Jump to content
12Alfa

T-90 takes a TOW and wins

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Tacbat said:

Too bad you weren't also taught about it's vulnerabilities.

 

Too bad I'm not as knowledgeable as you, right?

 

3 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

Shocked that this post has generated so many replies :o.  Would this have happened if it were a Soviet ATGM?

 

1. Maybe because this is an English speaking forum and there are members with experience using the TOW system. 

2. Something tells me that you're not really 'shocked'

 

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

Shocked that this post has generated so many replies :o.  Would this have happened if it were a Soviet ATGM? o.O.

I feel, and I may have this wrong, is the fact that a US system has been called into question, and that it must be defended by all means, disregarding facts and /or pictures. I by no means wanted this to be a American bashing, or lets defend the T-90 thread, merely to show that a modern tank can, and what looks like has defeated a TOW.

 

Have we become to sensitive about our state produced wepond systems?

 

It could have something to do with how the post/thread was presented.

 

"T-90 takes a TOW hit and wins." Then you follow with saying that anyone that thinks it penetrated anything is just theory. Well, saying that it didn't penetrate is a theory as well.

 

Implication/inference: T-90 is awesome. TOW ATGM is overrated crap.

 

You are surprised this generated a lot of comments? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. xD

 

So future reference, post should be like this:

 

"Here is a picture of a T-90 that got hit by a TOW." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:ph34r:

I hereby rename this post to.......Big fluffy bunny eats rainbow grass in the summer sunshine, we live in a beautiful world.:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think U.S. equipment is very good. (It ought to be, considering how much we pay for it.) But, you'd have to be a fool to think that there would never be a malfunction, or that there wouldn't sometimes just be that [un]lucky shot that hit in just the wrong place. Or even that the opponent can't possibly design anything that could defeat one's own weapons in some cases. These weapons aren't only being used in a laboratory under ideal conditions or in a computer simulation. They're being used in the real world, where things can, and will go unexpectedly. To believe that a missile of any kind will absolutely destroy every target, every single time it is used is a little unrealistic, IMHO.

 

Is the TOW a good weapon system? Absolutely. Is it completely immune to failure? I don't think so. Do the above pictures prove that a T-90 will always defeat a TOW? I sure as hell wouldn't bet my life on it.

 

Just my two cents. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well how about this here then. you can see the hit location clearly in the first picture, i put a big red ring around it the second and third picture clearly backs this up, as the hit flash is almost exactly at or near the GPS mirror. milliseconds before impact. 

in the next picture after that you can see the effect on a finnish T-72M1 from parola museum after being hit by BM-15. that's a round with pen of 310-340mm penetration at 2km. 

this area is exactly the same on a T-72B, and very similar on a 1992 T-90. the post penetration effect is clear. it caused major spalling on the back wall, and shredded the gunners hatch as it exited through the rear turret. 

the same thing would happend if a T-90 was hit in this area. the T-90 in the video and picture was hit by a TOW-2A. with a penetration of 900mm behind ERA. 

the last picture is taken from an official ballistics test performed by russians using 3BM-26. it shows that only a small portion of the front turret is actually protected from this round, namely the areas protected by the composite NERA armour. 

the rest of the turret is highly vulnerable. and in fact, the 1992 T-90 shares these exact same vulnerabilities where it is not protected by kontakt-5 ERA. 

this was somewhat alleviated in the newer T-90A, but the roof is still too damn thin on it. 

ruskie.jpg

 

ruskie2.jpg

Edited by dejawolf
cuz reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be correct if it hit there, but what if it hit the  ERA between the tube and the Shtora?

It looks like it's gone, like the cachet blew.

 

CXkAIbuW8AEoKg1.jpg

Hard to tell exactly were the impact was from the vid.

You may be correct, however without more evidence ( not deductions, theory, interweb posts, happy bunnies o.O) we will never know. Thanks for all the data so far on the T-90

Edited by 12Alfa
The bunny made me do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

 

Too bad I'm not as knowledgeable as you, right?

 

 

I guess I was expecting more from someone who fired 78 TOW missiles in the last year.

Edited by Tacbat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Tacbat said:

 

I guess I was expecting more from someone who fired 78 TOW missiles in the last year.

Tacbat, are trying to prove something? I don't see the point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tacbat said:

 

58 minutes ago, Tacbat said:

 

I guess I was expecting more from someone who fired 78 TOW missiles in the last year. What a waste

 

 

Nice post edit.

Didn't expect much different from you. 

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread sure took a turn for the worst.dont see why some are trying to make A31 fooloish he merely said he fired a boatload of TOWs,never attcked anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mpow66m said:

this thread sure took a turn for the worst.dont see why some are trying to make A31 fooloish he merely said he fired a boatload of TOWs,never attcked anyone.

 

 

I corrected someone, based on my real life experience and knowledge.

 

Some people take offense to that. I probably should've done the right thing and not even responded....and stayed away from this forum all together. 

 

TACBAT prefers to go for the throat and immediately insult someone. I'm not sure why. I'm also not sure why we allow him to repeatedly get away with that stuff, but I'm not a moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

 

 

I corrected someone, based on my real life experience and knowledge.

 

Some people take offense to that. I probably should've done the right thing and not even responded....and stayed away from this forum all together. 

 

TACBAT prefers to go for the throat and immediately insult someone. I'm not sure why. I'm also not sure why we allow him to repeatedly get away with that stuff, but I'm not a moderator.

 

I bet you dont get a Christmas card this year,lol :$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

I'm also not sure why we allow him to repeatedly get away with that stuff, but I'm not a moderator.

 

If you think that action should be taken, there's a "Report" button on each post, next to the time code. Just in case that you overlooked that bit, until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My few cents: for what I've known, initial versions of TOW have used un-coded IR tracker working on pre-determined IR flash pattern. The original Shtora system was designed to "jam" the SACLOS guidance automat by repeating known TOW missile(s IR tracker pattern, but with brighter intensity, thus offering the SACLOS automat with more desirable - and fake - IR tracker to follow, thus sending the missile wrong guidance commands, putting it off-track.

 

Meanwhile, somewhere during the deployment of the initial TOW-2 variants, the missile's IR tracker was updated to be coded-signal one (flashing in special, unique pattern which was established/negotiated between the missile and the SACLOS automat during the pre-launch phase).

 

This was not designed as a countermeasure against Shtora, for such Soviet development was not known at the time, but to allow firing missiles in volleys. There is a background story for this: when the Soviets tried firing volleys of the updated-SACLOS variants of Maljutka and Konkurs missiles IRL scenarios against the Israelis, the SACLOS automats couldn't tell which IR signal is "their" missile and which some other and as a consequence, sent wrong correction/guidance commands and hit nothing. The West got their hands on the details of this failure through the Israelis and made sure the newer TOW-2 variants don't suffer this problem... Thus also incidentally making them resistant to Shtora jamming. Bummer for the Russian team.

 

When the Russians found out, it is said they attempted to modify Shtora to try to take down the SACLOS automat of the coded-SACLOS-beacon TOWs by simply blinding it; somewhat akin to when you direct a flashlight to night vision googles. However, it is not known how effective that is, if at all.

 

I donť know the specific variant of TOW which introduced the coded-IR-tracker-flash-pattern. It wasn't the original BGM-71A; it's possible we're talking about the BGM-71D, but I really don't know.

 

(As for the "operator vs. others" debate, I'd suggest to all parties to keep the emotions down. I have personally experienced both debates when the weapon system's operator knew less than non-operator, who was, however, knowledgeable about the technology in background; and debates when the operator had unique information better than factory technicians. So let's keep this in the technical level.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

That would be correct if it hit there, but what if it hit the  ERA between the tube and the Shtora?

It looks like it's gone, like the cachet blew.

 

CXkAIbuW8AEoKg1.jpg

Hard to tell exactly were the impact was from the vid.

You may be correct, however without more evidence ( not deductions, theory, interweb posts, happy bunnies o.O) we will never know. Thanks for all the data so far on the T-90

 if it hit there, the TOW would still penetrate. that area is just the trunnion attachment points, and is fairly weak, about 350-400mm at most. 

so the TOW would have about 450-500mm overmatch.

the TOW missile is pretty damn long. when the nosecone hits the glass, the area with the explosive is right above the ERA brick. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how this subject could lead to high emotions and insults, but you learn something new every day.  The guys that have all the answers can't post here, unfortunately.  Please stick to arguing your points and avoid personal insults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

That would be correct if it hit there, but what if it hit the  ERA between the tube and the Shtora?

It looks like it's gone, like the cachet blew.

 

CXkAIbuW8AEoKg1.jpg

Hard to tell exactly were the impact was from the vid.

You may be correct, however without more evidence ( not deductions, theory, interweb posts, happy bunnies o.O) we will never know. Thanks for all the data so far on the T-90

 

If it would hit ERA it would still penetrate inside turret. TOW-2A have penetration of around 900mm behind ERA, and armor in this area is also very thin.

 

2q2k29e.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 2:32 PM, Apocalypse 31 said:

 

Nice post edit.

Didn't expect much different from you. 

 

Yeah, apologies for that. I thought I had removed that before anyone had seen it. Guess I wasn't fast enough. So, sorry for causing you and any other members of the community any offense from my posts.

 

I do want to sincerely thank you for your service though. The profession of arms isn't an easy calling to answer.

 

About time for me to get going. See y'all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-03-25 at 10:45 PM, dejawolf said:

 if it hit there, the TOW would still penetrate. that area is just the trunnion attachment points, and is fairly weak, about 350-400mm at most. 

so the TOW would have about 450-500mm overmatch.

the TOW missile is pretty damn long. when the nosecone hits the glass, the area with the explosive is right above the ERA brick. 

 

How much of the penetration power does the ERA negate, or do we really know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't we have estimates in the "Armor Basics" PDF that is part of the Steel Beasts documentation? I seem to remember that it had a section on Kontakt-5 and Kontakt-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With so many experts here, LOL:o, I found it, around 600m for a heat.

 

Also found:

 

The official BGM-71D/E armour-piercing capability reaches 920 mm of steel behind ERA. Nevertheless, several foreign experts have challenged the aforementioned data. Previously, Major General of the US Armed Forces, P. Gorman published the article “U.S. Intelligence and Soviet Armour”, declassified in 2004. He pointed out, that the armour-piercing capabilities of the early TOW/ITOW missiles (BGM-71A/B and BGM-71C) were significantly overestimated. So, the real combat effectiveness of TOW 2/TOW 2A missiles may be less impressive, than declared by the developer.

 

Typed Amour Basics in the SB Wiki and got nothing.

Edited by 12Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mpow66m said:

Im no expert......but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night.O.o

 Ok by our standards here. JK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...