TOW missile hits T-72 at 4.2km away - video

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=8341 ^

[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."

[djone]

I-chee-wowwaaaa...

itgoboom

[MNJohnnie]

Dear World,

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

Love,

Uncle Sam

[Doogle]

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

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[zeestephen]

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?

[jonascord]

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.

[Pontiac]

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.

[GeronL]

ouch

[jonascord]

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.

[Pontiac]

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.

[GeronL]

But the new stuff is better, by a lot?

[zeestephen]

Pontiac - jonascord

Great info.

Thanks to both of you.

[Pontiac]

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.

[Chainmail]

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.

[gr8eman]

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

[Chainmail]

"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.

[mazda77]

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.

[dljordan]

” 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.

[PoloSec]

OK I want one...checking ebay now!

[centurion316]

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.