SA-19 Grison - Revision history

imported>Administrator: 10 revisions imported

2023-06-22T15:46:42Z

10 revisions imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:46, 22 June 2023
(No difference)

imported>Administrator: 1 revision imported

2023-06-19T03:25:42Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:25, 19 June 2023
(No difference)

1d4chan>Madone52: /* In Team Yankee */

2021-06-01T05:52:43Z

In Team Yankee

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:52, 1 June 2021
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Following the trend set by all other Soviet AA platforms, the Tunguska has armour values of 1 all around, and is not well suited to situations where the enemy can shoot back. Even .50 cals on APCs stand a decent chance of penetrating it. However, fighting ground targets is only a secondary purpose.		Following the trend set by all other Soviet AA platforms, the Tunguska has armour values of 1 all around, and is not well suited to situations where the enemy can shoot back. Even .50 cals on APCs stand a decent chance of penetrating it. However, fighting ground targets is only a secondary purpose.

	The true reason to field this vehicle is to rip enemy aircraft out of the sky, and Tunguska does this very well. Its armament includes both missiles and guns, ~~with the ability to~~ fire ~~both separately, as opposed to having to choose as~~ the ~~American anti-air variant of the LAV does~~. The autocannons have a range of 24” (36” when firing at aircraft), ROF 7/5 halted and moving respectively, AT 10, and firepower of 5+. This makes it unambiguously better than the Shilka in most respects. Added to the guns, Tunguska also comes with missiles, sporting a range of 64”, ROF 2, firepower 3+, and Guided AA; this puts it in a middle ground between the Gopher and Gecko~~. As mentioned prior, the weapons are two separate profiles instead of an ‘either/or’ choice, enabling Tunguska to stack the pain on aircraft and engage ground targets with nasty results~~. (FM101 clarifies that if a team makes any AA attack in the off turn, it still cannot shoot ground forces on its own turn.)		The true reason to field this vehicle is to rip enemy aircraft out of the sky, and Tunguska does this very well. Its armament includes both missiles and guns, although both are disabled in your turn if you fire them in the enemy turn. The autocannons have a range of 24” (36” when firing at aircraft), ROF 7/5 halted and moving respectively, AT 10, and firepower of 5+. This makes it unambiguously better than the Shilka in most respects. Added to the guns, Tunguska also comes with missiles, sporting a range of 64”, ROF 2, firepower 3+, and Guided AA; this puts it in a middle ground between the Gopher and Gecko.(FM101 clarifies that if a team makes any AA attack besides machine guns in the off turn, it still cannot shoot ground forces on its own turn except with machine guns, and vice versa.)

	Points values were said to be double those of the Shilka, with unit sizes of two or four vehicles. A unit of four Tunguskas therefore neatly replaces a unit of Shilkas and a unit of Gophers in terms of point allotment, but brings noticeably superior capability in both gun and missile armament. One disadvantage to this setup is that there is only one AA unit for the enemy to kill, leaving your forces dangerously exposed should they succeed. Another is if you are firing at aircraft with a short range (e.g. Harriers): in this situation, the Tunguska can only use its cannons or missiles (tanks only being able to fire one non-MG weapon still applies in AA fire), not both at once, while the Shilka-Gopher combination can let fly with everything.		Points values were said to be double those of the Shilka, with unit sizes of two or four vehicles. A unit of four Tunguskas therefore neatly replaces a unit of Shilkas and a unit of Gophers in terms of point allotment, but brings noticeably superior capability in both gun and missile armament. One disadvantage to this setup is that there is only one AA unit for the enemy to kill, leaving your forces dangerously exposed should they succeed. Another is if you are firing at aircraft with a short range (e.g. Harriers): in this situation, the Tunguska can only use its cannons or missiles (tanks only being able to fire one non-MG weapon still applies in AA fire), not both at once, while the Shilka-Gopher combination can let fly with everything.

128.69.253.106: /* In Real Life */ Why did anyone think comparing Tunguska to a Patriot of all things is a good idea?

2021-05-20T17:28:54Z

In Real Life: Why did anyone think comparing Tunguska to a Patriot of all things is a good idea?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 20 May 2021
Line 15:		Line 15:
	{{Topquote\|Two Soviet generals are walking down the streets of Paris one day, Soviet troops marching towards the eiffel tower. One general turns to the other and asks "So, tell me, comrade, who won the Air War? \| An Army proverb}}		{{Topquote\|Two Soviet generals are walking down the streets of Paris one day, Soviet troops marching towards the eiffel tower. One general turns to the other and asks "So, tell me, comrade, who won the Air War? \| An Army proverb}}

	As the Cold War developed in the mid to late 1950s, it became clear to Soviet military planners that the Warsaw pact (Basically just the Soviet Union) couldn't build and sustain the same number ~~and quality~~ of military combat aircraft that NATO was able to produce.		The 2S6 Tunguska 2K22 (NATO code SA-19 Grison) is a Russian-made self-propelled air defence system which combines 30mm cannon and missile armament.

			As the Cold War developed in the mid to late 1950s, it became clear to Soviet military planners that the Warsaw pact (Basically just the Soviet Union) couldn't build and sustain the same number of military combat aircraft that NATO was able to produce and maintain.

	This was both a result of the Soviets having simply less capacity to produce aircraft and the logistics of supporting them, but also because the Ground Forces had a strong funding and manpower precedence over the other arms of the armed forces.		This was both a result of the Soviets having simply less capacity to produce aircraft and the logistics of supporting them, but also because the Ground Forces had a strong funding and manpower precedence over the other arms of the armed forces.
Line 23:		Line 25:
	As a result, the Soviet ground forces found themselves taking up a larger proportion of air defence duties than the airforces did in western nations, and came with more 'nuanced' ideas on the role of ground-based anti-air systems.		As a result, the Soviet ground forces found themselves taking up a larger proportion of air defence duties than the airforces did in western nations, and came with more 'nuanced' ideas on the role of ground-based anti-air systems.

	The early stages of this development lead to iconic Soviet weapons like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka in the 1960s, but by the late 1960s the Soviets knew that they would need to build a new air defence system to accompany ground units and to provide point defence for larger strategic anti-air sites.		The early stages of this development lead to iconic Soviet weapons like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka in the 1960s, but by the late 1960s the Soviets knew that they would need to build a new air defence system to accompany ground units and to provide point defence for larger strategic anti-air sites. The key point of new project was also the ability to engage enemy targets without stopping the vehicle so NATO helicopters could be shot down hopefully shortly after popping out of cover or, in the worst case scenario, shortly after ATGM reaching the target tank, avenging its' brave crew.

	Lessons from the Vietnam War also taught the Soviets that in order to be effective, their SPAAG systems also needed a form of armament that can operate even when NATO air forces were operating SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) Missions, which sees aircraft armed with 'Anti-Radiation Weapons' (Missiles designed to lock onto the radar emissions of enemy radar units and destroy them) try to locate and destroy Soviet anti-air vehicles and installations.		Lessons from the Vietnam War also taught the Soviets that in order to be effective, their SPAAG systems also needed a form of armament that can operate even when NATO air forces were operating SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) Missions, which sees aircraft armed with 'Anti-Radiation Weapons' (Missiles designed to lock onto the radar emissions of enemy radar units and destroy them) try to locate and destroy Soviet anti-air vehicles and installations.
Line 29:		Line 31:
	The result of the ensuing development is the 2K22 Tunguska, and it summarises how in several areas, despite their relative backwardness in computer technologies, the Soviets were able to produce world-class anti-air missile systems, often compensating for computational shortcomings with aerodynamic and metallurgical design as well as in doctrine.		The result of the ensuing development is the 2K22 Tunguska, and it summarises how in several areas, despite their relative backwardness in computer technologies, the Soviets were able to produce world-class anti-air missile systems, often compensating for computational shortcomings with aerodynamic and metallurgical design as well as in doctrine.

	By the mid 1980's, as the Tunguska was rolling off the production lines, the ~~next generation of Soviet Anti~~-~~Air systems were rolling out ready to face the new battlefield of modern warfare in tandem~~ with ~~new American developments such as the MIM~~-~~104 Patriot system~~. In the modern-day the Tunguska has replaced it's predecessor, the ZSU-23-4, in Russian service though compared to it's 60's era predecessor, the Tunguska was not as widely exported with only about 7 countries outside of the Russian Federation actually having any.		By the mid 1980's, the Tunguska was rolling off the production lines. However, it wasn't the ultimate threat to any and all helicopters for too long: [[AH-64_Apache_Attack_Helicopter\|AH-64]], armed with AGM-114 Hellfire, outranged Tunguska's missiles by 2 km. In the modern-day the Tunguska has replaced it's predecessor, the ZSU-23-4, in Russian service though compared to it's 60's era predecessor, the Tunguska was not as widely exported with only about 7 countries outside of the Russian Federation actually having any.

	Although reports of the system being used in actual combat are scarce if non-existant, with a couple of the few known exceptions being in Syria against Iraeli airs raids, and in the South Ossetia War, it still presents a competent threat to any aircraft or munition that decides to enter its weapons range, even if sometimes when shooting things can [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMSnNX3Gmc go awry.]		Although reports of the system being used in actual combat are scarce if non-existant, with a couple of the few known exceptions being in Syria against Iraeli airs raids, and in the South Ossetia War, it still presents a competent threat to any aircraft or munition that decides to enter its weapons range, even if sometimes when shooting things can [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMSnNX3Gmc go awry.]

	~~The 2S6 Tunguska 2K22 (NATO code SA-19 Grison) is a Russian-made self-propelled air defence system which combines 30mm cannon and missile armament.~~

	{{Soviet Forces in Team Yankee}}		{{Soviet Forces in Team Yankee}}

62.163.114.198: /* In Team Yankee */

2021-05-05T13:23:48Z

In Team Yankee

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 5 May 2021
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Following the trend set by all other Soviet AA platforms, the Tunguska has armour values of 1 all around, and is not well suited to situations where the enemy can shoot back. Even .50 cals on APCs stand a decent chance of penetrating it. However, fighting ground targets is only a secondary purpose.		Following the trend set by all other Soviet AA platforms, the Tunguska has armour values of 1 all around, and is not well suited to situations where the enemy can shoot back. Even .50 cals on APCs stand a decent chance of penetrating it. However, fighting ground targets is only a secondary purpose.

	The true reason to field this vehicle is to rip enemy aircraft out of the sky, and Tunguska does this very well. Its armament includes both missiles and guns, with the ability to fire both separately, as opposed to having to choose as the American anti-air variant of the LAV does. The autocannons have a range of 24” (36” when firing at aircraft), ROF 7/5 halted and moving respectively, AT 10, and firepower of 5+. This makes it unambiguously better than the Shilka in most respects. Added to the guns, Tunguska also comes with missiles, sporting a range of 64”, ROF 2, firepower 3+, and Guided AA; this puts it in a middle ground between the Gopher and Gecko. As mentioned prior, the weapons are two separate profiles instead of an ~~‘or’~~ choice, enabling Tunguska to stack the pain on aircraft and engage ground targets with nasty results. (FM101 clarifies that if a team makes any AA attack in the off turn, it still cannot shoot ground ~~forced~~ on its own turn)		The true reason to field this vehicle is to rip enemy aircraft out of the sky, and Tunguska does this very well. Its armament includes both missiles and guns, with the ability to fire both separately, as opposed to having to choose as the American anti-air variant of the LAV does. The autocannons have a range of 24” (36” when firing at aircraft), ROF 7/5 halted and moving respectively, AT 10, and firepower of 5+. This makes it unambiguously better than the Shilka in most respects. Added to the guns, Tunguska also comes with missiles, sporting a range of 64”, ROF 2, firepower 3+, and Guided AA; this puts it in a middle ground between the Gopher and Gecko. As mentioned prior, the weapons are two separate profiles instead of an ‘either/or’ choice, enabling Tunguska to stack the pain on aircraft and engage ground targets with nasty results. (FM101 clarifies that if a team makes any AA attack in the off turn, it still cannot shoot ground forces on its own turn.)

	Points values were said to be double those of the Shilka, with unit sizes of two or four vehicles. A unit of four Tunguskas therefore neatly replaces a unit of Shilkas and a unit of Gophers in terms of point allotment, but brings noticeably superior capability in both gun and missile armament. One disadvantage to this setup is that there is only one AA unit for the enemy to kill, leaving your forces dangerously exposed should they succeed. Another is if you are firing at aircraft with a short range (e.g. Harriers): in this situation, the Tunguska can only use its cannons or missiles (tanks only being able to fire one non-MG weapon still applies in AA fire), not both at once, while the Shilka-Gopher combination can let fly with everything.		Points values were said to be double those of the Shilka, with unit sizes of two or four vehicles. A unit of four Tunguskas therefore neatly replaces a unit of Shilkas and a unit of Gophers in terms of point allotment, but brings noticeably superior capability in both gun and missile armament. One disadvantage to this setup is that there is only one AA unit for the enemy to kill, leaving your forces dangerously exposed should they succeed. Another is if you are firing at aircraft with a short range (e.g. Harriers): in this situation, the Tunguska can only use its cannons or missiles (tanks only being able to fire one non-MG weapon still applies in AA fire), not both at once, while the Shilka-Gopher combination can let fly with everything.

2603:7080:9605:EFB6:CD90:25EA:3EA:E8B6: /* In Team Yankee */

2021-03-05T17:25:08Z

In Team Yankee

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 5 March 2021
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Following the trend set by all other Soviet AA platforms, the Tunguska has armour values of 1 all around, and is not well suited to situations where the enemy can shoot back. Even .50 cals on APCs stand a decent chance of penetrating it. However, fighting ground targets is only a secondary purpose.		Following the trend set by all other Soviet AA platforms, the Tunguska has armour values of 1 all around, and is not well suited to situations where the enemy can shoot back. Even .50 cals on APCs stand a decent chance of penetrating it. However, fighting ground targets is only a secondary purpose.

	The true reason to field this vehicle is to rip enemy aircraft out of the sky, and Tunguska does this very well. Its armament includes both missiles and guns, with the ability to fire both separately, as opposed to having to choose as the American anti-air variant of the LAV does. The autocannons have a range of 24” (36” when firing at aircraft), ROF 7/5 halted and moving respectively, AT 10, and firepower of 5+. This makes it unambiguously better than the Shilka in most respects. Added to the guns, Tunguska also comes with missiles, sporting a range of 64”, ROF 2, firepower 3+, and Guided AA; this puts it in a middle ground between the Gopher and Gecko. As mentioned prior, the weapons are two separate profiles instead of an ‘or’ choice, enabling Tunguska to stack the pain on aircraft and engage ground targets with nasty results.		The true reason to field this vehicle is to rip enemy aircraft out of the sky, and Tunguska does this very well. Its armament includes both missiles and guns, with the ability to fire both separately, as opposed to having to choose as the American anti-air variant of the LAV does. The autocannons have a range of 24” (36” when firing at aircraft), ROF 7/5 halted and moving respectively, AT 10, and firepower of 5+. This makes it unambiguously better than the Shilka in most respects. Added to the guns, Tunguska also comes with missiles, sporting a range of 64”, ROF 2, firepower 3+, and Guided AA; this puts it in a middle ground between the Gopher and Gecko. As mentioned prior, the weapons are two separate profiles instead of an ‘or’ choice, enabling Tunguska to stack the pain on aircraft and engage ground targets with nasty results. (FM101 clarifies that if a team makes any AA attack in the off turn, it still cannot shoot ground forced on its own turn)

	Points values were said to be double those of the Shilka, with unit sizes of two or four vehicles. A unit of four Tunguskas therefore neatly replaces a unit of Shilkas and a unit of Gophers in terms of point allotment, but brings noticeably superior capability in both gun and missile armament. One disadvantage to this setup is that there is only one AA unit for the enemy to kill, leaving your forces dangerously exposed should they succeed. Another is if you are firing at aircraft with a short range (e.g. Harriers): in this situation, the Tunguska can only use its cannons or missiles (tanks only being able to fire one non-MG weapon still applies in AA fire), not both at once, while the Shilka-Gopher combination can let fly with everything.		Points values were said to be double those of the Shilka, with unit sizes of two or four vehicles. A unit of four Tunguskas therefore neatly replaces a unit of Shilkas and a unit of Gophers in terms of point allotment, but brings noticeably superior capability in both gun and missile armament. One disadvantage to this setup is that there is only one AA unit for the enemy to kill, leaving your forces dangerously exposed should they succeed. Another is if you are firing at aircraft with a short range (e.g. Harriers): in this situation, the Tunguska can only use its cannons or missiles (tanks only being able to fire one non-MG weapon still applies in AA fire), not both at once, while the Shilka-Gopher combination can let fly with everything.

1d4chan>A crazy russian: /* In Team Yankee */

2020-10-30T14:54:53Z

In Team Yankee

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 30 October 2020
Line 8:		Line 8:
	The true reason to field this vehicle is to rip enemy aircraft out of the sky, and Tunguska does this very well. Its armament includes both missiles and guns, with the ability to fire both separately, as opposed to having to choose as the American anti-air variant of the LAV does. The autocannons have a range of 24” (36” when firing at aircraft), ROF 7/5 halted and moving respectively, AT 10, and firepower of 5+. This makes it unambiguously better than the Shilka in most respects. Added to the guns, Tunguska also comes with missiles, sporting a range of 64”, ROF 2, firepower 3+, and Guided AA; this puts it in a middle ground between the Gopher and Gecko. As mentioned prior, the weapons are two separate profiles instead of an ‘or’ choice, enabling Tunguska to stack the pain on aircraft and engage ground targets with nasty results.		The true reason to field this vehicle is to rip enemy aircraft out of the sky, and Tunguska does this very well. Its armament includes both missiles and guns, with the ability to fire both separately, as opposed to having to choose as the American anti-air variant of the LAV does. The autocannons have a range of 24” (36” when firing at aircraft), ROF 7/5 halted and moving respectively, AT 10, and firepower of 5+. This makes it unambiguously better than the Shilka in most respects. Added to the guns, Tunguska also comes with missiles, sporting a range of 64”, ROF 2, firepower 3+, and Guided AA; this puts it in a middle ground between the Gopher and Gecko. As mentioned prior, the weapons are two separate profiles instead of an ‘or’ choice, enabling Tunguska to stack the pain on aircraft and engage ground targets with nasty results.

	Points values were said to be double those of the Shilka, with unit sizes of two or four vehicles. A unit of four Tunguskas therefore neatly replaces a unit of Shilkas and a unit of Gophers in terms of point allotment, but brings noticeably superior capability in both gun and missile armament. ~~The only true~~ disadvantage to this setup is that there is only one AA unit for the enemy to kill, leaving your forces dangerously exposed should they succeed.		Points values were said to be double those of the Shilka, with unit sizes of two or four vehicles. A unit of four Tunguskas therefore neatly replaces a unit of Shilkas and a unit of Gophers in terms of point allotment, but brings noticeably superior capability in both gun and missile armament. One disadvantage to this setup is that there is only one AA unit for the enemy to kill, leaving your forces dangerously exposed should they succeed. Another is if you are firing at aircraft with a short range (e.g. Harriers): in this situation, the Tunguska can only use its cannons or missiles (tanks only being able to fire one non-MG weapon still applies in AA fire), not both at once, while the Shilka-Gopher combination can let fly with everything.

	https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=6844		https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=6844

1d4chan>A crazy russian: /* In Team Yankee */

2020-10-22T06:50:22Z

In Team Yankee

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:50, 22 October 2020
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==In Team Yankee==		==In Team Yankee==
	~~Announced by Battlefront~~. ~~No game play~~ information ~~available~~.		The Tunguska is the last word in Soviet anti-air platforms. Much of the information on it is now known from previews on assorted sites. It is not a reskinned Gepard, but is a uniquely dangerous piece of machinery in its own right.

	https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=6844		Following the trend set by all other Soviet AA platforms, the Tunguska has armour values of 1 all around, and is not well suited to situations where the enemy can shoot back. Even .50 cals on APCs stand a decent chance of penetrating it. However, fighting ground targets is only a secondary purpose.

			The true reason to field this vehicle is to rip enemy aircraft out of the sky, and Tunguska does this very well. Its armament includes both missiles and guns, with the ability to fire both separately, as opposed to having to choose as the American anti-air variant of the LAV does. The autocannons have a range of 24” (36” when firing at aircraft), ROF 7/5 halted and moving respectively, AT 10, and firepower of 5+. This makes it unambiguously better than the Shilka in most respects. Added to the guns, Tunguska also comes with missiles, sporting a range of 64”, ROF 2, firepower 3+, and Guided AA; this puts it in a middle ground between the Gopher and Gecko. As mentioned prior, the weapons are two separate profiles instead of an ‘or’ choice, enabling Tunguska to stack the pain on aircraft and engage ground targets with nasty results.

			Points values were said to be double those of the Shilka, with unit sizes of two or four vehicles. A unit of four Tunguskas therefore neatly replaces a unit of Shilkas and a unit of Gophers in terms of point allotment, but brings noticeably superior capability in both gun and missile armament. The only true disadvantage to this setup is that there is only one AA unit for the enemy to kill, leaving your forces dangerously exposed should they succeed.

			https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=6844

	==In Real Life==		==In Real Life==

203.114.185.183: Part two of fleshing out, plus some basic cleanup

2020-09-11T21:53:00Z

Part two of fleshing out, plus some basic cleanup

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 11 September 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:
	As the Cold War developed in the mid to late 1950s, it became clear to Soviet military planners that the Warsaw pact (Basically just the Soviet Union) couldn't build and sustain the same number and quality of military combat aircraft that NATO was able to produce.		As the Cold War developed in the mid to late 1950s, it became clear to Soviet military planners that the Warsaw pact (Basically just the Soviet Union) couldn't build and sustain the same number and quality of military combat aircraft that NATO was able to produce.

	This was both a result of the Soviets having simply less capacity to produce aircraft and the logistics of supporting them, but also because the Ground Forces had a ~~very~~ strong funding and manpower precedence over the other arms of the armed forces.		This was both a result of the Soviets having simply less capacity to produce aircraft and the logistics of supporting them, but also because the Ground Forces had a strong funding and manpower precedence over the other arms of the armed forces.

	While this doesn't mean the Soviet airforce ~~wasnt~~ funded at all, it did mean that it essentially ran off a proportionally smaller budget than the US Airforce has compared to the Army and Navy.		While this doesn't mean the Soviet airforce wasn't funded at all, it did mean that it essentially ran off a proportionally smaller budget than the US Airforce has compared to the Army and Navy.

	As a result the Soviet ground forces found themselves taking up a larger proportion of air ~~defense~~ duties than the airforces did in western nations, and came with more 'nuanced' ideas on the role of ground based anti-air systems.		As a result, the Soviet ground forces found themselves taking up a larger proportion of air defence duties than the airforces did in western nations, and came with more 'nuanced' ideas on the role of ground-based anti-air systems.

	The early stages of this development lead to iconic Soviet weapons like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka in the 1960s, but by the late 1960s the Soviets knew that they would need to build a new air ~~defense~~ system to accompany ground units, and to provide point ~~defense~~ for larger strategic anti-air sites.		The early stages of this development lead to iconic Soviet weapons like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka in the 1960s, but by the late 1960s the Soviets knew that they would need to build a new air defence system to accompany ground units and to provide point defence for larger strategic anti-air sites.

	Lessons from the Vietnam War also taught the Soviets that in order to be effective, their SPAAG systems also needed a form of armament that can operate even when NATO air forces were operating SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) Missions, which sees aircraft armed with 'Anti-Radiation Weapons' (Missiles designed to lock onto the radar emissions of enemy radar units and destroy them) try to locate and destroy Soviet anti air vehicles and installations.		Lessons from the Vietnam War also taught the Soviets that in order to be effective, their SPAAG systems also needed a form of armament that can operate even when NATO air forces were operating SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) Missions, which sees aircraft armed with 'Anti-Radiation Weapons' (Missiles designed to lock onto the radar emissions of enemy radar units and destroy them) try to locate and destroy Soviet anti-air vehicles and installations.

	The result of the ensuing development is the 2K22 Tunguska, and it summarises how in several areas, despite their relative backwardness in computer technologies, the Soviets were able to produce world class anti-air missile systems, often compensating for computational shortcomings with aerodynamic and metallurgical design.		The result of the ensuing development is the 2K22 Tunguska, and it summarises how in several areas, despite their relative backwardness in computer technologies, the Soviets were able to produce world-class anti-air missile systems, often compensating for computational shortcomings with aerodynamic and metallurgical design as well as in doctrine.

	The 2S6 Tunguska 2K22 (NATO code SA-19 Grison) is a Russian-made self-propelled air ~~defense~~ system which combines 30mm cannon and missile armament.		By the mid 1980's, as the Tunguska was rolling off the production lines, the next generation of Soviet Anti-Air systems were rolling out ready to face the new battlefield of modern warfare in tandem with new American developments such as the MIM-104 Patriot system. In the modern-day the Tunguska has replaced it's predecessor, the ZSU-23-4, in Russian service though compared to it's 60's era predecessor, the Tunguska was not as widely exported with only about 7 countries outside of the Russian Federation actually having any.

			Although reports of the system being used in actual combat are scarce if non-existant, with a couple of the few known exceptions being in Syria against Iraeli airs raids, and in the South Ossetia War, it still presents a competent threat to any aircraft or munition that decides to enter its weapons range, even if sometimes when shooting things can [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMSnNX3Gmc go awry.]

			The 2S6 Tunguska 2K22 (NATO code SA-19 Grison) is a Russian-made self-propelled air defence system which combines 30mm cannon and missile armament.

	{{Soviet Forces in Team Yankee}}		{{Soviet Forces in Team Yankee}}

49.224.208.1: /* part 1 of larger expansion */

2020-09-09T01:30:15Z

part 1 of larger expansion

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, 9 September 2020
Line 7:		Line 7:

	==In Real Life==		==In Real Life==
			{{Topquote\|Two Soviet generals are walking down the streets of Paris one day, Soviet troops marching towards the eiffel tower. One general turns to the other and asks "So, tell me, comrade, who won the Air War? \| An Army proverb}}

			As the Cold War developed in the mid to late 1950s, it became clear to Soviet military planners that the Warsaw pact (Basically just the Soviet Union) couldn't build and sustain the same number and quality of military combat aircraft that NATO was able to produce.

			This was both a result of the Soviets having simply less capacity to produce aircraft and the logistics of supporting them, but also because the Ground Forces had a very strong funding and manpower precedence over the other arms of the armed forces.

			While this doesn't mean the Soviet airforce wasnt funded at all, it did mean that it essentially ran off a proportionally smaller budget than the US Airforce has compared to the Army and Navy.

			As a result the Soviet ground forces found themselves taking up a larger proportion of air defense duties than the airforces did in western nations, and came with more 'nuanced' ideas on the role of ground based anti-air systems.

			The early stages of this development lead to iconic Soviet weapons like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka in the 1960s, but by the late 1960s the Soviets knew that they would need to build a new air defense system to accompany ground units, and to provide point defense for larger strategic anti-air sites.

			Lessons from the Vietnam War also taught the Soviets that in order to be effective, their SPAAG systems also needed a form of armament that can operate even when NATO air forces were operating SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) Missions, which sees aircraft armed with 'Anti-Radiation Weapons' (Missiles designed to lock onto the radar emissions of enemy radar units and destroy them) try to locate and destroy Soviet anti air vehicles and installations.

			The result of the ensuing development is the 2K22 Tunguska, and it summarises how in several areas, despite their relative backwardness in computer technologies, the Soviets were able to produce world class anti-air missile systems, often compensating for computational shortcomings with aerodynamic and metallurgical design.

	The 2S6 Tunguska 2K22 (NATO code SA-19 Grison) is a Russian-made self-propelled air defense system which combines 30mm cannon and missile armament.		The 2S6 Tunguska 2K22 (NATO code SA-19 Grison) is a Russian-made self-propelled air defense system which combines 30mm cannon and missile armament.