What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

EFFECT of the Hit

I'm always a bit reluctant to believe everything I see, when static tanks blow up from any type of hit. I was privy to information about how these tests are doctored up by placing a vibration switch on the turret that is connected to containers of petrol and plastic explosive in and under the tank. Any hit on the tank, and everything blows up creating abnormal flames and explosion. I would tend to believe kz11gr's video, as you can see the result of all the propellant burning off. I'm not sure on the other one. Seems like a lot of extra petrol style flame.
 
I think in both cases for more realistic test tanks were packed with live ammunition or with explosive charges that could simulated ammo. When detonation of HEAT or EFP warhead penetrate the tank armor, it could easily starts fire or explosion of ammunition inside.
 
Don't forget, propaganda is alive and well and living in your community......... :tinysmile_shutup_t2
 
Your probably right. I do in fact believe kz11gr's video is more like what I have seen from videos coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. I just was just wondering however, that the noise the TOW makes as it goes by you is really starnge sounding too.

I saw that one with the Helicopter either on a steel tether(SP?) or was it on a flat surface above the ground? Either way it was a test of something that hit the Huey while she was running her main rotor? Turns out that it was all made up to fit what the General(s) and high top officials were expecting. I am also not sure who broke that story to the public?

Anybody remember that SNAFU?
 
Helicopter one too....

Your probably right.&nbsp; I do in fact believe kz11gr's video is more like what I have seen from videos coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.&nbsp; I just was&nbsp;just wondering however, that the noise the TOW makes as it goes by you is really starnge sounding too.<BR><BR>I saw that one with the Helicopter either on a steel tether(SP?) or was it on a flat surface above the ground?&nbsp; Either way it was a test of something that hit the Huey while she was running her main rotor?&nbsp;&nbsp;Turns out that it was all made up to fit what the General(s) and high top officials were expecting.&nbsp; I am also not sure who broke that story to the public?<BR><BR>Anybody remember that SNAFU?<BR><BR>
 
Haven't watched the vids yet, but when I was at Ft Sill we had to help prep for a fire power demo. One of the targets was an old armor vehicle that we had to first clear of any UXO, then clear an area on the side of a hill to place it. It was to be a Copperhead target. The Post CG had seen one of our demos using the M122 remote firing device. Sohe wanted the tank loaded with old TNT and one of our receivers place on it. Our mission was to initate the TNT charge in unison with the Copperhead hit. We calculated the delay it took for our receive to fire once we pushed the transmit button. Arty told us time of flight. All was set, the command fire out was given, we fired don time, the target blew up (pretty nice shot if I do say so myself) but the Copperhead missed the target by 20 meteres easily. When I say that, I told my team mate to back up we were geting out of there.
 
Finally got to watch the vid, looks just like a TOW test to me (but it isn't a TOW). When we tested the I TOW against M 60 tanks with reactive armor (tanks were fullly loaded in both fuel and ammuniton), it depended on where the TOW hit as to the results. It could hit the turrent and all you could see from the outside was the TOWs explosion. But if you hit around the turrent to hull location and hit the ammo you would get detoantions and low ordeers as show. Later when we did tests shooting 115 and 125 APDS and US 120 (one was DU) against the M1 the reults were petty muchas the vid showed. The vid looks as if the turrent came up where it joined the hull, thus you could see the results of ammo low ordering at that point. I'll go though my folder of tesst shots and post a couple of the good ones.
 
I believe it is a TOW 2B by the way it looks.

[h=5]TOW 2B anti-tank missile[/h]TOW 2B, operates in a 'flyover shoot down' top attack mode, unlike other versions which are direct attack. It features a dual-mode target sensor designed by Thales (formerly Thomson-Thorn) Missile Electronics, which includes laser profilometer and magnetic sensor, and new warhead section, produced by Aerojet.
 
weberoed said:
Finally got to watch the vid, looks just like a TOW test to me (but it isn't a TOW). When we tested the I TOW against M 60 tanks with reactive armor (tanks were fullly loaded in both fuel and ammuniton), it depended on where the TOW hit as to the results. It could hit the turrent and all you could see from the outside was the TOWs explosion. But if you hit around the turrent to hull location and hit the ammo you would get detoantions and low ordeers as show. Later when we did tests shooting 115 and 125 APDS and US 120 (one was DU) against the M1 the reults were petty muchas the vid showed. The vid looks as if the turrent came up where it joined the hull, thus you could see the results of ammo low ordering at that point. I'll go though my folder of tesst shots and post a couple of the good ones.
Click to expand...

Mike,
while it's hard to tell without a slower view, everything looks very typical of the TOW-2B. I got to work the first incident ever done on one of these in the early 90s in Socorro, NM. The assembly plant had just started production that week, the final stage of assembly was a computer diagnostic. When the plugged the problem item in, alarms went off all over the plant and everyone was forced to evacuate. Apparently the computer had determined that the missile's safe and arm device was armed, and the missile was in it's seek mode. An interesting incident that gave us lots of time to tour the Aerojet facility and learn a lot about what was then a brand new system. My information on the 2B is dated from that incident, there may have been changes since that time.

The warhead section of the 2B looks little like any of the previous TOWs, it has a flat nose with nearly no ogive. There are actually two EFP warheads in the warhead section, each about the size of a car headlight. One is pointed straight down, one at about 5 degrees to the rear. The penetrator disks were made of tantalum, which was determined at that time to give the second best results for slug formation and penetration over distance. DU was considered best, but was nixed due to the contamination issues. I still have one of the slugs that was recovered from their test range, they said that they had an M1 body as a target and that the slug had gone in through the top and out the bottom. The 2B was designed to defeat the Soviet armor's typical low profile and technique of "digging in" and shooting from a low, covered position. Someplace I still have the tech drawings of the warhead.
 
I'm not sure which warhead it is. Got a nice pub on it though but it is more EOD related then how it functions.
 
when you are at the firing position you definately hear the kick out motor firing, then very soon after that the missle motor kick in, the sound is like no other, after the missle is 40or so meters away you can hear the wire unwinding. If you want to hear a good one you ned to hear a Dragoon AT Missile firing - it's one of the strangest sounds you'll ever hear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top