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.Why is tos1 deployed with NBC units? And not with some more offensive/more maneuver oriented units?
So they did a HIMARS to the TOS1 thermobaric "assault gun"
At this point, it's basically a specialist MLRS of the engineering branch.So they did a HIMARS to the TOS1 thermobaric "assault gun"
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.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.
Thermobaric rockets being sufficiently short ranged that an Uragan is needed elsewhere?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?
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.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.
The TOS-2 does not have longer range, though.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.
TOS-1 is short ranged and have warheads not optimized against armor, making it unsuitable for standard field battle between maneuver units.
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.
Why is tos1 deployed with NBC units? And not with some more offensive/more maneuver oriented units?
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.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.
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.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.