"TOWs Proving Valuable in Syria" Topic

link

The link above compares the success of Stinger missiles in Afghanistan against the Russiana to TOWs in Syria. The piece asserts that they've turned the tide against Assad driving the Russians to intervene.

The situation reveals the rock-paper-scissor nature of modern combat. ATGM defends against AFVs. Now the Russians are entering the picture with stepped up air strikes to take out the ATGMs. The rebels are pleading for Stingers to hold off the air strikes but the west balks at the suggestion given the threat to commercial aircraft.

For we gamers the most interesting info to emerge is just how effective the TOW is. I believe that conventional wisdom is that such missiles can be evaded or the gunner easily ID'd and suppressed before impact. But video evidence suggests that targets seem unaware of the missiles. Perhaps better trained forces could take more effective countermeasures but even the Israelis faced great difficulty against ATGMs in Lebanon a few years ago.

The implications for battlefield tactics is interesting. Could the "tank destroyer" concept have new life? If heavy armor is so easily defeated is lighter armor just as effective in some ways? I know that the "death of the tank" has been debated and usually dismissed. But maybe medium armor capable of resisting anything up to 40mm autocannon is all you really need if main guns and ATGMs can so easily defeat heavy armor?

The TOW, in its different makes, has been around for a long time and has the reputation of getting the job done well.

Wonder how long till the Syrians start to field T-80's and T-90's in an effort to stop the TOW's. The next logical step would be either the top attack TOWs or Javelins. It's only a matter of time.

Then again, we may be pleasantly surprised to see the good old TOW-2E wrecking the newer Russian tanks as well.

TOWs are great weapons as long as you have rounds. Then you are back to IEDs and RPGs which are easier to use and a LOT cheaper.

this is the reponse. Both Russian and Israel works on a system.

Russian

link

Reports from the Ukrane state that the Russian have started to deploy this system and it works.

Israel

link

Shades of Hammer's Slammers

Well, we just air-dropped 50 tons of weapons to the Syrian rebels, including grenades, and other ammo, so…….

Appears both sides can play the false propaganda game, since just yesterday we were abandoning them to their fate.

Could the "tank destroyer" concept have new life? If heavy armor is so easily defeated is lighter armor just as effective in some ways? I

Not really a paradigm shift. The Mech Bn's in the '80s I served in, had an entire Anti-Armor Company. Something like 3 Plts of 5 or of M901 ITVs. Plus each of the 3 Mech Companies had a 2 Vehicle M901 Section. As well as each Squad had an M47 MAW Dragon. As well as M72 LAWs or AT-4s could be issued like hand grenades. And the Bn Scout Plt had 3 M901s.

And remember many NATO Helicopters packed TOWs or something similar. And the A-10 was designed to kill the massive amounts of Warsaw Pact armor that could have been rolling across the Inter-German Border.

So I don't think anything has changed on the battlefield we are just reminded, the TOW is a deadly weapon system if used properly.

The Syrians may have to adjust their tactics now they know and see how effective the TOW is … again. The IDF used them in '73.

Those various tactics to suppress or defeat ATGMs/AT Guns have been around for awhile. Now the Syrians need to take out their Russian FMs and have their Russian comrades train or retrain their troops.

Watch the old movie, "A Bridge Too Far". The part where the Brit Armor of 30 Corps is leading the push to Arnhem. A rolling barrage preceded their advance by seconds. Hitting some hidden German 75mm AT guns in the woods along the road. Followed by CAS when the surviving German AT guns opened fire on the tanks. Then the Brit Infantry assaulted the Germans and AT guns in the woodline with guns blazing. Not to mention the tanks opened up on the woodline in a Recon By Fire, as the CAS came in. While the Infantry dismounted for the assault. Still applicable today with little modification …

All the video of tows on you tube are because in order to get more ammo they need proof of Boom!

Seems lot of booms.

YouTube link

in one of the video the tank backs up and the missle gets it around the corner.

I'm curious, and maybe one of you grognards here might be able to answer this question.

What happens to the tank crew if the hull is hit by a TOW, but not penetrated? Or a 120 mm round?

Nothing? Concussion?

Great question mandt! I'm curious too.

What happens to the tank crew if the hull is hit by a TOW, but not penetrated? Or a 120 mm round?

Whatever happens it can't be good …

Quick change of pants!
A non penentration can have nasty effects depending on the location and vehicle.. Non penetrating can result in a lot of heat energy in the armour..

Could the "tank destroyer" concept have new life?

Already happened, they're called Attack Helicopters. They even use the WW2-era US Tank Destroyer doctrine.

If heavy armor is so easily defeated is lighter armor just as effective in some ways? I know that the "death of the tank" has been debated and usually dismissed. But maybe medium armor capable of resisting anything up to 40mm autocannon is all you really need if main guns and ATGMs can so easily defeat heavy armor?

That's certainly the position of a friend of mine in the Army. He says that if you're taking ATGM or main gun fire, you need to leave that position ASAP.

I suspect that older generation TOW vs older generation armour is somewhat moot. When you have reactive armour, and even some form of point defence, it changes the equation a bit. Of course, buttoned up armour in close quarters will be vulnerable to infantry AT weapons.

I suspect that older generation TOW vs older generation armour is somewhat moot. When you have reactive armour, and even some form of point defence, it changes the equation a bit. Of course, buttoned up armour in close quarters will be vulnerable to infantry AT weapons.

Not all AFVs use ERA, but regardless, there are ways to defeat it, in most cases. Like requiring FA or other MBTs, etc., to strip away the ERA. Then open up with main guns and ATGMs, etc. … But ERA can still be useful, on many occasions.

As a former Infantry Officer, we trained and all knew how vulnerable AFVs are in places like a village or along a road thru a woods, etc. …

That's certainly the position of a friend of mine in the Army. He says that if you're taking ATGM or main gun fire, you need to leave that position ASAP.

The old rule was if you can be seen you can be hit, if you can be hit you can be killed …

I suspect that older generation TOW vs older generation armour is somewhat moot. When you have reactive armour, and even some form of point defence, it changes the equation a bit. Of course, buttoned up armour in close quarters will be vulnerable to infantry AT weapons.

ERA doesn't change the equation that much, most ATGMs have tandem or triple warheads to defeat ERA already.

Active point defenses only change the equation to "shoot from a range that doesn't give the ADS time to react", which is a mix of hypervelocity missiles and short range.

Yes … Measure … Counter Measure … Counter-Counter Measure, etc., etc. … That is just the way proactive Military Tech and tactics works.