Talk:BGM-71 TOW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 Prevalence 2 Acronym 3 TOW guidance 4 Acronym 5 ANY Armor? 6 Tank vs. Anti-tank 7 Need big list of countries? 8 Details

[edit] Prevalence

The entry in this article is incorrect: The RPG-7 is the world's most widely used anti-tank missile.

Berrik

A rocket-propeled grenade is not a missile.

Technically it is, as a missile qualifies as any projectile; a stone could qualify as a missile. --The1exile 15:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone's changed it to *guided* missile, which should be precise enough. --Random wikipedia user.

If anyone has been in combat against an RPG-7 lately.....it is barely anti personnel. I have been hit in an unprotected hummer with no injury several times. If a TOW were to hit a hummer it would desimate it. So to say that an RPG-7 is Anti-tank is a misnomer anyway.

[edit] Acronym

There are different understandings for what TOW stands for: Tube-launched Optical Wire guidience (and just guided), Tube-launched Optically Wire (and wired) guidience (and guided). Apologies for my poor spelling.

The acronymn TOW as defined by The School of Infantry USMC is Actually Tube Launched;Optically Tracked;Wire command linked Guided missle System.

[edit] TOW guidance

Is the TOW a fire-and-forget missile, or some other system? I have always understood it to be Fire and forget, but the article is confusing. So confusing that unless it gets improved soon I will see if I can get it listed to be cleaned up. --The1exile 17:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that TOW is a fire-and-forget system. To my knowledge no wire-guided missile is fire-and-forget, they're all command LOS weapons. TOW still requires the sighting system feeding information to the guidance unit in the missile to be fixed on the target until it impacts. I have, however, added a note at the end of the variants section explaning this. --Thatguy96 12:31, 5 March 2006

Ok, I got the idea that the TOW was fire-and-forget from the portrayals I have seen of it, mainly in games. It is usually shown as a fire and-forget missile rather than a SACLOS missile, but I wasn't sure where to confirm it. Probably wrongly portrayed because it is in fact neither. --The1exile 20:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym

I think we may be suffering creeping acronym shift here. TOW originally stood for "Television Over Wire."

If that's in reference to the TOW missile then I don't understand why that would be the case. There's no "television" involved on any level. Thatguy96 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANY Armor?

The TOW can penetrate ANY known tank armor? Are we completely sure of that?

YEs i was the one who added that and i am fairly certain about. i have seen videos of a current production tow being tested against and M1A1 Abrams MBT. The missile fully penetrated the frontal turret armor. I am there fore fairly certain that it can kill any tank on this planet --Paladin 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Back in 91 when I trained to fire these things, the spec we were given was that it is capable of penetrating in excess of 36 inches of rolled homogeneous steel, making it capable of taking out an M1A1 head on. The missiles also have a probe on the front to defeat reactive armor. Before I got out in 94 we were feilding the 2B variant that was supposed to fly over the top of the tank and fire down through the turret. I personally never got to see these in a live fire exercise though.

I'm not sure that a video of one test qualifies as positive proof that it can penetrate any known tank armor. In any case, there should be a reference and probably a qualifying statement. 203.45.85.74 14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Max

[edit] Tank vs. Anti-tank

IIRC in one of the Arab-Israeli wars the Arabs used TOW (or the equivalent) against the Israeli tanks but the missles were too slow relative to tank cannon fire. When the Israelis saw a TOW launch they would fire at the presumed launch site and the missle would lose guidance. The account I read had a tank turret draped with multiple TOW guidance wires. Anyone interested enough to track this down? -Wfaxon 02:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an account of the use of AT-3 Sagger missiles used in the October/Yom Kippur War. The AT-3 is far slower than the BGM-71 (more along the lines of the Dragon), and the time to target was a notable issue (just as it was with the Dragon). The speed of weapons like the BGM-71 is specifically designed to deal with this issue. -- Thatguy96 02:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This rationale for additional speed should be mentioned in the article. I note that the article on the AT-3 Sagger lauds the latter's utility in the 1973 Yom Kipur War. (Also Dragon needs disambiguation for the M47 Dragon; in fact, all such missles should be double-indexed by name and weapon number, if that's what it's called.) -Wfaxon 12:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The general idea of tank vs anti tank is not as much power vs power as it is stand off distance. Having said that, besides the abrams and the merkava (at times) there isnt a tank that exists with a max "effective" range of 3750m

[edit] Need big list of countries?

This seems to be a commonly used weapon system. Is there a great need for the big list of countries? I don't think it adds much value to the article. -- Medains 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details

how come this page lacks details like fuel type, max speed, range, weight, cost... Paskari 14:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)