PDA

View Full Version : TOW missile systems



Come-quickly
24th January 2005, 16:23
Is there a place in the DF ORBAT for a long range ATGM along the lines of the TOW 2A/B or HOT 2 system?
Despite the excellence of the Javelin system according to most commentators, it is still a relatively short ranged system.
A TOW/HOT missile system is a very flexible asset, although extremely expensive if used purely in an anti tank role there is a development in the TOW system's evolution that suggests a more flexible and cost effective system for armies engaged in operations other than war.
Israel is reportedly developing a simple 150mm HE round to be fired from the TOW launcher to reduce the cost of the highly effective practice of using TOW missiles to engage individual fortified positions or other difficult to reach targets such as snipers and enemy ATGM positions.
If this system is realised it could be a serious contender for roles traditionally occupied by gun systems such as cavalry fire support.
Considering the number and variety or TOW platforms (Helicopters, APCs, light vehicles [well not that light]) such a system could be deployed with several different types of units, as Cavalry fire support troops, Infantry Support company's and even Air Corps helicopters.
Food for thought....I hope.
http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Images/N-ChassChars-1.jpg

Goldie fish
24th January 2005, 23:52
The TOW in At Tiri definbitely proved itself...

The Joker
25th January 2005, 00:19
But does the DF need such as system?

Come-quickly
25th January 2005, 00:38
Id say yes, in conventional warfare preparation it would allow for a proper layered anti tank defence beyond battalion level, and in current operational roles it would provide a more modern fire support vehicle than an AML90.

On the other hand downsides are primarily on whether the new shell will have a decent fire control system.
The proposed HE Shell's impact will be no bigger or no less than a 105mm canon (Canon not a gun or howitzer which are artillery) but it would have disadvantages common to all recoilless weapons, really its a question of whether this would be a better option for our future firesupport needs than a gun system.

Goldie fish
25th January 2005, 02:21
Do we not already have a layered anti tank defence system with SRAAW,84mm and Javelin?

If we needed something longer range,I would prefer something fire and forget. I think the TOW is still wire guided to target?

greyfox
25th January 2005, 02:45
really its a question of whether this would be a better option for our future firesupport needs than a gun system.

as regards firesupport i dont think you could replace a traditional gun system for multipurpose roles,
for use against MBTs a tow type system cant be beat but against varied targets it wouldnt stand up , one of its major draw backs are the long reload times you might get two shots a -la the US bradley ifv but then you would have to climb on back of your bullet magnet to reload the russian bmps only have the one ready use missile, so i dont belive a soley tow system is on ,
rather a missle gun 20mm + combi which would give more multi role capability.
as well as this guided missiles effectiveness can be diminished by branchs of trees powerlines smoke battle field fires ect so they are not the ideal solution for all situations rather they are a handy alternitive to take out that bunker , sniper in certain condictions,
the idf will foreseeably only ever have a limited need for such weapons forigen deployments where a few ex soviet t54s afv with untrained crews may be encountered which the javiliens can deal with , or the mbts attached to them from some other contributing nation,
so the gun perhaps a bigger one attached to a mowag 105 /120 like the italian centrion (excuse the spelling ) would suit the df bettter

hptmurphy
25th January 2005, 11:10
the Centauro provides death from a far.....thats all and wonderfull if operating in supported units... on a local level the AT4 and CG84mm weapons are get me outta the shit weapons...Milan, TOW, and Javelin are all ...for the want of a better word ambush type weapons ...where they have a chnce to dig in and be ready for the enemy.

The afore mentioned are only used in emergencies or where the threat of return engagement is minimal given the relative short range and the way in which the operator is lit up having fired his weapon.

If you want a mobile tank hunting vehicle .....the only real effective weapon is another tank...or a helo. personally Iprefer the latter two options ..but since we don't have them the medium range weapons would be the prefferd options. If you've seen the hand potable weapons fire you'll understand the position the operator is in after the weapon is fired....if you haven't killed the target or if he has buddies.........you are in the shit!

on_ready_to_fire
25th January 2005, 15:08
The afore mentioned are only used in emergencies or where the threat of return engagement is minimal given the relative short range and the way in which the operator is lit up having fired his weapon.


That's incorrect, all the above are both offensive and defensive weapons, and can be employed very effectively that way.You do not employ anti-armour assets when you are looking to
get me outta the shit . They should be employed to avoid placing you in the shit in the first place.

,

Come-quickly
25th January 2005, 16:28
TOW Fire-and-Forget (TOW F&F) The next generation heavy antitank missile that will replace the current TOW series missiles. It is employed either mounted or dismounted from the TOW launcher. Tactical employment will remain the same as the current TOW with adjustments made for TOW F&F’s characteristics. TOW F&F’s primary mode of target engagement is fire-and-forget. It will have a secondary mode of attack that together with the fire-and-forget mode will enable the operator to hit any target acquired within range of the missile. First unit equipped is FY05 pending future funding of the program.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/tow.htm

Range and impact effect are the key advantages over the Javelin.

hptmurphy
27th January 2005, 00:25
obviously not a Cavalry person...the is primarily a weapon to drop the user in the shit with enemies supporting troops given its signature...Drop it and run like ****. yeah if you want to organise an ambush make sure u have more than one 84 as you are going to draw more fire than .......

having fired the 84 and disrupted some ones dinner 2kms behind it could hardly be called discreet...it is definetly a support weapon and a get me outa the shit gun...unless u like tombstones.....

many years ago in a far off dsitant land paddies army deployed it as a weapon of upset and ended up paying the locals the price ofa new house!
the operator rose to captain in the FCA and retired as a CIE bus inspector!

hptmurphy
27th January 2005, 11:18
yeah the reserved for hptmurphy sign is over the door ........

Anyway the best anti armour weapon is a tank!...or an A10......anti armour ops where the crews are vehicle based is fine...but lugging big drainpipes around with their associated bits is madness.
84mm +associated bits+ ammo+rifle add up to some serious weight.

greyfox
27th January 2005, 19:38
the 84 and shraww while giving obvious firing signitures i would not concider as a emergancy only weapon they have there place amoung the muck trodders sure troops would all love a a10 apache or abrams to support them but that is not always the case , the russians in ww2 had great fear of the
German panzer sheck even though the germans were only using them in the latter stages of the war for lack of anything better there tank forces being destroyed , as they did with the muigheeden in afganistan and chechney with the rpg 7 s the main thing with any anti tank weapon be this short or medium range is to hit and move as quickly as poissable to an alternate position

hptmurphy
4th February 2005, 00:54
Given the fact that you are of the gravel agigtator persuasion... the only offensive action you should have toward a tank is using a radio to get some one else to fight it for you,

Interesting that most of the above described anti tank weapons are rarely used as AT weapons and are more in line with urban ops and anti personel roles.

the shoot and scoot principle is the best option available on two grounds

a. tanks never operate alone

b. tanks never operate without infantry

to be deduced........waste of time waste of life ...unless you have the required support.

Truck Driver
4th February 2005, 01:42
Point (b) in Murph's reply above was discovered the hard way by the Wehrmacht at the start
of WWII. After that, Panzer Grenadiers went everywhere with the tanks....

hptmurphy
4th February 2005, 02:18
Thank you for that acknowledgement........ :biggrin:

greyfox
9th February 2005, 19:38
the only offensive action you should have toward a tank is using a radio to get some one else to fight it for you,"

while i agree that the best anti tank option is a tank give me a lepord II and i would be more than happy such resorces are not allways available to the muck trodders, due to the fact that we dont have them in our inventory ,they are doing somthing else , they are unable to move because of enemy air superiority ( german armour in normandy 44) or the dasterdly phantasians or corkistanis to pso vets have knocked them out, gravel agitators can only relay on there organic weapons ,shawws ,84s ,rpg-7/18s, - milan, javilin, tow ,sagger this is not to say a inf unit should assault a armoured unit head on in open terrain but the presence enemy tanks in certain situations should not mean an infantry unit should break off a offencive operation or abandon a otherwise tenible defencive one , cowardice in the face of the enemy . a infantry unit use abushes as part of operations these may be anti personell, vechicle and armour abushes and ambushes may be offencive in nature so there is a chance the corkistani incidence that i would have to get personel with a tank
tanks are dangerous yes the combine armour to protect the crew weapons system , mobility to get them in and out of the s***t and others into it , and firepower .phscological the fear factor but limit any of these and you have a chance even with a drainpipe
tanks if they can be isolated & supporting troops can be nutralised/ suppressed are vernerable to close in infantry( especially in urban ,close country mountionous terrain ) because of turret traverse speed limited observation and the limited depression of main and co axil armament , in this situation a few 3 man units can "stalk" menovering for position and a shot at a vernerable spot such as the engine. i am not suggesting human wave assaults such engaugments would be like any other undertaken using cover and concelment and the jugement and training of those envolved
not pretty not safe , hell no i never want to do it but it has been done and it has worked but im sure the participants know 1 of the 99 types of stains surf removes .

"Interesting that most of the above described anti tank weapons are rarely used as AT weapons and are more in line with urban ops and anti personnel roles."

the situation in chechney http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm , an analisis of russian combat losses and rebel tactics in short 20 men would be broke down in 4 man teams of sniper/marksman mg gunner 2 rpg the mg /sniper would open up on the support infantry who in many cases got into there afv to burn then the rpgs would engauge the armour from bacements Russian main armament co- ax were unable to depress or nearby roofs where they were not able to elavate yes casualties were high and it took multiple hits some where about 8 to knock out a mbt but the Russian losses were high too 225 armoured units of which 62 were mbts in first 2 mounth and the withdrew to the outskirts and leveled the place with FAE eventually zsu-23s armoured AA vehicles were added to tank units to suppress basements, the Russians learned to fear panzer sheck Faust long before they reached the streets of Berlin in the varid terrain of Poland Prussia Rumania against trained tank destroyer units so it wasn't just urban ops. a us airbore unit decimated a albeit nderstrenght ss division in germany 1945
the use of drain pipes against abrams and bradley ifv in iraq have resulted in a tarishing of the abrams indestructable image and when you concider that the iraqi insurgents fanatics are useing Iran Vs Iraq 1980s surplus much of which fails to detonate and one would ask what the newer Russian model rpgs would be capable of
yes the rpg 7 has become the poor mans artillery and older model warheads are no longer capable AT weapons and probably for every 1000+ used in the anti personnel / building / bunker role in Chechnya Iraq or any where else 1maybe used vrs a tank same is true of shrawws 84s and other drainpipes they should not be discounted as useful anti tank weapons, most landrovers are used my mums to bring there kids to school in rural Dublin X but this doesn't mean that when mucky Mick the farmer goes chasing sheep in one it isn't useful offroad.
"to be deduced........waste of time waste of life ...unless you have the required support"
tank vs. unguided at
to be deduced by a infantry head ........ a secondary option, my live is the emperors to spend how he sees fit banzii, ... adapt improvise and overcome the way of the infantry


well that's my too cents anyhow its gone a bit off topic sorry to come quickly, perhaps I have been trodding mud too long with walter mitty u decideme time to now where did i leave the keys to my lepord II and my singar

hptmurphy
9th February 2005, 20:05
nope its not off topic ..and you defend your view point well...yep we'll have you ....your glengarry will be ready in August for a september fitting !

Just remind me to be somewhere else when you decide to go tank hunting :biggrin: