Talk:BGM-71 TOW

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Prevalence

message: 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)
thread_title: Acronym

message: 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)
thread_title: Acronym

message: 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)
thread_title: ANY Armor?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tank vs. Anti-tank 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Need big list of countries?

message: how come this page lacks details like fuel type, max speed, range, weight, cost... Paskari 14:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Details

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article name wrong?

message: 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)
thread_title:  launch platforms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TOW against Saddam's sons and the US Army and the French SS11 

message: 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 \barmy-technology\.com\b 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)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Wire 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misinformation about Russian T-90 Shtora system 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Syrian Civil War section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  T-90 vs TOW 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hezbollah Flag Formatting