Talk:BGM-71 TOW

Prevalence
The entry in this article is incorrect: The RPG-7 is the world's most widely used anti-tank missile.

Berrik
 * A rocket-propeled grenade is not a missile.


 * Technically it is, as a missile qualifies as any projectile; a stone could qualify as a missile. --The1exile 15:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone's changed it to *guided* missile, which should be precise enough. --Random wikipedia user.

If anyone has been in combat against an RPG-7 lately.....it is barely anti personnel. I have been hit in an unprotected hummer with no injury several times. If a TOW were to hit a hummer it would desimate it. So to say that an RPG-7 is Anti-tank is a misnomer anyway.

RPG is used mostly for lightly armored (by today's standards) vehicles, but it was anti-tank material in '61. So to define it as anti tank, we really should look at other items. A bullet that was developed to penetrate the first bullet-proof vest (made of silk i believe... that may have not been the first though.) could have been called armor-piercing way back then, but would it still be considered an armor-piercing munition today against kevlar and metal sheets? answer it yourselves, if yes then consider the RPG-7 anti-tank. If no then it should be downgraded to anti-vehicle (or useless... I have yet to see one in action and its destructive power) IngeniusDodo (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Acronym
There are different understandings for what TOW stands for: Tube-launched Optical Wire guidience (and just guided), Tube-launched Optically Wire (and wired) guidience (and guided). Apologies for my poor spelling.

The acronymn TOW as defined by The School of Infantry USMC is Actually Tube Launched;Optically Tracked;Wire command linked Guided missle System.


 * I have corrected the acrynom to that used by the official manufacturer, i.e. "wire-guided". — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As Principal Instructor in the TOW Trainers Course for the US Army Infantry School I taught the first TOW Trainer Team for the USMC School of Infantry back in 1975, which also included teaching them the correct origin/meaning of the acronym. Deon Steyn is correct, the original acronym is: Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire command link guided missile system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrellk (talk • contribs) 07:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is Tube Launched;Optically Tracked;Wire command linked guided missile system. The wires just carry the signal to the missile which then adjusts the flight by positioning the fins. USMC 1985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borowski23 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

TOW guidance
Is the TOW a fire-and-forget missile, or some other system? I have always understood it to be Fire and forget, but the article is confusing. So confusing that unless it gets improved soon I will see if I can get it listed to be cleaned up. --The1exile 17:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you got the idea that TOW is a fire-and-forget system. To my knowledge no wire-guided missile is fire-and-forget, they're all command LOS weapons.  TOW still requires the sighting system feeding information to the guidance unit in the missile to be fixed on the target until it impacts.  I have, however, added a note at the end of the variants section explaning this.  --Thatguy96 12:31, 5 March 2006
 * Ok, I got the idea that the TOW was fire-and-forget from the portrayals I have seen of it, mainly in games. It is usually shown as a fire and-forget missile rather than a SACLOS missile, but I wasn't sure where to confirm it. Probably wrongly portrayed because it is in fact neither. --The1exile 20:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Acronym
I think we may be suffering creeping acronym shift here. TOW originally stood for "Television Over Wire."
 * If that's in reference to the TOW missile then I don't understand why that would be the case. There's no "television" involved on any level. Thatguy96 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

TOW is Tube-launched Optically tracked Wire Command-Link Guided Missile, not "Wire Guided". The quote from the "official army history" is incorrect. My MOS was 11H2P, AT-2 CSC 2/508 PIR, 82nd Airborne '78-'81. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.51.63 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

ANY Armor?
The TOW can penetrate ANY known tank armor? Are we completely sure of that?

YEs i was the one who added that and i am fairly certain about. i have seen videos of a current production tow being tested against and M1A1 Abrams MBT. The missile fully penetrated the frontal turret armor. I am there fore fairly certain that it can kill any tank on this planet --Paladin 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Back in 91 when I trained to fire these things, the spec we were given was that it is capable of penetrating in excess of 36 inches of rolled homogeneous steel, making it capable of taking out an M1A1 head on. The missiles also have a probe on the front to defeat reactive armor. Before I got out in 94 we were feilding the 2B variant that was supposed to fly over the top of the tank and fire down through the turret. I personally never got to see these in a live fire exercise though.

I'm not sure that a video of one test qualifies as positive proof that it can penetrate any known tank armor. In any case, there should be a reference and probably a qualifying statement. 203.45.85.74 14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Max

That comment should be removed. It assumes that the Abrams seen in the video had modern chobham armor (early models did not)and also that the up-armored m1a1 is the most heavily armored tank in the world (it's not). I think we could at least say that TOW models would not penetrate the Leopard 2's (A5 or A6)frontal armor at 45 degrees. The inability of small ATGMs to penetrate modern composite armors is the reason top attack munitions were created (TOW2B) 65.37.28.154 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the comment should be removed. The heaviest armor I know of that is currently deployed is the compound front turret armor of the Leopard 2 A5,A6 and Stridsvagn variants with about 1,5m thinkness. The capabilities of the BGM-71D,E,F are given as 1m rolled steel equivalent, so there is a quite large safe margin, especially when taking into account that the Leopard 2's armor is considerable more effective against HEATs than rolled steel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.45.159 (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Everybody heard about famous T-72 test with K-5 ERA? The one that Jane wrote about in 1997. Well, during these tests, TOW was used, and did not penetrate, i.e. was defeated by K-5. That is another piece of evidence, and the test vehicle was the soviet built T-72 fitted with Kontakt-5 heavy ERA. Test vehicle performed amazingly well in theese evaluations. No offense, but above speculation about Leopard-2 etc.. they are just speculations, while we have solid evidence of T-72 with K-5 defeating TOW. Also, just to mention something to die-hard TOW fans: speed is quoted at 278 m/s. This makes TOW basically outdated, because it can be engaged by any Active protection system (russian ARENA, Israeli Trophy are two I am aware of). For example, let us take Arena: "http://www.kbm.ru/en/product/aps/arena-e". It engages targets with speed range 70-700 m/s, and Tow, at it's 270 m/s, is quite a slow missile, which is likely to be engaged and destroyed by Active protection system, regardless of the amount of armor it can penetrate. As Active protection systems will be getting deployed by tanks, TOW will be becoming increasingly useless. Just my two cents. 99.231.50.118 (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

The BGM-71F can defeat any tank in service today with its two EFP warheads which are canted inward. Reactive Armor tiles have no effect on EFP warheads. Jackehammond (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Validating TOW speed - at its peak it is about 1000km/hr or 270-280 m/s. It can't be made to fly substantially faster for a number of reasons. At extended ranges it is slower after the flight motor thrust is exhausted. I used to teach the TOW Trainers Course for the US Army Infantry School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrellk (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Tank vs. Anti-tank
IIRC in one of the Arab-Israeli wars the Arabs used TOW (or the equivalent) against the Israeli tanks but the missles were too slow relative to tank cannon fire. When the Israelis saw a TOW launch they would fire at the presumed launch site and the missle would lose guidance. The account I read had a tank turret draped with multiple TOW guidance wires. Anyone interested enough to track this down? -Wfaxon 02:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be an account of the use of AT-3 Sagger missiles used in the October/Yom Kippur War. The AT-3 is far slower than the BGM-71 (more along the lines of the Dragon), and the time to target was a notable issue (just as it was with the Dragon).  The speed of weapons like the BGM-71 is specifically designed to deal with this issue. -- Thatguy96 02:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This rationale for additional speed should be mentioned in the article.  I note that the article on the AT-3 Sagger lauds the latter's utility in the 1973 Yom Kipur War.  (Also Dragon needs disambiguation for the M47 Dragon; in fact, all such missles should be double-indexed by name and weapon number, if that's what it's called.)  -Wfaxon 12:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The general idea of tank vs anti tank is not as much power vs power as it is stand off distance. Having said that, besides the abrams and the merkava (at times) there isnt a tank that exists with a max "effective" range of 3750m

Leopard 2? The Abrams and the Merkava 3,4 use the Leopard 2's gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.45.159 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The AT-3 SAGGER has a faster time of flight to its maximum range than the TOW. That is the reason that the SAGGER is ineffective till 500 to 1000 meters (according to the training of the gunner) while the TOW has a much superior minimum effective range Jackehammond (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The minimum range argument is misleading at best. I'd also point out that the TOW's minimum range is approximately 650m because the missile is effectively ballistic while the flight motor is in its maximum burn phase, which starts when the missile is approximately 50m downrange after launch. The primary reason that Sagger AT3 were relatively ineffective during the Yom Kippur (YK) War was because they were MANUAL command (MCLOS) missiles - the operator basically had to fly the missile to the target, similarly to the old French designed (and US deployed) ENTAC missiles. In other words the operator would compare where the missile was on his sight versus where the target was on his sight, and then move a joystick to move the missile in a corrective direction. The operator is effectively tracking two objects. The beauty of TOW was that the operator had to track only one target, and didn't have to perform the "error correction" task. Sagger effectiveness, regardless of any propaganda you may have heard, was atrocious during the YK War. How do I know? I had more than one conversation with Israeli officers in the 1975-1976 period while I was teaching TOW at the USAIS. Carrellk (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Need big list of countries?
This seems to be a commonly used weapon system. Is there a great need for the big list of countries? I don't think it adds much value to the article. -- Medains 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary (IMHO), having a list of users of a weapon always adds value. I guess the issue can be that if the list gets very long maybe it would be better to include in this article just a link to a different wiki-article with the detailed list of users (as seen in other parts of thsi wikipedia). Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Details
how come this page lacks details like fuel type, max speed, range, weight, cost... Paskari 14:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a quick heads up. I found information regarding a successful test of the TOW-2B Aero at 4.2km and have updated the range accordingly.  Source in table in article.Z07x10 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How do you pronounce it? Does it rhyme with "cow" or with "flow"?Blaise 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Flow

I am certain it rhymes with "dove." 57.90.241.117 (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC) BlackSheep

Where do people come up with this stuff and on what basis? It is pronounced "TOE", as in your big toe. Source: I was a PI at the USAIS TOW Trainers Course from 1975-1976. Carrellk (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrellk (talk • contribs) 07:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Article name wrong?
Surely BGM-71 is the name of the ammunition, not the weapon system... shoudn't the article be under "M220 TOW" or at least under "TOW ATGM"? And I've never heard of a "M151" TOW launcher system... is someone perhaps getting confused with the jeep? Causantin (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BGM-71 is the designation under the US's unified system for aircraft and missiles for the missile itself, which is the subject of this article. The launcher type is irrelevant in my mind for the article name dealing with the missile, especially since the TOW missile has so many launch options (hence the use of the "B" launch environment designation, which designations weapons that can be fired without modification from multiple environments).  The M151 launcher designation is not confused with the M151 jeep, as both are incomplete designations.  Under the US Army's nomenclature system, the full designation requires a text string noting the class in which the designation lies.  The full designation for the launcher is Launcher, Guided Missile, M151, while the one for the jeep is Truck, 1/4 Ton, 4x4, M151. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also this picture is of a Saber system firing the missile, not a TOW system >http://ordnancemarine.com/tamcns/e-tamcns/e0055-m41-saber-system/

launch platforms
I know the M151 MUTT is similar to a jeep and it is its replacement but i think it should still be called the M151 MUTT not M151 jeep. The way it links is sensible and useful so that probably should be retained in some way. 76.192.40.211 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

TOW against Saddam's sons and the US Army and the French SS11
Folks,

I have not changed the entry, but the reference to the BBC article on the take down of Saddam's sons in Iraq in 2003 with firing of TOWs, BBC is incorrect. The video shows the firing of JAVELINs. BBC like many news outlets calls about all antitank missiles TOWs (ie one photo of a OH-58 helicopters is a photo of a UH-1 Huey). Also, while the US Army did test fire the French SS.11 missile from the Huey, the SS.11 never became operational with the US Army.

In addition, Iran now has a reverse engineer (ie copy) of the TOW missile in production and is offering it for export. Should that be mentioned as an external link, etc?

Jackehammond (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC) .

Ah but the ENTAC *was* deployed in the US Army. Other than the fact I know that from US Army Service, look it up in wikipedia... Carrellk (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrellk (talk • contribs) 07:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wire
The article mentions the wire only in passing. How long is the wire? What is it made out of of? Is it reused (e.g. does it wind back in for the next shot, or is it disposable)? When the missile is launched from a helicopter, what happens to the wire? For bonus points answer these with credible sources (not PPrune). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the ranges cited in the article are somewhat incorrect - what is actually cited is the wire length and it has varied. Original TOW wire length was 3250m, but the range was 3000m, primarily because it was assumed the complete guidance mechanism was only good out to about 3000m. And quite frankly the missile suppliers didn't want to have to warrant missile performance beyond 3000m, because they were paid only for a 3000m missile. Later on the wire length was extended beyond 3250m (in the 1st generation) and I had many a conversation with the project engineers at Anniston Army Depot about extended the range - they were advocating that we train folks to use the extended range, but we didn't because the sighting mechanism (stadia lines, horrible idea - I won't explain them) was very error-prone. In fact the reason Iw was talking to these Anniston Depot folks is because I was trying to convince them were need to ditch the stadia lines and develop something pretty radical back then (1975-76): laser range-finders. Then and only then could we reliably take advantage of the extended range.

Oh and lest I forget, they also wanted us to teach employment against helicopters. I refused (at that time), also because of the range-finding issue.

In any case the wire used on the missiles was actually a triple strand. Two copper wires to send error information to the missile and a steel strand for strength. Copper wires alone would stretch and break.

And where was the wire stored? Essentially on a long spool co-axially fitted around the launch motor. As the missile flew down-range, the wire would unspool out the rear of the missile.

When the missile is fired from a helicopter, the range is reduced a little because of wire droop (the helicopter is higher above ground than in an infantry deployment). In all cases, once the missile locking lever is raised, a little explosive squib inside the launch tube fires and severs the wires, which then fall out of the front of the launch tube. The wires lay along the flight path between the launcher and the missile's impact point, which can be a hazard to helicopters if the missile flies over trees. In US Army live fire areas were TOWs have been fired over trees, helicopter flight is prohibited. BTW, if someone accidentally raised the locking lever even a little bit, the wires would be severed. It was something we had to teach every gunner and trainer to avoid.

And my sources? Me. I was a Principal Instructor at the US Army Infantry School for the TOW Trainers Course, 1975-1976, and wrote the TOW Theory of Operation (I was the only Infantry Officer with an Electrical Engineering degree among the History and Education majors), as well as new doctrine for firing the TWO from vehicles with engines running (it was assumed that wasn't possible without terrible accuracy - I proved otherwise), gunner qualification to require all directions as well as angular acceleration and deceleration (instead of the gunner's favored direction and constant angular speeds), etc. I knew the missile system so well, that if a missile went "bad" during firing (they did occasionally, sometimes through operator error), my on-the-spot "failure analysis" was accepted (we were required to fill out a failure report every time a TOW didn't perform as expected) by Anniston Army Depot with no further investigation. Carrellk (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrellk (talk • contribs) 08:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish Peshmerga
This weapon is used the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. Perhaps they should be added to the list of operators. Even though they are not currently a sovereign nation, their military is larger than many of the countries already listed.

Misinformation about Russian T-90 Shtora system
This keeps re-appearing in this article, claiming that the Shtora system is somehow significant against the TOW-2 missiles. This is not correct. The Shtora system provides only an audible and visual hemispherical warning provided by laser irradiation sensors placed around the turret. The TOW-2 launcher units supplied by the State Department to Syria do not have a laser rangefinder like the newer ITAS launchers in American inventory, and rely exclusively on an optical sight for target acquisition and targeting. Totally passive with no radiation emissions to trigger any Shotra sensors. Thus there is no way for the Shtora to detect such a launcher or the missile itself, except for detecting the smoke plume generated at launch and other visual cues, which would be extremely difficult by the tank crew when buttoned up. 24.52.231.99 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg0Gd6AhqfE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.36.227 (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Response 2: According to army-tech.net analysis of publicly available videos from syrian conflict (2014-early2017) only 8 missiles out of 155 engagements failed to hit an armored target in 147 engagements filmed (_some_ videos captured more than one missile fired at the same target in one engagement). Only a singe T-90 engagement was confirmed to be an actual T-90A, numerous other engagements which claimed to be T-90s turned out to be T-72s. The one recorded engagement of T-90 tank resulted in damage, but failed to penetrate trough K-5 ERA. In all instances where ERA was hit, it failed to penetrate, but there is no clear answer to how many of these BGM-71 missiles were D/E variants which were tipped with expanding rod probe designed to defeat ERA.

Effectiveness of the BGM-71 TOW missile in the Syrian conflict [pdf ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.253.72 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on BGM-71 TOW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507234911/http://www.ledger-enquirer.com:80/2015/05/03/3701353/rebel-worry-how-to-control-islamists.html to http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2015/05/03/3701353/rebel-worry-how-to-control-islamists.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War section
The Syrian Civil War section seems to be getting a bit incoherent. There's very few main points, and even less salient discussion of what the significance of the TOW's use in this conflict might be...it's more of a disjointed list of rebel groups who may or may not be using the weapon, along with associated Youtube and other videos. I count 8 statements referencing video footage, as if the stand-alone fact that "videos of the TOW exist" has some notable meaning. Am I missing something?

I welcome any feedback on how to improve this section - at the very least, I may delete any sentences that can be summarized as "there is a video of someone using a TOW to blow something up" that has no other significance beyond that. I'm also concerned about keeping a Neutral Point of View and avoiding Original Research....but one step at a time. Thanks. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

T-90 vs TOW
It has been said that the TOW was successful in the use against the T-90 equipped with Shtora and ERA armour, but that's not true. The source explain how the TOW failed to counter the T-90 too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.36.227 (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * After re-reading the source, it doesn't make a definitive statement on damage - just says it's been shown that a missile has hit a T-90. I changed the wording in the article to better reflect this. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BGM-71 TOW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2015/05/03/3701353/rebel-worry-how-to-control-islamists.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407083311/http://www.msl.army.mil/Documents/Briefings/CCWS/TOW%20PEO%20Website%20Brief.pdf to http://www.msl.army.mil/Documents/Briefings/CCWS/TOW%20PEO%20Website%20Brief.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hezbollah Flag Formatting
In the Operators section, the way that the flag for Hezbollah is inserted seems to different from the way the rest of the flags are inserted. The result of this is that the Hezbollah flag shows up as an image when scrolling through the images on the page.

I tried to figure out how to change it to use the same style, but I'm not very experience as an editor, and I could not find a list of valid country tags (is that what they are called) for setting the Hezbollah flag. Can someone help Cmdrraimus (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)