Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TOW missile hits T-72 at 4.2km away - video
http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=8341 ^

Posted on 10/05/2012 10:33:18 PM PDT by djone

"Quite amazing video showing how effective the TOW missile is, notice that it explodes with a proximity fuse over the tank and still totally destroys it. TOW-2B top-down attack variant using explosively formed penetrators. It is supposed to detonate above the tank sending a stream of molten metal down on the target in a similar fashion to the NLAW."


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: sourcetitlenoturl; t72
I-chee-wowwaaaa...

itgoboom

1 posted on 10/05/2012 10:33:22 PM PDT by djone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: djone

Dear World,

We did this with modified 1970s technology. You don’t want to see our new stuff. Behave yourselves.

Love,

Uncle Sam


2 posted on 10/05/2012 10:44:42 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djone

.....should be mandatory viewing for all Islamic radicals between the ages of 4 and 60.....


3 posted on 10/05/2012 10:58:34 PM PDT by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

bttt


4 posted on 10/05/2012 10:58:34 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djone

How large is the explosive charge on that TOW?

Re: “Stream of molten metal”

Not sure I understand this.

The TOW is carrying the metal that melts, correct?

Does the initial explosion melt the metal, or is it melted in some way before it gets to the target?

Once the molten metal is over the target, is it slammed through the tank’s armor by the force of the explosion, or does it destroy the tank by some other means?


5 posted on 10/05/2012 11:06:57 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
I was talking, the other day, to a Tread-Head that pointed out that the reason a T-72 turret goes flying like that is the design of the turret bearing. The M1A turret sits on the bottom of the hull, supported by a cylinder. The T-72 turret support bearing is on top of the hull, so that when the propellent ("tactical load") cooks off, the turret pops.

Just a little detail. He also pointed out the the T-90 has much better targeting, and is much more of a threat.

6 posted on 10/05/2012 11:15:39 PM PDT by jonascord (Democrats are the people on the Left Side of the IQ Bell Curve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

A shaped charge formed around a cone of (typically copper) metal is melted by the heat and pressure of the exploding charge and basically squirted at the target.

The liquefied metal melts a hole through the armor of the vehicle and upon penetrating the crew compartment becomes an aerosol and explodes as the oxygen in the compartment causes the copper to burn explosively.

No survivors.


7 posted on 10/05/2012 11:17:45 PM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

ouch


8 posted on 10/05/2012 11:22:16 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

The molten metal pierces the hull, and torches the crew. The heat also sets off the propellant in the main gun ammo stacked around the base on the compartment.


9 posted on 10/05/2012 11:23:17 PM PDT by jonascord (Democrats are the people on the Left Side of the IQ Bell Curve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; zeestephen

The technology does have some basic flaws.

As stated the charge is detonated by a proximity switch of some kind. The weapon effectiveness depends on the charge going off at an optimal distance from the target. If the charge detonates too far from the target the jet of molten metal will impact on the surface and have minimal penetration.

A screen of chicken wire set off the surface of the target a foot or so will cause some of these weapons to detonate too early. Many tanks have been modified with stand off screens to protect against these weapons. This is why the TOW is designed to attack from the top of the target.


10 posted on 10/05/2012 11:41:45 PM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

But the new stuff is better, by a lot?


11 posted on 10/05/2012 11:43:15 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac; jonascord
Pontiac - jonascord

Great info.

Thanks to both of you.

12 posted on 10/06/2012 12:09:47 AM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
But the new stuff is better, by a lot?

I can’t tell you much except that the newest stuff is fire and forget so the attacking soldier does not have to steer the missile to the target (wire or laser guided). This allows the soldier to fire the missile and run. Once the soldier fires the missile he has shown the battlefield where he is, so better run. If he has to guide the missile he can’t run until the missile has hit the target.

The TOW attacks from the top where the armor is thinnest and there unlikely to be stand off armor.

I have to imagine that there is in development a missile with a double charge. The first charge would detonate reactive armor (such as the M1 tank has) and the second would penetrate the layered armor underneath.

Anyone hoping to defeat the M1 today has to fire at least two missiles. The first to detonate the reactive armor (the top layer explodes outward to deflect the missile). The second missile the must hit the same spot to penetrate (maybe) the M1’s further layers of armor.

13 posted on 10/06/2012 12:23:20 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Need to update your armor defeat database: the new TOW uses what's called a "self-forging" projectile. As the missile flies over its target, the proximity sensor triggers an explosive charge which forms and shoots a tantalum slug at very high velocity through the armor like a knife through butter. The energy of that penetration and the spall from the armor sprays superhot metal throughout the tank interior and as in the photo, ignites the tank's ammo.

Chicken wire or spaced armor or anything else will not affect this warhead.

An earlier poster wants to send a warning to jihadis that we have that kind of weapon. Unfortunately, the terrorists already have it: one of the more effective IEDs we faced in Iraq and are facing in Afghanistan is exactly this type of warhead, fired laterally from a roadside. Thanks to the Iranians, enemy forces have lots of these things, usually triggered by an IR beam, just like the one we use in stores to signal that a customer has entered.

You guys need to stay current.

14 posted on 10/06/2012 2:38:22 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

Yes, True and Yes. Just curious as to the cost per. That is probably the only aspect keeping us out of heap big doodoo.


15 posted on 10/06/2012 3:10:15 AM PDT by gr8eman (Ron Swanson for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gr8eman
"Just curious as to the cost per"

Cheap. We are in deep doo doo. You should see the large, heavy plates they had to install on MRAPs just to try to mitigate the small ones. The Iranians sent thousands of "kits" to build do-it-yourself self-forging standoff IEDs.

Obviously, we have been at war with Iran for a while. We just act like it isn't happening.

16 posted on 10/06/2012 3:18:42 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Johnnie,

You are one of the few that really get it. As one who was part of the Materials Command when I was in, as I still cannot tell people what I know, I explain it just as you did when they question our capabilities.

If you remember all of the whining before the Gulf War I about how our equipment would never live through the desert environment, blah, blah, blah. I just smiled and told people, in the vein of the redneck joke about “watch this”;

Yea, yea, just keep watchin’ cause you’re gonna see $h!t that will make your head spin.


17 posted on 10/06/2012 3:31:05 AM PDT by mazda77 ("Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" By: Hilmar von Campe. Everybody should read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

” Unfortunately, the terrorists already have it: one of the more effective IEDs we faced in Iraq and are facing in Afghanistan is exactly this type of warhead, fired laterally from a roadside.”

I recently watched a video from Syria (I think) where they were using anti-armor grenades. They seemed to work pretty well but you had to be within throwing distance from an armored vehicle which I don’t believe is very healthy in the long run.


18 posted on 10/06/2012 5:33:27 AM PDT by dljordan (Voltaire: "To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: djone

OK I want one...checking ebay now!


19 posted on 10/06/2012 6:39:57 AM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mazda77
If you remember all of the whining before the Gulf War I

I do remember, especially the briefings that told us that we had a very limited capability against the Iraqi T-72. It caused us to do a massive upgrade of tank units to field M1A1 (120mm gun) in lieu of M1 (105mm gun). Only a single M1 equipped tank battalion was deployed to the Gulf.

The results turned out to be very different from the threat briefings. Not only did the single M1 battalion do fine against the T72s, but M2 Bradleys were easily destroying T72s at about 3000 meters (beyond T72 effective range) by elevating their 25mm guns and walking plunging fire into the target. 25mm HE easily penetrated the engine decks and brewed up the T72.

20 posted on 10/06/2012 7:33:44 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
Those old things work but you have to be nuts to use them. We used to have the M10 hand-thrown antiarmor grenade in the late '30s but nobody was strong enough to heave the thing any useful distance. A reserve colonel put a rocket motor on the thing and the bazooka was born. Unfortunately, the first pallet of the things for our Soviet "allies" landed in German hands, so we had to face the same kind (but more powerful) type of weapon in German hands.

The standoff antiarmor weapons the Iranians are furnishing are much more effective than anything we have faced before. The press hasn't bothered discussing it and the majority of the American people - except those with family members in the armed forces - aren't interested. The islamic enemy has learned how to kill our troops without risking anything themselves. Until we take the war to the puppet masters we will continue lose our young people to these things.

21 posted on 10/06/2012 8:40:23 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

It sounds quick and merciful at least.


22 posted on 10/06/2012 8:45:09 AM PDT by OKSooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail
Do you remember the mobility kill of an M1A1 early on in the Iraq war? Did anyone ever figure that out?

Here is the only article I could find:

'Something' Felled An Abrams Tank In Iraq - But What?

23 posted on 10/06/2012 9:12:42 AM PDT by Dan Cooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dan Cooper

I do. It turned out to be an RPG-7V. It has a tandem warhead - the precursor cut a hole through the outer layer and the main warhead got through to the engine.


24 posted on 10/06/2012 9:16:24 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail
Lucky more those didn't show up.
A video of the dual charge effect, at around 1:00min.

RPG and Pioneers of RPG

25 posted on 10/06/2012 10:26:07 AM PDT by Dan Cooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson