Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: TOW performance in Desert Shield
Message-ID: <1991Jan18.004838.9474@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Jan 91 00:48:38 GMT
References: <1991Jan16.014205.10919@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 39
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

> From:    "STOSC::TCOMEAU"@SCIVAX.STSCI.EDU (Tom Comeau @ Space Telescope Science Institute)
 
> In three shots by one TOW crew on a HMMMWV the results were as follows:
> 
>   1) TOW failed to aquire the target, and flew over it, continuing until
>      running out of propellant.

Tube-launched, *Optically-tracked*, Wire-guided: The TOW didn't fail to
acquire the target, the operator failed.  

> The NCO in command of the unit indicated one in three hits was not
> unusual, and was obviously upset.  The infantryman who was actually
> operating the weapon was angry and clearly shaken after the "hang fire"
> on the second shot.  He seemed to realized that, having missed with the
> first round and failed to launch the second round, he and all his team
> were very likely dead.

No wonder he was ticked.

> If these numbers are typical of TOW performance, we will
> likely find we have been badly served by the builders fo what is touted
> as a reliable, highly effective anti-armor weapon.

Three shots is a pretty small sample to base an evaluation on.  Hope it's
not representative.


Anyone in the Gulf using BILL, btw?


--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes 
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------