# TOW Under Armour



## stollhofen (23 May 2007)

Just wondering if this weapon system is a Canadian invention ? Have we ever fired this system in anger ? and lastly is it any good ? Thanks


----------



## vonGarvin (23 May 2007)

No.
Yes.
Yes.


Now the thread can be locked.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 May 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Now the thread can be locked.



Or left open in case there are follow-on questions.


----------



## nihilpavor (23 May 2007)

I have some questions of my own out of curiosity:
1- What other vehicle other than the M113 carries the TOW in the CF?
2- How long does it take to reload?

Thanks.


----------



## HItorMiss (23 May 2007)

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.


----------



## BestodaBest (23 May 2007)

The system has more then 1 missle loaded... the system can fire off more than 1 in rapid succession if required before needing to be reloaded, at which point would require the crew to expose themselves.


----------



## nihilpavor (23 May 2007)

I'm a french Canadian and I consider myself bilingual.
I play TACOPS sometimes and it always baffled me how many TOW missiles could be launch without needing any reload... (I know its just a game...)

Thanks


----------



## HItorMiss (23 May 2007)

BestodaBest said:
			
		

> The system has more then 1 missle loaded... the system can fire off more than 1 in rapid succession if required before needing to be reloaded, at which point would require the crew to expose themselves.



I am not sure where your getting your info on the TOW missle however it is a wire guided missile and as such only 1 missile can be fired at time until impact and the max flight time takes well it's not a fast missile either so I would not call it rapid fire succession by any means.

As for reloading exposed the M113 TUA had a large shield so that the tubes could be reloaded under cover. I assume the LAV III TUA would have at least the same system or better in it now.


----------



## HItorMiss (23 May 2007)

nihilpavor said:
			
		

> I'm a french Canadian and I consider myself bilingual.
> I play TACOPS sometimes and it always baffled me how many TOW missiles could be launch without needing any reload... (I know its just a game...)
> 
> Thanks



Je m'excuse mon amis


----------



## BestodaBest (23 May 2007)

this is all true; "rapid succession" may have been a poor selection of words... the point i was trying to get across is that there was no need to get out of the vehicle in order to prep/load another missle; but of course, it is necessary to wait until the initial missle is splashed before firing again.

Also, i did happen to know about the cover offered on the M113, although it did not come to mind... the vehicle that i was picturing was the LAV, as it appears to have very little to no cover offered for when it comes time to reload. But of course, i could be wrong.


----------



## nihilpavor (23 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Je m'excuse mon amis



Don't worry about it. I could become an armour officer eventually and I'm curious about things that could kill me...  :skull:

When you talk about slow flight speed... How slow can that be? How long does it take to fly it's whole 3.75 km range?


----------



## BestodaBest (23 May 2007)

I honestly haven't the faintest clue... im sure there are many forums on the site regarding things of this manner...

i think your looking at around 10sec for it to reach out to 3km... maybe more


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 May 2007)

If you don't have a clue don't speculate!


----------



## nihilpavor (23 May 2007)

OK I should do my own research...

According to Jane's:
"The BGM-71E TOW 2A has the same dimensions as TOW 2 but has an enhanced warhead for use against reactive armour. This warhead has a weight of 6.09 kg and the total missile weight is increased to 22.7 kg. This version has an improved K-41 solid-propellant motor, which accelerates the missile to 310 m/s. The maximum range is 4 km, and the BGM-71E missile takes 21 seconds to reach 3.75 km."


----------



## HItorMiss (23 May 2007)

20 second flight time to the 3.75km max range plus 1.5 second delay after pressing the trigger.


----------



## BestodaBest (23 May 2007)

hmm... so i was off by about 5 or 6 seconds...


----------



## HItorMiss (23 May 2007)

Try 11.5 seconds

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


----------



## BestodaBest (24 May 2007)

how do u figure im off by 11.5 seconds? i posted 10 seconds for "3km" if you bothered to read carefully. i would be off by 11 sec if i said 3.75km, as said in the original post. 

If you want to be a real jerk, then lets do the math.

The missle reaches 3.75km in 21 sec

So how long till it reaches 3km?

3.75 / 5 = 0.75km
0.75 = 1/5th The Distance

21 / 5 = 4.2 sec
4.2 = 1/5th The Time

0.75 x 4 = 3km
4.2 x 4 = 16.8 sec

Therefore, the missle will reach the range of 3km in 16.8 seconds.

...And would you look at that?



			
				BestodaBest said:
			
		

> hmm... so i was off by about 5 or 6 seconds...



Turns out, i was off by approximately 0.8 sec from my 1st correction.

So, all in all, i was off by 6.8 sec, your off by more, and need serious help with your math skills.

You feel dumb now.

Regards.


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2007)

BestodaBest.......


Go have a nap.....all math asside you are acting like a complete tool.  You've never used TOW in your life.......quit before someone who has tears you a new one

army.ca staff


----------



## HItorMiss (24 May 2007)

Hmmm dumd no, you see I have something you haven't....wanna guess what that is???


Oh it's the Anti Armour course, I have actualy used a TOW and a TUA  :

I wont argue your math skills though I haven't the time or the inclination to do so, but I will still tell you to sum up on this topic as you really are far outside your lane. But hey thanks for coming out.


----------



## BestodaBest (24 May 2007)

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 (24 May 2007)

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



			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Try 11.5 seconds
> 
> You're cleary out of your lane, about time you sum up on this topic.


----------



## HItorMiss (24 May 2007)

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 (24 May 2007)

Agreed on both points.

Better yet, i'll simply drop the arguement.

Regards.


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2007)

BestodaBest said:
			
		

> 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 (24 May 2007)

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 (24 May 2007)

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 (24 May 2007)

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 (24 May 2007)

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 (24 May 2007)

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 (24 May 2007)

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 (24 May 2007)

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 (15 Nov 2007)

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 (15 Nov 2007)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Spencer100 (19 Nov 2007)

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 (19 Nov 2007)

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 (19 Nov 2007)

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


----------



## kayakguyt72 (23 Nov 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> 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 (29 Nov 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> 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 (2 Feb 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Gunner (2 Feb 2008)

> 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.



3 RCHA or 3 RCR?  Or 1 RCHA doing work up training for UNPROFOR?


----------



## Rowshambow (2 Feb 2008)

Sure ADATS has range, but the cost of it is crazy, justto shoot it at a mud hut! there is a reason why only a few people have actually shot them live! One of the bird gunners at my Regiment said it's a big badge of honour if you are a CO the year they get to shhot it!
Yes as PPCLI guy said they are handing it back to the Armoured guys, but it will be awhile!


----------



## Kilroy (2 Feb 2008)

Gunner said:
			
		

> 3 RCHA or 3 RCR?  Or 1 RCHA doing work up training for UNPROFOR?



My bad, I meant 3RCR!!! Sorry about that.


----------



## Griff576 (22 Aug 2014)

Is there any known badge out there for being a TUA gunner?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Aug 2014)

There was one that would go on the DEU's and would replace the Infantry trade badge.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2014)

Griff576 said:
			
		

> Is there any known badge out there for being a TUA gunner?




It _*was*_ this:







I think it is now this:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Aug 2014)

You are correct.


----------



## Gronk (22 Aug 2014)

If Memory serves correct, the badge shown would be worn by someone w/ the adv crse serving in AAP (or Coy I guess now). I've seen the earliar khaki badge on my father's itchy green field dress from when he was with the Strats in their AAP. They used the SSB11 missile fired from a M113. It was also wire guided, and they used a joystick to "fly" their missile into their target. Similar I guess to a Sagger.
   As far as a TOW mounted to an Iltis goes, I saw one in Afg. when we (C-Coy 2VP) were attached to 3VP on OP APPOLLO. Don't know if they used them "in anger".


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Aug 2014)

In the early to mid sixties the Canadian Army used two ATGMs, both French, the ENTAC and the SS11B. While the training was conducted at the RCAC School, the systems were operated by the infantry initially. In about 1963 3 R22R was converted to an anti-tank battalion and B Company joined 4 CIBG in Germany. AS I recall, (I was a very junior member of the HQ 4 CIBG HO ops staff at time,) the company had three platoons of mixed ENTAC and 106s and a platoon of SS11B.

Later the 8 CH, which had been converted to a reconnaissance regiment field a troop of APC mounted SS11B.

It's been a very long time, so the above is subject to age creep, but it is fairly accurate.


----------

