Rocket/missile flight characteristics?

[hellfish]

Steve - do you know if the LOSAT is going to make it into CMSF? I've heard that it's being fielded now, but I've never heard of or seen anybody equipped with one.

Global Security says that A Company of the 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment is the first unit to use them. AFAIK, A/511th is only a test and evaluation unit at Fort Rucker.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Actually in terms of range, the AT-14 is better, with a 5000m max range. Javelin is about 2500m.

I love these technical arguments. The AT-14's wire has a maximum length of 3,500 meters, beyond that it becomes an unguided weapon and the PK goes down to nil. Battlefront had already mentioned that ATGM's would have a maximum effective range of about 2 km, which sounds about right to me.

I think the armor penetration of the AT-14 (1200mm RHA) is actually better than the Javelin (600+mm RHA), but what makes the Javelin effective is that it's got an option as a top attack weapon, so it doesn't need to penetrate too much. The AT-14 is direct attack.

yes, but 600 or 1,200 (I have also seen 1,000 mm quoted) will still kill a T-72 or M1A1 with one shot from any aspect, if an AT-14 can see it, it's dead.

[hellfish]

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I didn't know that about the AT-14's wire. In fact, I thought the AT-14 was a totally beam-riding missile. I haven't seen anything suggesting it was wire guided. Do you have a link?

[MikeyD]

I recall the U.S. military almost had a coronary when they received their first (incorrect) report of kornet being used in Iraq in 2003. Simply judging by their reaction that must be one nasty puppy. It sure LOOKS scarey!

[Sergei]

I have never understood the point with those Russian bright shades of yellow for camo. :confused: Then again, at 2km it wouldn't matter if it had pink neon letters "ATGM" blinking on its side...

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I didn't know that about the AT-14's wire. In fact, I thought the AT-14 was a totally beam-riding missile. I haven't seen anything suggesting it was wire guided. Do you have a link?

I meant that in jest, I did not see it as an argument, more of a friendly discussion

Actually, I am starting to wonder about the wire-guided part. I got my information from this link:

web page

but I have not found another web site that confirms it.

[Sgt Joch]

I found the manufacturer's site.

web page

I see no reference to a wire. It has some cool videos though.

I think the AT-14's status should be upgraded from "very nasty" to "very,very nasty".

[hellfish]

I just consulted with my local Russian weapons expert and he said there are no wire guided versions of the AT-14.

[Kong]

Interesting, I guess I assumed a live fire would not be hitting a 'operational' target. Thinking mostly of vids I've seen of live fire practice for M1's and planes.

After a little more thought... I suppose after Desert Storm the US Military had plenty of T-72s to play with, supplemented by a new batch acquired in Iraqi Freedom.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I just consulted with my local Russian weapons expert and he said there are no wire guided versions of the AT-14.

Well that clears that up.

While looking into this issue I found a discussion on another site which came to the conclusion that an AT-14 would not penetrate the front turret armor of a M1A1/2.

This site:

M1A1/2 ABRAMS

appears to confirm that, if you look at the various tables entitled: "M1A1 Abrams MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002)" and "M1A2 Abrams SEP MBT -Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002-2004)".

The front turret armor of a M1A1/2 is rated as being equivalent to 1,320-1,620 mm of armor protection against ATGMs. An AT-14 is rated as havind a maximum penetration value of 1,000-1,200 mm. However, it appears the AT-14 would still penetrate the glacis, lower front hull as well as the side and back armor.

That is one of the advantages of the Javelin which goes in from the top, rather than the brute force approach of the AT-14.

That site also has some great photos:

[ October 29, 2005, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

[John Kettler]

As someone directly involved in a series of TOW effectiveness studies during my time at Hughes Aircraft, Missile Systems Group, Operations Analysis Department, I'd like to comment on the various TOW models in order to shed some light on the subject.

TOW, 5" dia. warhead on 6" dia. airframe/xenon beacon (NOT a flare; beacon blocked by battlefield dust and visual smokes); 3 km. range; combat debut was An Loc, RSVN, 1972 via lashup on UH-1

ITOW (Improved TOW), 5" dia. warhead now fitted with extensible standoff probe (for enhanced penetration); same 6" dia. airframe, same beacon;

3.75 km range (at least for helos, improved wire spooling tech)

TOW II, full caliber 6" dia. advanced, exotic warhead (hedging here as am unsure how much has been made public) with standoff probe; xenon beacon replaced by "waffle iron" thermal source

seen by new tracker thermal unit; works through

dust and visual smokes; 6" dia. airframe, range as before.

TOW IIa, as for TOW II in all respects, but standoff probe has precursor charge intended to defeat ERA

TOW IIb, as for TOW II, but guidance mode is changed to near miss overflight; probe is gone, as weapon relies on proximity fuzing and attacks relatively "soft" top part of tank (hard to protect and still fight the tank), much like the Swedish Bill system; warhead details given earlier in the thread seem right, but this was bleeding edge when I left Hughes in 1984.

As of ~1990, the word in the Armored Cav, where my brother then served, was that if you SAW a TOW II,

you were going to war. The Stryker AT variant elsewhere on this Forum is shown launching what appears to be an original TOW. In closing, I'd have to say that I'm more than a bit perplexed regarding statements about TOW ineffectiveness against bunkers, having seen test footage in which even the original TOW blew a sandbagged bunker apart after having flown into the firing aperture of same. Completely unsurvivable!

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

There's more Javelin live fire footage out there.

Detailed BDA's a must see. From what I can tell,

Javelin's combat debut was during battle for Baghdad Aiport during OIF. Footage I've seen shows one being hauled up a concrete embankment, aimed at something, then fired.

[John Kettler]

And here's a link to a TOW IIA cutaway, illustrating some of the features I described. It appears that my memory was faulty and that the xenon beacon was retained when the "waffle iron" was added. While this does provide backwards compatibility with earlier launchers, it is with a huge penalty on the TOW II's battlefield performance. Lethality's much greater to be sure, but, absent the new thermal tracker, the missile suffers the same dust and visual smoke limitations as the TOW and ITOW.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/tow7.html

Found it here.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/kuwait-asks-can-you-give-us-a-tow/index.php

Regards,

John Kettler

[ October 29, 2005, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Kurtz]

It looks like it has a Xenon beacon and a thermal beacon?

[John Kettler]

Kurtz,

That is correct. My memory was faulty, which is why

I edited my post several times.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

I've seen a Pentagon slide show (found on the web) concerning a rush stopgap re-warheading of about 500 older TOWs to straight HE to help the Stryker ATGM fill in for MGS. But I have yet to find any word that the project was ever approved/funded/implimented.

Anybody know? In CMx1 there's a noticable difference between a HE shell and HC (HEAT) shell going off. Should BFC include a HE TOW round for their TOW Stryker?

[hellfish]

I've got a video of a Stryker TOW in combat launching a missile at a building maybe 50-100m away. This might confirm a HE warhead or an unguided rocket variant (both of which I've heard are in development) that works out of the TOW launcher. IIRC, the TOW2 had a minimum range of 65-75m or so.

Also, I don't know when the Javelin's exact combat debut was, but I had footage, once upon a time, of Marines using a Javelin on a bunker at Umm Qasr, which would have happened at least a week before the Battle of BIAP would have occured.

Also, a bit of trivia, the first Javelin ace was a special forces soldier in Northern Iraq whose unit was under attack by T-55s and several truckloads of infantry. He killed three T-55s and two trucks before the Iraqis broke off their attack.

[Matthias]

don't you have to get at least 5 Things? before you can become a ace? or is that just ww1 fighter planes...

[hellfish]

Uh... three tanks and two trucks = five things according to my elementary math.

[Matthias]

ohhh teach me to post and and play civ 2 online at the same time...well carry on dear sir.

[MikeyD]

Sure, I'm copying this photo from another thread, but it illustrates some of the frustration Stryker Brigade is currently having using their Stryker ATGM vehicles as stand-ins for MGS. Just look at all those hanging power lines!

It might be a good idea for TOW's reliability to take some sort of a hit in-game when fighting in a built-up urban environment, to represent the electrical lines obstacle problem.

[aka_tom_w]

WOW

good point

Great photograph to illustrate the point as well!

-tom w

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

Fair point, but I'd amend it to suggest that this only really becomes an issue when firing from street level to upper levels. A TOW shot down the street could probably be done without any problems at all--provided the gunner didn't clip a guidance fin on a telephone pole, lamp post, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

...and range would be a factor too. If you look down that far end of the street the upper levels of the last buildings are just beginning to be blocked by lines. Firing from the top of a hill down a street would probably cause problems too. I think i read somewhere the TOW Stryker has typically been used only between minimum arming distance and 2-300m. Not very many two mile TOW shots while doing infantry support.

[Battlefront.com]

I've inquired about the problems with wires getting in the way of missile flight paths. The answer I got was a strong "in reality is isn't a problem". For guided missiles that aren't controlled by wires there is an obvious reason to see there isn't an issue to simulate. For wire guided missiles there isn't an issue either, at least not a significant issue, because the weapon is fired LOS. This means the missile has a fairly level flight path. At worst the control wire would lay up against one of these obstacle wires, which are insulated and therefore shouldn't cause significant friction or electrical problems. At least not that I've heard of.

So the answer is... no, we aren't simulating any special consideration for missiles fired in urban terrain in terms of obstacle wires. If we're wrong I'm sure someone will point us to some evidence

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

It just occured to me that an excellent defense against a wire-guided missile would be a chain link fence and some distance. Concertina too, and maybe even boring old triple-strand barbed wire.

The idea would be the missle would go through, but the wire would not (monofiliment, breaks easy, metal on metal) so once the missile got past the fence it would be unguided.Ditto for trees, ditto for a situation like in the picture where the vehicle/firer is on the ground, and the target is on a higher level meaning the missile has to fly past a bunch of wires in its path. I'm not talking about defeating the HEAT warhead, but rather a barrier the missile can get past, but the wire won't.

I don't have any evidence off-hand what I'm saying is true, but it seems (to me) to make sense. I also seem to remember from my military days that the TOW people said their missiles did not like to fly past itchy-scratchy objects.

How's that? I'm pretty sure a pro like Kettler will back up what I'm saying.