The TOS-2 heavy flamethrower system is undergoing a stage of experimental military operation

The new heavy flamethrower system TOS-2 is currently undergoing trial operation in the army. Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov, Chief of the Radiation, Chemical and Bacteriological Defense Troops (RHBZ) of the RF Armed Forces, spoke about this in an interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.

According to Kirillov, the first samples of TOS-2 only this year entered the units of the RKhBZ troops, now they are undergoing experimental military operation. During the KSHU "Kavkaz-2020" TOS-2, which took place in early autumn, took part in the exercises and confirmed the declared characteristics. In the future, based on the results of military operation, a decision will be made on the possible improvement of the system.

The TOS-2 heavy flamethrower system is one of the newest weapons of the RChBZ troops. The first samples entered the troops only this year, and they are currently being tested.

- he said.

At the end of August, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced the arrival of the first TOS-2 systems to the troops at the end of this year. The decision on serial production will be made based on the test results.

The TOS-2 heavy flame-throwing system was created on the basis of the TOS-1 "Buratino" and TOS-1A "Solntsepek", but in contrast to them it has a wheelbase and improved tactical and technical characteristics. Earlier it was reported about the creation of new ammunition for TOS-2. The machine was created taking into account the experience of using such weapons during the hostilities in the Middle East.

Comments

[K-612-O]

Most importantly, they got rid of the TPM, and this critically increases mobility and reload speed.
RHBZ-force!

[YOUR]

The main thing is. Well, it will not be TZM, but TM, you need to bring up shells on something.
Here is the fact that on a wheelbase it inspires concern. Still 30 tons. You can't ride off-road like on TOS-1.
I wonder why more and more are abandoning tracked vehicles. The Second World War showed that wheeled armored cars cannot fully fulfill combat missions. And the security is not the same and the permeability is lower.

[carstorm 11]

as if, after the Second World War, wheeled vehicles became, let's say, much more effective), especially since no one refuses tracked vehicles. which makes this system more flexible.

[YOUR]

Their operational characteristics have increased, but not cross-country ability, here everything is at the same level. However, the laws of physics, the laws of nature, you cannot argue against them.

[carstorm 11]

it goes without saying. but the wheelset is easier to move and transport. often the tracks are simply redundant and their resource consumption is simply inadequate. the wheeled chassis provides quick operational and tactical maneuvers over a long distance. caterpillars are usually tried to be transported on trailers and tractors. and the wheels have a longer resource, and the car can reach the given area under its own power. as a result, we also have an advantage in deployment

[YOUR]

Everything is so, with the exception of combat vehicles on tracks have an advantage in battle.

[Jacket in stock]

The likelihood that wheeled vehicles will arrive at the battle site on time is higher than that of tracked vehicles.
And in battle, the car that you have is better, and not the one that could have been, but did not reach.

[JD1979]

Quote: Jacket in stock

The likelihood that wheeled vehicles will arrive at the battle site on time is higher than that of tracked vehicles.

Do not smack nonsense, it hurts.

[Boris Chernikov]

in the most extreme case, they will put on the BAZ or the number of guides will be reduced.

[MMX]

Quote: YOUR

Their operational characteristics have increased, but not cross-country ability, here everything is at the same level. However, the laws of physics, the laws of nature, you cannot argue against them.

Everything is correct. Wheeled vehicles are much inferior to tracked vehicles in mobility. Especially domestic: we have an eternal problem with engines, and we have to carry a lot of weight. The wheelbase has only one advantage - cost (production and use).

[seregin-s1]

Europe has many good roads and few strong bridges. This is the reason.

[YOUR]

I believe that there are many good roads, I saw it with my own eyes, the second point raises doubts. I have not seen bad bridges there. As not sure that the b / d will be conducted only on the roads as well as that they will remain in their original form.

[seregin-s1]

After the last exercise in Poland, an American general complained about the logistics. Most bridges are not designed for heavy tracked vehicles. I had to use the railroad. By the way, there was a reprint on this resource. ...

[YOUR]

We compared almost 70-ton Abrams and our tanks, although they are also on tracks, not on wheels.

[K-612-O]

So excuse me, it's not 2 cars to carry, and on wheels you can quickly leave the position to the waiting transport with the BC, and just as quickly turn around in a new position. For BTG support, this TOS option is just ideal. Caterpillars are still operational space (regiments, brigades ...)

[Stas157]

Quote: YOUR

I wonder why more and more are abandoning tracked vehicles.

Optimize. It's just cheaper that way.

[Interlocutor]

I agree. And by the way ... Happy holiday to us. !!!

[Doccor18]

Why did they abandon the tracked chassis? After all, it is more versatile and more suitable for military operations.

[K-612-O]

They did not refuse, Soncepek did not go anywhere. But to have a more mobile platform with a large resource is also very necessary. MLRSs are not placed on tracks, for example.

[Doccor18]

Quote: K-612-O

MLRSs are not placed on tracks, for example.

Also, by the way, a question ..
Abroad, there are both. We only have wheeled vehicles. It is clear that wheeled vehicles are cheaper, easier to operate, have a greater resource and range.

[Proton]

MLRS are not put on goslings, because the firing range is quite large, there is no need to keep these systems close to the front edge. But flamethrower systems do not have a long range, unfortunately.

[uav80]

No matter how they put it, there was such a thing as 9P139, produced by a small patria in the 70s ...
According to unconfirmed reports, after the collapse of the USSR, all the cars went to Ukraine ...

[faiver]

this version is most likely for the tundra and swamps of Karelia where road conditions are not a fountain ...

[uav80]

By decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 71-26 of January 21, 1970, the NPO Splav began work on the creation of the Grad-1 multiple launch rocket system. The work was carried out under the guidance of the chief designer A. N. Ganichev. The combat vehicle was developed in two versions. The first option provided for the placement of the launcher on the chassis of a ZIL-131 truck, this version of the vehicle was designated 9P138. The second option involved placing the launcher on an armored tracked chassis of high cross-country ability. This version of the combat vehicle was designated 9P139. The development of the second option was carried out in the State Design Bureau of Compressor Engineering of the Ministry of Aviation Industry of the USSR under the leadership of the chief designer A.I. Yaskin. The car was designed in 1974. The 9T451 transport-loading vehicle based on the MT-Lbu tractor chassis was specially created for the combat vehicle. In 1976, the system was put into service. After the end of development, a small serial batch of cars was created, which were sent to the troops. It was planned to organize full-scale production of 9P139 combat vehicles and 9T451 transport vehicles in Bulgaria, but mass production was not mastered.
According to some reports, those few 9P139 units that were manufactured and passed military tests, as of 1983, were stored in one of the military units of the Chita region. They were not exploited, they stood in boxes like a NZ for a fortified area, and in 1985 they left somewhere in the direction of the city of Belaya Tserkov (Ukraine). On this, the trail of these unique machines is lost.

© strangernn.livejournal.com/

[OgnennyiKotik]

They did not refuse, they made another version. But the wheeled chassis is a controversial decision, there are no questions for the TOS-1 / 1A heavy, armored front-end vehicle. The operating range is still up to 6 km, there are more chances to fly to the return line. On the other hand, for conditional Syria, a wheeled one may be better: come quickly, shoot back, dump where to go.
In any case, the development is not very expensive, it is created from ready-made solutions.

[Laksamana besar]

It will be used in parallel with TOS-1 / 1A in different conditions of use.

[engineer74]

As far as I remember, the tasks of the RKhBZ also include the fight against chemical and biological threats ...
And viruses, which require heavy armored vehicles, have not yet been identified, thank God.
IMHO

[Interlocutor]

Why did they abandon the tracked chassis? After all, it is more versatile and more suitable for military operations.

Because they didn't refuse.
Because this is part of the development of this type of weapon. By the way, an excellent weapon. And terrible.

[Livonetc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwVuFxvk45I

[iouris]

Not "trial operation", but military trials.
Exploitation is "use" (for gaining benefits), and military equipment is "applied" ("combat use").

[jeka424]

a kind of hail is obtained with a different type of ammunition? on one platform would then do

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: jeka424

a kind of hail obtained

Grad has a caliber of 122 mm, TOS has a caliber of 220 mm.
And so yes, also MLRS.

[Incvizitor]

I wrote before that as it already: It would be good for a TOS, a new base, for example, a long wheel, due to it to increase the launcher and increase the missiles, so that they would finish off further, they probably spied
The range is most interesting to me now.
PS I really offered a base for it in the form of a BAZ then I offered more, so that missiles could be put there longer

[svoit]

Quote: carstorm 11

the car can reach a given area under its own power

Perhaps in a BV theater with solid ground and nothing, but here it may not be very

[Turanov]

The first samples entered the troops only this year, and they are currently being tested.

In Karabakh, there would be a couple of them to support our "peacekeepers" .. Whoever shot in our direction, immediately respond! I think there would be silence for a long time.

[Maxwrx]

TOS-1 was produced from 87g and was very controversial (the whole series is about 60 cars, including foreign customers), a front-line vehicle, with a firing range of 3,6 km. Therefore, it is made on the T-72 chassis and armored. Now there are missiles for them with a range of 6 km (which is more or less safe) and it is planned to improve this range even further. A wheeled platform is several times cheaper, mobility is much higher, and operation is cheaper. And on the side of the tracks, there is only cross-country ability.

[KreAtiF]

Wheeled chassis allow you to quickly change position, which in the conditions of modern counter-battery weapons, gives advantages in local conflicts, as an example in Donbas, it would be very useful, the distances are small, American radars are at the UPA. Recently there has been a tendency to act in small groups. Terrorists over there in the Middle East are using it, so ours decided, I think a timely decision.

[Nikolaevich I]

Shaw no matter how they gutar ... well, I don't like the wheel "Tosa"! Not "to your liking"! And there are only 12 "bullets"! It will not be enough ... not enough! Toli 24! Little will not seem! And then there is a picture in front of my eyes: an Armenian "tornado" is rolling along a mountain road ... and an Azeri drone is following it ... Here the "tornado" takes a position in the "bushes" next to its "brother", the second "tornado". .. After a while, both "tornadoes" are destroyed by missiles launched from the UAV ... After all, valuable weapons (!) ... not cheap (!) ... and much capable of striking qualities! And within a minute, both were destroyed! Well, how not to think that KAZs are needed not only by tanks! In "free patents", I have come across descriptions of KAZs, even for short-range and short-range air defense systems!

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

not only tanks need KAZs!

KAZ is the last line of air defense.
And good air defense is layered air defense. Any KAZ easily breaks through by already known methods.
Back in World War I, it became clear that the air must be controlled. Even from drones, even from "pilots".

[svoit]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

It will not be enough ... not enough! Toli 24

It would be nice if she managed to fire at least 12 in a volley, otherwise anything can be ...

Quote: Jacket in stock

And good air defense is layered air defense.

Somehow it so happened that air defense is mainly against carriers, but against all sorts of shells, missiles and bombs, as it is not very ... then there would be KAZ to help