TOW

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#1
#2
Good vid. The old TOW is or was a very good weapon. Trouble is most Lynx anti tank pilots have never seen one hit a target (ROGUE........../MISFIRE....... 8O )
 
#3
Having watched that I hope to hell I'm never inside an AFV when it brews up. That's pretty terrifying.
 
#4
It's neither a TOW nor an M46, the caption on the clip is entirely wrong.

It's actually an RBS-56 Bill missile, (Swedish) shooting up an old Centurion tank. I have the same engagement on DVD taken from a side, although the turret looks modified, the suspension is pretty identifiable.

NTM
 
#5
It's not a Centurion, it's a Leopard 1.
 
#6
The new Javelin Vid is a must. T-72 is spread over about 400m. FR Regt are due to get it to replace Swingfog.
 
#7
YANTOFULPELT said:
The new Javelin Vid is a must. T-72 is spread over about 400m. FR Regt are due to get it to replace Swingfog.
Anti-tank missiles to take out mozzies?

msr
 
#8
brewmeister said:
It's not a Centurion, it's a Leopard 1.
I´ll go with that,the mantel,on the barrel is the givaway,it was also too fast,I think, to have been a Cent!

Don´t know what hit it,but looks as if they filled the panzer up with Ammo,for effect.Had it been a tank with 2 piece Ammo,the bag charges,being sealed seperately,under the turret ring,it wouldn´t have had such an effect.The chances of survival though?
 
#10
Not sure about the American vid for the Javelin, lots of info on the web ref the fact it was stuffed with ammo and fuel to give a great impression for the Staff buying it.

Not that the Americans would do something underhanded (check out the Sergeant York AA system - try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York . Not that it mention the fact that the Boffins testing it always stated "We have to destroy the target before it flys off the Range".

Not seen many, if any combat photos of T72 or others disabled in ANY conflict with such massive destruction. Lucky shot I guess?
 
#11
Well that certanly stopped it.

Is it me or did the missile swing off sharply to the right a few seconds before impact and hit the tank on the left hand side? Its difficult to see.
 
#12
brewmeister said:
It's not a Centurion, it's a Leopard 1.
Not that I'm a sore loser or anything, but there are a couple of flaws to that theory. Not least, the fact that the Swedish never had Leopard 1s, but did use Centurions.

However, since it's very hard to see from the frontal aspect, here's a side-shot of the same tank. (My attempts at motion video capture from my DVD seem to be failing miserably, so it's a screenshot)

http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/images/Tanks/billtank.JPG

Points to note: Six, paired roadwheels, vs seven on Leo 1. Horizontal hull sides above the tracks with stowage boxes vs slanted sides on a Leo 1, with huge air intakes on the rear side.

I don't know what they did with the turret, but the basic vehicle is definitely an Strv-101 (i.e. Centurion). The Swedes upgraded about a third of their fleet with new diesel engines, might account for the speed.


Had it been a tank with 2 piece Ammo,the bag charges,being sealed seperately,under the turret ring,it wouldn´t have had such an effect.
Possibly not. Then again, Bill is a top-attack missile, which means that the jet fires down through the turret roof into whatever is below it. Being below the turret ring is not going to be a factor in this case.

Not sure about the American vid for the Javelin, lots of info on the web ref the fact it was stuffed with ammo and fuel to give a great impression for the Staff buying it.
Actually, just conventional explosives. The idea was supposedly to simulate a combat-loaded T-72, but I have never seen a T-72 obliterated like that from actual combat. Usually just the turret gets thrown a few dozen yards, but the hull stays relatively intact.

NTM
 
#13
Casper_from_toulseville said:
Well that certanly stopped it.

Is it me or did the missile swing off sharply to the right a few seconds before impact and hit the tank on the left hand side? Its difficult to see.
Yes, and no.

It did swing wildly off to the right, but it corrected and 'impacted' the turret roof.

NTM
 
#14
California_Tanker said:
brewmeister said:
It's not a Centurion, it's a Leopard 1.
Not that I'm a sore loser or anything, but there are a couple of flaws to that theory. Not least, the fact that the Swedish never had Leopard 1s, but did use Centurions.

However, since it's very hard to see from the frontal aspect, here's a side-shot of the same tank. (My attempts at motion video capture from my DVD seem to be failing miserably, so it's a screenshot)

http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/images/Tanks/billtank.JPG

Points to note: Six, paired roadwheels, vs seven on Leo 1. Horizontal hull sides above the tracks with stowage boxes vs slanted sides on a Leo 1, with huge air intakes on the rear side.

I don't know what they did with the turret, but the basic vehicle is definitely an Strv-101 (i.e. Centurion). The Swedes upgraded about a third of their fleet with new diesel engines, might account for the speed.


Had it been a tank with 2 piece Ammo,the bag charges,being sealed seperately,under the turret ring,it wouldn´t have had such an effect.
Possibly not. Then again, Bill is a top-attack missile, which means that the jet fires down through the turret roof into whatever is below it. Being below the turret ring is not going to be a factor in this case.

Not sure about the American vid for the Javelin, lots of info on the web ref the fact it was stuffed with ammo and fuel to give a great impression for the Staff buying it.
Actually, just conventional explosives. The idea was supposedly to simulate a combat-loaded T-72, but I have never seen a T-72 obliterated like that from actual combat. Usually just the turret gets thrown a few dozen yards, but the hull stays relatively intact.

NTM
He's right...

Blimey guys has the armies rec skills gone down the drain or something. It's a Cent not a Leopard, glad I was in a recce regt and that was years ago, whats happened? it used to be the spams (no offense) that were shite at recce not us lot!
 
#16
spank_the_monkey_to_death said:
California_Tanker said:
brewmeister said:
It's not a Centurion, it's a Leopard 1.
Not that I'm a sore loser or anything, but there are a couple of flaws to that theory. Not least, the fact that the Swedish never had Leopard 1s, but did use Centurions.

However, since it's very hard to see from the frontal aspect, here's a side-shot of the same tank. (My attempts at motion video capture from my DVD seem to be failing miserably, so it's a screenshot)

http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/images/Tanks/billtank.JPG

Points to note: Six, paired roadwheels, vs seven on Leo 1. Horizontal hull sides above the tracks with stowage boxes vs slanted sides on a Leo 1, with huge air intakes on the rear side.

I don't know what they did with the turret, but the basic vehicle is definitely an Strv-101 (i.e. Centurion). The Swedes upgraded about a third of their fleet with new diesel engines, might account for the speed.


Had it been a tank with 2 piece Ammo,the bag charges,being sealed seperately,under the turret ring,it wouldn´t have had such an effect.
Possibly not. Then again, Bill is a top-attack missile, which means that the jet fires down through the turret roof into whatever is below it. Being below the turret ring is not going to be a factor in this case.

Not sure about the American vid for the Javelin, lots of info on the web ref the fact it was stuffed with ammo and fuel to give a great impression for the Staff buying it.
Actually, just conventional explosives. The idea was supposedly to simulate a combat-loaded T-72, but I have never seen a T-72 obliterated like that from actual combat. Usually just the turret gets thrown a few dozen yards, but the hull stays relatively intact.

NTM
He's right...

Blimey guys has the armies rec skills gone down the drain or something. It's a Cent not a Leopard, glad I was in a recce regt and that was years ago, whats happened? it used to be the spams (no offense) that were shite at recce not us lot!

Now that we get a shot of the side view,yes it´s a Cent.I thought it was a Cent,due to the two lights on the glacis plate,but the barrel mantel,looks like the one on a Leo.Now that a side view is available it looks like an American style turret,has been fitted,with a dummy gun.It looks rather thin!

The best thing about 2 piece ammo is that the bag charges are surrounded by coolant,and when punchered,are immediately useless,as a fire hazard,and will not explode.The explosive shell is `bore safe`,and has to be fired before becoming explodable,you could throw them off the turret and it wouldn´t explode.

Obviously,if this rocket hits the thinner top of the turret,nobodies going to survive anyway,you just don´t get so crispy,as when the ammo catches fire!

There were I believe 25 different marks of Centurion,because of the tiny turret,the chassis looks way too long,but 6 wheels,gap after the 2nd wheel,4 top runners,if it looks like one?

I´d don´t think anybody, could do an accurate ID on that mish-mash,from only a front view moving,with about 2 seconds before it gets hit.

That´s my excuse ,and I´m off too bed! :oops:
 
#18
commander said:
Def a Cent the final drive shape and top rollers give it away, turret is modified though but still a cent

If you only had the front view,as in the video,what would you have clocked it as?The 2 head lights are the giveaway,as Cent..but the rest.
 
#19
Good question midnight, i suppose if we are talking about looking through optics it might have been easier, headlights yes but the turret looks all wrong almost like a german WW2 SP and the speed might have thrown me, have also seen this on one of the many tank videos on sale and it is a lot clearer and side on as well.
 
#20
Bloody hell!! That javelin vid is mental!

There's just nothing left of the the tank. Does Javelin really have that much punch?

Or have the Blue Peter crew gone into production of Main Battle tanks using toilet roll tubes and sticky back plastic?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top