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, 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.