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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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, 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

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]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by James Langham

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.

Originally Posted by 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...

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Miniguns and rocket pods mostly, IIRC.

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

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by 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?

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 has a novel in it where they use anti-aircraft missiles to cripple a soviet fleet.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Rockwolf66

I know that The Zone Series 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.