TOW's: Antiship Capable?

[kalos72]

So I was reading the Gateway module and realized that the defence of the ship was all with HMG's and a PIVAD and they made reference to the 40MM Oerikens they encountered in Nigeria.

Wouldn't a shoulder fired TOW or similar missile become a very good defensive option at that point?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

So I was reading the Gateway module and realized that the defence of the ship was all with HMG's and a PIVAD and they made reference to the 40MM Oerikens they encountered in Nigeria.

Wouldn't a shoulder fired TOW or similar missile become a very good defensive option at that point?

TOWs can be fired from a tripod or vehicle mount, but not from shoulder. The TOW-I can't be fired over water as the guide-wires are uninsulated. It came as a nasty disappointment to the Israeli army attempting to engage enemy armor across bodies of water when the guidance lines would dip into the water and the missiles would immediately fail to guide.

TOW-II and variants later had insulated wires to avoid this problem.

As long as the target can set off the warhead, the missile can be used against it. TOWs were used against Uday and Qusay's last stronghold; the Israelis use pure-HE derivative warheads (versus shaped-charge anti-armor rounds) against buildings all the time. I'd say you could definitely use them against a boat or ship.

[kalos72]

Ahh true, I forgot about the guide wires.

I also assume even a Stinger would work as a really good anti ship weapon assuming the opposing ship had a heat source yeah?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

If the Stinger missile locked on to the heat source it could theoretically be used but anti-aircraft missiles typically have very small explosive charges.
They don't wreck enemy aircraft so much by explosive force as they do by hitting the plane with lots of fragments. Aircraft are normally made from thin aluminium and have a lot of fragile mechanical & electronic parts that a even a few fragments can ruin.

Ships on the other hand are typically made from steel or thick aluminium and have much of their fragile equipment located behind thick walls or in inner rooms. With a Stinger you might destroy the funnel of the ship but that's not going to do much of anything except maybe injure some of the crew.

[Targan]

Kalos, perhaps you were thinking of the M47 Dragon ATGM? That's man-portable, shoulder-launched (well sort of, it has a bipod) and wire-guided. IIRC Paul Mulcahy was a Dragon gunner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47_Dragon

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Of course there's also the FGM-172 SRAW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-172_SRAW), which fits between the AT-4 (M136) and FGM148 Javelin ("Tankbreaker").

Unfortunately the SRAW has been taken out of the anti-armor role and is now just an "assault missile" equipped with a blast/fragmentation warhead. However for the OP's purposes, that might work better.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Ahh true, I forgot about the guide wires.

I also assume even a Stinger would work as a really good anti ship weapon assuming the opposing ship had a heat source yeah?

Mm, not really. Anti-boat weapon, yeah. All it would do is annoy a proper ship. The warhead, while it can be set to impact or proximity, is too small in either case to do much if any damage.

[Adm.Lee]

TOWs can be fired from a tripod or vehicle mount, but not from shoulder. The TOW-I can't be fired over water as the guide-wires are uninsulated. It came as a nasty disappointment to the Israeli army attempting to engage enemy armor across bodies of water when the guidance lines would dip into the water and the missiles would immediately fail to guide.

TOW-II and variants later had insulated wires to avoid this problem.
... I'd say you could definitely use them against a boat or ship.

When my wargaming buddy and I back in the early '80s tried to mix Harpoon with Tacforce, we dreamed about what Marine Cobras with TOW could do to Soviet landing ships. Amazed I still remember that....

... and now I know it wouldn't have worked at all. Chopper probably wouldn't have gotten past the SAMs or AA anyway.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

When my wargaming buddy and I back in the early '80s tried to mix Harpoon with Tacforce, we dreamed about what Marine Cobras with TOW could do to Soviet landing ships. Amazed I still remember that....

... and now I know it wouldn't have worked at all. Chopper probably wouldn't have gotten past the SAMs or AA anyway.

Maverick or Hellfires would've been the better choice. However, as you correctly point out, air defense would've been murder.

The (chronological) sequel to Flight of the Intruder has a chapter where Jake Grafton is tasked with planning a strike package to hit a Soviet surface action group (that is, writing the paper, not actually getting ready to do it). I don't have the book handy but I think the loss rate was expected to be something like 30% of the alpha strike going down on the way in, with another 15%-30% being shot down on egress. The book is set in 1973, after Grafton's return from Vietnam but well prior to the completion of the development of the Harpoon, so the best weapons at the A6's disposal are Walleye TV-guided bombs and early PAVE-way laser-guided bombs. Regardless, the projected losses are grim. Plus they'd have to rearm and re-fuel surviving aircraft and go after any ships that weren't destroyed or sunk completely.

[Panther Al]

In theory, the TOW2 and higher can be used over water - after all there is some insulation on the wire unlike the TOW1.

However, the two times I seen a tow get shot out over more than a your typical smallish river overseas, the wires always got shorted anyways.

So I would say there would be a chance of it shorting out regardless. I do know when they gave me an in unit training on the Brad back when I was in the ACR they said *not* to fire over bodies of water for this reason.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

In theory, the TOW2 and higher can be used over water - after all there is some insulation on the wire unlike the TOW1.

However, the two times I seen a tow get shot out over more than a your typical smallish river overseas, the wires always got shorted anyways.

So I would say there would be a chance of it shorting out regardless. I do know when they gave me an in unit training on the Brad back when I was in the ACR they said *not* to fire over bodies of water for this reason.

I have a vague recollection of reading or seeing somewhere concern about cracks in TOW missile wire insulation, so that seems right.

[simonmark6]

There is evidence that an Argentinian Drummond Class Corvette was damaged in South Georgia by three hits from Royal Marine AT weapons (I don't know if they were Carl Gustavs or Milans).

The Telegraph notes that she had her main gun and exocets damaged and was holed beneath the waterline. They describe her as limping away.

Given that the boat then "limped" thousands of miles back to dock and then only spent three days in repair suggests that the damage wasn't great. It may have been that the Captain decided to get away from the mad brits who kept taking pot shots at his corvette. Given three days in port and how long it takes to make ship repairs I'd say that the hits didn't really do much damage.

Taking out critical systems is possible but sinking a ship with an ATGM? I'd doubt it.

[dragoon500ly]

There is evidence that an Argentinian Drummond Class Corvette was damaged in South Georgia by three hits from Royal Marine AT weapons (I don't know if they were Carl Gustavs or Milans).

The Telegraph notes that she had her main gun and exocets damaged and was holed beneath the waterline. They describe her as limping away.

Given that the boat then "limped" thousands of miles back to dock and then only spent three days in repair suggests that the damage wasn't great. It may have been that the Captain decided to get away from the mad brits who kept taking pot shots at his corvette. Given three days in port and how long it takes to make ship repairs I'd say that the hits didn't really do much damage.

Taking out critical systems is possible but sinking a ship with an ATGM? I'd doubt it.

The ARS Guerrico was hit by one Carl Gustav round on the waterline, a second that impacted on the Exocet launcher (failed to detonate the missile), 2 M-72 LAWs that struck the turret and knocked it out of action as well as some 1,200 rounds of 7.62mm (GPMG and SLR).

[kalos72]

Assuming a 'small" encounter, all you need to do is take out a turret or the bridge to disrupt an attack I would think.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The problem with "let's take out a ship with an anti-tank missile" is that the overall design of what each kind of missile does is antithetical to how you want to break each target.

Consider the tank, or armored vehicle: small enclosed area, space is at a premium, men are no further than 1'-2' apart. You want a warhead that kills the target (and occupants) through shock and blast effect but also via penetration of armor and ignition of fuel and ammunition, all of which is also within 1' to 3' of each other and crew. For this, the shaped charge of an anti-tank munition is perfect.

Now consider a ship (anything larger than a 25'-er). Large open spaces. Crew, fuel and critical systems widely spread out. To kill this target, you must either use a huge system above the waterline (Harpoon, or on the Soviet side weapons too numerous to mention) or use shock and explosive effect underneath the waterline to break the main structures apart and induce deformation of the hull and therefore flooding. While multiple hits from, say, an AGM-65 above the waterline would be sufficient (it is, after all, a 500lb weapon with a not-inconsiderable HE warhead) to mission-kill a small craft, anything smaller just won't get the job done. You'll have extremely localized damage. And obviously you can't fire them beneath the waterline: they'll either detonate at the water or won't have enough explosive oomph to do anything when they do go off underneath.

[kalos72]

Dont get me wrong, I dont assume its the best scenario or even a good one.

But if you've got a 20mm PIVAD with a range of 450...and the other guy has a 40mm AC with twice the range...a 3500 missile sounds alot better.

Although it would appear the range on these guns is more then a little bit off from RL...

[WallShadow]

Just thinking aloud--what if the firer sent the TOW in a high ballistic arc, then lowered the sights to the target? Would the wires still be in the air when the missile struck?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Just thinking aloud--what if the firer sent the TOW in a high ballistic arc, then lowered the sights to the target? Would the wires still be in the air when the missile struck?

Depends; the missile might be so out of envelope when you're ready to bring it back down that you couldn't keep the degree of control required.

[James Langham]

I know we are looking for range but close in a Mark 19 would be devastating against small boats.

What were TF160 using on the AH6's in The Tanker War?

[Raellus]

What were TF160 using on the AH6's in The Tanker War?

Miniguns and rocket pods mostly, IIRC.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think there has been something missed here.
If I remember right, the ranges for gun systems like the PIVAD etc. etc. are like small arms ranges, they indicate the Close Range and not the maximum range.
Missiles list their Maximum Range.

So in the example above the PIVAD would have the following Range Bands: -
Close: 450 metres
Medium: 900 metres
Long: 1800 metres
Extreme: 3600 metres

Sure you have lower chance to hit at Extreme Range but the 3500 metres Maximum Range of the missile doesn't seem so magical now.

Dont get me wrong, I dont assume its the best scenario or even a good one.

But if you've got a 20mm PIVAD with a range of 450...and the other guy has a 40mm AC with twice the range...a 3500 missile sounds alot better.

Although it would appear the range on these guns is more then a little bit off from RL...

[James Langham]

Miniguns and rocket pods mostly, IIRC.

Thanks, these obviously worked well then so might work well ship mounted verses smaller craft.

[pmulcahy11b]

Just thinking aloud--what if the firer sent the TOW in a high ballistic arc, then lowered the sights to the target? Would the wires still be in the air when the missile struck?

If I'm understanding your intention correct -- you unfortunately cannot do that with a TOW (except the later FF missile versions). The reason the TOW has flares at the rear is to help it show up in the gunner's sight picture -- if the TOW goes more than (IIRC) 27 degrees outside of the sight picture, the missile will self destruct. (This was done to help insure that you don't have a ton of unguided missiles flying all over the battlefield, possibly endangering friendly units). There is also an amount (don't remember what it is) that the TOW can go above or below the initial sight level, or it self destructs. Again to stop rogue missiles.

[bobcat]

frankly ATGM's for anti ship would only be useful to keep them from noticing your divers with the shaped charges, and that is rather wasteful and hazardous to your divers.

[Benjamin]

I know from reading old Jane's Armour and Artillery (late 1980s) that several Scandinavian nations were developing coastal defense missile batteries based upon mobile Hellfire launchers. The never completed hyper-velocity missile system was also to have an anti-ship variant. Depending upon which version of the TL you are using these missiles might be available.

Finally, anti-aircraft missiles tend to be proximity explosives so they really wouldn't do much except spray a naval vessel with sub-fragments. This would be heck on fragile radars/electronics and exposed personnel but it would not sink the ship. There were naval versions of HARM missiles designed specifically to destroy ship mounted radar and electronics. AE-6 Prowlers often carried these to use during alpha strikes against Soviet naval task forces.

Benjamin

[Rockwolf66]

I know that The Zone Series (http://www.goodreads.com/series/94254-the-zone) has a novel in it where they use anti-aircraft missiles to cripple a soviet fleet.

[James Langham]

I know that The Zone Series (http://www.goodreads.com/series/94254-the-zone) has a novel in it where they use anti-aircraft missiles to cripple a soviet fleet.

Number 3 from memory

[Apache6]

-ATGMs that hit a ship will do significant damage, but a single round is not going to sink a warship, considering watertight bulkheads inside the ship and reasonable damage control measures. Same with Tank main gun rounds or even 155mm HE.

- The flip side of that is that Captains of ships are not going to want to risk some of the few remaining Naval assets without VERY good reason.

- Even just turning on a surface searce RADAR might drive off or discourage a ship, do they really want to stay around to find out if you still have been able to scrounge a Seersucker or far more deadly Harboon missile.

- During the Korean war there were several instances of UN (US, Australlian, Canadian and UK) destroyers, cruisers and Battleships 'dueling' with North Korean artillery battalions ashore, including some with Katusya's. The Allied ships, benefiting from air superiority and spotter aircraft routinely neutralized the shore batteries. The NK fire control systems were usually not responsive or accurate enough to hit a moving ship.

[swaghauler]

I had to Necro this thread to point out that AT munitions have finally "gone to sea." The Navy's Cyclone Patrol Ships have been fitted with a special Mid-Ship launcher containing 6 Stinger AA missiles and 2 Quad-Launchers for the Hellfire Longbow laser guided munition (for 8 missiles in total). It also sports two Gun Mounts (one forward, one aft) containing BOTH a 40mm Mark19 Grenade Launcher and a 25mm Chaingun in a "co-axle" arrangement. There are also several mounts for .50 caliber and .30 caliber machineguns situated around the ship. Other upgrades being considered are a 30mm Cannon or twin 25mm Chainguns.

The Cyclones (serving in the Gulf right now) could be an interesting game add. With an overall Length of 55 meters, a Width of 7.6 meters and a draft of 2.3 meters; they are not that big. The crew is 24 enlisted and 4 officers. There are 8 spare berths and she can sail for 2500 nautical miles on her 4 diesels (multifuel).

[The Dark]

With regards to firing TOW over water, FM 23-34 says it can be done. For a scenario like is being discussed here (ship-to-ship), a BGM-71A, BGM-71A-2, or BGM-71A-2A can be fired across 1400 meters of water, and any other type up to BGM-71E over 1100 meters of water.

The weapons I always end up wanting to take for Vistula-like scenarios were the recoilless rifles for discouraging opposing ships (along with GPMGs and/or HMGs) and mortars for support of shore parties.

[pmulcahy11b]

With regards to firing TOW over water, FM 23-34 says it can be done. For a scenario like is being discussed here (ship-to-ship), a BGM-71A, BGM-71A-2, or BGM-71A-2A can be fired across 1400 meters of water, and any other type up to BGM-71E over 1100 meters of water.

Not to impune a manual from my dear Army -- the BGM-71A or BGM-71A-2 are NOT going to go over that much water without the guide wires hitting the water and shorting out. It was fixed later, but the earlier TOWs are not going to zoom over water for any real distance without going BOOM early. Especially not salt water. Ask an 80s or 90s 11-Hotel.

That said, an aerial shot from a high angle with one of those early TOWs might do it. And anything can be an antiship weapon - - just depends on how you deploy it.

[The Dark]

That said, an aerial shot from a high angle with one of those early TOWs might do it. And anything can be an antiship weapon - - just depends on how you deploy it.Speaking of this, the same FM has a nomogram for calculating what distance can be fired across water based on the altitude above water of the launcher and the target. Mounting a TOW launcher in open space on a bridge tower could give it decent range over water. I'm not sure how much field of view the tripod launchers have and whether you could do a limited drop shot (i.e. keep the missile near the top of the field of view, target near the bottom, and arc it down).

[Silent Hunter UK]

And anything can be an antiship weapon - - just depends on how you deploy it.

Agreed. A ship doesn't travel much faster than a tank in combat and is a larger target.

[swaghauler]

Agreed. A ship doesn't travel much faster than a tank in combat and is a larger target.

While you can technically use any system on the water, dedicated systems have a few traits that "improvised" systems won't have. Most dedicated Naval systems are "hardened" against both water and shock. A heavy sea state can cause MAJOR damage to a system not prepared for the "jostling" that the seas can cause to equipment. Optics will fail, electronics cease to function and just aiming the weapon can become problematic if the sights cannot be focused on in a rolling sea. Another trait is a sealed delivery system designed to keep just plain sea water from killing both electronics and propellants in a weapons system. A third trait would be the proper positioning of the weapon to prevent damage to the ship. A recoilless rifle does you no good if its backblast blows out all of the superstructure's windows when fired.

Ships systems should (and most do) have a "Stabilization System" like tanks do. The following chart will help you understand what Sea States would add a level of difficulty and what Stabilization would help in those Sea States.

SEA STATE AND STABILIZATION RATES:
Stabilization Type: ......................... Sea State And Description: ..................Difficulty Shift for Non-Stabilized Weapons:
No Stabilization: ............................ (0-2) Calm to Wavelets (up to 0.5m) ................. No Difficulty Shift
Poor Stabilization: .......................... (3-4) Slight to Moderate (0.5m to 2.5m) ............ One Level More Difficult
Fair Stabilization: ........................... (5-6) Moderate to Rough (2.5m to 6m) .............. Two Levels More Difficult
Good Stabilization: ......................... (7) Very Rough/High waves (6m to 9m) ............. Three Levels More Difficult
Excellent Stabilization: .................... (8) Very High Waves (9m to 14m) ..................... Four Levels More Difficult
No Effective Stabilization Available: .. (9) Phenomenal Waves (14m+) ......................... Five Levels More Difficult

Thus a Moderate Sea State could put a crimp in that call for fire support from your deck mounted mortar or recoilless rifle.

Naval Weapons:

Most naval weapons are stabilized but the extent of that stabilization depends on the era the weapon is from and the cost/quality of the installation.

- Most WW2 weapons (like the US battleship's guns) have Poor Stabilization.
- Most 1960's and 1970's era weapons have Fair Stabilization (like the US 5" Gun Mount or the 25mm Mk38 mount).
- Most 1980's and 1990's weapons (Like the OTO-Melara 76.2mm Mk2) have Good Stabilization.
- Most 21st Century weapons (like the newer 30mm, 40mm, and 57mm autocannon) have Excellent Stabilization.

Retrofitted weapons may have a lower level of Stabilization. When the Perry Class Frigates had their Mk13 Launchers decommissioned, the Navy experimented with a modified 5" Gun mount. The mount could only carry the 20 rounds in it and a small magazine of only 200 rounds was all that could be fitted (a standard magazine is 600 rounds). The real "deal-breaker" was that the mount ended up with the equivalent of Poor Stabilization.

This overlooked aspect of naval weapons will help you "customize" the various weapons on any ships you choose to use in Twilight2000.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Noted. Although you don't necessarily have to be on the water to fire at a ship; it is entirely possible to launch an anti-ship missile from a land-based platform and it has actually been done in more than one conflict.

[swaghauler]

Noted. Although you don't necessarily have to be on the water to fire at a ship; it is entirely possible to launch an anti-ship missile from a land-based platform and it has actually been done in more than one conflict.

I was actually trying to point out that you cannot just "slap" a weapon on the deck of a ship and have it work flawlessly for some of our GMs who aren't veterans or "weapons savvy." In my opinion, this is the MOST OVERLOOKED aspect of ALL WEAPON SYSTEMS. The differences in any system's Control/Guidance, Stabilization, and Target Aquisition can significantly affect performance. I would like to see this modeled more in the game. As a "for instance," what is the real difference between the T55's original Stadiameteric Ranging sight and the newer Volna Fire Contol System (other than the 4 second reduction in fire time)?

[The Dark]

I was actually trying to point out that you cannot just "slap" a weapon on the deck of a ship and have it work flawlessly for some of our GMs who aren't veterans or "weapons savvy." In my opinion, this is the MOST OVERLOOKED aspect of ALL WEAPON SYSTEMS. The differences in any system's Control/Guidance, Stabilization, and Target Aquisition can significantly affect performance. I would like to see this modeled more in the game. As a "for instance," what is the real difference between the T55's original Stadiameteric Ranging sight and the newer Volna Fire Contol System (other than the 4 second reduction in fire time)?Volna added thermal imaging, laser designation using the rangefinder, and the ability to fire 9K116-1 missiles (AT-10 Stabber) from the cannon. It also added a BV-55 ballistic computer, putting its fire control overall roughly on par with a Leopard 1A1. The T-55M also (I believe) introduced the Tsiklon-M1 2-plane stabilization system. Accuracy for a shot at zero velocity on a 2x3 meter target at 2 kilometers is said to have gone from around 8% to around 45-50%, although my source is old and may have overestimated the capabilities of Volna/BV-55.

[rcaf_777]

As long as the target can set off the warhead, the missile can be used against it.

There is a wire shag calculation that gunners can do, this would give the gunners an idea of how far they need aim off to keep the wire out of the water. When I went through my TOW Gunner Course, I only remember this being taught to us for range usage. We were getting the new TOW II Missiles and were using the TOW I for training only as they wanted used up.

Given that the ATGM like the TOW are crewed served weapons (IE more than one person is need to use the weapons technically) you be better off using systems like M47 Dragon , LAW, AT-4, RPG's in this case.

Also you have find some way to bolt the system to the deck as it move's a far bit when fired. There are claws on the tripod, but they would good for soft ground. Sand bags could another option, you also have to make sure the ATGM system had clear black blast area are ATGM can put up a lot of smoke, during the launch stage.

[CDAT]

There is a wire shag calculation that gunners can do, this would give the gunners an idea of how far they need aim off to keep the wire out of the water. When I went through my TOW Gunner Course, I only remember this being taught to us for range usage. We were getting the new TOW II Missiles and were using the TOW I for training only as they wanted used up.

Given that the ATGM like the TOW are crewed served weapons (IE more than one person is need to use the weapons technically) you be better off using systems like M47 Dragon , LAW, AT-4, RPG's in this case.

Also you have find some way to bolt the system to the deck as it move's a far bit when fired. There are claws on the tripod, but they would good for soft ground. Sand bags could another option, you also have to make sure the ATGM system had clear black blast area are ATGM can put up a lot of smoke, during the launch stage.

Ratchet straps, in 03' that is how we secured our M240, M2, and Mk 19 to our dump trucks.

[swaghauler]

Volna added thermal imaging, laser designation using the rangefinder, and the ability to fire 9K116-1 missiles (AT-10 Stabber) from the cannon. It also added a BV-55 ballistic computer, putting its fire control overall roughly on par with a Leopard 1A1. The T-55M also (I believe) introduced the Tsiklon-M1 2-plane stabilization system. Accuracy for a shot at zero velocity on a 2x3 meter target at 2 kilometers is said to have gone from around 8% to around 45-50%, although my source is old and may have overestimated the capabilities of Volna/BV-55.

This is the kind of detail that should be added to the game. Let's face it, it is the features you DON'T see that make modern AFV, Aircraft, and Naval vessels so capable in combat.

[James Langham2]

The Soviets regularly mounted MRLs on ships in World War Two, this might be an attractive option.