TOW is Back

[dapaterson]

Whats the range on the new TOW missiles?

Unclas sources suggest just under 4km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW#Variants

 

[McG]

All of the LAV 6.0 are, in reality, almost completely new. That includes hulls and turrets. Very little from the original vehicles survives into the new ones.

Yes, but you cannot make a LAV 6 without the licence plate of an existing LAV.  It is the magic component.

 

[OldSolduer]

Outstanding Danger!!

Now....which reserve Regiments will be chosen to man it????

 

[wannabe SF member]

With TOW coming back and the push for the Sam Browne belts can we expect to be issued a batman?

No intent to derail but is the Sam Browne comment a rumour or I'd there a source for actual reintroduction of the belt?

On subject:I look forward to siting a defensive position that doesn't have to wait till enemy MBTS are within bayonet range before engaging armor.

 

[cupper]

What's all that white shit on the ground?

Sand.

They are actually on a white sand beach. Just faking the winter conditions. Like the moon landings.

And the bags of salt are for the margaritas to sip while relaxing on the beach after the firing exercise.

 

[Ostrozac]

Well, TOW never lost it's place on the battlefield (see Syria) -- and Canada completely abandoning all ATGM capability always seemed a very, very confusing thing to me.

I'm very happy to see TOW back.

 

[a_majoor]

While I am glad TOW is back, it says a lot that we are cheering for the return of a 1960's era weapons system, when we should be pushing for more modern, longer range and harder hitting weapons like ground launched HELLFIRE, BRIMESTONE or one of the various FOG-M systems out on the market.

Of course we should also be pushing for a multitude of other things as well (especially weapons systems that provide a "layered" defense against mechanized and motorized forces), but that is another issue for another thread.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I take the modernized TOW in the hand over some fancy system in the bush. Eventually the TOWS can be pushed down to the Reserves when we get the newer systems. But before that, more mortars, pioneers, howitzers and trucks.

 

[Remius]

I take the modernized TOW in the hand over some fancy system in the bush. Eventually the TOWS can be pushed down to the Reserves when we get the newer systems. But before that, more mortars, pioneers, howitzers and trucks.

Good news on that front as well.

Pioneer capability is being returned to the Infantry although we can't call it that.  Breachers I think is the term now.  Mortars are also coming back but likely not to the infantry reserve as they want the reserve artillery to keep that.  some chages to the composituion of light companies and batallions as well.

 

[Fabius]

I am also happy to see an anti-armour capability returning, but I am only cautiously optimistic right now with this.  There are a lot of details which need to hammered out (manning, ORBAT, TO&E, mobility, qualification standards, training resources, etc.) to turn this into an actual capability vice just another pile of parts in a CQ's cage gathering dust.
Given the army's performance with turning the C-16 into a capability to date...  We will see.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well at least there is a large number of recent "training video's" on Youtube the new gunners can watch and learn from.

 

[Kirkhill]

If the TOW is back in the armoury, with the sights and paraphernalia, and if the budget is constrained is it a cost-effective option to consider adding a pair of TOWs to some portion of the Delco turrets on the LAV fleet?

This would be in addition to maintaining the pintle/tripod mount capability for the light troops.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am also happy to see an anti-armour capability returning, but I am only cautiously optimistic right now with this.  There are a lot of details which need to hammered out (manning, ORBAT, TO&E, mobility, qualification standards, training resources, etc.) to turn this into an actual capability vice just another pile of parts in a CQ's cage gathering dust.
Given the army's performance with turning the C-16 into a capability to date...  We will see.

What proportion of the C-16s went to LAV battalions?  Do they have a role there?  Or do the LAV battalions prepare for dismounted operations without their LAVs where they could use the C16s to cover off some of the capabilities lost when the Bushmasters aren't available?

 

[Fabius]

I believe the infantry companies in the LAV Bns have 3 x C-16s allocated ( I could be slightly wrong here).  Due to their size and sustainment requirements they don't really have a role when the company is mounted in the LAVs as they don't offer anything additional in terms of firepower over the bushmaster and and can only be employed while static and dismounted.  Further the C-16s are not grouped together and allocated to a Wpns Pl or anything similar IOT mass capability.

If the company is operating without its LAVs then your right the C-16 does fill the void left by the absence of the bushmaster but without a means of moving it and its ammo (manpacking it is not really a true option) we don't really have a way to employ them except on a static defensive position (which is also the one place where a dismounted TOW with no internal combustion engine mobility will be useful).  Various ideas where tried initially but nothing stuck to become doctrine or SOP within the Mech Bns to my knowledge.

For the TOW and C-16, honestly an iltis/TOW setup from days past seems like a decent concept for the light Bns if we can accept that it does not have armour.  Not sure if a G Wagon could be set up that way, center of gravity seems like it would be too high. Might be doable on a TAPV.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you are probably closer with the Iltis than the GWagen.  As you say the GWagen migrates to the TAPV which is no more useful in a Light setting than the LAV.  If you can't get a LAV into the game you probably can't get a TAPV into the  game either - and if you can then you end up with a less capable platform if you go with the TAPV over the LAV, IMO.

On the other hand, if all you are wanting is to add an internal combustion engine to increase portability then Outlanders, Argos, Rzrs and Dagors may be all you need.

Your comment about massing the C16, in my opinion also applies to the LAVs and the Dismounts.  I continue in my belief that the LAVs and the Dismounts should be separated within the battalion into separate entities, either as a LAV company and  2 or 3 rifle companies within the battalion or as LAV platoons within the Rifle Coys.

In my opinion the LAV supplies the capabilities of at least three of the platoons in a "conventional" light battalion.  It supplies transport, as would the Motor Transport Platoon.  It supplies the suppressive fire of a GPMG-SF Platoon.  It supplies the heavy direct fire support of an HMG/GMG Platoon.  And if the LAVs had TOWs mounted it would also supply the Heavy Anti-Tank support of the AT Platoon.

The Man Power of those four platoons could justifiably be grouped into a LAV company - if the sock could be un-knitted and the components returned to their primary functions.

In a light infantry battalion the drivers hang with the drivers, the MG guys hang together and the AT guys hang together.

In a LAV battalion each LAV requires one driver and one or two bodies from the direct fire support platoons.

In a light battalion with ATVs the DFS teams could be reduced to two men and an engine with the gunner being the commander, the assistant gunner being the driver and engine making up for all those ammunition bearers historically necessary in a light unit.

 

[Tow Tripod]

Truly a great day for the Infantry Corps.... The decision to rid the battalions of TOW was an error that only now is being rectified.
Death on a Fishline, Man portable for short distance's with out a doubt will remain in the training PAM.

VP.   

 

[dangerboy]

Video of one of the missiles being shot: https://amp.twimg.com/v/410376d6-26e3-4536-8454-fb14ccae832a

 

[Haligonian]

It's true this is big new, but we still need to figure out how we're going to man these things.  We can't man sections and weapons dets in coy's let alone stand up an AA pl.

While I am glad TOW is back, it says a lot that we are cheering for the return of a 1960's era weapons system, when we should be pushing for more modern, longer range and harder hitting weapons like ground launched HELLFIRE, BRIMESTONE or one of the various FOG-M systems out on the market.

Of course we should also be pushing for a multitude of other things as well (especially weapons systems that provide a "layered" defense against mechanized and motorized forces), but that is another issue for another thread.

Good point but I think TOW is a  'good enuff' solution for now.

 

[Kirkhill]

It's true this is big new, but we still need to figure out how we're going to man these things.  We can't man sections and weapons dets in coy's let alone stand up an AA pl.

Good point but I think TOW is a  'good enuff' solution for now.

I suggest you prioritize the AA Platoon, using a conventional Rifle Platoon manning system, then you can employ them as a standard Rifle Platoon when you don't need them as an AA Pl.

Same thing for the Pioneers, Recce and even the Mortars.

Ditch one of the Rifle Coys if you have to.  I think I have heard others around here make similar suggestions.

 

[Journeyman]

Ditch one of the Rifle Coys  Unit Public Affairs' Rep, IA Coys, HAZMAT reporter... if you have to. 

Your autocorrect focused on the war-fighters.