Invader ZIM

Sometimes it's not the gun, but bad ammo will cause the failures as well. It's funny how many people here in the U.S. buy expensive firearms and feed the gun crappy Russian Steel cased and lacquered ammo because it's cheap... Then complain about failures in their weapons. http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/ The Federal ammo also was accurate up to the 10,000 round mark, but the other M4's became smoothbore rifles by 6,000 rounds with the Russian ammo in the test above.

lol, I'll try to remember that next time. It's certainly one helluva mess over there, I think they should have just sold the Iraqi's T-72's or something more familiar to them instead. They couldn't have done any worse with them vs the M1's at least. Here's a video of the latest fighting, there's a bunch of ISIS suicide vehicles, some are definately stolen Humvee's that get engaged with Milan ATGM's from Peshmerga forces. The shooting starts at 1:52. http://youtu.be/kKby5fvBtH4 And apparently, we're shipping 150 or more M1's to Iraq this year. http://www.businessinsider.com/iraqs-military-is-getting-hundreds-of-american-vehicles-2015-1 http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a23/isis-islamic-state-iraq-american-tanks-humvees/

That was sort of tongue in cheek when I wrote that, but your right Ssnake.

If the link above with the captured M1 is any indication, it seems they don't know how to use them, and take the ammo in them to use as IED's, etc.

Some fascinating reading, thanks for that!

Also a fan of the series he made as well. Very good training to get you up to speed and understanding some of the basic concepts.

Thanks for the clarification Volcano, I understand where you guys are coming from, it's pretty fascinating stuff and I can see what a difficult job you guys have in trying to get as accurate as you can for the simulation. Good point Gibsonm, after testing out a few scenarios I made against various T-80's T-90's etc with the TOW-2B, it's not so bad really, and it helps using tips like dejawolf had on looking for the weaker areas on the turret to aim for when your able to. I repeated the same tests though with the TOW-2A for fun and it really does work more reliably against such targets, good to know.

Neat!! Will have to try that, thanks! Already noticing better results using KingTiger's scenario using the tip DejaWolf, thanks. Can't wait until you guys get the more advanced modeling of ERA and such in the future though.

Interesting, thanks! The only other thing I could think of was the leave the TOW-2B the same as it is, but give it a larger circular error of probability vs. what it is now so that it would have a chance to hit a larger random area on the top turret if you guided it correctly.

Maybe just setting the penetration of the TOW-2B to the same as BILL or BILL-2 at 600mm top attack to compensate for the missing 2nd warhead for now. After running the test the TOW-2B feels like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5zFasPrRRw http://www.army-technology.com/projects/predator_kestrel/

Yea, I'll make the changes in my scenarios to the -2A I think. Thanks!

Okay, that's interesting and it might explain the results we see sometimes. Using KingTiger's scenario it took me 13 TOW-2B hits to destroy the Gen 1 ERA T-72B tank. Looking at the AAR, when more than a few hits are shown going into the same ERA tiles on the roof near the center, it's not counted as a kill, nor is any damage given. However, since the other warhead isn't modeled going to another spot there isn't another chance for the weapon to penetrate. Hit 13 strikes an area without ERA and counts the kill. Thanks again for the explanation. Here's my AAR from KingTiger's test scenario. test TOW-2B vs Reactive.zip

Thanks for that info Volcano. In the AAR's when you use the TOW-2B, it shows a single vertical line into the target. But are you saying that in reality the simulation is actually calculating two separate projectiles striking two different spots on the vehicle?

Just finding public sources to use for info, I haven't experienced many problems using the TOW-2B in my scenarios. Up to you guys what you decide to go with or how it should work. I was having fun finding the info I found and reading up on the EFP's

The article used a half size 80mm and 175 gram test example and reference design compared to the TOW-2B, BONUS, and SADARM warheads it says though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator Patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US5038683 Dated 1989 http://www.google.com/patents/US6606951 public .mil source, page 11: https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/528027/file/65354/2012%20Weapon%20Systems%20Book%20pdf.pdf November 2003 TOW manual public distribution document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14251133/Tow-Weapon-System#scribd Section 5-6, engaging T-80 with reactive armor: It just seems counterintuitive if in the sim the TOW-2B is ineffective against reactive armor, yet the manual for the weapon specifically mentions the -2B for a T-80 with reactive armor.

Interesting, the TOW-2B uses two EFP's http://www.msl.army.mil/Documents/Briefings/CCWS/TOW%20PEO%20Website%20Brief.pdf I'm surprised to see in the above link they have some sort of new Counter Active Protection system for the latest TOW-2B variants. http://semanticommunity.info/Army_Weapon_Systems_Handbook_2012/Tube-Launched,_Optically-Tracked,_Wire-Guided_(TOW)_Missiles So, I'm wondering if there hasn't been some sort of improvement in how the EFP's work compared to the origional 1989 version of the TOW-2B. Perhaps the two EFP's are angled inwards to strike the same area sequentially? But this link seems to provide a hint: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-71.html https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/A127E461-9A6D-4175-A906-4F0892637D9B-1275126170054/chap1.htm This was also interesting: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013PSAR_13/hicks.pdf However, this 16,000 frame per second test with a TOW-2B warhead going off: http://www.funker530.com/super-slow-mo-tow-explosion/ Is interesting, look how close it goes off near the tank turret, then contrast with the photos in this report on how to handle TOW-2B's from causing problems when they are detonated next to an armor plate in the Baseline Test Configuration photo on the left side of Page 6: http://www.imemg.org/wp-content/uploads/IMEMTS%202006_Glick_paper_poster.pdf In the sim, can we adjust our aim lower on the target to get the TOW-2B to detonate closer to the armor to achieve penetration, or have the tandem warheads go near the same area? Would it matter? And everything you probably ever wanted to know about the ITAS launcher for the TOW, and TOW models themselves. https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/B4712E2A-302F-4420-8DF0-2F460B9811EA-1274307066920/3-22.32/chap1.htm So, it appears the TOW-2B is developed with reactive armor in mind. The warheads in the photo are very close together: Key words in the above article are dowward almost perpendicular EFP's vs. Reactive armor: https://books.google.com/books?id=Gm-6BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1267&lpg=PA1267&dq=TOW-2B+EFP&source=bl&ots=sBfpbUXhbq&sig=x-cE2cyEK7zoGQQZtkFzg_vmY7M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9B_FVL6hMoGaNsHeg6gC&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=TOW-2B%20EFP&f=false http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product367.html So, two independent shot lines, and sequentually fired, it would seem that the system might be able to take a one-two shot at the same location on the targets topside to enhance penetration against ERA armor, yet still penetrate the lighter turret armor underneath the ERA tiles after the first slug hits.

Speaking of cheap thermal imaging systems, if you want one with higher image quality than the FLIR, for about $200 that clips to your cell phone, most are getting this. http://obtain.thermal.com/product-p/lw-aaa.htm Great for around the house and checking for leaks of cold air and such, but don't expect military grade thermal performance. For a bigger step up in performance, you can get the $1,600 phone clip on imager Therm App: http://therm-app.com/ video here:

2014 TOW aid to Syria compilation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XPXnHm2m7M

LOL, yea I'd imagine that was pretty spectacular.

About that : http://www.darpa.mil/newsevents/releases/2014/07/10a.aspx More info here as you scroll down, looks like the battlefield is going to get interesting with 2km kills being the norm. http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/sniper/ Congrats to the young sniper, saved more than a few lives with his actions, and 800 meters isn't easy let alone any range above that.

Wrong thread. Sorry.

The alternative image seems more likely the one we might see in the May day parade. Thanks for the link and images Marko, appreciate it. http://defence-blog.com/?p=2565

I knew I saw that gun barrel somewhere before. It's from the Cobra Shredder in G.I. Joe lol. Seriously, I'm more interested in seeing what sort of optical systems this new tank is going to showcase. Supposedly it's going to be in the May 9th parade so I guess we'll have a chance to go over it then.

That's why I love this sim, the amount of attention to detail is great. So, myth busted? Mi-24 cannot into space?

Sorry about that, I knew you guys were on it, just figured I'd add my experience onto the pile to look at.