BLUFOR TOW Infantry

User avatar
CantRushThis
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun 4 Nov 2012 18:44
Location: Vienna, Luxemburg.
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby CantRushThis » Thu 16 Oct 2014 13:27

The entire argument used to revolve around the weight (which seems to be null and void if RBS70 systems are indeed similarly heavy and cumbersome) and the animation necessary, as in: The Rocket would be shoulder-fired and that would look odd.

Sadly, the second point is also kind of useless to debate, because even though Systems like Mistral, Milan or others are no doubt lighter and less difficult to transport by foot, they too need to be assembled, none of which is displayed ingame, as units can literally march over hills and through woods and start firing their weaponry the very second they stop. Since setup-time is out of the picture and weaponry like the Mistral or RBS systems, which sport a chair, are also fired from the shoulder, the "it'd be fired from the shoulder, thus wrong animation" response loses validity, too.

If we then find out that most doctrines actually called for TOW units to either dismount from vehicles and set up positions or be dropped from transports and fortify someplace near, it's easy to assume that even though doctrine might never actually have referred to these weapons as mobile, they aren't as immovable as they appear.

What we're left with is the question: Who would benefit most from this? The US, being a super power ingame, with almost no glaring holes in its arsenal (and granted, ATGM is the only one missing, really), would no doubt benefit greatly from this, so as silly as it may seem, they might need to pass on this. But there is no doubt that countries who lack other important parts of the US' vast lineup would benefit greatly: Denmark, ANZAC, Canada, Norway and, if I am not mistaken, South Korea are, BLUFOR alone, lacking these Anti-Tank infantry options, to which FIST teams are but a small help. Equally, the Chinese equivalent would give a smiliar boost to REDFOR and the ailing Red Dragon lineup.

Edit: Similarly, it would not be unheard of to have 2600m ATGMs, as the Konkurs already provides this. It's also not like this is about adding TOW2 teams. We're talking I-TOW here.

What are we talkin' ?

I-TOW, man. We're talkin' I-TOW.

How the hell do we make Denmark better by giving it I-TOW
+2 Internizzle for people who get the reference.
Image

User avatar
FoxZz
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu 27 Mar 2014 19:16
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby FoxZz » Thu 16 Oct 2014 13:32

keebs63 wrote:1 mass and weight are not the same thing..... mass is the amount of room the missile takes up in this case.

Also, your nice little anecdote there proves nothing, I think we all already knew that airborne troops have to carry ATGMs.... and while your defense of the other systems was amusing, you can also fold up the TOW tripod and carry it on your back and you can also airdrop the TOW system....


Just stop being dishonest and biaised like that.
It's obvious that TOW system doesn't allow infantry to march with relative ease, while others systems do.
In US army, the TOW system is never used without a vehicle at close proximity, while other armies are used to operate their proper atgm without vehicle at all, in dedicated infantry atgm teams.


Sadly, the second point is also kind of useless to debate, because even though Systems like Mistral, Milan or others are no doubt lighter and less difficult to transport by foot, they too need to be assembled, none of which is displayed ingame, as units can literally march over hills and through woods and start firing their weaponry the very second they stop.


The fact is, setting up a Mistral, Milan or an RBS56 (which can be done in less than a minute) is way more faster than setting up a TOW system (which seems to be more around 5+ minutes).
And if, with the faster game speed, we can admit that those systems are able to fire almost immediately, it wouldn't be the same at all with the TOW systems.
about "marching over hills and through woods", it's not even possible for a tow team.

So no, US deck shouldn't get an infantry TOW team as it's totally not authentic.
Imho, a FGM-148 Javelin infantry team is way more legit than a TOW equivalent, but it would be quite OP, and US deck doesn't need more OP toys.
You should better support a rerole of already existing US infatry, which is needed, instead of decribilizing yourselves on such a subject.
Last edited by FoxZz on Thu 16 Oct 2014 13:53, edited 2 times in total.

keebs63
Brigadier
Posts: 3091
Joined: Mon 3 Mar 2014 08:33
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby keebs63 » Thu 16 Oct 2014 13:34

FoxZz wrote:
keebs63 wrote:1 mass and weight are not the same thing..... mass is the amount of room the missile takes up in this case.

Also, your nice little anecdote there proves nothing, I think we all already knew that airborne troops have to carry ATGMs.... and while your defense of the other systems was amusing, you can also fold up the TOW tripod and carry it on your back and you can also airdrop the TOW system....


Just stop being dishonest and biaised like that.
It's obvious that TOW system doesn't allow infantry to march with relative ease, while others systems do.
In US army, the TOW system is never used without a vehicle at close proximity, while other armies are used to operate their proper atgm without vehicle at all, in dedicated infantry atgm teams.
So no, US deck shouldn't get an infantry TOW team as it's totally not authentic.
Imho, a FGM-148 Javelin infantry team is way more legit than a TOW equivalent, but it would be quite OP, and US deck doesn't need more OP toys.
You should better support a rerole of already existing US infatry, which is needed, instead of decribilizing yourselves on such a subject.

You dont know anything about the TOW system do you.....
Image
"arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarted" -Someone, somewhere in Wargame Chat 2015

Znail
Lieutenant
Posts: 1256
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2014 01:54
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Znail » Thu 16 Oct 2014 13:47

FoxZz wrote:
keebs63 wrote:It's obvious that TOW system doesn't allow infantry to march with relative ease, while others systems do.
In US army, the TOW system is never used without a vehicle at close proximity, while other armies are used to operate their proper atgm without vehicle at all, in dedicated infantry atgm teams.
So no, US deck shouldn't get an infantry TOW team as it's totally not authentic.
Imho, a FGM-148 Javelin infantry team is way more legit than a TOW equivalent, but it would be quite OP, and US deck doesn't need more OP toys.
You should better support a rerole of already existing US infatry, which is needed, instead of decribilizing yourselves on such a subject.

It's also obvious when you look at the pictures and videos of TOW being carried that it's a improvised afair as it doesn't have carry straps so they have to carry it in their arms or on shoulders. That works for short distances, but not for a longer marches.

There is also the aspect that if TOW is included then that opens up the can of works of towed weapons. They are also often moved about by foot, just not over long distances, just like the TOW. There are quite a lot of towed weapons left out of the game.

keebs63
Brigadier
Posts: 3091
Joined: Mon 3 Mar 2014 08:33
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby keebs63 » Thu 16 Oct 2014 14:02

Znail wrote:
There is also the aspect that if TOW is included then that opens up the can of works of towed weapons. They are also often moved about by foot, just not over long distances, just like the TOW. There are quite a lot of towed weapons left out of the game.

That's the biggest load of crap I've heard yet.
AGS 17? RBS 70? Mistral? They are already in the goddamn game..... I don't see any tosed units coming because of them... how does that even relate to the TOW itself even.....
Image
"arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarted" -Someone, somewhere in Wargame Chat 2015

User avatar
cramble
Master Sergeant
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue 24 Jul 2012 19:27
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby cramble » Thu 16 Oct 2014 14:10

I still dont know why people arnt getting it how far do you mostly walk with your infantry atgm in red dragon. I know i dont walk them over mountens for long distances with normal infantry yes but not atgms.
And indeed us dont need it as mutch as other nations so dont look to mutch at the topic name but more to the big picture.
''Our scars have the power to remind us that the past was real. We live in a primitive time, don't we? Neither savage nor wise. Half measures are the curse of it.''

keebs63
Brigadier
Posts: 3091
Joined: Mon 3 Mar 2014 08:33
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby keebs63 » Thu 16 Oct 2014 14:15

cramble wrote:I still dont know why people arnt getting it how far do you mostly walk with your infantry atgm in red dragon. I know i dont walk them over mountens for long distances with normal infantry yes but not atgms.
And indeed us dont need it as mutch as other nations so dont look to mutch at the topic name but more to the big picture.

I dont see any nations without ATGMs besides Scandis, which I think all of them are getting, except bar maybe Denmark?
Image
"arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarted" -Someone, somewhere in Wargame Chat 2015

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2344
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Tiera » Thu 16 Oct 2014 14:16

http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/08fc0 ... OD=AJPERES
Finnish gunner manual for TOW from 1980s. Page 14:
Total weight of the system: 110kg
Weight of a single missile: 25-29kg depending on type.

FDF operates the TOW with a 5-man team:
110/5 = 22kg, which is, incidentally, the recommended combat load of a modern infantryman. Considering that these units are always mechanized and rest of their gear is stored in the APC, they are easily able to manouver and move the launcher around in the battlefield. Even if you add a single missile per soldier for a five-man team (22+27), you get an individual combat load of 49kg that is entirely realistic:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article ... d-examined

Summa summarum:
There really isn't any realistic excuse of not including TOW launchers with much heavier MANPADS and ATGM systems already in-game.
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby molnibalage » Thu 16 Oct 2014 14:30

There really isn't any realistic excuse of not including TOW launchers with much heavier MANPADS and ATGM systems already in-game.

I agree but Eugen always can find a reason why should not be in the game...

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2344
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Tiera » Thu 16 Oct 2014 14:37

molnibalage wrote:
There really isn't any realistic excuse of not including TOW launchers with much heavier MANPADS and ATGM systems already in-game.

I agree but Eugen always can find a reason why should not be in the game...


In a game like this balance issues should trump realism to a considerable degree. In this case, however, I see little reason to exclude these units because of flavour. Lack of ATGM teams is not flavour, it's pure and simple handicap.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests