Tow-2b not killing tanks

I had to use 3 or more of the Tow-2b to kill most tanks I fight

4 Likes

The big issue with the TOW-2B is that its not like other missiles by design and so none of the conventional handwaving applies.

I’ll step though how it (probably) works, then the issues with its implementation in game.


The TOW -2B works by overflying the target and then detonating the the dual warheads with a variable delay, first the forward warhead, which will in the presence of ERA set it off, allowing for the subsequent detonation of the aft warhead (the missile’s retained forward momentum is what allows for both of the EFP’s to converge on the same point in space) to penetrate the no longer protected roof armor (as multi-hit ERA does not yet exist and even then said performance against such a system is questionable, as the warheads both generate SFF / EFP slugs, not HEAT jets).

So unlike other “tandem” missiles(e.g. TOW-2A), the warhead’s are not aligned co-axially in order to allow it to bypass ERA, by delaying the second warhead’s impact until it the flier / feed plates generated by the ERA have dissipated. and in that way hard counter practically all existing ERA and attack what is conventionally the weakest armor on the tank, which is probably why there is a resurgence of Hard-kill Active Protection Systems designs instead of further development of Passive ERA .

  • In game the protection value provided by ERA is made up of a flat value (it is additionally overperforming due to a LOS value being used as the flat protection, but that is a separate issue), and a multiplier depending on the type of projectile attempting to penetrate the panel.

  • HEAT jets are wildly inconsistent / underperforming; just look at the difference between the AGM-65 (warhead diameter of approximately 300mm), and the AGM-114B (Warhead diameter of ~180mm ), being 830mm and 1100mm respectively even though they are both basic HEAT warheads, and that the AGM-65 should be in the order of 1300~1500mm.

  • No special ERA bypassing / defeat mechanisms appear to have been modeled even though they should theoretically be present on a number of already implemented Shells / missiles.

  • The game engine doesn’t (yet, and probably won’t ever )support multiple projectiles being generated from a single source ~ The addition of Cluster ordnance might allow for this in the future.

  • Tandem missiles get around this limitation be having artificially elevated penetration characteristics to represent the effect of the precursor charge .

  • So for now the TOW-2B only has a single warhead that actually detonates, and that it was moved across to a dedicated Explosively Formed Penetrator / Self Forging Fragment damage model and had its penetration commensurately massively decreased, though with much increased post penetration spall effect, though now the issue is that it can’t penetrate the ERA tiles it would have previously defeated.

17 Likes

thank you, i have a a better understating of on how atgms perform

2 Likes

I feel tow2b is too weak. I think this top atack missaile can penetrate to the bottom of t72 and completely destroy it .

2 Likes

Have you made a bug report?

because gaijin nerfed them, on purpose.

1 Like

this is a joke.

It is a simple yes/no question.

you do realize, gaijin themselves nerfed the tow-2b like a month after it went live, because russian/german players were whining about being killed by it.

No. The dual warheads are angled away from each other meaning it can never function as a traditional tandem warhead against era. The first warhead would never hit the era plate that the second one will.

Source for claim one: this figure from Bradley gunner manual. You can clearly see that they are angled away from each other https://i-com.cdn.gaijin.net/monthly_2021_03/image.png.0098b6536a477f0b22d891ae0fe50543.png

Problem number 2. Both warheads fire at the same time.

Source for claim two: This Raytheon brochure.

Not exactly, because it isn’t one issue, but a number of compounding issues of varying complexity so there isn’t an obvious / easy way to go about reporting it in its entirety and creating the requisite series of bug reports takes time. let alone receiving sufficient dev input to actually point out oversight or otherwise where things are not working as intended.

Further as clarification has been made prior on similar reports, its not obvious under which category the TOW-2B falls in some respects (e.g. is it intended for the TOW-2B to be able to utilize the Overpressure mechanic, and if so is it unlimited, or capped to either the 20 or 30mm overpressure penetration hard cap? Does the TOW-2B / EFP damage calculator take advantage tandem bonus penetration, etc.).

This increases the time between the overflight of each warhead’s line of action to allow for actioning of the charges, which is set by the overflight altitude of the missile for the SFF’s to coincide.

US standards define Simultaneous / Instantaneous fusing as a delay less than 4ms, and as such the body of the missile travels between 1~2 (300m/s * 4*10^-3 = 1.2) meters in that time, which would be enough to have them coincide in space.

1 Like

That doesn’t really matter because nobody writes to those standards except us government bodies and possibly scientific groups not some pr or advertising team.

So here is problem number 3, the tow-2a brochure specifically calls out its efficiency against era, the tow-2b brochure does not. If the tow-2b was designed to counter era they would put it in the brochure.
Source for claim three: another Raytheon brochure (for the tow-2a this time) https://web.archive.org/web/20170306140624/http://sei.ckcest.cn/product_img/360001/8385/531544/Document/rtn_rms_ps_tow_2adatasheet.pdf

Kinda off topic, but kinda funny: So there is a TOW 2B Aero Wireless, where TOW stands for Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided?

= )

1 Like

Even if it doesn’t, due to the top attack profile, The -2B likely would not have to deal with the NERA array, and as such needs far less post ERA interaction penetration to be successful since instead of 400mm of Composite, it only needs to go through at most 40mm or so of RHA roof armor. Which is obviously comparatively easier to achieve a penetration.

Self-Forging Fragments (EFP) have a tendency to retain their penetration over significantly greater distances than a HEAT jet, but in exchange have a both lower penetration (due to lower tip velocity) and tending to have a higher liner weight to offset this and so conserve momentum by being far heavier are impacted less severely than a HEAT / APFSDS charge.

1 Like

Yes. I have seen estimates that the tow-2b has 100mm of pen. Plus heavy era requires to be at an angle (not a 90 degree angle) to the penetrator to be effective which the roof era is obviously not.

Heavy era effects apfsds by either destabilizing it or shearing it. These cause a decrease in the amount of pen of the projectile. This is very hard to do for a large thick (relatively to apfsds as the tow-2b efp is 5 inches wide) mass like an efp.

Combined these probably provides natural era resistance however even then the roof armor is too thin to stop the remaining fragments of the efp even if the era does heavily affect the efp (as you stated).

Yep. Guidance is different, warhead is highly likely not.

So how should the tow-2b be modelled? Idk maybe two solid shot 5 inch rounds? It would probably give better performance (a lot better spalling at least) than what we have now anyways.

1 Like

I was looking at that too…

What is a TOW, if not wire guided?

Mebbe a TOB: Tube launched, Optically tracked, Bluetooth… = )

1 Like

AGM-65 has aluminium liner to increase post pen damage, comparing it to Hellfire with copper liner is irrelevant
q0dGgr2hwMk

Gaijin doesn’t model the TOW-2B properly because if they did it would be an effective weapon.

2 Likes

Man, I was wishing for more of a TOOB acronym to come to mind, but I’m blanking right now