Vehicles in Ukraine: TOS-2

TOS-2 has been spotted in Ukraine for the first time. This is an MLRS specialized in thermobaric fires. The new vehicle updates the TOS-1 and TOS-1A concept from a tracked vehicle on a T-72 chassis to a missile truck. Proof, however minor, that even vatniks can learn with enough reinforcement. Other known changes include:

1. New built-in crane. TOS-1 & TOS-1A rely on a reloading vehicle.

2. New ammo for outranging close fires like ATGMs. We are talking 10–25km here. Ignore preposterous propagandist shlock claiming ranges out to 40km.

3. Reduced volley size. From 24 missiles per barrage to 18 – but probably with greater throughput, because self-crane. Spare ammo likely carried by an ISDM variant, though this is conjecture on my part.

4. Some form of digital FCS built with components from this side of Y2K.

5. Unspecified self-protection system. APS? EW? Both?? Probably doesn't exist, or might as well not.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Firing.

    More info:
    https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/the_russian_tos_2_tosochka_flamethrower_system_was_first_observed_on_the_front-9207.html

    2 of 7

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/CmWoldw.jpg

      Top view of the new cab.

      >Making an interesting and informative thread on /k/ 2024
      Good thread OP. Any idea how the new longer range rockets differ from the older ones? I'm specifically curious about the payload

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I make all the "x in ukraine" threads. I try to make them informative. I'm not super confident on the new ammo, which is billed in a way that suggests a departure from previous ammo, but I can elaborate on the TOS ammo lineage in a bit. Need to grab a shower & food.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I make all the "x in ukraine" threads.
          thanks anon

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          >Making an interesting and informative thread on /k/ 2024
          Good thread OP. Any idea how the new longer range rockets differ from the older ones? I'm specifically curious about the payload

          I heard on telegram that per manufacturer company they are now to be fired in pairs (aka 2 rockets at same time) since destructive potential is now much higher.
          I did see videos of two explosions at same time, so apparently it is how they will be used.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting. I haven't heard that. Do you recall roughly where you saw it?

            I've been trying to circle back to describing what little we know about the new ammo in a way that isn't completely useless but I just haven't gotten to it. I'll dump thoughts into the thread this morning. It's not the wheeled vehicle itself that's interesting, so much as the possibility that russia might be reorganizing how they do 'NURS' or MLRS on the whole.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              here https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/19b8fgh/ru_pov_thermal_drone_view_of_russian_tos_hitting/
              there was one better than this, but this is one i came across. You can see ranging shot and after then they drop in pairs (sorta).
              Trying searching tos or tos2 on that subreddit

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/CmWoldw.jpg

      Top view of the new cab.

      https://i.imgur.com/I4UgSBf.jpg

      Ground-level views of the new cab. The tan vehicle in the background is an ISDM, which exists in mine-layer and reloader/resupply variants.

      I am jon sena from Indiana oblast™,
      and i am demoralized

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are thousands of miles away from any serious danger. Don't worry your little head, king of the ring / all-american hero. Let the adults handle it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You are thousands of miles away from any serious danger. Don't worry your little head, king of the ring / all-american hero. Let the adults handle it
          um excuse me,
          i am brown saar
          i will NOT show hands

          and I definitely just SHIT all over my street
          the gaaaaaaanges flowed from my anoous in a torrrent sir!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It would be nice if I could get these spergbumps in literally any thread other than russia/ukraine ones.
            What about this one?

            [...]

            Or this?

            [...]

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              do you know what board youre on?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        consider suicide

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is the range as shitty as the original TOS?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/CmWoldw.jpg

      Top view of the new cab.

      https://i.imgur.com/I4UgSBf.jpg

      Ground-level views of the new cab. The tan vehicle in the background is an ISDM, which exists in mine-layer and reloader/resupply variants.

      [...]
      Redo because I can't stand that filename typo

      And lastly: First claimed use in Ukraine, back in October 2023.

      Needs to be bigger

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        1500 kg of Lazydogs would be better than a TOS barrage and the 500 foot lethal backblast area less of a threat to your own forces caused by the mere presence of a TOS within your own lines.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Top view of the new cab.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/I4UgSBf.jpg

      Ground-level views of the new cab. The tan vehicle in the background is an ISDM, which exists in mine-layer and reloader/resupply variants.

      >6x6
      How kind of Russia to downgrade their systems to match HATO trash like HIMARS. We should be very grateful for their sportsmanship.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ror

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They're just giving HATO ukronazi zombie israelite necromancers a fighting chance, russians are good sportsmen like that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >HATO

        I don't get thus meme.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's "NATO" in Cyrillic - "A", "T", and "O" are all the same, so you just need to swap "N" for "H". That it sounds like "hate-o" is just an delightful side effect.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ground-level views of the new cab. The tan vehicle in the background is an ISDM, which exists in mine-layer and reloader/resupply variants.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/CmWoldw.jpg

      Top view of the new cab.

      I think it looks cool anon, russian industrial design has a particular aesthetic

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        crane

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Haha it looks like somebody about to shove a dildo up their ass haha

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            picrel

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Agreed, it looks kinda cool, too bad its probably dogshit

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Old crane used with the TOS-1A.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wonder how long they will last

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I give it two days MAX before we get FPV drone footage taking one out to ear-rape Ukrainian music. But really i expect this by the end of tomorrow.

      Actually some of the music in the recent vids isn't half bad. I am very afraid that it has grown on me.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they're probably still being used too conservatively for that

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Old training scheme for the TOS-1A. Training was a three-week course with lots of old simulators and very little live firing. It's unknown what training for the TOS-2 looks like. Likely somewhat better, because the system is more valuable to russia and just by virtue of the thing not being a thousand years old yet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Knowing Russia, I am 100% certain they probably use the same training simulator.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Redo because I can't stand that filename typo

    And lastly: First claimed use in Ukraine, back in October 2023.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      oh boy, they put cope cages on those too

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they put cope cages on those too
        just like ukies do

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cope cages are now called circumcised cages, and therefore on the good side, I guess.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        cages are now everywhere with the risk of a drone attack 24/7, the cope thing was the ""countermeasures"" to JAV and in-law attacks

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >in-law attacks
          >countermeasures
          no such thing but wizardry exists

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wizardhood itself is incompatible with in-laws, rendering the countermeasures moot.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

              This is hilarious, ESL Indian shills being paid to insult Russia's own allies never gets old.

              I made the KN-23 thread, fricktard.

              KN-23 has a confirmed 900km range

              This fact is extraneous until the russians hit something 500km+ away with something that would otherwise be IDed as iskander. Keep up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I replied to "the only reason" claim by pointing out that there is clear physical evidence. Public reporting so far is that strikes were at 460km and 275km, placing the longer-range strike on the upper end of iskander range. Suggestive, in isolation. Not unambiguously conclusive as a single piece of information.

                I will not be engaging further norkshill behavior. You need not reply.

                >Public reporting so far is that strikes were at 460km and 275km, placing the longer-range strike on the upper end of iskander range. Suggestive, in isolation. Not unambiguously conclusive as a single piece of information.
                >This fact is extraneous until the russians hit something 500km+ away

                Since we have confirmed tracking data of KN-23 going 900km that is actually worse for Russia if what they bought can't go that far, it means the Norks sold them a gimped monkey model.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                KN-24 is smaller. Its demonstrated range is only 410km so far. We do not know for certain yet whether russians are using the 23 or 24.

                Just read the fricking links in the thread.

                [...]

                For someone dedicated to the bit of pretending to believe in nork military tech supremacy, you sure don't know a single fricking useful thing about them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that's the heckin thermobaric explosion from hell?
      lmao?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Hard to say if that result is even TOS.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    do we know what is all the roof mounted stuff?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Radar, EO/IR, and the rest of the updated sensor suite. Compare with the roof-mounted items of the 1x:

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        some lovely 1980's analogue computer stuff there, hopefully someone can nab some and bring it back. I love retro shit

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's certainly interesting that they increased the range and mobility as the TOS-1A had to get way too close to the frontline with the same mobility as a T-72.
    I don't understand why they mounted the launchers on a T-72 in the first place. How come the TOS-1A had so poor range ?
    Was it poor rocket design, was the payload too heavy or a combination of the two?
    I can't help but think of the Sturmtiger when it comes to the TOS-1A.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Historically, russia has been pretty bad at deciding when to go tracks vs. wheels. The yugos really pioneered the wheeled SPG as an independent development process, ignoring other soviet tendencies at the time (see

      [...]

      ) – a fact about the CZ/SV MIC that goes under-appreciated in the current era, imo.

      For russian-dominated doctrine & design, the central tendency was to go heavy and go loud. Heavy meant tracks, and loud meant provide such an extreme volume of fire on a breadth-first front that light vehicles and infantry would see most use in second and third mop-up waves.

      A relevant example of where this went sideways would likely be the MT-LB. Originally conceived as a tractor, it was ultimately pressed into service as almost everything but a tractor. Not heavy, but capable of having heavy shit installed on it. Light-ish, but not mobile enough for that to matter. Russia's SPMs are probably where they did best with over-encumbered vehicles.

      So you have one good-enough thought like: "tracked, if clunky = good because we can sustain it and organize it under artillery sections, plus we can account for extremely unoptimized total weight of upgrades we might want to bolt onto it."

      And that thought interacted with a separate good-enough thought like: "shorter-range than non-thermobaric arty but good enough because 6–7km is the max range of ATGMs. On a broad&shallow front we should always have BMPs, mortars, and tanks layered nearby to counter those threats."

      You can still see this thought process in legacy systems under upgrade in Ukraine as well, ex. the Shturm-SM. That is, the blurring of concepts like MLRS vs. ATGM carriers, as well as the near-nonexistence of the concept of SHORAD vehicles.

      [...]

      In the 90s, the 70s-vintage TOS-1 plans were hopelessly out of date with respect to the range of their munitions. But that was an eventually-fixable problem, not requiring vehicle upgrades. Once the Bad Times are over...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they had a shit ton of t72 hulls sitting around with no means to upgrade them and no desire, something about treaty on armored forces i believe alongside the fact that they didnt really need more tanks.
      economic factors as well but thats obvious for 90s poccia

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder how effective these are. The TOS-1 was pretty dangerous but effectively a glass cannon because of the short range. Have the Ukrainians reported anything about these ones?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      TOS was utterly dreaded in the early war, before it became an explosive punchline for war edits. I have some interesting info about that, will send in a bit. Errands.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I wonder how effective these are. The TOS-1 was pretty dangerous but effectively a glass cannon because of the short range. Have the Ukrainians reported anything about these ones?

        Anecdote time:

        I first experienced the joys of being on the receiving end of the 1A in 2022, when they still had some trained crews and the pretense of doing combined arms warfare with them. It was extremely unpleasant. Back then, the universal perception of TOS was that you could expect it to signal the imminent launch of an envelopment attempt. Or a turning maneuver, half-encirclement, cauldron, whatever you care to call Russia's fricked-up spin on proper encirclements.

        It was only much later (quite recently) that I learned this perception was partly owed to a mirage of competence: TOS supply lines were being run separately from other arty. They were slooow and unreliable.

        Three notable pieces:

        1. Delivery of TOS ammo & spare parts was operating in a pull-configuration, rather than a push-configuration like everything else in the russian army. Insider explanations for this are just the obvious conjecture – that the MOD was covering for lack of inventory. Forcing underlings to request ammo, then dishing it out piecemeal skirts the issue of admitting you're short on it.

        2. The supply queue was only being cleared every other shipment window. For russian ground forces who are high-and-dry on ammo, that means sometimes waiting up to 20 days rather than the intended, and doctrinally demanded, max of 10 days for resupply. Russian artillery is never ever ever supposed to have this problem.

        3. Interdiction was much easier than for other ammo, because transport was so recognizable. Russian disrespect for ammo storage & handling protocol is legendary, but even they fear thermobarics enough to transport them away from other munitions. They were doing last-mile delivery of all other MLRS ammo (all of which is used by wheeled vehicles) via miscellaneous supply trucks and by having the launchers drive to the depot empty and load up on grad. But TOS cargo always looked the same.

        picrel, one such disrupted supply run. March 2022.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In essence, TOS was dreaded in part because they were constantly outrunning their supply lines, so when they *did* have a sufficient inventory to use in an assault, you could be confident that every other element was full-up on all other supplies and ready to push.

          The perception of TOS gradually shifted over 2023, as its use became more and more marginal and desperate.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In essence, TOS was dreaded in part because they were constantly outrunning their supply lines, so when they *did* have a sufficient inventory to use in an assault, you could be confident that every other element was full-up on all other supplies and ready to push.

          The perception of TOS gradually shifted over 2023, as its use became more and more marginal and desperate.

          From what you are saying they haven't learned. If they had they would have saved up the Nork KN-23s and used them in one big shock attack instead of firing off a few that served no purpose besides letting everyone know they were better than iskander and how to stop them.

          Shameful use of best missile technology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, I suppose you can "learn" the trivial way by having every vehicle of type A incinerated, leaving only type B on which to realistically build more.

            [...]

            Wrong and tedious.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nork KN-23s
            >big shock attack
            It's gonna miss Crntral Park on a good weather, how the frick are you supposed to shock with that

            >they were better than iskander
            literally have a nice day you disgusting norkshill
            they only reason anyone noticed it wasn't iskander was because it had noticeably worse assembly quality you lying piece of moron

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >kn-23
              it's got nork markings

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >kn-23
              it's got nork markings

              Actually the fact that it flew about 100km further than Iskanders maximum range was the first give away.

              Hilarious to see Russian shills insulting their own equipment. If it's so bad why are you using it?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I replied to "the only reason" claim by pointing out that there is clear physical evidence. Public reporting so far is that strikes were at 460km and 275km, placing the longer-range strike on the upper end of iskander range. Suggestive, in isolation. Not unambiguously conclusive as a single piece of information.

                I will not be engaging further norkshill behavior. You need not reply.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is hilarious, ESL Indian shills being paid to insult Russia's own allies never gets old.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                KN-23 has a confirmed 900km range

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Very interesting.

          https://i.imgur.com/T4yMENF.jpg

          TOS-2 has been spotted in Ukraine for the first time. This is an MLRS specialized in thermobaric fires. The new vehicle updates the TOS-1 and TOS-1A concept from a tracked vehicle on a T-72 chassis to a missile truck. Proof, however minor, that even vatniks can learn with enough reinforcement. Other known changes include:

          1. New built-in crane. TOS-1 & TOS-1A rely on a reloading vehicle.

          2. New ammo for outranging close fires like ATGMs. We are talking 10–25km here. Ignore preposterous propagandist shlock claiming ranges out to 40km.

          3. Reduced volley size. From 24 missiles per barrage to 18 – but probably with greater throughput, because self-crane. Spare ammo likely carried by an ISDM variant, though this is conjecture on my part.

          4. Some form of digital FCS built with components from this side of Y2K.

          5. Unspecified self-protection system. APS? EW? Both?? Probably doesn't exist, or might as well not.

          It seems like a genuine improvement over what they were using before, if nothing else.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Can someone explain the pull-config vs push-config of logistics?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pull = you ask for it and they send it
            Push = they send what they think you'll need before you ask
            Obvs the former is less wasteful and the latter is faster with more throughput.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pull logistics make your supply chains more efficient and are especially important for expeditionary forces using expensive gear like PGMs. They depend on immaculate C&C and undisrupted,
            responsive supply lines.
            Push logistics are when high level HQs like division or army commands calculate projected ammo and supply requirements for days and weeks in advance and send them out to specific units. This is much less efficient but makes the whole system very resilient against disruption, non-functional comms, nuclear strikes and so on.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Push doesn't have to be wasteful, they can communicate back when they have too much ammo.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I’ve been waiting for this thing to show up forever. They desperately needed the extended range, I wonder how accuracy is like — the TOS-1A has bad accuracy but that was somewhat mitigated by short range.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Chances are just as shit, it's an unguided rocket

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >we have HIMARS at home

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >We are talking 10–25km here
    curious how they could 2.5x the range over TOS-1A. you can either make the rockets bigger or make the warhead smaller... right?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You could also use more compact electronics, allowing for more fuel, use lighter materials, use a more powerful propellant, etc
      I don't know that they did any of this, I'm just stating theoretical ways to extend range.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If the new ammo proves to follow the trend, warhead size has been increasing with range.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Spotted for now until it's useless scrap because the puccians have no trained troops left. They released their hyper super duper anti radar vehicle and it got HIMARED in the same day.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      a better engine or fuel or even better designed body could all be responsible for increased range

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think the limited range of the Thermobaric Warheads and utilization means that a tracked vehicle might actually make a difference in this instance. I don't think I approve of the switch. Artillery, MLRS, and SAM systems are all good for a wheeled chassis. If you're operating in a country with even minimal infrastructure, you can be 1-3 KMs from an ideal firing position and it don't matter. This allows you to make better use of the advantages of a wheeled chassis in terms of egress, etc... For tanks, IFVs, shorter range artillery, and short range MLRS though, you don't really have the range to spare, you might be severely limiting the usefulness of your vehicle if you switch to a wheeled chassis that can't get to ideal firing positions, resulting in situations where you get stuck or expose yourself to enemy fire in order to complete your mission.

    I doubt they have new ammo in any quantity to matter.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How many wheels

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ural 6×6

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So Russia is desperate enough to use this prototype in combat.
    I guess this means they are really running low on TOS-1A.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      TOS is useless in normal siduations, its only value is in urban environments. Otherwise a 122mm or even 107mm mlrs would be better. It is a highly specialist weapon being used in the wrong place. Sometimes it works like mine clearing vehicles blowing roads through city blocks in syria but here it is a rolling bomb

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was designed in 2016 and entered service in 2021, it's design has nothing to do with lessons learned from Ukraine.
    I think they just finally realized that putting it on a tank makes it cost a lot more than a MLRS needs to cost.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's how russia's MIC works though. Pretend to have every capability under the sun, select from that list only the things that can be "prototyped" for cheap while making for a flashy demo (of being fired 1x, ever), then actually choose the things to build only once reactionary pressures demand it.

      The war isn't why this thing has a wikipedia entry. But it damn sure is the reason it actually exists in the wild.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >design 1 of everything
        >only send what you need into production after starting a war and finding out what you need
        Honestly this isn't a terrible strategy, it requires you to fight long wars with high casualties but greatly reduces peacetime military spending and maintenance.
        >inb4 some vatnig claims this was always Russians plan
        If you were planning for a long war you wouldn't open it with airborne in the enemies capital city and 2 massive columns of armour outrunning their own logi.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I really do not understand why Russians have like 4-5 different MLRS calibers

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    well using a tank hull makes no sense these days when a cheap drone can just wreck the all thing
    good on them I guess

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Tracks work where wheels do not. Their lighter ground pressure is highly relevant. Bulldozers have tracks for the same reason. The only downside to tracks is wear and labor to swap them out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If anything, this is a serious downgrade for such a short ranged system. The crane and reduced tubes are probably practical, but tracks are not to be despised in a short ranged artillery piece when your enemy has way better recon and being trapped on favorable terrain simplifies their job.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          tracks are a liability when your driver is given 3 weeks of training, your vehicle handles like a brick, and you likely don't have much in the way of reserves or spare recovery vehicles lying around

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Usefull and informed thread about Russian military capabilities and its flaws
    >Time to create shitposts and derail things by accusing the OP of being myself!

    Well, I suppose you can "learn" the trivial way by having every vehicle of type A incinerated, leaving only type B on which to realistically build more.

    [...]
    Wrong and tedious.

    It just seems so dumb, gas and tank warfare in WW1 taught in us that new weapons must be used all at once for shock value and not sent in piecemeal. TOS and the KN-23s were just dribbled in and not massed for a decisive operation. It is so amateurish.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You are aware that it isn't working right? Your efforts have created such a culture of ridicule that you are having the opposite effect of what you intend. You are solidifying anti Russian feelings and increasing support for Ukraine.

    Attacking Iranian and North Korean contributions to your war effort is especially stupid, you are insulting your allies whom you are relying upon.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have much better things to do with my time than to be a pseudonymous troll on an urban spearfishing forum, or to pretend to be a troll, or to have conversations with myself muddying the waters about trolls.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nice thread. Waiting to see it become fireworks

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >10-25 km range
    That's a significant upgrade over the TOS-1
    Wonder how much smaller the new warhead is.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If (and that's a big if considering anything Russians say is usually some kind of lie) it works as described it would greatly improve capabilities of flawed TOS1 design.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >mfw I still haven't explained the new ammo mystery or the "new, bicaliber artillery piece" yet
    You anons ever have days with random EEEEs? Not even from shooting or nothin?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the new ammo mystery or the "new, bicaliber artillery piece"
      ???

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Behold, the second recorded BTR-50 loss. Avdiivka direction

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >other, ancient shit is kill
      nice but also yeah

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      kek it's already mentioned in the BTR50's wiki article

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The BTR-50 has no relevance in an MLRS thread. It doesn't even have a cannon. Just an HMG.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The BTR-50 has no relevance in an MLRS thread. It doesn't even have a cannon. Just an HMG.

      WHat's the point of the BTR50 in this modern war? Why wouldn't they just use a fricking truck or few cars instead if the protection is that shit. at least then they could at least try to use speed to their advantage

      or maybe it is just a psychological placebo effect for soldiers? they're completely clueless and will stay motivated if they believe the BTR50 will protect them?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he thinks the Russians still have trucks/cars

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's the kicker, Russia never had enough trucks to begin with, which is why we saw the clown car brigades early on.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          true

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the second recorded BTR-50 loss

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it’s a nice idea, definitely an improvement.
    cheaper to maintain, faster and with independent reloading capability…
    IF Russian SHORAD would be capable enough to protect these, the short range of the TOS will force them to drive close to the frontline, well in range of drones and artillery and it seems less protected
    Then again if you are basically just driving around with explosives on top of a chassis I’d doesn’t really matter if you sit in a tank or a truck, if one of these gets hit you are dead either way

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I have a simple log of everything I ever post on this site. The mindset of a person who plays pseudonymity games with bullshit personas when discussing warfare is not one I wish to grok.

    If you can't own up to anything you've ever said, then defend that thing, you are fundamentally lacking in character.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    if you keep seeing this in every thread I non-ironically recommend contacting a psychiatrist, not even memeing

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well its a considerably less moronic design than the 1 and 1A so it earns points there. They are still unguided rockets, just with a thermobaric warhead instead of the usual HE frag.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Only claimed war footage of TOS-2 so far. The outlet that pushed this is the same one responsible for the bradley/leo graveyard meme and other annoyances. They didn't even get the name of the unit responsible for this footage right, and even their own comment section derided the claim.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      TOS-1A ammo mistaken as enemy munitions by russians in ukraine. Speaks to the rarity/scarcity of TOS-1A. Many current troops haven't seen it in action.

      MO.1.01.04M

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >bradley/leo graveyard meme

      Meme? That actually happened

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ?

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Page 9 but still need to answer a few things bump.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      look at those welds. Why is everything Russia produces so shit?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why is everything Russia produces so shit?
        It's made by low functioning alcoholics.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The TOS family are cool vehicles and I kind of wish the US Army had something like it, especially since it would make morons seethe at how inhumane thermobaric weapons killing 3rd worlders is. But regardless of how good it is the Russians will probably utilize it poorly and get it destroyed because it was without proper support.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The US has a system sort of like TOS, but because the US has their logistics though through better, its simply another warhead option for Hellfire (Hellfire N), compatible with any hellfire launching system, rather than a unique family of rockets with a unique family of launchers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Hellfire N

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's nothing cool about them, having an entire family of dedicated thermobaric rocket launchers on wheels or tracks is horribly stupid as you can just have thermobaric rockets for your regular rocket launchers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The US would just make a boring warhead package for a pre-existing weapons system

      Instead of a slow lumbering tank chassis that looks like a Red Alert 2 unit and causes a 1 km fireball if its is hit by a frisbee you have a single B-2 spirit dropping 16 AGM-158-ZA (Zigger Air-Fryer) onto an enemy battalion 5 minutes before your troops launch their attack.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thermobaric Rocket Artillery just isn't a good idea, doubly so considering America has both the first and second largest Air Forces in the world. You could stick the same payload in a PGM and have much better range, accuracy, and survivability.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Proof, however minor, that even vatniks can learn with enough reinforcement.
    TOS2's been in the pipe since at least 2018-19. It's more likely these were on the drawing board because they realized that the TOS1 is functionally fricking useless unless your using them to butcher civilians or local militias.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      All russian equipment is useless except for that purpose.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A tad off-topic, but Leopard 2A6 with T-64 track link.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      now thats cursed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You make due with what you have I guess. Surprised they're compatible actually.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Make a thread for it before some shitwiener spammer sees it here and makes a worse thread for it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      those are LEO tracks without the rubber pads, moron

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You make due with what you have I guess. Surprised they're compatible actually.

      https://i.imgur.com/kLWkMon.gif

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >six wheels
    >lower number of missiles
    >self-reloading crane
    >digital FCS
    How long until they straight up try to copy HIMARS?

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    tos1

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Range claimed prior to introduction of the new ammo.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ammo family

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Note that "V" in the product code is meant as "5" here. Explosives are one of the few areas where russia does this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I finally have enough information (confirmed by a contact) to say something concrete about the new ammo.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The thing is, they can build 1 per year. How do i know? Just look TOS-1. This is in production since the 1980's and they managed to build only 44 in total. This is about 1 per year. This is not really industrial production. It's more some kind of pimp-my-ride garage. And if some smoker causes an accident in this workshop it's over for the entire family of TOS rocket launchers.
    not to speak of the rate these things are destroyed in Ukraine. 19 Independently confirmed losses so far, two decades of production destroyed in less then two years.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >And if some smoker causes an accident in this workshop
      I'm pretty sure you wouldn't load a TOS with ammo in the workshop, but, well, russians...

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the only thing that matters is how the explosion compares to the TOS-1 when it gets merked

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Related

    [...]

    And https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/armor_maker_company_seeks_to_patent_a_useless_protection_of_russian_tos_1a_system_from_atgms_and_fpv_drones-9174.html

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Glorious Russia already found something better to replace TOS.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They've been doing this tomfoolery throughout the war.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *