User talk:Jackehammond/sandboxes-HOT

Articles on HOT for research

The following are from JANE'S WEAPON SYSTEM 1988-89 and the page numbers are in the Jpg title:
page 140, page 141, page 142

. The following is from International Defense Review Vol.15 1982 page 76-77

. The following is from Jane's Pocket Book of Missiles by R. Pretty 1975 page 99

. The following is from ROCKETS & MISSILES by by Bill Gunston printed 1979 page 242

. . The following is from Weapons and Warfare printed 1967-69 Vol. 13page 1364-1365 Note, the page number is right as they number from Vol.1 to Vol. 24.


. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Photos and Illustrations for HOT article

Photo is WP Commons

. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)--Jackehammond (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)--Jackehammond (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Penetration

• "HOT - Range: 75-4000 m; Penetration: 850 mm; Guidance: CLOS wire; Remarks: Four HOTs may be installed on Gazelle & 6 HOTs on BO 105 helicopters. " Noted in a "WINNING IN THE DESERT II TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES FOR MANEUVER COMMANDERS" at global security
  
  

• "HOT 3 has a 6.5kg tandem charge warhead which is effective against Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA), penetrating up to 1,300mm. When the missile reaches the target, the forward charge is ejected, which explodes detonating the ERA. After a delay, the main charge then explodes." Noted at army-technology.com
  
  

• "Ammunition: ATGM

Name: HOT Warhead type: shaped charge (HEAT) Armor penetration: 800 mm Minimum/maximum range: 75 to 4,000 meters

Name: HOT 2 Warhead type: tandem shaped charged (HEAT) Armor penetration: 900 mm Minimum/maximum range: 75 to 4,000 meters

Name HOT 3 Warhead type: tandem shaped charged (HEAT) Armor penetration: 1,250 mm Minimum/maximum range: 75 to 4,000 meters"

Noted at rdl.train.army.mil

USERS OF THE HOT AND COMBAT USE

Folks, I don't know why it seems that someone has to put Mexico as using about every weapon ever used. Mexico has only one type of guided antitank weapon. And that is some older MILANs. Also, from my knowledge the first use of the HOT was during the Iran-Iraq War from Panhard VRC vehicles fitted with an armored four round turret. Also, some reports of the HOT being fitted to the French Gazelle antitank helicopter.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

TURRETS and LAUNCH VEHICLES FOR HOT

Folks, Beyond a doubt, the most interesting concept for a HOT launcher was this one developed by the Germans. It was suppose to be mounted on some old main battle tank hulls, but was canceled due to budget cuts and the fall of the Berlin Wall. And was not exported due to German weapons export restrictions. One mission for this elevated HOT was also anti-helicopter. The HOT missile would be fitted with a special proximity fuze when used in this role. Although with the wide target the turning rotors of a helicopter makes, just an impact would do the deed. The turret came in two flavors. Armored manned and unarmored unmanned. The following: brochure page 1, brochure page 2, brochure page 3, and brochure page 4. I am not for sure, but I believe it was a development of MBB --Jackehammond (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The missile the HOT replaced the SS.11 and comparison with the US TOW

The HOT was designed originally to replace the SS.11 in the French Army. Photo shows the SS.11 AMX-13 light tank combination with the French Army. Unlike the SS.11 the HOT would have a much faster speed and the manual LOS replaced with automatic CLOS guidance system. The SS.11 also came in a ground mount. Unlike the US TOW which is designed for both infantry, vehicle and aircraft mount where the missile has to coast a short distance before the main motor kicks in and boost it to speed and then coasts, the HOT is designed only for vehicle and aircraft and burns all the way till impact. And uses thrust vectoring instead of flight vectoring which makes it more responsive. Of the two missiles, the HOT is the superior, but the TOW is far cheaper per missile. Far, FAR cheaper. Note, the photos of the SS.11 are f rom the French Army and are old as beans and could be considered de facto public domain --Jackehammond (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch out with the French mil photos. They are all copyright of their MoD and normally require permission to use. I have used one in an article because it illustrated the theme in question, and in any case, there were not many photos of the subject available. But problematic in any case. It has been my experience that not many outside of France realize it was the French who fielded the first viable ATGMs. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, I have letters from the manufactures, etc. on the photos. I pretty well got blanket permission, as I knew I was going to use them in various articles in the future. I just did not know what the "future" would be it seems. <GRIN> One time I got some brochures and photos with a letter that stated, this and that, and prior approval of the article, etc. and I just sent the whole bundle back and said "Thanks, but No Thanks." And I saved all my letters from even back 25 years. The only problem I had was the ERYX as it stated right on the back of the brochure that you had to have permission, and even though I had a permission letter for an article, I contacted MBDA(?) and got it for the external images. You will note on my TALK page the discussion on the ERYX article I had in an email exchange with them over the Turkish order. Their PR guy was checking out the article after I told them what I was doing and said "Ok." The photos of the SS.11 while French Army (maybe not the one of the SS.11 alone) were sent me by Aerospatiale for articles. They are not scans from magazines or books. --Jackehammond (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested template for HOT article -- needs information and removal of TOW information

Moved template to User:Jackehammond/sandboxes-HOT

JWA info on countries and ATGWs

Wilson, Sadly JWA is both wrong and right. For example Chile has always had ATGWs. And Morrocco does have the HOT in a special so called "Commando" single missile version that is mounted on a Jeep -- ie the mount has to have a shield to protect the gunner against the booster that burns long after it ejects the tube. Syria obtained the HOT with the French Gazelles AT helicopter they bought -- ie to show how badly trained they are, Israeli Cobras with TOWs nailed a Syrian Gazelle in Lebanon in 1982 in one of the first helicopter vs helicopter combat using ATGW missiles. The Syrians had a big advantage with the HOT vs the TOW. I am going to bring over the section that list the flags and users and put slash after your comments with what jives. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Wilson, Probably wrong for what ever reason. But I don't think the numbers of HOT missiles that France and Germany have are correct. Heck that would not even give a full one time reload for their antitank helicopters. And the figures for the number of HOT missiles supplied to Iraq are astonishing. ASTONISHING!!!! And the figures for the cost of the missile and the launch unit are way off base. The original TOW missile was something like $3500 dollars in 1973 and in 1980 it was around $8500 dollars per missile. And TOW was one of the lowest cost 2nd generation antitank missile manufactured outside the USSR. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, unfortunately, I think this is the best data we'll find and we're probably lucky to have this much. Agree the quantities for France and Germany don't make sense; I suspect the quantities may indicate launchers for specific applications rather than all launchers, and it is certainly not the total of HOT missiles in inventory. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)