Why isn't the 2S6 Tunguska spaag more present and more frequently used in th Ukraine war theatre?

Why isn't the 2S6 Tunguska spaag more present and more frequently used in th Ukraine war theatre?

Supposedly it was designed "to provide day and night protection for infantry and tank regiments against low-flying aircraft, helicopters, and cruise missiles in all weather conditions." I only saw them used in the first weeks of the invasion, now one can see only BUKs and TORs used against UA drones.

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think I've seen ANY videos of anti-air artillery firing in combat in this war.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In the last days there were a few videos of BUKs used against Ukkie drones in a Reddit sub called CombatFootage.

      Despite Reddit stigma and my personal disdain for it, the CombatFootage sub is pretty good.

      Ukrainian Buk-M1 9A310M1 TELAR engages a Russian drone
      >https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/x0d2y3/ukrainian_bukm1_9a310m1_telar_engages_a_russian/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

      Russian Tor-M2 claimed to be targeting a Ukrainian drone, Donbas region, date unknown.
      Video
      >https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/vode4d/russian_torm2_claimed_to_be_targeting_a_ukrainian/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

      Footage inside Russian TOR-M2 destroying an Ukrainian drone
      Video
      >https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/vode4d/russian_torm2_claimed_to_be_targeting_a_ukrainian/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

      Russian Convoys of 9K37M1 Buk-M1 and 9K330 Tor
      >https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/x0eriy/russian_convoys_of_9k37m1_bukm1_and_9k330_tor/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://youtu.be/LnTnF27_J54

        these are surface-to-air missiles though, that anon asked for anti-air guns

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There was some AAA fire in Crimea a few weeks ago.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Looked rather like Russians spaffing off everything at nothing in a morale building exercise.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not saying it was productive but it was clearly some type of anti-aircraft artillery firing outside of training.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Ukrainian Buk-M1 9A310M1 TELAR ENGAGES a Russian drone

        >Russian Tor-M2 CLAIMED to be targeting a Ukrainian drone, Donbas region, date unknown.

        The absolute state of PrepHole Jesus Harriott fucking Christ. Both videos just show an AA system firing a missile.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      god i just want to see atleast one in this whole war. yes i know missiles are better in every way, but theres nothing quite as kino as seeing a long line or tracer in the air.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They were spamming SPAAGs in Kerch on the night after Saki got hit.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >2S6 Tunguska SPAAG
    So this is essentially just a copy of the german Gepard SPAAG with shittier guns but with additional missiles?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      newfag...
      there is not knowing intricate differences between T-72M3 and T-90A but how can you now know what a Tunguska is?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But it's a fucking copy of a german Gepard. Whole turret confiugration is pretty much copy paste and when you look at the development history of both, you can clearly see how the Gepard predates the Tunguska at every step of the way.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not the guy your arguing with but you are a complete retard and should just stop talking.
          The Tunguska is a further development to the ZSU23-4 Shilka, also the glaring fact it carries AA missiles makes it nothing like the Gepard.
          Just because it 'looks' similar doesn't mean it's a copy that's like saying a M1 looks like a Challenger because it has a turret with a single barrel.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, the "further development" just fucking looks nothing like the Shilka but is practically a copy of the Gepard+missiles. Nothing to see there. Oh and would you look at that, the "further development" also turned up years later after the Gepard.
            I think we got of us a severe case of a vatnik denying the fucking obvious, because it hurts his nation pride.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >But the guns are in the same place
              Like on every modern tank too right?
              Get a grip you sad cunt the Gepard is a abject failure that was canned almost immediately by a failure of a military that cannot maintain them.
              >He must be a vatnik he hurt my feelings
              lol no
              >picrel 2 K2 panthers

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you midly retarded or you really think your weak strawman is going to impress someone?

                [...]
                twin-gun radar-guided SPAAGs were in vogue at the time, Gepard isn;t the only one. e.g. there's also the Marksman.

                >twin-gun radar-guided SPAAGs were in vogue at the time, Gepard isn;t the only one. e.g. there's also the Marksman.

                >Marksman anti-aircraft system
                >The only known major operator of the system to date is the Finnish Army, which ordered 7 units in 1990.

                Production of the Gepard started in 1973

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it's not a copy because the copies were made after that
                Wut?
                Show me the SPAAG that had the same turret configuration as the Gepard with similar guns and radar setup, which predates the Gepard. I'm waiting.

                Geewiz how can somone be so autistic, I'm guessing you are obese?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >i lost the argument
                Okay.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'll have to assume that question is one big projection.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it's not a copy because the copies were made after that
                Wut?
                Show me the SPAAG that had the same turret configuration as the Gepard with similar guns and radar setup, which predates the Gepard. I'm waiting.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Gepard is just a copy of the 1955 ZSU-52-2 with a radar installed between the guns.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing is Inspired by the Gepard that's why it's been sitting in a storage bin since it's introduction

                Dude, chill. You are just making a fool out of yourself at this point.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The FV433 Falcon predates the Gepard by a few years and is a direct inspiration for the Gun system. Germany copied the Falcon turret with the RU222 Flakpanzer, then modified the turret shape for the Flakpanzer Matador which led to the Gepard. I can't speak on the Tunguska, but for western systems, Oerlikon decided the gun placement when they designed the guns, not the Gepard. There is physically no other way to mount the gun systems since Oerlikon designed them to be externally mounted on the sides of the turret. It's also no wonder that Russia would go that route too since it's great for reducing the crew compartment size and easily discards spent casings when you are firing at thousands of rpm.
                The idea that Germany pioneered anything with the Gepard is pretty funny seeing as the entire early stages of their SPAAG program was spent copying other systems.
                RU 222 copied the Falcon which led to Matador which led to Gepard
                Then pic rel Flak Panzer Dragon being a straight rip off of the French AMX-13 DCA 30

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Here is RU 222, Matador, and Gepard all next to each other showing the evolution and it only takes one search to show that the RU 222 ripped off the Falcon.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Funny how similarities seem to be there in this case, but at the same time there are non to the Tunguska. Are you maybe stupid?

                Also:
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_anti-aircraft_weapon#Cold_War_and_later
                >Notable among these later systems is the German Gepard, the first western SPAAG to offer performance equal to or better than the ZSU.
                >This system was widely copied in various NATO forces.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I am not saying that the Tunguska didn't take inspiration from the Oerlikon mounting system, but I am saying that it wasn't the Gepard who pioneered that mounting method. They bought the guns from the Swiss and the British had a similar design prior. Germany hardly pioneered everything as the early design prototypes were just French and British copies. If anything the Tunguska is an Oerlikon copy.
                Also
                >Wikipedia said so
                Oerlikon which was still 100% Swiss at the time designed the gun mounting system, so there is physically no other way to mount the guns for western systems. Especially when you are saying that the Marksmen which looks nothing like the Gepard is a copy when it looks nothing alike. The Gepard neither pioneered that gun mounting style and the gun mount isn't German.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How does any of this change the fact that the Tunguska is essentially a soviet Gepard copy plus some missiles if you wanna be nitpicky?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not the guy your arguing with
            doubt.jpg

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, the "further development" just fucking looks nothing like the Shilka but is practically a copy of the Gepard+missiles. Nothing to see there. Oh and would you look at that, the "further development" also turned up years later after the Gepard.
            I think we got of us a severe case of a vatnik denying the fucking obvious, because it hurts his nation pride.

            twin-gun radar-guided SPAAGs were in vogue at the time, Gepard isn;t the only one. e.g. there's also the Marksman.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, when i first looked at OPs thumbnail, i thought the thread was about Ukraine losing it's first Gepard, they simply look very similar. Stop being such a contrarian douche.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >it's not a copy because the copies were made after that
              Wut?
              Show me the SPAAG that had the same turret configuration as the Gepard with similar guns and radar setup, which predates the Gepard. I'm waiting.

              Nu PrepHole cannot distinguish between a Tunguska and a Gepard. The state of this place.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >t. autistic fat retard still going at it
                It's alright, the soviet Tunguska is heavily inspired by the Gepard, no need to throw a thread-wide autistic fit about it just because you don't like it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing is Inspired by the Gepard that's why it's been sitting in a storage bin since it's introduction

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is the guy who goes on about converting passenger jets into bombers, I bet you

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is the guy who keeps making threads about how the F-35 is a copy of the Yak-43

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Earlier in the war, 4 grouped together were set on fire by civilians after being abandoned by their operators.

    Russia probably pulled some back when they supposedly relocated their Pantsirs away from TB-3 territory, earlier in the conflict when the wreaked havoc on the Russians

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Three problems.
    Russia doesn't have many of them. Only 250 were "active" as of a decade ago.
    The guns do not have an exceptionally long range. 4km sounds like a lot but this is massively outdone by most AGMs today. The missiles are superior but limited.
    The radar, acquisition system, and fire control is probably of dubious value against drones. And said radar is vulnerable to SEAD. The range of the AGM-88 HARM is vastly greater than the missile or gun defense system.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >4km
      Maybe 30mm autos, 9M311M missiles have a 10km range.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah except they are so inaccurate at that range that the crew has to manually aim them using visual mode to get the missile close enough for the proximity fuse to work if you're firing further than gun range lol

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          source?
          Sounds hilarious.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            finally found it, took me half an hour, here you go anon, it's in russian so use translate
            https://legguns.ru/bronetehnika/zenitnyj-raketno-pushechnyj-kompleks-2k22-tunguska-rossiya.html

            also tunguska cannot guide missiles while moving, having to be completely still or be limited to guns only

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I used to fuck in that thing in BF2

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty sure there was recent footage of several being moved into Belgorod.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are obsolete garbage. You don't need a WWII tier flakpanzer ripoff when a dude with a Stinger can negate any air superiority.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They great for protecting your immediate nearby vehicles from nasty stukas

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now i wanna see suicide drones with stuka sirens hitting russian military emplacements.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Honestly with how much Russia seethes about "muh Nazis" it would be hilarious if Ukraine started giving their new equipment names like Stuka, Hummel, Elefant, Tiger and watch Russians have a conniption while feigning ignorance about it.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Tunguska is literally just a shittier Pantsir which has been thoroughly rekt throughout the war.
    They wouldn't change shit. Russia's best odds is to do what they did with their Shilka's and use it in a fire support role.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Makes you wonder if AAA is obsolete or if it's just a russian problem.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm actually expecting it to get a bit of a renaissance as cheap drones get more common and automated targeting gets better

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well tbh the brits managed to down an argentinian skyhawk with a Bofors L/60.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It was just luck, I think 3 Argie aircraft was shot down with AAA and 1 RN Sea Harrier. The Argentinians had lots of pretty decent German radar guided AA on the islands too and it did pretty much fuck all.

            AAA is only good for low helicopters and drones

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nah.
          Western militaries are going all in on jammers, laser systems and even kamikaze drones. There was talk of bringing back systems like the Linebacker. It just didn't pan out because of cost to get said systems back into the game for a short period while more modern anti drone measures were readied.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's a little bit of one and a lot of the other. Gun AA has a niche to fill in expediently dispatching small short range drones and loitering munitions. But in order to do that it's going to need very effective rangefinding systems and air bursting rounds. Most current systems do not have sensitive enough systems to find and track small drones, optically or with radar. Systems currently in use by russia are especially afflicted by this due to their low quality and/or badly outdated electronics. Oh yeah they also don't make any programmable or proximity fused 30mm rounds for the guns.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Boxer Skyranger seems to be very proficient at this, Mantis is well, it‘s high RPM 35mm Airburst

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think with many of these the issues are the price and size. Boxers are still super expensive compared to the drones they would be intercepting.

            Maybe scaling down to 20-25mm guns in commercial vehicle platforms (ie. pickup trucks) would be worthwhie. The ammo is shoter range and lower payload, but has less recoil, and the intended targets are smaller and require less fragmentation hits to destroy than proper aircraft. Issue would still be that required thermals and aiming systems would push the price up, so going much below 1 million € per system seems bit wishful.

            Anti drone drones might really be the most cost effective solution, as dumb as it might sound. but like with proper AD networks, combination of both is likely the best solution

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              you don't need a boxer for the Skyranger. You can probably slap that thing on any Vehicle that can carry the weight of it. Piranhas for example were also used to test it

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can even have a version that's moved by a forklift.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's plenty of new products in the autocannon side, mostly because drones are a very common problem that similarly needs a very common solution.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I bet Shilkas/other SPAAGs actually do a decent job as infantry fire support.
      >at least they do in Arma, which is the closest thing I have to combat experience

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It absolutely would. The problem is that you've got a huge, expensive radar dish and practically no real armor on most SPAAGs. You can remove the radar but now you've got an FSV, with still no armor. I might remind you that the armor plate on the Tunguska is barely 10mm thick in most places, a 50 cal will kill it reliably.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Bro what is the deal with Soviet "armored" vehicles anyway? They were were a paper army, huh?
          >BMDs
          Trash armor
          >BTRs
          Trash armor
          >BRDM
          Trash armor
          >Shilpa, Tunguska
          Trash armor
          What gives?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            cheap and just about good enough to give the troops what they need

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All the heavy lifting was supposed to be done by tanks, with mi-24's and BMP's in support.
            Not our problem the Russians got lax and didn't think western militaries wouldn't develop weapons, technology and tactics specifically to counter them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They're all NBC proof, ides was to nuke Europe into oblivion and cruise around in the paper thin vehicles with impunity in radioactive wasteland

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >BMD
            Airborne cannot be heavy armor.
            >BTR
            Armor is more than adequate for intended usage as a battle-taxi and transport. Heavy armor would be a detriment.
            >BRDM
            literally an armored scout car the armor is perfectly adequate.
            >AA Guns
            Yeah just put 3 inches of armor all around your AA gun that makes a lot of sense right?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              lol cope more vatnik

              your gear is shit

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Who is you? I'm the russian army now? Feels good man. You're a faggy tourist and you have no understanding of vehicle design, that's okay.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm the russian army now? Feels good man

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You're a faggy tourist and you have no understanding of vehicle design
                vatnik always projects

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                bro like did you even read his response?
                There's kind of no other air-droppable battle taxis, Bradley and m-113 are light skinned themselves, scout car - maybe the Cadillac gage commando - also light skinned? not sure there's a western real contemporary there.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >his
                ok ivan, i'm sure nobody NEEDS to have armor, it's all just western conspiracy

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bradley has like 100mm (LoS) frontal armor just in base layers with the A2 model, now add ERA.
                That's a cold war design. Look at how heavily armored shit like the Puma is.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          isn't that what terminator was supposed to be?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the problem is that most armies have actual doctrine for fighting in cities with infantry and thus have no use for a terminator

            Bro what is the deal with Soviet "armored" vehicles anyway? They were were a paper army, huh?
            >BMDs
            Trash armor
            >BTRs
            Trash armor
            >BRDM
            Trash armor
            >Shilpa, Tunguska
            Trash armor
            What gives?

            The BMP-1 had surprisingly good armor.
            Though this was mostly due to the huge engine in front of the turret.
            Other than that, you are correct. The only good armor was on the tanks

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The BMP-1 had surprisingly good armor.
              it's really not. compared to a BTR or M113 it's only an improvement at the front, meanwhile the sides and the rear are just as unprotected, being defeated by .50 cal and even .30 cal AP at close range.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeh they were used in Syria alot, I think they even made an Infantry support one without the radar?

        Tons of footage on YouTube.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fun fact, the F-15; F16, and F/A-18 can all fly faster than its missiles.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So, essentially it's only good against helicopters and planes practically flying at it?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can't tell the difference between Tunguska and Pantsir. The Pantsirs missiles even look the same but have a different nomenclature.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pantsir = truck
      Tunguska = tracked

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's just probably a matter that no many civilians are around when the thing is used.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Pantzir is Tunguska on a truck chassis.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its an ancient cold war weapon, useless for anything but eating enemy missiles in modern warfare

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why isn't the 2S6 Tunguska spaag more present and more frequently used in th Ukraine war theatre?
    There were literally a few people in Ukraine left who know how to operate them

Your email address will not be published.