To be honest probably one of the most effective weapons in the Russian arsenal for what it is and one that fulfils the role it was made for the best.
Can't really go wrong with a short range launcher firing "frick you"-sized explosive rockets, but still.
It is simple, the ammunition is cheap to produce, and it creates a big explosion.
It's range is rather short but it is meant to be used during assaults to support infantry, hence the MBT hull, so this downside does rarely come into effect.
I genuinly don't know how sensitive these thermobaric rockets are to hits, maybe the MBT hull is just there for mobility reasons and to carry all of that weight, i do ask myself why they carry 24 of the rockets anyway, considering you mostly see them fire two at a time which i believe is the minimum amount, and ~6 at most at a time.
But thermobaric charges require a charge to spread the compound, and another one to ignite it, which to me means that it does need some energy to actually cause an explosion and it does not readily combust while not in it's aerosol form. So while it won't stand up to an ATGM likely, it maybe will just burn off slowly when hit by somehting with less energy like shrapnel, and in that case the MBT hull would provide the crew with better survivability, just speculation.
Couldn't pay me to drive on of these things though. Wouldn't want to be anywhere near one.
>hence the MBT hull
homie the MBT hull is just because they had a million of these hulls available, it's rocket artillery, it's not meant to be taking fire, if it does, it's fricking ogre for the crew and anyone in the general vicinity.
This is part of why the TOS-1 is bad, it has incredibly shitty range (even the modernized version) for something so fragile.
I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.
That said the range is shit and counter battery fire will wreck it. Which is why we have barely seen them so far.
Thing about TOS is that there's not enough of them to actually pass judgement on their effectiveness, are they doing good more times than they're dying? WIth such a small sample of them present you can't really tell.
In the state they are you can only call them wonder weapon just because it receives much more screen time than it can actually back up
If we try to conjecture for what reason they made it, we can conclude that it is the same reason they made terminator and other vaporwave - To shit on poorly armed militia.
In the current conflict though it has poor enough range to be very exposed to enemy fire, Which is, okay not every trench has armor support, mortars, at weapons in this conflict, but operators of this thing pmuch on a gambit each time they move out onto firing position.
And uhhh, what does it accomplish compared to any other type of weaponry really? Dunno, seems like it takes much higher risk than something like grad, and i don't think the trench that got grad treatment is going to pose formidable resistance to opposition.
Sorry for my esl.
Doesn't matter much if they get promptly destroyed like the early deployment, and their range is well within normal vision. A sniper with an anti-material rifle outranges them. They're more fun than Tannerite targets..
Would you want to be the operator on the receiving end of such easy counter-battery kills?
Black person they've been on the field since the war started and they're horribly outranged by everything. Your recycled fearmongering is so stupid, like you go back to the same shit after a year.
How will they airdrop a heavy as frick MTLB with about as much range as a modern ATGM and have it be useful? If they had this at the airport battle it would just have caused a bit more destruction before being encircled. Cringe posturing.
VDV won't do air operations anymore.
Same as with the Fallschirmjäger in Germany toward the end of the war. They are better equipped and trained ground forces now, although concerning the training i'm not so sure considering the losses they have taken.
A: It's based on a T-72 hull, not an MT-LB. Granted that does make the weight issue worse but hey, doesn't hurt to be accurate.
B: They aren't airdropped. The VDV don't always do paradrops. Matter of fact I don't think they've done any paradrops throughout this entire war. They've inserted by helicopter, like at Hostomel but that's about it, and all their armor has been transported by land.
That one time in Syria where the rebels managed to nail a loaded TOS was so bad its literally a legend among russian troops and the reason why they religiously unload them whenever not firing or about to fire and why they keep the ammo vehicle far away
its probably mostly fine if it happens to actually land on target, a bomb on top of someone is going to kill them
but the practicality to deploy one given all its weaknesses and logistics makes a bit hard to justify using it
>expend all your MICLICs as siege weapons >now any twopenny minefield can grind your thrusts down to a halt >so you're forced to use your siege wunderwaffen to clear out random bumfrick foxholes >now every commieblock suburb becomes an impregnable fortress so you're back to stalingrad-tier fire support tactics
Why is it that every new vehicle/weapons system the Russians have fielded since the fall of the USSR seems like it's only good for looking scary and terrorizing civilians?
>seems like it's only good for looking scary and terrorizing civilians?
Because that's what they're inevitably to be used for. I've said it a few times since the invasion kicked off, but Russian doctrine is incapable of actually accomplishing strategic goals through purely military effect against military, non-civilian targets. The suffering of the civilian population is a critically important element of Russian doctrine if large-scale, strategic goals are ever to be met. They cannot accomplish it through purely battlefield prowess against an military opponent, and they know this and incorporate it in their doctrine, and have done so for a very long time now. You'd think if your military's prime accomplishments of repute beyond military circles are rape, looting, torture, and cruelty you might work to revamp that image.
There's a reason the Russians tepidly, if at all, try to fight the characterization of being rapacious marauders.
Interpolate from the last 274 wunderwaffen
How are the VDV going to make use of a TOS? Sounds moronic.
>Sinead
sneed.
Makeshift bomb
About as deadly as any other bomb. it just leaves a bigger mess of people when it goes off.
So like one tank will have them mounted on it and then sit on Russian border?
To be honest probably one of the most effective weapons in the Russian arsenal for what it is and one that fulfils the role it was made for the best.
Can't really go wrong with a short range launcher firing "frick you"-sized explosive rockets, but still.
It is simple, the ammunition is cheap to produce, and it creates a big explosion.
It's range is rather short but it is meant to be used during assaults to support infantry, hence the MBT hull, so this downside does rarely come into effect.
It is a very nieche weapon though.
>nieche
* Nietzsche
>hence the MBT hull,
im sceptical that it makes any difference for the crew if part carrying rockets is hit...
I genuinly don't know how sensitive these thermobaric rockets are to hits, maybe the MBT hull is just there for mobility reasons and to carry all of that weight, i do ask myself why they carry 24 of the rockets anyway, considering you mostly see them fire two at a time which i believe is the minimum amount, and ~6 at most at a time.
But thermobaric charges require a charge to spread the compound, and another one to ignite it, which to me means that it does need some energy to actually cause an explosion and it does not readily combust while not in it's aerosol form. So while it won't stand up to an ATGM likely, it maybe will just burn off slowly when hit by somehting with less energy like shrapnel, and in that case the MBT hull would provide the crew with better survivability, just speculation.
Couldn't pay me to drive on of these things though. Wouldn't want to be anywhere near one.
>hence the MBT hull
homie the MBT hull is just because they had a million of these hulls available, it's rocket artillery, it's not meant to be taking fire, if it does, it's fricking ogre for the crew and anyone in the general vicinity.
This is part of why the TOS-1 is bad, it has incredibly shitty range (even the modernized version) for something so fragile.
Tl;dr
>I'm a gay
>what's wrong with artillery that has range of 2km?
I hate war tourists so much
I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.
That said the range is shit and counter battery fire will wreck it. Which is why we have barely seen them so far.
Thing about TOS is that there's not enough of them to actually pass judgement on their effectiveness, are they doing good more times than they're dying? WIth such a small sample of them present you can't really tell.
In the state they are you can only call them wonder weapon just because it receives much more screen time than it can actually back up
If we try to conjecture for what reason they made it, we can conclude that it is the same reason they made terminator and other vaporwave - To shit on poorly armed militia.
In the current conflict though it has poor enough range to be very exposed to enemy fire, Which is, okay not every trench has armor support, mortars, at weapons in this conflict, but operators of this thing pmuch on a gambit each time they move out onto firing position.
And uhhh, what does it accomplish compared to any other type of weaponry really? Dunno, seems like it takes much higher risk than something like grad, and i don't think the trench that got grad treatment is going to pose formidable resistance to opposition.
Sorry for my esl.
>Sorry for my esl.
ESL is only a sin when you're fricking moronic, a sin which you have *not* committed in your post.
Does this look like fun to be on the receiving end of?
https://twitter.com/sosReports/status/1642485105963720706
https://twitter.com/narrative_hole/status/1643230485533929473
https://twitter.com/djuric_zlatko/status/1642859339189723136
Can't wait to see the blue on blue the Russians inflict
Doesn't matter much if they get promptly destroyed like the early deployment, and their range is well within normal vision. A sniper with an anti-material rifle outranges them. They're more fun than Tannerite targets..
Would you want to be the operator on the receiving end of such easy counter-battery kills?
they make big boom booms
jesus christ. i wouldn't want to be anywhere near that fricking thing
Neither did the crew.
ALLAHU ACKBAAAAR
Good. Their explosions are kino and their range is short. Mortars etc will yield hilarious results.
Black person they've been on the field since the war started and they're horribly outranged by everything. Your recycled fearmongering is so stupid, like you go back to the same shit after a year.
How will they airdrop a heavy as frick MTLB with about as much range as a modern ATGM and have it be useful? If they had this at the airport battle it would just have caused a bit more destruction before being encircled. Cringe posturing.
VDV won't do air operations anymore.
Same as with the Fallschirmjäger in Germany toward the end of the war. They are better equipped and trained ground forces now, although concerning the training i'm not so sure considering the losses they have taken.
A: It's based on a T-72 hull, not an MT-LB. Granted that does make the weight issue worse but hey, doesn't hurt to be accurate.
B: They aren't airdropped. The VDV don't always do paradrops. Matter of fact I don't think they've done any paradrops throughout this entire war. They've inserted by helicopter, like at Hostomel but that's about it, and all their armor has been transported by land.
Wasn’t the Battle of Vasylkiv fought against VDV paratroopers?
This is not a great weapon honestly.
That one time in Syria where the rebels managed to nail a loaded TOS was so bad its literally a legend among russian troops and the reason why they religiously unload them whenever not firing or about to fire and why they keep the ammo vehicle far away
its probably mostly fine if it happens to actually land on target, a bomb on top of someone is going to kill them
but the practicality to deploy one given all its weaknesses and logistics makes a bit hard to justify using it
low range makes it as vulnerable as it is deadly
>expend all your MICLICs as siege weapons
>now any twopenny minefield can grind your thrusts down to a halt
>so you're forced to use your siege wunderwaffen to clear out random bumfrick foxholes
>now every commieblock suburb becomes an impregnable fortress so you're back to stalingrad-tier fire support tactics
This shit truly is WW2 with gopros.
Why is it that every new vehicle/weapons system the Russians have fielded since the fall of the USSR seems like it's only good for looking scary and terrorizing civilians?
>seems like it's only good for looking scary and terrorizing civilians?
Because that's what they're inevitably to be used for. I've said it a few times since the invasion kicked off, but Russian doctrine is incapable of actually accomplishing strategic goals through purely military effect against military, non-civilian targets. The suffering of the civilian population is a critically important element of Russian doctrine if large-scale, strategic goals are ever to be met. They cannot accomplish it through purely battlefield prowess against an military opponent, and they know this and incorporate it in their doctrine, and have done so for a very long time now. You'd think if your military's prime accomplishments of repute beyond military circles are rape, looting, torture, and cruelty you might work to revamp that image.
There's a reason the Russians tepidly, if at all, try to fight the characterization of being rapacious marauders.
>TOS garbage
Vee Dee Ve- *gets hit with a tiny drone 'nade* AAAAACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The rockets are effective against structures and humans but have less range then most MLRS systems in use as well as mediocre accuracy
Literally IRL version of 40k "Drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword!" Meme