TOW's: Antiship Capable?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

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]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

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]

Originally Posted by The Dark

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.