Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] Re: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 10:40:01 2002
According to Lone Eagle, on Fri, 09 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> The M72 L.A.W. "unfolds" about 2/3 its original length from each end,
> some to funnel the backblast, some to provide a degree of guidance to the
> rocket.

This is only done for these kinds of weapons; few, if any, ATGMs use a
similar arrangement, and in fact many LAWs don't, either.

> so the T.O.W.s on a Huey Cobra are in tubes only a couple of
> inches longer than the rocket. With ground based systems there's a lot
> less space for the rocket to drop in, you really don't want it hitting
> the deck only meters ahead of you if you can help it, allowing the rocket
> to accelerate while still inside the launch tube is one form of counter
> to this.

You would have a point, were it not for vehicles such as M2/M3 Bradleys,
M901 ITVs (and others with the Emmerson TOW turret, like LAV-TOWs and
YPR-PRATs), M113 TUAs, etc. All these have no launch tube beyond the
missile stowage cannister, but can fire the missiles just fine.

And, like I said yesterday, no other missile launcher I'm aware of uses a
launch tube except for the transport cannister the missile is shipped in.
In fact, some older types use a launch rail shorter than the missile (like
the 9M114) or even a rocket booster lifting the weapon up into the air
directly from the ground (as in the 1960s BO810 Cobra).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: [OT] Re: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 11:10:01 2002
>From: Gurth [mailto:Gurth@******.nl]
>
>You would have a point, were it not for vehicles such as M2/M3 Bradleys,
>M901 ITVs (and others with the Emmerson TOW turret, like LAV-TOWs and
>YPR-PRATs), M113 TUAs, etc. All these have no launch tube beyond the
>missile stowage cannister, but can fire the missiles just fine.
>
>And, like I said yesterday, no other missile launcher I'm aware of uses a
>launch tube except for the transport cannister the missile is shipped in.
>In fact, some older types use a launch rail shorter than the missile (like
>the 9M114) or even a rocket booster lifting the weapon up into the air
>directly from the ground (as in the 1960s BO810 Cobra).

I get the impression from all the posts so far that the longer tube on the
man portable launchers are designed to protect the gunner from the flamewash
as the projectile gets up to speed. This would be less of an issue for
vehicle mounted versions which are armoured anyhow.


Coyote
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: [OT] Re: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 11:40:04 2002
And, like I said yesterday, no other missile launcher I'm aware of uses a
launch tube except for the transport cannister the missile is shipped in.
In fact, some older types use a launch rail shorter than the missile (like
the 9M114) or even a rocket booster lifting the weapon up into the air
directly from the ground (as in the 1960s BO810 Cobra).

>>>>What about the Javilan?

Scott
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] Re: Great Dragon
Date: Sat Aug 10 06:25:18 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Fri, 09 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> And, like I said yesterday, no other missile launcher I'm aware of uses a
> launch tube except for the transport cannister the missile is shipped in.
>
> >>>>What about the Javilan?

AFAIK it's fired straight from the launch tube, but I must add that I'm not up to
speed on this missile.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: [OT] Re: Great Dragon
Date: Sat Aug 10 15:55:00 2002
> According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Fri, 09 Aug 2002 the
> word on the street was...
>
> > And, like I said yesterday, no other missile launcher I'm
> aware of uses a
> > launch tube except for the transport cannister the missile
> is shipped in.
> >
> > >>>>What about the Javilan?

Gurth saud:
>
> AFAIK it's fired straight from the launch tube, but I must
> add that I'm not up to
> speed on this missile.

Well its basicaly the brand new weapon that replaces both Dragon and TOW in
the infantry. It has bipod a sighting uint and the tube is at a 45 degree
angele from the bipod thus forming a 'tripod' of sorts. You basicaly pop up
scan the horizon and drop back down. The scene is taken from the sight and
communicated to the missle. It fires and seeks the target based on the info
from the first sweep of the sight unit. I was at Fort Benning durring the
work up on sighting and distance measurements for the vehicle recognition
part of the development in 1987.they kept the basic premis of using the
transport tube clicking into the bipod/sighting unit, when it mated with the
unit the seeker was activated and then you just looked for a target. Very
sophisticated and expensive. But its a top attack anti armor missles that
is not deflected by reactive armor.

Scott

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Re: Great Dragon, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.