Shilka and other machine-gun AA units

In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
skm
Sergeant
Posts: 12
Joined: Sep 23 2005
Location: Belarus
Contact:

Shilka and other machine-gun AA units

Post by skm »

The Shilka is a Russian AA unit, which right now in the game has a low attack value against infantry.

As far as I know (been told by a military guy), Shilka was used by the Soviet Army in the Afghanistan to escort convoys. Because of the high fire rate, it proved to be very useful against infantry ambushes, as it allowed to kill enemy infantry really quick. So, the convoys with Shilka as an escort were rarely attacked.

In the game Shilka's attack value against soft target is 4 or 8, don't remember exact number, but it is low enough to be sure that the batallion of Shilka units will not win against the batallion of infantry, and this seems to be incorrect.
CptBritish
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 896
Joined: Dec 29 2004
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire, England...

Post by CptBritish »

I agree...

I know this is a bad example but how many people who played Operation Flashpoint just rushed a shilka (ZSU) without using stealth...

They rip **** up...
Supporting Nuclear Power in the UK.

Just because the Japanese happened to build one near multiple fault lines doesn't make them any more dangerous than they were before the Earthquake.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Anyone done a controlled test of a garrison attacking a shilka? I'd be curious to see the results. Also, remember that when setting attack/defense values we go with the capabilities of a battalion of these spread over a hex, which could be 5-35km; Your comment CptBritish of the fact that in Op Flashpoint you approached Shilkas "with stealth" is something that cannot be accuratly recreated but could be assumed. AA units are all set to be "stand off" units which means they will not enter the ZOC of an enemy unit and they can't take/hold ownership of land.

I'm willing to make changes to these values but we need more info first. 4-8pts may be wrong but until we see the results we can't even guess what the right values might be.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
skm
Sergeant
Posts: 12
Joined: Sep 23 2005
Location: Belarus
Contact:

Post by skm »

Looking for additional information:

http://www.specialoperations.com/mout/chechnyaA.html

(Urban Warfare: Lessons From the Russian Experience in Chechnya - 1994-1995)

Air defense guns are valuable for suppressing ground targets. The Russians found that the ZSU-23-4 Shilka and the 2S6 Tunguska air defense guns were very usefully against multi-story buildings because their guns had sufficient elevation to hit targets in the upper stories. Air defense weapons worked so well in this ground suppression role that Russian authorities eventually recommended that urban assault formations routinely include Shilkas and Tunguskas.


http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/CHECHNYA/chechen_war.txt
Some memoirs, searching word "Shilka".

Pretty much every text (or forum thread) on Chechnya mentions using shilkas as anti-sniper tools, to "escort" the armour and protect them from RPG teams.


Can't find any numbers yet...
User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

Post by bergsjaeger »

well there are at least 2 versions of the Shilka. I know one had 14mm guns and the newer model has the 23mm guns. The newer one used HE ammo i think. If that's true then a battalion of Zeus's (as i call em) can wipe out a leg infantry or even a wheel infantry in open country. The FAS has some info on the Zeus course u might have already looked it up there.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.
User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

Post by Sebastiaan »

I fully agree that AA units with armor and high rate of fire should be more effective agains infantry both in the field and in cities
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

... still looking for in game examples...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

Post by bergsjaeger »

Alright did a test with a Zeus 23 aganist 1 garrison. Everything was the same. eff and such. Open terrain. The garrison won without any trouble. matter fact the garrison lost only 50 men. :lol: the garrison had better armor attack then the Zues had soft attack. That might have been a factor.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.
bluntobj
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Jul 22 2004

Quad and Duster

Post by bluntobj »

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned an old Vietnam war tactic used by the americans to suppress enemy infanty assaults out of the jungle.

What they used was called a "quad and duster". It was a setup of WW2 4 .50 call machineguns (the quad part), and dual 40mm AA flack cannons (the duster part), each mounted on a vehicle with the .50's loading AP and the 40mm's loading short fused flack rounds The combination was used as a perimeter defense.

Another fun quote:

The Duster:
"The two-round HEIT projectile used in Vietnam was point-detonating and designed to self-destruct at 3,500 meters."

The Quad:
"the Quad in action "could literally sick the life out of a hillside at ranges up to half a mile". "Generally speaking...Quads could not go cross-country in support of maneuver units. But in operations away from established road nets where heavy machine-gun support was needed, it was possible to slingload the Quad with the CH-47 helicopter."

In Operation:
"Soldiers of the 1/44th Artillery and their Marine counterparts in I Corps set the pattern of Quad and Duster operations. Because of an early scarcity of armored-combat vehicles, M-42s were first used as armor. Often thankful men quickly learned the value of high volumes of 40mm and .50-caliber fire, both in the field and perimeter defenses. Quads beefed up the defenses of remote fire bases, while Dusters accompanied both supply and tactical convoys along contested highways to break up ambushes. Dusters of Battery C, 1/44th Artillery, led the task force of Operations Pegasus that broke the siege of Khe Sanh in April 1968. Dusters and Quads provided critical final-protective fires throughout Vietnam during the Tet offensive and later took part in Operation Lam Son 719. Whenever fire support was needed, M-42s and M-55s could be found."
- Charles E. Kirkpatrick, in "Arsenal", Vietnam magazine


http://www.ndqsa.com/duster.html

While not the original purpose of the equipment, it was effective for perimeter defense. That's not suprising considering the combination of AP and flack rounds being used.

One could also say that the M163 Vulcan could be used in this role as well, or the ill fated sgt. york. Certainly the tactic is legit and battle tested.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Balthagor wrote:...I'm willing to make changes to these values but we need more info first. 4-8pts may be wrong but until we see the results we can't even guess what the right values might be.
I'm still looking for feedback on what the game does currently. Anyone tried to approach AA units with leg and see the results?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Post Reply

Return to “Balance”