Old, but in skilled hands still deadly. For infantry use quite big and heavy(compared to the french-german Milan),but can be mounted on every pickup-truck.
I was a USMC 0352 TOW gunner and while yes the unit is man portable by a team and can be ground mounted, no modern army plans on ground mounting. The TOW is still able to defeat all modern battle tanks and we have shitloads of them to give to Ukraine. In the late 80s we were firing missiles made in the 70s for training.
I hear the system no longer needs the Command Wire link or the human to do “optical tracking”. I was an 0352 and served in a Marine Light Armored Reconnaissance BN on an LAV-AT variant. As a gunner (on fire watch) on my first deployment I destroyed a crewed Iraq T-72 (turret was traversing). As a loader, my gunner destroyed a T-72 and multiple MTLB’s, BMP’s and pickup trucks. We also shot missiles at bunkers and buildings. It’s a deadly system.
@@jastrapper190 Five lbs of Octol in shape charge will burn through a shitload of steel and bore through thick concrete and sandbags, turning whatever it hits into secondary projectiles, very hot secondary...
When I was growing up in the 70s, there was TOW Cobra. My Grandmother worked for Bell Helicopter before my birth in 71 . But I grew up fond of helos to this day.
At the beginning of this video, you stated that this missile was wireless, unless there is a new version that is wireless, it uses wires, my father rip worked on this system over 50 years ago.
4 km is almost like Stugna-P 5 km. Stugna-P can be countered with smoke, but not this one. I may potentially burn 200 vehicles just from this delivery 🚚!
@@WeileWorld No. Having to hold the sight reticle on target to guide the missile in means that if the enemy sees that a missile has been fired, they can do any of a number of countermeasures - fire at you to try to kill you or throw off your aim, pop smoke or blow dust around to obscure the target, or start evasive maneuvers to throw off your aim or hide behind cover. A missile with an automatic lock and fire and forget capability would not be as affected by these counter measures (depending on how well the missile's sensors can see through the smoke/dust screen). This was how the Israelis eventually learned to deal with the early Soviet made Sagger ATGMs during the Yom Kippur War, which took a heavy toll of Israeli tanks until the Israelis learned that the missiles had to be guided to their targets and so would precede their tank advances with artillery barrages and other sweeping fire to throw off the aim of any ATGM operators.
but it has longer range and is cheaper. Also, Russian armor is not protected against this anyway and there infantry is not competent to respond to the launches in time.
The TOW missile was first produced in the 1970.s....Today 50 years later, it is still a game-changer. Imagine that! Are the batteries still working? Or the explosive warheads?
The TOW 2A, TOW 2B and TOW Aero are optionally available with command link radio guidance to replace the wires. It is a Low Probability of intercept radio link, provably sensitive only to the rear of the missile to limit jamming that replaces the wires. I suspect the 5 second gyro spin up is also not needed anymore and MEMS solid state gyros are used.
@@williamzk9083 Tow 2 uses Octol around 5lbs and can defeat most current frontal armour including reactive but can have problems with laminated ceramic.I shot over 500 Tow 2 missles in ITV and ground mount as well as Hummer top mount.The system works well on small fortifications.
@@williamzk9083 The Tow missle can disable or kill the entire crew even if it falls short of penetration as the warhead is fairly large it can produce interior spalling and overpressure similar to a HESH round, certainly brain damage and concussions for the crew.
@@williamzk9083 I have a video of the fast attack vehicle closeup, I trained at Yakima firing range with one , both grenade launcher and TOW could be mounted on the FAV a dune buggy very fast and agile with zero protection. TOW 2 was used to dispatch Sadam Husseins wicked sadistic son and they can penetrate thick reinforced concrete and engage slow fling airborne targets like rotary wing, I also have closeup video of the GAU 8 rotary cannon on the A10 and all kinds of serious weapons on my channel, I was stationed at and work on JBLM on occasion.
This was a pretty decent presentation although he made reference to an Airborne tow missile fired from helicopters. I was a ground infantryman as well as a attack helicopter pilot on cobras. They're the same missiles. There's no difference. As far as the Marines go, most recently they only use hellfires. Other than those two issues it's pretty good video.. very informative.
The accuracy of the TOW missile is not 19%. Any fool that believes that does not know what they are talking about, has never seen the TOW in action and probably has no experience or real knowledge with the missile
@Geoffrey Rose The T-72A was considered to be highly resistant to the TOW missile with less than 20% kill probability. The T-72A was from 1979 but not analysed until 1981 under the name SMT/1981 as far as i know. To combat this the I-Tow or “Improved TOW” was made. However with the upgrade of T-72A to the T-72B the I-TOW was again not enough to ensure reliable kills against Soviet Tanks and thus the Tow was upgraded to the TOW2. Later when it turned out how effective soviet reactive armour was the TOW2 was upgraded to the TOW-2A which is the current standard version of the TOW. The TOW-2B is even more powerful and a top attack munition, but it’s quite rare. In short, tanks aren’t obsolete, and the TOW missile has been ineffective against most of the state of the art tanks of it’s time, it’s been constantly upgraded in order to keep up with tanks that was made years ago. The current TOWs are allegedly not effective against the T-90 series tanks, according to the Russians a T-90 from the 1990s send to Syria was hit with a TOW-2A and while the turret was heavily damaged it was not penetrated and the crew bailed out of the tank. The new atlas also did a piece in which they confirmed the system offered a 19% kill rate with fully trained US personnel.
@@OzzyBloke I have been around the TOW missile since July of 84. You can read all you want but yo actually see the damage or destruction that it causes is a different thing. The TOW like any system is always upgraded to meet the new threats that if faces. In Syria as well as Iraq, Afghanistan and even the Iraq/iran war, the TOW missile was highly effective. The Russians also claimed that the javelin would not be effective against its current tanks as well as the NLAW but the results speak fir themselves. The TOW missile will destroy anything the Russians have and that’s just a fact. All you have to do with most Russian tanks is aim slightly below the turret and it will usually result in the turret popping off. The TOW missile when used with other systems that are usually on the battlefield is what really makes them effective anyways. The Russians have no idea of how to use tanks with infantry support and with other vehicles like the BMP. They tend to just throw stuff at a problem and that is where they get decimated. The TOW is generally used for support of other vehicles that are attacking or the first ones to fire in a defensive situation. They are also highly effective at hitting just about any other targets on the battlefield so to get into this mindset, like the Russians have, that it will only be used one way is just foolish. Anyone who thinks that the TOW only has a 19% chance of killing them if they are in a Russian tank is in for a bad day. Besides all that, there are very few good Russian tanks on the battlefield in Ukraine that are able to survive a hit from s TOW missile and they are getting destroyed daily. The TOW will be just another good tool for the Ukrainian military to use in its fight. Having a range of at least 4000m is a good thing and something that the enemy will probably never see fired unless they were looking right at it. By the way, I was initially an 11H in the infantry and the TOW missile was my life. After changing over to 11B and being on a Bradley that also has the TOW, I have fired hundreds of them and know there capabilities. I could honestly say that there is no good outcome for a Russian crew of any Russian vehicle should they get hit and to be honest, Russia has done more damage with its artillery than it has with its tanks
@@geoffreyrose3327 has the US supplied weapons like, himars mlrs, javelins, or Nlaw stopped Russia no Russia has equivalent weapons systems + biological chemical and nuclear weapons negotiations, de-escalation and Peace is the best way forward
Sure, TOW is older and wire guided (as are modern torpedoes), and perhaps expose the gunner to a few seconds more return fire. They also have no problem defeating 30 inches of armor.
@@guyintenn The 900mm penetration is against RHA Roled Homogeneous Armour. Modern tanks use a mixture of NRA, ERA or composites and structured voids. An Abrams is full of Depleted Uranium Armour. Yes its equal to around 900mm or more RHA.
@@williamzk9083 Firstly, I misread the OP's comment. I thought they said the TOW had a problem defeating 30 inches of armor. I understand RHA vs composites. The Abrams is not full of DU. And nobody actually knows, and the ones who do are not telling. The mixed armor with DU is definitely on the turret face, and may be to some degree on the front glacis, and lower front hull. Many "experts" have guesstimated effective armor (RHA values) against APFSDS and HEAT rounds. The only place the Abrams has more than 900mm effective RHA, is the turret face. 960mm vs APFSDS and 1320mm to 1620mm vs HEAT. The Glacis and lower front hull have less than 900mm effective RHA values, although I have seen one claim that it may have up to 1,050mm on the glacis (slope addition to value) vs HEAT. And once again, we don't actually know because no one, that I am aware of, has fired an E or F variant of the TOW 2 at an M1A2. From the same "experts", it is speculated TOW 2 (E/F variants) should be able to pen an Abrams in some spots on the front, nearly everywhere on the sides/rear (900mm pen after ERA), and definitely in a top down attack (turret).
@@jonber9411 The Bradley TOW can be reloaded in combat without exposing the crew. The turret is positioned in the reload position and the TOW launcher elevated to the reload angle. The turret is switched of. A special hatch on the tank hull behind the turret is opened and the debris removed, new missile inserted. The crew are not really exposed except maybe the forearms from the side as the reload as the hatch which is on the hull and turret form an armored space.
A question if I may? Against active protection systems, the TOW II missile has a dual warhead. Will the APS take out both warheads or just the first one if it engages? Seems like a missile needs multiple decoys to confuse the APS system.
The first (precursor) warhead is there to deal with reactive armor. The main warhead will then have a clean shot at the tank armor. APS systems still haven't developed to the point where they can reliably deal with closed looped (wires) guidance systems. That's why the TOW has remained wire guided all these years. There's very little to no external radiation for the APS to detect, it's all transmitted thru the wires, not the atmosphere.
Just consider the effectiveness of any of the modern Anti tank missiles against Russian tanks And it's a huge win. Taking out a multi million $ tank with but One anti tank is no brainer, Russia have lost thousands in less than a year, Soon they won't be able to keep up with replenishments.
"Anti-Armor, Anti-Bunker, Anti-Fortification, Anti-Amphibious Landing Weapons System..." you know, all this would have been covered if you just said Anti-You missile.
Yes tow is deadly. But I prefer the FPV with the RPG warhead. 1 soldier can carry 2-3 FPV drones with war head vs multiple soldiers needed for a TOW. And FPV is just as deadly.
Hello! Thats only 10 TOW's per Bradley! WTF! That's going to last maybe one attack. Why can't we send a shitload of stuff at once so Ukraine doesn't have to keep waiting and can get the job done without having to beg for stuff. They need to either get heaps of weapons at once or have a regular resupply schedule so they don't run out.
50 Bradley. Each has a tow launcher. Each launcher has 2 loading capacity each time. 500 divided by 50 then by 2 equals 5. So 50 Bradley will carry 10 tows with 5 encounters. No attack but good defense capability
Were talking about 21 seconds of flight time from launch to impact going at 600mph. You guys really think a enemy armor can make a decision and react in 21 seconds? Panic and human error would get in the way of critical decision making. Sure the firer is vulnerable for 21 seconds but i think i like the odds of the target not knowing how to respond immediately, by thr time they see the missile coming its too late at that point.
TOW and Hellfire are in the same group of weapons systems. Javelin and TOW are not in the same group of weapons systems. TOW and Hellfire (same weapons group) are not man portable weapons, where Javelin is. TOW is not fire-and-forget, where Javelin is. TOW also has a much larger warhead compared to Javelin. Their only similarities is that they are both primary anti-tank weapons, both are tube launched, both are missiles. That's pretty much the end of their similarities. Hellfire and TOW are brethren missile systems, but are still quite different. There is also an enormous cost difference between all 3 where TOW is the lowest cost, and Javelin is highest cost. Hellfire is laser guided (with a radar guided variant) where Javelin has an IR seeker head with an initial optical designator, and TOW is optically tracked.
They should send the exact position of them to the Russians i don't understand how they informing of every move of the Ukrainians looks like they always warning ⚠️ the Russian so they ready! Smh
If you watch Ukrainian soldiers use the wire guided antitank rocket similar to TOW they aim high then drop it just before it gets to the target. Could EASILY do the same with laser guided -- that technique virtually eliminates the time for detection for counter measures.
@@droiduser1984 Nope, the top down attack is pre-programmed. Human reaction time is too slow to guide a sudden turn at the terminal phase, you must be bs-ing.
RPG-29 range of 500 meters "During the 2014 Gaza War, Hamas had used RPG-29s to attack IDF Merkava tanks, however because of the recently developed Trophy (countermeasure) they had little effect."
@@HHSTT Yes, we have watched Russia retreat from Kyiv. Then from Kharkiv. Then from the Black Sea. Then from Kherson. Tomorrow will be glorious, eh Comrade?
Be careful. They just killed 400 of your countrymen because they were talking on unencrypted cellphones. You don’t want to get blasted to pieces because you were talking shit on the internet. Just sayin dude 😬🤷♂️🤷♂️. ☄️💥🔥😂
You do understand that these TOW missiles may have been paid for decades ago? Anyway, I guess you'd allow your neighbor to kick in your door, raqe your wife and carry off your valuables in your vehicle, eh?
Don't you realize that maiking such an announcement on what Ukraine will be using hurts them, and tells Russia how to watch out for ?. Does anyone have enough common sense to realize this ?. I know is good politics to boast on how much the US is helping Ukraine, but at the same time this does not help.
You're not seeing the whole picture. First, some of these missiles were previously reported as being shipped so this isn't a huge change, just a bigger quantity. Second, announcements like this are spaced out with other allies so Ukraine gets a steady supply of "keep fighting and we'll keep adding to your supplies" news. Third, this news is also for Russia's consumption. As in, if you cross certain lines we'll be adding to this level of armament. War isn't just about running around shooting at each other.
They gave Ukraine about 1500 + of these in October 2022. They have been using the TOW system here and there but are saving up for a big Fuck U punch to russia.
Sears and Roebuck revolving credit account. 12% annual interest rate. In reality, the amount of money from the European countries outmatch what the US donates. Out Department of Defense budget is less than 5% of what we spend annually on our military. What we donate are the main weapons. And as that goes, out factories have 3 shifts going 24/7. Less than 5% of our military budget has been crushing the Russian military, and we haven't actually fired a single shot. That's cost effective. This is also called business. American business. So, what are your complaints exactly?
well the russian have kornet missile which is slightly more advance than TOW. so nothing special. the fact that why is every nato weapon send to ukraine sounded like a gundam, label as game changer but yet for almost a year ukraine with 900,000 troops still having issue with russia 280,000 just tell us it makes no diff. stop the war sit diwn n talk to russia, stop sacrificing innocent ukrainan
