TOS-1 Buratino - 'Super Katyusha'/Russian MLRS

[robunos]

New to me...

http://en.rian.ru/video/20100910/160545687.html



cheers,
Robin.

 

[flateric]

this is, in fact, TOS-1 Buratino's (Pinocchio) little brother - TOS-1A Kaunas with 24 launchers
TOS-1 has 30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ane4jB35Hs&feature=player_embedded

 

[robunos]

Thanks for that, the article does state that the early version has only 24 tubes as opposed to 30 in the later version,
but not that it has a separate name an designation...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[flateric]

vice versa. earlier Buratino has 30, while later - Kaunas - has 24

 

[robunos]

Thanks again for the clarification, any ideas on why the number of launchers was reduced?
Excessive weight/stress?, overkill?


cheers,
Robin.

 

[lastdingo]

The original turret is most likely heavier.

Height restrictions (maybe 30 shot version wasn't able to pass certain tunnels on railway ...)
and
difficulties with loading procedure
are imaginable reasons.​

 

[jsport]

Russia Developing Unmanned Flame-Throwing Systems

The Russian army will soon receive unmanned flame-throwing systems for its nuclear, biological, and chemical protection troops.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[totoro]

Why is tos1 deployed with NBC units? And not with some more offensive/more maneuver oriented units?

 

[shin_getter]

Why is tos1 deployed with NBC units? And not with some more offensive/more maneuver oriented units?

TOS-1 is short ranged and have warheads not optimized against armor, making it unsuitable for standard field battle between maneuver units. It is almost completely optimized for large scale anti-structure fires, whose need can be predicted well before hand as it only comes up during attacks into specific terrain, and can be attached to formations as needed.

It is capabilities whose need is either universal or can not be predicted beforehand, that needs to be organic to formations.

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1714247244415664272

View: https://twitter.com/JanR210/status/1714247244415664272

 

[Scott Kenny]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1714247244415664272

View: https://twitter.com/JanR210/status/1714247244415664272

So they did a HIMARS to the TOS1 thermobaric "assault gun"

 

[Ainen]

So they did a HIMARS to the TOS1 thermobaric "assault gun"

At this point, it's basically a specialist MLRS of the engineering branch.

Strange - while TOS was always criticized for being a dangerous vehicle to operate, it's main selling point was always the mix of chassis with extremely destructive rockets(low range - minimal booster - maximum liquid kaboom).
New system sacrifices both points.

In doing that, other than interbranch rivalry, the point of having a separate Uragan for thermobaric fires is incredibly debatable. Why just not load a normal army 220/300mm MLRS system with exact same rockets?

 

[Scott Kenny]

At this point, it's basically a specialist MLRS of the engineering branch.

Strange - while TOS was always criticized for being a dangerous vehicle to operate, it's main selling point was always the mix of chassis with extremely destructive rockets(low range - minimal booster - maximum liquid kaboom).
New system sacrifices both points.

Exactly. At least the TOS-1 had enough armor and tracked mobility to get within range of whatever defended building complex you were going to delete.

TOS-2 doesn't seem to have enough maneuverability to stay off the roads, so its approach will be even more obvious. And that means that the protection is inadequate.

In doing that, other than interbranch rivalry, the point of having a separate Uragan for thermobaric fires is incredibly debatable. Why just not load a normal army 220/300mm MLRS system with exact same rockets?

Thermobaric rockets being sufficiently short ranged that an Uragan is needed elsewhere?

 

[shin_getter]

Exactly. At least the TOS-1 had enough armor and tracked mobility to get within range of whatever defended building complex you were going to delete.

With infantry drones and ATGM being such a popular thing and many videos of TOS-1 blowing up to them, longer range is really a useful improvement.

Designs for high volume production is probably more important for long service life now that a war is going on. I wonder if we'd be seeing Syrian style "hellcannons" eventually.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With infantry drones and ATGM being such a popular thing and many videos of TOS-1 blowing up to them, longer range is really a useful improvement.

The TOS-2 does not have longer range, though.

The TOS-1 has the protection to get those heavy thermobaric rockets into range of whatever is to be deleted, it's basically a glorified SturmTiger assault gun.

 

[Kat Tsun]

TOS-1 is short ranged and have warheads not optimized against armor, making it unsuitable for standard field battle between maneuver units.

It's perfectly suited to modern warfare.

The TOS-1 has the protection to get those heavy thermobaric rockets into range of whatever is to be deleted, it's basically a glorified SturmTiger assault gun.

It was literally described to me once as a "modern day assault gun".

Why is tos1 deployed with NBC units? And not with some more offensive/more maneuver oriented units?

RChBZ troops have a more emphasized flame/chemical weapon employment role than Western chemical troops, so they're more similar to Western chemical troops from the WW2 than anything else. This is mainly because Russia and the USSR never really shirked the battlefield use of flame (thermobaric, now) and chemical (CS) weapons unlike how the West did after the 1970's.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

RChBZ troops have a more emphasized flame/chemical weapon employment role than Western chemical troops, so they're more similar to Western chemical troops from the WW2 than anything else. This is mainly because Russia and the USSR never really shirked the battlefield use of flame (thermobaric, now) and chemical (CS) weapons unlike how the West did after the 1970's.

I will allow myself some clarification of Kat. Fire and thermobaric weapons have a fundamental difference. These are different things. And to think that this is the same thing is a mistake. ТОС-1, although it stands for "Heavy Flamethrower System", but in fact there is almost no fire there. It is only needed to set fire to the sphere of destruction. And the defeat of the target itself occurs due to a reverse (vacuum) explosion (cotton). In a split second. That is, no one burns there for 5 minutes as from the knapsack flamethrowers of World War 2. In general, the power of Буратино and the Солнцепека is still not enough. Probably we will do something new in terms of power between thermobaric and nuclear ammunition.
About your second paragraph. We have never used hydrogen weapons yet. We have not used nuclear weapons yet (you have used them in Japan). We have not used chemical weapons yet (you have used them in Vietnam). The last time we used satchel flamethrowers, flamethrower tanks and napalm bombs was in the 2nd World War. You used them in Vietnam. The heaviest weapons that we used in the 2nd World War were the ФАБ-5000НГ high-explosive bombs with a mass of 5400kg dropped on the fascists from strategic bombers ПЕ-8 (TБ-7). As long as we remain a power, we will be able to do all the same things that you can. That's fair.

 

[Kat Tsun]

To be fair, my second point was more the Russian military has maintained more knowledge from WW2 than the United States has.

Old American stuff like the 4.2" chemical mortars we bombed Nazis with in Italy, and the M2A1 and M202 FLASH, have been gone for at least a couple of decades, while the '80's US modernization failed. So at least in regard to the Chemical Troops' firepower, the USSR already beat America in 1975 and the US has never managed to recover.

Modern Western/American chemical troops (since the 1990's) are little more than smoke generator teams and decontamination specialists.

Institutional US knowledge of the chemical troops' employment of flame/smoke weapons in prior wars is now mere trivia not real practice.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

To be fair, my second point was more the Russian military has maintained more knowledge from WW2 than the United States has.

Old American stuff like the 4.2" chemical mortars we bombed Nazis with in Italy, and the M2A1 and M202 FLASH, have been gone for at least a couple of decades, while the '80's US modernization failed. So at least in regard to the Chemical Troops' firepower, the USSR already beat America in 1975 and the US has never managed to recover.

Modern Western/American chemical troops (since the 1990's) are little more than smoke generator teams and decontamination specialists.

Institutional US knowledge of the chemical troops' employment of flame/smoke weapons in prior wars is now mere trivia not real practice.

In general, I will tell you that chemical weapons are very inconvenient and problematic even for those who use them. While there were no nuclear weapons, yes - chemical weapons were the "main caliber" in the arsenal. After the advent of nuclear and hydrogen weapons, chemical weapons bring more problems than benefits. Deploying РХБЗ troops is expensive, difficult and vulnerable. It's easier to throw off a nuclear bomb or beat with thermobaric.
P.S.
The USSR has won. The USSR was the most powerful power on the planet. Communism is the next phase of development after capitalism (imperialism). But the USSR is long gone. Now the most powerful power in the world is the United States. So you don't have to worry about anything. At the moment, the United States firmly holds the first place in the world.

 

[Firefinder]

Chemical weapons are fairly useless against any decent military.

Too finicky, too unreliable, too reliant on weather, too easily defeated by standard issued gear...

There a reason why no one uses them on the battlefield anymore and instead uses them in warcrimes against defenseless civilians.

What you can do with chemical weapons, standard explosive ordnance can do far better in all metrics. As seen in WW2 where chemical weapon usage was damn near null. With Chemical Troops being just specialty train Artillery troops using explosive weapons.

And is why damn near everyone sign and ratified treaties against their usage.

Chemical Weapon are just not useful in modern war.

Flame weapons have more usages and are far more controllable.

But the likes of naplam tossers bring their own issues. Mainly with size and weight constraints from the fuel and like. Which is why they rarely get used anymore.

Leading to the modern Thermobaric Weapons.

Which the TOS is a poor example of. Too big and not enough armor to survive a standard LAW to the rack when it drives up to try to murder something. As see by how a decent chuck of them been destroy in Ukraine before they get used.

No unless the weapon have decent range, read more then a mortar. Thermobarics need to be hand portable like the US Army M141 or Marine SMAW, for the specified ones, theres several thermobaric warhead for damn near every rocket/missile in us arsenal. While vehicle mount ones need enough range to not be easily target by infanty arms like the Tos is. Also perferable not be visually different over standard gear so it will not be focused on and hunted down.

Even then you need to remember their limitations, thermobarics are best used in tight environments like cities, buildings, trenches, caves. Areas where the blast wave can propagate and get focus for best effect. Trying to use them in a open field...

Well you just used a less effect bomb where a stsndard warhead be better.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

Losses of ТОС installations are minimal. In fact, it is a heavily armored T-72 tank with a rocket launcher instead of a turret. And it is used mainly on the principle: shot - run away. In any case, I haven't seen any destroyed ТОС yet. By the way, many compare ТОС with MLRS. This is not quite right. The analogue of the MLRS is the РСЗО Ураган and Смерч.