"TOW vs MBT" Topic

Said to be taken in Syria yesterday. Let us ignore the politics and focus on the particulars:
a TOW missile hits an MBT and takes it out.
YouTube link
We have both TOW gunners and tankers here. What can you tell us about shooter, target, effect etc?
Are they trying to suppress the shooter with fire? Did one tank do evasive manoeuvres and the one hit stood still?

My guess is that one vehicle evaded and the other didn't. It's possible that the second vehicle's crew didn't recognize the danger while the first crew did. I didn't see much in the way of return fire from the column.

I'm thinkin that if the rest of the column didn't actually see the missiles come in, they were likely baffled as to where the attack was coming from. Pretty scary for them. Once they determine that the rooftop is one of a few likely locations for the TOW Launcher, I imagine they will make it a bad place to be.

I was surprised when the crew jumped out and ran off after the big flash of flames out of the hatches. The flames would not be from the missile? I would guess that powder for the main gun rounds caught fire. I would assume that the crew members are badly wounded but are they wearing flame retardant clothing? Exposed skin badly burned but not enough to stop them from moving and exiting the vehicle.

On the TOW's we wanted to engage target out as far as possible, with the TOW II I used that was around 3700 meters. As long as you kept The crosshairs on the target you were almost certain to achieve a hit. The further out the target is the less effective evasive actions are. As for actions taken by the target. If the target sees the launch then yes, shoot everything you have at that point to either destroy or suppress the launcher. If you can cause the gunner to flinch just for a moment he will most likely loose control of the middle. I was a gunner on both the M901 ITV and the M3 CFV. They both have their merits. The 901 has an erector/launcher so when in the firing position the missile and sight are about 4 feet above the vehicle making it harder to suppress the gunner who can be hidden behind a ridgeline. The M3 can only be hull down as the launcher is located on the side of the turret, but the gunner does have access to a 25mm chaingun and a 7.62mm co-ax.

All to the snack bar.

Check out this "round the corner shot"…

YouTube link

It looks like the TOW tagged the tank on the front edge because after it backs up and disappears around the corner you see the explosion and then the tank starts smoking.

And I wonder what it looks like on the receiving end. Here's one that looks like they should have seen it coming…

YouTube link

There is no guarantee that the missile flight shown in the video is a TOW. The initial part showing the crew of the launcher (who look very western) is used on several videos as a lead in to showing missile flight and strikes. The crew comes out of the vehicle on fire,they may have flame retardant clothing but I wouldn't hold my breath on that from interviews I've seen of Syrian tank crew members.

There are several other TOW launchers in vids from the same poster on You Tube…….

I'm surprised by the low profile of the missile launch, little dust and flash etc, so if the target is 2-3km away, they would be lucky to spot the launcher, let alone suppress the crew.

I want to know how those guys made it out of the tank. With that fireball that was shooting out of the turret I would at least suspected 2nd and 3rd degree burns to the face and hands. Burns to the face and head carry almost a 30% chance of death from just the guild shifts and infection alone. That's not even taking into account heat inhalation damage let alone shrapnel damage.

I am also surprised there was not a bigger cooking off of ammo in that vehicle. Perhaps it did not have a full combat load?

We had 2 M901 ITVs in my Mech Co. And an entire AT Co. in the Bn. The "Hammerhead" would give it some great hull down positioning. Having that long range would make it very useful. I don't know if the "enemy" had incorporated "Sagger Watch", like the IDF and others picked up on. For the TOW/ITOW, but it would be a good tactic if they have.

And the Principle of Surprise will always give you an advantage if used properly. The target would be dead before they knew it. And the survivors would be trying to see where the shot(s) came from. Before another died …

Just seen it on BBC news at ten.

Looks like it might have just been the ready propellant in the autoloader cooking off. That isn't uncommon in shots of T-72s in Syria.

The actual shells don't seem to detonate unless they are directly hit or the tank has burned for a while.

Perhaps the propellant was 'flaring' on escaping into the atmosphere outside of the turret, extra oxygen causing more combustion etc?
The crewmen were lucky to escape, burns to the exposed skin for sure, one of them was engulfed in the fire as he escaped.Lots of other videos showing empty tanks getting hit or no survivors……….

Looks like a lot of catastrophic destruction. In the past 80% or so of MBTs could be repaired and returned to combat. But with the increased lethality of modern weapons. Might be as high as 50% now ?

I was told back in the 80's the Israeli's (after the Bekka Valley) consider the TOW as a tank killer, it completely destroys the target preventing its salvage and potential to be returned to service.

I heard the same … I think they may have modified the warhead ? To prevent such total destruction. The IDF still uses old captured(and or repaired ?) Russian MBT hulls as APCs, etc. … They captured many AFVs from the Arab Armies they fought over the years …

Modern tanks are also so reliant on electronics that even a "minor" turret fire would probably require a complete rebuild.

I saw at the NTC an M1IP get hit during a live five by "Friendly Fire" from another M1IP in the rear hull, into the engine. [That is why you train and practice, again, and again … repeat !]. The crew thought another M1 ran into them. The fire was immediately put out, the crew was fine, however, ed off. But glad the fire extinguisher system worked etc. … Within 4 hours the engine was replaced, etc., and the M1 was fully mission capable. So that is the advantage of having an advanced MBT like the M1.

I don't know what would have happened if it was hit in the rear by a TOW or Sagger. But AFAIK, many of the MBTs being used in this conflict don't have such high tech survivability system as the M1 ?

Modern tanks are also so reliant on electronics that even a "minor" turret fire would probably require a complete rebuild.

Good point. Last night I saw a documentary about a bomb disposal unit in Afghanistan. They were deployed in MRAPs and were hit by an IED. The vehicle looked totally intact and the soldiers were not blown to bits like they could have been in a HUMVEE.

But the vehicle was completely disabled as was the crew which suffered serious wounds and had to be evac'd.

In game terms I think we need to be more conservative when it comes to the effects of modern armor. Too often game designers and players focus on armor penetration. To make a vehicle and crew combat ineffective doesn't always require catastrophic penetration.

advanced modern armor =/= staying combat effective when hit in all cases. More often than not it simply means the vehicle remains salvageable and the crew "less" wounded but still combat ineffective.

It tactical/game terms the unit is still a "loss" and likely becomes a focus of casualty clearance operations and a target for the enemy in that sense.

This is my own old hobby horse…tanks suffering hits to optics, gun tubes, radio antennas, road wheel damage, and track links are effectively out of the battle. The Germans noted this even when Panthers were being repeatedly hit by Anti-tank rifle fire. They also considered the morale effect of multiple non-penetrating hits on the crew who came out of battle with their nerves shot, even their vehicle was not seriously damaged.Something clanging off your armour may not have got in, but it must surely scare the crud out of the crew and who is to say what it was- a clang from a weapon that can't hurt you or a lucky dud from a round/missile that could?

But still we wargamers get fixated on penetration v armour all the time.

Many other Germans considered it routine to get hit a number of times though, experienced Tiger crews considered it par for the course – part of that being that for a long time they could take long range fire and be just fine.

I've read some battle accounts of hits during the Ukrainian Conflict with Russia/Russian-backed guerrillas, and its surprising how many tanks survive multiple ATGM and RPG hits.

Of course, some have ERA, and many of the warheads are duds, but a number of vehicles survived multiple hits on them from the front and sides.

Also, some of the HEAT jets penetrated, and might have injured or killed one crewman, but many of the others survived. In some cases, they bailed out after being hit, and the vehicle was perfectly fine (probably due to thinking another attack was coming, and/or to aid a wounded comrade).

Too often game designers and players focus on armor penetration. To make a vehicle and crew combat ineffective doesn't always require catastrophic penetration.

Very true, too many things can be broken or break and make an AFV Non-mission Capable. Catastrophic destruction today … maybe 50% or less. ?