A dozen country have the TOS-1 MLR, does this system have any use in a modern war? I feel like this is the most useless russian weapon rn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1#Current_operators
>>65558340>any use in a modern war?warcrimes
>>65558345
>>65558340No, it doesn't.
>>65558345May we see them?
>>65558340Didn't they pretty much stop deploying these to the front due to increased drone use? Also because they have the nasty habbit of cooking off all their ammo once hit resulting in a massive fireball explosion killing anyone within a 100 meters of it.
>>65558340If you somehow run into a fortified position of an enemy that has no airforce and no drones, sure.
>>65558340If you have a city block existing that shouldn't they are pretty good but they need defending.Before drones this was as simple as putting them behind tanks but now they are pretty shit until a solif drone counter is fielded.
>>65558402>Before drones this was as simple as putting them behind tanks
>>65558421Anon Russia hasn't had to deal with a significant air threat since WW2.This is like saying the US building FOBs in the ME was stupid because they could have been bombed, if only their enemy had planes.
>>65558425The US could build FOBs even if its enemy had planes because the US could counter any aerial threat anywayThe US developed MRAPs because of fighting flip flop wearers but the MRAPs can and have served a purpose against other threats the US could faceThe TOS is a massive piece of shit that has a niche purpose that it isn't even safe doing because of ATGM or even RPG ambush, or just merely getting TUBEDIt is inherently a piss poor concept
>>65558340It's really good if you want to incinerate a towns worth of people that aren't fighting back>>65558345>hundredsthat's not actually that many with the scale of this war
>>65558425except the TOSser is also vulnerable to long range AT weapons, light mortars, artillery in general, and harsh language. it's a retarded weapon that's only good for bullying civvies
>>65558431>can and have served a purpose against other threats the US could face>RPGs and minesYou mean the exact threats they were designed for?>It is inherently a piss poor conceptIt would have done it's job in a cold war gone hot situation but becasue that never happened they fucked on Grozny and were one of the few vehicles deployed as intended there (unsupported MBTs in cities comes to mind).
>>65558340It's great if you need some vehicle crewmen vaporized
>>65558442As in other nations, in other conflicts, in other environments. Not just flip flop wearers in AfghanistanIt would have been absolutely terrible in a cold war gone hot, it wouldn't have don't jack shit besides take people with it during cook offIt was unsafe against literally everything, if there was a singular environment it did not want to be in it would be late 80s onwards cold war gone hot
>>65558468You shoudl read battle plans and expected outcomes from declassified cold war documents.Here are some examples>an A-10 was expected to survive 2 weeks>a US armoured unit was expected to be at 50% strength after a month>a USSR armoured unit was expected to be at 50% strength after 2 weeksThe GWOT has made a lot of people forget what near peer looks like and the lose rates countries accept despite seeing it right now in Ukraine.Yes the TOSs would have died, if they fired first that would be considered a good trade.
>>65558484Just like the tens of thousands KIA in the Gulf War?
>>65558345>Say that to hundreds of russians that blasted to pieces and/or burned to death thank to this shit explodingfixed that for ya, nigger
>>65558402>city blockbruh, they don't demolish actual concrete houses if you don't hit a missile inside the window, and good luck hitting anything with those russian pieces of shit
>>65558484Also>if they fired firstWith their 3 mile range? Deleted by literally anything, including fucking mortars lmaoThey'd be raped to death by tube artillery or overwhelming air power, both of which NATO were shitting on the USSR (who would instantly fall apart when Poles/Czechs/Balts instantly rebel)TOS is a steaming pile of shit, it wouldn't trade fuck all
>>65558435Not even long range AT, the TOS-A1 has a range of a couple of miles so it is vulnerable to short range AT, mortars and even antimateriel rifles.
>>65558487Not even close, the US lost 9 Abrams out of ~1,700 in the Gulf war instead of the projected 50% of the Fulda gap.
>>65558499Nigger I'm telling you to maybe look into gulf war casualty expectations if you're going to use a cold war gone hot expectationThe US expected tens of thousands of dead, but lost barely over 100
>>65558510>maybe look into gulf war casualty expectationsHonestly good point, it makes sense for them to plan for the worst case.
>>65558345Those things did probably kill dozens of Ukrainians at the start of this shitshow, which is why they were hunted to extinction fast.I think it's been more than 3 years since I've seen a video of one in action (As in being blown up)
Its one and only use is being the coolest thing ever produced. Outside of that extremely limited niech it is a dogshit platform.
It's a fun unit in WARNO.
>>65558431>because the US could counter any aerial threat anywaySo how come they can't counter Irans' aerial threat?
>>65558556iran has an aerial threat?
>>65558549>Its one and only use is being the coolest thing ever producedmine clearing charges but worse and retarded?
>>65558556US deployments against Iran absolutely pale in comparison to Iraq, let alone a potential 80s cold war gone hotAnd Iran can't do shit
>>65558515Always plan for the worst, that's why the US always gets its ass handed in wargames
>>65558340I miss the kino TOS cook off
>>65558849>can't do shitThey can close the strait tough.
>>65558890And have they annihilated all US FOBs, the actual point of the discussion?
>>65558906>all US FOBsNot yet. The ones that within range already blasted tough.
>>65558906Uh haven't they? I don't think there's much of a US ground presence left in the gulf by now
>>65558340>Putting 1 ton of highexplosives on top of armor.Pros: -Protecred against small arms fire (while being 10-20 km behind the front, lol)Cons:Slower than a truckbasedAs vulnerable as truckbasedNot selfloading like a proper truck could be (HiMARS)HeavyMore costMore fuel consIt has no advantage over a katyusha or like any trucked MLRS
>>65559162>while being 10-20 km behind the frontthose zeroes are mistakenly placed
>>65558911Thirdie post>>65559022Damn so what's the death toll? Must be huge
>>65559162The last upgrade I'm aware about had max 10 kilometer range, claimed. Probably shorter in practice given that they all drive right the fuck up to their targets. Drove, anyways.
Worse than worthless since it takes anyone nearby with it.The Ukraine conflict has made it clear driving around in anything filled with massive amounts of high explosive and needing to be deployed at short range creates a short survival rate for both that vehicle and others nearby.
>>65558340Theres nothing particularly wrong with short range thermobaric artillery, but its the product of the same faulty tank-centric mentality that produced the terminator. Tanks are already a prime high priority target, so having an embedded and extremely obvious piece of artillery that lacks the range to avoid direct fire is asking for trouble. It should have had half the barrels, been mounted to an Ural truck or some sort of Mrap and been imbedded with motorized infantry, since infantry formations demand less immediate attention from defending forces and it could have been treated like a heavy mortar by dismounted squads.
>>65559382You don't think satellite and drone recon would prioritize hitting a soft vehicle that would kill or disable all the soft skinned motorized infantry vehicles with it if targeted? That is an even better target than a toz driving with heavy armor that can resist secondary explosions better.If you create a vehicle known to have such a huge secondary explosion that it acts as a force multiplier when targeted it will be prioritized.
>>65558348Fpbp. These things are great if your target is equipped with small arms and is defending a built up location. You know, like armed civilians protecting their homes. You can just flatten small apartment buildings and homes with this thing.
>>65558340>does this system have any use in a modern war?Yeah, being drone bait.
>>65558340It took them to get to TOS-3 to get decent enough range that it was outside the line of contact.
>>65558490>they don't demolish actual concrete houses if you don't hit a missile inside the windowThey'll definitely fuck up anyone inside though and the blast wave can do all sorts of shit to concrete buildings too, often reducing it to a frame at close range.
>>65559328>Damn so what's the death toll? Must be hugeWell it was high enough for the pentagon to try to hide the casualty figures from the public, so it's not insignificant
>>65558340It's only good for bullying unfortified villages. Anything with a bog-standard ATGM present will turn it into a fireball in short order because it doesn't have the ability to outrange even a TOW.
>>65558425>Anon Russia hasn't had to deal with a significant air threat since WW2.Is this a bit? Are we really going to ignore the entire Cold War, and Russia's numerous failures in air defense during it?
>>65558556Bbbbbb b b b because ttt t the US army is all mexicans now o algo!
