear if to short the paragraph about its autocannon? By the way, I always try to base my style and Wikiarticle structure on already published articles about the subject written by professional historians or army specialists. This helps to withstand unnecessary attempts to change the presentation style by somebody. --Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice the S-60 article and I think it would make a lot of sense to move some of the technical info about the S-68 mounting there. There's no point in describing ammunition, range etc in great detail in this article if it can be done more simply in the S-60 article. This article should give a brief overview (caliber, range, general performance) and then refer the reader to the S-60 article. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to describe ammunition, range, etc. of S-68 twin autocannon in great detail in ZSU-57-2 article indeed. But there are no great details there, only quite brief descriptions which are important. Nevertheless, I will try to shorten the corresponding info (I noticed that range description is a little bit hard to read indeed) tomorrow. OK? Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Article length and focus
"Do you advise to remove the whole Wikiarticle and leave only links after the title? Sure, the reader will read, translate them, and finally found the info" I propose two things:

a) keep this article focused on the weapons system. Unless there is something extraordinary about what the system accomplished, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to describe a particular action.

b) keep the content clear and well-written. Adding a lot of extra, poorly-structured content doesn't help - it simply makes the article very difficult to read.

This is a relatively long and poorly-written article already. In improving the writng I am also attempting to shorten it where appropriate. I admit I am very close to giving up, because I feel like I am shoveling smoke. If this continues I will simply tag it for copyedit and copyvio and walk away. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

The article should be focused on ZSU-57-2: technical description of the vehicle and its use by different operators. All reliable information (shortly, of course) about its combat use must be included into the article without any doubts (another important thing - that it is quite easy to find specifications and descriptions of the vehicles but it is quite hard to find reliable information about their combat use, so the value of such Wikiarticles for readers interested in the subject can be very high). As for copyvio - in my parts I am trying to avoid this as much as possible, so, please, don't tag the text for copyvio in future without thorough explanations and proofs why do you think so.

For sure, the content of the article must be clear and well-written without a lot of unnecessary(!) extra content. Native speakers must help in language correction always. As for the relatively long article - see, for example, BMP-1 or BMP-1 variants. It was quite hard for me to "fight" with one author who (a very knowledgable guy indeed) is trying to post ALL possible info and to attach ALL possible photos of BMP-1 there, so this article (very good and detailed, but too long) will transform into BMP-pedia soon :) May be you can help there a little bit? I also feel like I am shovelling smoke as I add the short important info from the excellent articles about ZSU-57-2, waste my time to translate it correctly and type in Wikipedia, and then I see that the info is deleted. The deletion of correct and reliable info about the direct subject of the article is vandalism in my deep opinion. In such a case I will be always disagreed just because I think carefully before writing something, and if I write here - I believe the corresponding info must be mentioned. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Amount of Finish ZSU-57-2s
Recently a user going by the MoRsE has changed the number of ZSU-57-2s that Finland ordered in 1960 and which were delivered between 1960 and 1961 from 24 to 12 and submitted a source from which the said information originated. However the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's Arms Transfers Database states that Finland imported 24 vehicles. Therefore it has to be determined which source is right and which source is wrong on the subject. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid to say that SIPRI is wrong about this, and in this case I have a very reliable source, Colonel and historian Pekka Visuri's Suomen panssarikalustohankinnat 1950-1970-luvuilla ja niiden taustat (Finnish armored vehicle purchases from the 1950ies until the 1970ies and the backgrounds to these deals):


 * 12 ZSU-57-2 were bought from the Soviet Union in 1960-61. They were operational until 2006.


 * In November 1959, the Finnish Defence Commity gave a report, stating that the old Landsverk Anti II SPAAGs needed to be replaced. The HQ suggested that regular 57mm anti-aircraft guns were to be bought instead. The conflict between the defense committee and the HQ resulted in a stalemate, and instead the Finns bought T-54s for the money allocated (a purchase needed to please the Soviets as the Finns had bought British tanks in secrecy just prior).


 * In 1960, the HQ suggested that a battery of 57mm AA guns were to be bought, but now they also added alternatives, such as the ZSU-57-2 and 100mm AA gun.


 * A group of officers and experts travelled to Moscow to familiarize themselves with the alternatives and the Inspector of the Anti-Aircraft forces noted that the ZSU system was good, but that the aiming devices left much to wish for. They came to the conclusion that they needed six SPAAGs for each armored brigade, i.e. 12 wagons.


 * A deal for 12 ZSU-57-2s, 60,000 shrapnel grenades and 10,000 armor piercing grenades were signed on 14 November 1960. The value of the deal was 745.8 million FIM (14.8 M€ current value). They had an option for 40 more SPAAGs.
 * One year later, on 18 November 1961 the Finnish Defense Forces said that they had a need for 84 regular SPAAGs and 15 Command Vehicles. Funding for an additional 14 vehicles were put forward but for some reason the deal was never realized.


 * So, in 1963, the wartime strength of an armored brigade included 1-2 ZSU-57-2s, depending on whether one or two armored brigades would be fielded


 * These wagons were suffering from a lack of night vision equipment so the Finns were looking quite intensively for alternatives during the 70s and 80s (we have to remember that Finland was prohibited to have SAMs until the early 70-ies, and the first such were obtained 1978/79).
 * However, no good (or cheap enough) alternatives showed up (Finland was offered the ZSU-23-4 Shilka at three different occasions, every time with a reduced price tag, but the offer was turned down each time as the Soviet Union refused to sell the long distance radars they used to supplement its SPAAG units. Sgt York was never finished, the same with a Swedish 40mm SPAAG, Tunguska was considered too inefficient and expensive, Gepard was also too expensive). It wasn’t until the British presented the Marksman system, that price and efficiency met.
 * A partially failed modernization attempt of the ZSU-57-2 ended in 1999 when there was a general change of attitude, and all further development of equipment of Soviet origin ended. The only prototype was scrapped in 2001.


 * I think that the problem with the number is that SIPRI has mixed in the regular 57 mm AZP S-60s with the ZSUs. These were bought in a similar quantity at the same time (I would say to please the HQ). --MoRsE (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel, operator?
"Israel - Captured a number of ZSU-57-2 SPAAGs from the Egyptians or the Syrians. One was given to the Yad la-Shiryon Museum, another was given to the Batey ha-Osef museum in Tel Aviv, Israel." Did Israel actually USE the ZSU's or just capture them? I cant find a source for any Israeli usage. 83.253.32.171 (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube video
I found a great video and quite frankly, probably the only respectable video of the ZSU-57-2 firing but I have no way of knowing as to whether or not this video is/was in violation of copyright policies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RURZrtES9jU is the url. Anyone who can help with this? Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvercetti (talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the location
As usual, the user Irondome is opposed to writing that Latrun is part of the West Bank, which is a fact. So it was not a chock for me that he reverted my edit here and think I should await consensus when there already is one about West Bank's status.

I am looking forward to a discussion about this with him and others. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ZSU-57-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014005453/http://armoured.vif2.ru:80/btr152.htm to http://armoured.vif2.ru/btr152.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ZSU-57-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080615144011/http://informacia.ru:80/russia/zsu.htm to http://informacia.ru/russia/zsu.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ZSU-57-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720194538/http://yhdistykset-akaa.fi/reservilaiset/panssarihistoriaseminaari2009.pdf to http://yhdistykset-akaa.fi/reservilaiset/panssarihistoriaseminaari2009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126185233/http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=2&sec=8 to http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=2&sec=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Added Imperial System Conversions
I added conversions for the imperial system of measurement for radio range, vehicle range, gun range, and maximum speed, as it was only partially added previously. Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)