TOW Under Armour

[BestodaBest]

My apologies, i dont mean to cause a rucuss... No, i have never fired one, and probably never will, but there was no need for him to "call me out." I would of let the matter die, but i felt it was necessary to ensure he understands that i made a mistake, apologized, and there is no need for him to stab at the subject.

Again, My Apologies.

 

[BestodaBest]

But, did you not argue my math skills by correcting me on the matter of time vs. distance?

Try 11.5 seconds

You're cleary out of your lane, about time you sum up on this topic.

 

[HItorMiss]

And with that folks I'll take this to PM as I wont clutter a good thread with something so silly.

As for the TOW great weapon system, flawed sure but what weapon doesn't have flaws

 

[BestodaBest]

Agreed on both points.

Better yet, i'll simply drop the arguement.

Regards.

 

[aesop081]

But, did you not argue my math skills by correcting me on the matter of time vs. distance?

You Mr are one post away from an army.ca vacation.....i told you to let it go

army.ca staff

 

[nihilpavor]

OK, I have another one! (just tell me if I'm annoying)

The fact that this system is monted on such "soft" plateforms (M113, LAVIII, HMMVW...),am I right to assume that they are mostly being used in a defensive role, mostly to protect infantry progression from armour threats?

Thanks

 

[HItorMiss]

It's used in many roles no one role is primary. Most anti armour weapons short of the main gun on a MBT are mounted on lighter faster vehicles. What this does is add mobility to the weapon so it can be moved about on the battle field which in turn makes them more lethal.

 

[time expired]

Interesting topic,some experts getting a little overbearing, me thinks.
I remember being on the range as the AB Regt. anti tank plt. first fired their new TOW system.
The range had 4000 meters of cleared area,not an obstacle on it and the boys were doing good,
hitting bunker type targets at over 2500 meter ranges,the boys very pleased with themselves and the
weapon system,comments about tanks not having a chance,etc.I asked them to turn around
and to look at the 4000 meters of typical Ontario bush behind them and how they were going
to engage a  target coming from that direction,the euphoria dampend down somewhat.
The TOW system,as first issued was a good defensive anti tank weapon with 4 major problems
too small a warhead,time of flight,ignition signature,and those damned wires.The tankers
quickly developed tactics to deal with TOW type systems,and now I am getting a little out of my
lane but any tanker out there can correct me,while advancing 1 tank in the troop had a WP
round up the spout and fired immediately at any ignition signature,this either obscured the
Target image of the optical tracker or disturbed the concentration of the operator,WP tended to
do this,who was required to keep the target in the crosshairs of his optical tracking system
throughout the flight of the missile.TOW 2 under armour may have alleviated some of the
problems,but I think the lesson to be learnt is that one should always retain a healthy "show
me" attitude to claims of new weapons systems that predict the end of the tank or the
manned aircraft.
                                    Regards

 

[HItorMiss]

TE,

You're right about the brush issue however good gunners with the advent of TVIGs had plenty of time to practice those options. As for the WP option that may have been the SOP back when we used just the optical tracker however we moved to the TI sight and the xenon tracker system.

It will always be a race between the "Can" Vs "The Can Opener"

 

[nihilpavor]

And the race will soon heat up: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/02-08-2006/0004277736&EDATE=Feb+8,+2006

I know it's only against RPG, but I guess it will work against 'slow' ATGM's as well some day.
Funny how they installed this system on a Stryker...
Aren't those covered by the slat armor supposed to be disabling RPGs?
BTW, are ADATS better?

 

[vonGarvin]

The slat armour is indeed a type of armour that is quite effective.  It is a passive system.  This quick kill is an active system.  This comes down to not wanting to put all your eggs in one basket, I suppose.

I have no idea if ADATS is better than TOW, or even how they compare.  I understand that the "AT" in ADATS stands for "Anti-Tank", and I also know that ADATS has a longer range than TOW.  Other than that, I have no idea how the two match up.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

hey... this is in my lane!   

As a qualified Air Defence Instructor in Gunnery, I can say that the ADATS stacks up very nicely. The EO package is pretty decent (FLIR and Low light TV), even  by today's standard. The ADATS missile travels faster than Mach 3, so time the time of flight out to it's max range of about 8km is pretty short (something like 8 seconds IIRC). The guidance is via laser command, so no worries about bushes breaking the wire! The warhead is quite large (about 22lbs IIRC) and even though it is a shaped charge, something that large, hitting that damage is going to do alot of damage.  I've seen video of T-72s being hit by ADATS missiles in Suffield and the results were definitely eye-popping.

Now to the drawbacks of ADATS:  it has a high profile and high CofG, which has led to more than one flipped ADATS. It is a huge diesel hog- the APU will suck the tank dry every 8 hours. It was (in the 1996 timeframe, when I worked with it last) very maintenance intensive. Finally, the missiles cost $250K back in 1992 and Canada owns the entire world's supply of them (ie- not alot).

Kincanucks can probably give more recent info, as he is about to graduate from this year's IG course.

 

[bigrich]

It is 21.5 seconds for a range of 3750m, future RF missiles will 6000m in 6 seconds.  These can be fired on the LAV TUA platform with no modification.

 

[MG34]

hey... this is in my lane! 

As a qualified Air Defence Instructor in Gunnery, I can say that the ADATS stacks up very nicely. The EO package is pretty decent (FLIR and Low light TV), even  by today's standard. The ADATS missile travels faster than Mach 3, so time the time of flight out to it's max range of about 8km is pretty short (something like 8 seconds IIRC). The guidance is via laser command, so no worries about bushes breaking the wire! The warhead is quite large (about 22lbs IIRC) and even though it is a shaped charge, something that large, hitting that damage is going to do alot of damage.  I've seen video of T-72s being hit by ADATS missiles in Suffield and the results were definitely eye-popping.

Now to the drawbacks of ADATS:  it has a high profile and high CofG, which has led to more than one flipped ADATS. It is a huge diesel hog- the APU will suck the tank dry every 8 hours. It was (in the 1996 timeframe, when I worked with it last) very maintenance intensive. Finally, the missiles cost $250K back in 1992 and Canada owns the entire world's supply of them (ie- not alot).

Kincanucks can probably give more recent info, as he is about to graduate from this year's IG course.

And you cannot shoot itnin the rain!!! ;D

 

[Spencer100]

I guess Canadian TOW gunners won't have to worry about the line anymore.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/wireless-tows-for-canada-04252/

LAV-TUA
Raytheon Company has just announced a $17 million U.S. Army contract to build 462 TOW-2A RF bunker buster missiles for the Canadian Army., whose fragmenting, high-explosive warhead is combined with a new wireless radio frequency command data link, rather than the wire connection that the anti-armor missile has used since it was introduced more than 30 years ago.

Because the wireless system is built into the missile and the missile case, wireless TOW is compatible with all existing TOW 2-capable ground launchers including the Canadian Light Armored Vehicle, TOW Under Armor (LAV-TUA) with the Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS). The Canadian contract is the first international sale of the TOW-2A RF, though Israel has also requested them and is likely to receive them shortly.

 

[Rayman]

Well this is a little off the beaten path but my question is: Is the LAV TUA now an armoured trade vehicle or to man it do you still have to be infantry? As well are they replacing all the M113 TUAs with the LAV TUA?

 

[X-mo-1979]

are the armoured guys getting the TOW?I heard petawawa?

 

[kayakguyt72]

are the armoured guys getting the TOW?I heard petawawa?

Somehow I doubt it, given all of our TUAs were moved out west and given to the Strathconas, where I might at the TOW platoon is still an infantry element in an armoured realm.

As a former TOW Pl Comd and qualified TOW gunner, I can speak to the merits and the limitations of the system.  While the wire guided system has limits, it's still an effective means of guiding your missile onto the target at longer ranges.  While it can reach out to 4000m, the max eff range is 3750m.  I have observed engagements out further, but your are really pushing the limits at those ranges.  With engagements 1000m or less, there is too much obscuration created by smoke and dust, limiting the gunners ability to bring the round on target.  The system is guided by two wires and can fly with only one, however, the signal and response are slower, but a good gunner can still bring the missile to bare with only one wire.

The TOW missiles indoctrination was during the Yom Kippur war, where the Americans provided thousands of missiles to Israeli forces.  At the completion of the main tank engagements, Israeli soldiers recall opening hatches and seeing that their tanks were covered in SACLOS wires from both their own forces and the Arab forces.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

are the armoured guys getting the TOW?I heard petawawa?

The direction has been issued, however the devil is in the details.  We are slowly minimising the number of Infantry in E Coy LdSH(RC).

 

[Kilroy]

Well the current Platform it is mounted on is are the LAV III TUA the M113 TUA (thought they all could have been replaced now by the former) and of course dismounted systems.

Reload times depend on the crew I don't think I have ever seen a set CF standard time for it.

Though since you seem to write in perfectly good English I don't see why you wrote your questions in french. And the q at the end baffles me.

While you are correct on the CURRENT platfoms for the TOW missile system, beeive it or not, the tow missile was laso once mounted in the back of an iltis jeep. Not sure how tactically sound it was, or if it was just a training item but i persoanlly worked on them at 3RCHA, so I know it to be true.