Flamethrower on call: Why TOS was consolidated into separate units

11 293 39
Flamethrower on call: Why TOS was consolidated into separate units


According to Izvestia, citing sources, special flamethrower units based on heavy flamethrower systems (HFS) have been formed within the Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Defense (RCBD) forces. The units are operating along the offensive axes in the SVO zone. The HFS's previous mission of burning out enemy fortifications and concentrations remains, but a new one has been added: strikes against UAV control centers. weapons There is no reason for this; the staff was simply rearranged to suit the reality of the fourth year of the war.



Not a new weapon, but a new staff


Until now, heavy flamethrowers were assigned to units individually. A vehicle would appear in one sector, then move on to the next, and the commander never knew whether he'd have one the next day. TOS are assigned to the NBC Defense Forces, the same branch of the military responsible for defense against weapons of mass destruction and smoke screens. The flamethrower system belongs to this branch of the military due to its origins, which will be discussed in the section on volumetric explosions, but it has long been deployed outside the NBC Defense category.

The organizational logic was moving in one direction. First, separate companies and divisions emerged. Then came plans to deploy heavy flamethrower battalions in military districts; according to previously reported data, several such battalions are slated to be deployed in the Southern Military District by 2027. Now, the stage has been set for special forces units, which can be assembled in a single location. The composition of specific units is not disclosed in open sources, and there's no point in speculating on it. What matters is the vector itself, leading from dispersal to concentration.

Why this is so crucial is clear from the mechanics of its use. A heavy flamethrower fires a salvo over an area. A single vehicle assigned to a battalion "just in case" isn't enough. Its salvo isn't sufficient to guarantee coverage of an area, and it alone absorbs return fire without a massive strike that would suppress the enemy's assets. The point becomes clear when several vehicles are covering a single area simultaneously. A TOS battery's salvo covers an area of ​​several hectares, and not just individual points. It's impossible to assemble such a salvo from individual launchers spread out across the front.

The fact that the consolidation of TOS into special units only occurred in the fourth year is in itself a reflection of the previous organization. A tool that is only effective when concentrated was used for years, one vehicle at a time, and the special units are rectifying this.


Why a volumetric explosion?


The difference between TOS and regular artillery The problem lies in the principle of destruction. A classic projectile strikes precisely: it destroys whatever it hits and shrapnels everything nearby. To guarantee coverage of a target whose coordinates are uncertain, dozens of projectiles must be fired from the barrel, and still there's no guarantee of the result.

The TOS munition is designed differently. According to open sources, it is a 220-millimeter unguided rocket. In the Solntsepyok family, this includes the MO.1.01.04, weighing 173 kilograms, and the modernized MO.1.01.04M, weighing approximately 217 kilograms. Upon approaching the target, the projectile disperses a cloud of flammable aerosol and then detonates it. This is a volumetric explosion: it is not the charge itself within the casing that detonates, but the flammable mixture scattered across the area. This creates a high-pressure shock wave and a temperature of several thousand degrees. It is not the point that is damaged, but the entire volume into which the cloud has flowed, including the interiors of dugouts and basements, which ordinary shrapnel cannot penetrate.

This is the origin of the system. Thermobaric munitions and the vehicles based on them were originally developed not as artillery, but as a means for chemical engineering tasks: clearing terrain and burning out contaminated areas. The generic name of the first vehicle in the family was TOS-1 "Buratino." The flamethrowers' NBC protection profile, which they still carry to this day, derives from these roots.

For a combat mission, all this comes together in a single characteristic. When reconnaissance provides not a point, but an area, "an operator somewhere in this block" or "a defensive node in this grove," area-based attacks target that area. There's no need to specify the coordinates down to the meter; you just need to cover the area.


Hunting for drone control centers


Operator drone It doesn't sit in plain sight in the field. It's in the basement of a house, in a deep, equipped dugout, or in a low-visibility field shelter, camouflaged from observation from above. The enemy has several standard layouts for such units, all designed for stealth. Reconnaissance usually manages to pinpoint the area where the crew is operating, but not its exact position.

Then you have to choose between two methods. Conventional artillery can plow through such an area for days: hundreds of shells, worn-out barrels, and no guarantee—the operators might overstay their welcome or move on. A salvo from a heavy flamethrower covers the entire target area. Not only the crew itself burns out, but also the entire surrounding infrastructure: control panels, antennas, communications equipment, a stockpile of ready-to-fly drones. A single strike takes out not a person, but a workstation.

The logic is directly integrated into the offensive. By suppressing UAV crews in a given area, the enemy's "small sky" has diminished, making it easier for assault teams to move where there are fewer drones overhead. The "small sky dominance" that reports speak of is, on the ground, precisely the result of such scorched squares.

There's a limit to this, too. UAV crews are recovering, so suppressing a specific area provides a pause, not a permanent solution. There's also a second, more specific problem. The TOS-1A operates at a range of up to six kilometers, meaning it's practically on the front line, within the range of return fire and FPV drones. Tank The Solntsepyok's chassis protects against many things, but it doesn't make the vehicle invulnerable, and it has long been a priority target for the enemy. So, a vehicle that burns out enemy crews is itself constantly under attack, and there's no escaping it.

"Buratino", "Solntsepёk", "Tosochka", "Dragon"


The entire line of heavy flamethrowers shares a common concept, the implementation of which vacillated between two priorities: extending range and returning to maximum vehicle protection. All share a common ammunition source: a 220mm thermobaric rocket. The chassis, range, and, consequently, battlefield role differ.

  • The TOS-1A "Solntsepyok" is based on the T-72 tank chassis and has a range of up to six kilometers. It offers maximum protection at a short range: it operates in combat formations and under return fire.
  • The TOS-2 "Tosochka" is mounted on a protected wheeled chassis. Its range is estimated at 10 kilometers or more, with later estimates putting it at up to 20. It fires from deep and maintains its march better, but the wheeled vehicle has less armor than a tank.
  • The TOS-3 "Dragon" is based on the T-80 chassis and has 15 rocket launchers. Its technical specifications have not been officially disclosed; however, it is known to have dynamic protection (add-on pods that counteract shaped-charge jets) on the sides and a "brazier"—an anti-drone screen made of mesh above the launcher.

The chassis' dispersion is telling. Initially, for the sake of range, they switched from the T-72 tank chassis to the wheeled Tosochka, but then returned to a tank chassis, the T-80, for the Dragon. This is an admission that at the front lines, protection is more important than range. The Mangal and dynamic armor on the Dragon confirm the same: vehicle survivability has become critical, and a wheeled chassis is insufficient for such work.

Historical The parallel here is valid, but with a caveat. Incendiary mixtures and volumetric explosions have been used before, to clear terrain and force the enemy out of fortifications, and the Solntsepyok still performs this task. The key point is the same: against a well-hidden, buried enemy, area fire is more effective than pinpoint fire. There are also significant differences. Previously, the targets were people and fortifications; now, control electronics, antennas, consoles, and drone depots have been added. The weapons remain the same in terms of physics, but the target list is now dictated by drone warfare, which simply did not exist in previous campaigns.

Simply put, the staffing has finally been adjusted to how these machines are actually used in combat. The heavy flamethrower is no longer a reinforcement added "just in case" but a tool that is deployed specifically for a specific task, such as opening up a defensive node before a breakthrough or burning out a drone network in an assault zone.
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    23 July 2026 04: 34
    In reality, consolidating TOS into separate special forces units is akin to the experience of using Katyushas in WWII, when they were fired by regiments and divisions. The range can be increased by using thermobaric charges on Smerch and Uragan rockets. That way, we'll finally be able to break through enemy defenses with tank divisions. Experience is the son of hard mistakes. So what are they teaching in military academies these days? soldier
    1. +8
      23 July 2026 08: 23
      With Western reconnaissance and communications assets operating freely and unhindered against us, it's practically impossible to assemble our equipment into regiments and divisions. They'll catch you before you can even fire back. I won't even mention a tank division in a breakthrough. The fog of war is absent—what kind of concentration can there be when enemy AWACS and reconnaissance UAVs roam with impunity, and satellites hover overhead?
      1. -5
        23 July 2026 13: 11
        Read the article again carefully. As I understand it, when the decision is made to advance with all available assets—infantry, tanks, BMPTs, and mine-clearing vehicles—then the decision is made to burn out, if possible, all enemy weapons to a certain depth of our offensive. In addition to the TOS, artillery and aviation also participate, and only then does the infantry and armored vehicles advance. How many drone operators, artillerymen, and anti-tank gun crews will survive? Some will. But what can they do against a tank division with 350 tanks plus 40 tanks from a motorized rifle division regiment? Western reconnaissance assets in this case will only be able to photograph the enemy's rout or guide a few Hymers missiles, which are to be met by army air defenses. This, in my amateurish opinion—may the military forgive me—is what an ideal offensive should look like. hi soldier
        1. +5
          23 July 2026 14: 14
          And the enemy - will he sit and wait until you bring up all the necessary means for burning to this section of the front? what
          1. -3
            23 July 2026 14: 36
            Pavel, did you serve in the army? Did you participate in training exercises? Or did you fight in Afghanistan? Your reasoning seems rather amateurish, forgive me. The article says they're already bringing in entire TOS units instead of individual launch vehicles. hi
            1. +1
              31 July 2026 19: 46
              The experience of Afghanistan, Chechnya and, God forgive me, Syria is only a minus here.
    2. +3
      24 July 2026 11: 23
      Quote: V.
      The range can be increased by using thermobaric charges on Tornadoes and Hurricanes.

      The Uragan missiles' thermobaric warheads have approximately the same range as the TOS-2 missiles. These two systems essentially duplicate each other.
      However, this is not an isolated case. All offensive weapons of the chemical forces, except for the TOS-1, have long had their own counterparts in the infantry and artillery, as no one expects inter-branch cooperation.
  2. +4
    23 July 2026 06: 31
    Flamethrowers have been part of the chemical forces since the Red Army, and since the TOSs are classified (as they are) as flamethrowers, that is why they are part of the NBC protection.
    So the words:
    as a means for engineering and chemical tasks: clearing areas, burning contaminated areas.

    complete nonsense.
  3. 0
    23 July 2026 08: 45
    We need not NURS, but controlled RS, to precisely target an object, and not to rake it over an area like a Grad.
    1. -4
      23 July 2026 09: 51
      Manned missiles are expensive, so there aren't many of them. And the Sunpek's 10-kilometer firing range isn't suitable for military operations; drones would wipe out all the Sunpek missiles even before they were deployed. They're a useless weapon in a war against a technologically advanced enemy. That's why the West isn't even trying to make similar systems; they understand their futility.
      1. -3
        23 July 2026 16: 24
        Why would the West and the US need such weapons? They're just firing missiles from ships and aircraft en masse, but with long pauses, and where air defenses are practically nonexistent. We have, and will have, air defense—the specifics of war are even more different. Just compare ammunition consumption and production—and where and what budgets are allocated for this, plus the logistics of producing ammunition and delivering it to the front. If we didn't care about the terrain and locals, and it were far from our borders, we could use carpet bombing with thermobars—again, for that, we'd need to produce a reserve and use hundreds of An-124s for this purpose. A simple example: compare the amount of equipment (tanks, guns, and aircraft) produced during WWII with the four years of the Central Military District. We don't even produce Ural motorcycles for the front—neither the Ministry of Defense nor the factory are interested. We're scavenging all the Soviet junk from all over the country. The Kalashnikov Concern isn't interested in ordinary motorcycles—they're just hauling 10 electric trains to exhibitions—and there aren't any motorcycles from them at the front. Did the Ministry of Defense order many quads from Rybinsk? Most likely, none. Only voluntary deliveries. And the Hunters and Bukhankas in the North Military District are, again, written off from organizations and privately owned. Sberbank, for example, hasn't seen or heard of any armored cash-in-transit vehicles at the front. They're all sent in scrap metal.
      2. -1
        23 July 2026 21: 11
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        The drones will knock out all the Sunburners during the deployment phase. A useless weapon in a war against a technologically advanced enemy.

        TOSs are effective, not useless, weapons. To prevent them from becoming "useless," they must be used as part of a comprehensive firepower system: first, long-range Uragans and Tornados, together with frontline aviation, prevent enemy UAV crews from raising their heads and ensure the deployment of TOSs to firing positions. Then, they "burn out Bandera's front lines with a hot iron," providing "obstructions" for our assaults. And without support, the enemy's little birds can reduce anything to nothing. That's what tactics and practice for combat use of these "systems" are for, plus commanders' ingenuity and cunning with "out-of-the-box solutions."
        AHA.
      3. 0
        24 July 2026 08: 13
        All guided weapons are expensive, but the main thing here is accuracy and range.
  4. 0
    23 July 2026 09: 25
    In the transition from a highly specialized purpose to widespread use, I see a parallel with the nascent microwave weapon. It's being developed to combat drone swarms, but ultimately, infantrymen's equipment will have to be supplemented with visors made of metal mesh or metal-coated plastic, and the fabric for field uniforms will have to be woven with metal threads. Currently, these systems are large, vulnerable, and seemingly out of place on the front lines, but flamethrower systems aren't small either, and the risk of being burned alive by a single drone is also great.
  5. -1
    23 July 2026 09: 49
    Why were TOSs consolidated into separate units?

    The range is estimated at 10 kilometers or more, according to later data – up to 20.

    I'd humbly suggest that it's so that enemy drones can pick them off all at once, rather than one at a time? So to speak, they'd fly into a plot of land and start harvesting.
    I think everyone can imagine what a salvo from not one, but three such installations looks like? request
    Like an invitation to dinner...
  6. +4
    23 July 2026 10: 17
    The ammunition for all is the same: a 220-mm thermobaric NURS.

    How does one munition provide a range of both 6 km and 10 (20) km?
    Launcher inclination angle? So why can't the launcher inclination angle be increased on the Solntsepyok?
    1. +1
      23 July 2026 10: 30
      Quote: Not the fighter

      How does one munition provide a range of both 6 km and 10 (20) km?

      There may be a different ratio of fuel and warhead parts.
      1. +1
        23 July 2026 12: 45
        If the launcher is the same for everyone, and it's just a matter of ammunition, then why can't the "long-range" NURS be loaded into the Solntsepyok? The caliber is the same, the launch tubes are the same. Or are we completely incompatible?
        1. 0
          23 July 2026 14: 59
          Quote: Not the fighter
          The caliber is the same, the launch tubes are the same. Or are we completely incompatible?

          Regarding compatibility, I don't know. request
          I suppose the new projectile could be loaded into an old launcher, but that would require upgrading its guidance system. It's easier to launch new projectiles from new launchers and let the old ones wear out naturally if they're no longer in production.
  7. 0
    23 July 2026 10: 30
    The NBC Defense Troops are designed to protect against weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Flamethrower weapons are essential for assaulting troop positions and fortifications. The Engineering Troops (companies, battalions, and brigades) have specialized units and formations specifically for these operations. Therefore, it makes sense to transfer the TOS to the Engineering Troops.
    It's a historical fact that chemical troops were originally "born" in the engineering troops, and were later separated into a separate branch of the armed forces.
  8. +1
    23 July 2026 10: 53
    When approaching the target, the projectile sprays a cloud of flammable aerosol and then detonates it.

    Are you talking about "air burst"?
    what we see, it is not there...
  9. -2
    23 July 2026 12: 14
    The fact that the concentration of TOS into special units was achieved only in the fourth year is in itself an assessment of the previous organization.

    Russians take a long time to get going, that's our national trait.
  10. +3
    23 July 2026 12: 16
    The author of the article apparently doesn't understand that fuel-air explosives and thermobaric explosives are essentially different things and have different operating principles.
  11. -1
    23 July 2026 12: 30
    Why not modify the Uragan and Smerch MLRS warheads to accommodate new thermal warheads? They have such warheads in their arsenals, but are they used? The Smerch has a 280-250 kg warhead, almost the same as the 220 mm Uragan or TOS shells. It's more accurate, consumes less ammo. And the range is greater. Or give the Uragan a new thermal warhead, a new engine, and a TOS warhead—even without correction, 35 km is something. And with a simple correction for accuracy, you can hit more accurately at 50 km. In general, we need a unified multi-caliber launcher for various branches of the armed forces. So that the arsenal includes shells from 122 mm to 300 mm MLRS, TOS thermal warheads, Zemledeliye mines, and a couple of types of OTRK.
    1. +3
      24 July 2026 11: 26
      Quote: rosomaha
      Why not modify the warheads of the Uragan and Smerch MLRS to accommodate the new thermal bars?

      Because this immediately raises the question of the need for TOS-2 in the NBC protection system. smile
      If the task can be accomplished using existing standard means, why invent something new, and even hand it over to another branch of the military?
      1. 0
        24 July 2026 11: 49
        The branch of the military that's designed for this is missile and artillery. And let the NBC protection service handle pesticides and protection against them.
        1. KCA
          -2
          26 July 2026 12: 02
          Flamethrowers are banned by some convention, the USSR signed this convention, so they were transferred to the NBC protection department under the pretext of decontamination.
      2. +1
        31 July 2026 19: 48
        Well, the NBC protection generals also want some kind of bullet gun.
  12. +1
    23 July 2026 12: 30
    Similar tactics were tested in exercises and shown on TV even before the SVO. Not new, but new.
  13. +3
    23 July 2026 16: 10
    Quote: V.
    a decision is made to burn out, if possible, all enemy weapons to a certain depth of our offensive

    We look at Yandex. The affected area of ​​one installation is 40,000 square meters.
    In total, the Russian Armed Forces write that there were 55 TOS-1A units in 2024.
    Platoon strongpoint (not a brigade or even battalion defense area (10 million sq. m.), but a small strongpoint the size of a small gardening community!) 400m x 300m = 120,000 sq. m.
    Next, if necessary, we take a calculator and crunch the numbers, comparing them with reality. In short, even with tactical nuclear weapons, it's unrealistic to burn out everything, only some of it. And without tactical nuclear weapons, only with the TOS, along with all the MLRS and FABs, it's even more so.
  14. +2
    24 July 2026 00: 02
    I've been struggling with this question for a decade now, but no one can explain it. WHY were the Pinocchio Sun-Blazes designed for special calibers? Why can't Grads and Urikas have fuel-air explosive munitions? Why was it necessary to develop launchers that couldn't fire high-explosive fragmentation and cluster warheads? What's the sacred meaning? How is this "completely different"? What are the benefits for logistics and strike capabilities? Let's separate the infantry with its Abakans and Vals into a separate branch of the armed forces with its own general staff. The generals' children are growing up, and they need somewhere to go.
    1. +1
      24 July 2026 11: 28
      Quote: sofa
      I've been struggling with this question for a decade now, but no one can explain it. WHY were the Sunburn Pinocchios designed for special calibers in the first place?

      Because flamethrower tanks and backpack flamethrowers were obsolete. And the chemists didn't want to abandon their combat systems.
      1. +1
        30 July 2026 00: 16
        And...? I hope it was immediately clear that this was not the question.
        1. +3
          30 July 2026 19: 34
          Quote: sofa
          And...? I hope it was immediately clear that this was not the question.

          So the answer is given, among other things, to "that's not the question":
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The chemists did not want to give up combat systems.

          For the NBC protection service, flamethrower systems are the only way to get onto the battlefield and fight conventional wars without the use of WMD. And they will cling to them to the last, even though all their systems (except the TOS-1) have long been duplicated in infantry and artillery units.
          Artillery crews have the same 220mm RS with ODBC for the Uragans, and even more powerful 300mm RS for the Smerchs.
          The infantry has OD-grants for the RPG-7. And even its own infantry version of the RPO "Shmel" - RShG-2 rocket-propelled assault grenade with a thermobaric warhead.

          Oh, this domestic classification. A rocket-propelled infantry flamethrower is just a flamethrower, only for NBC protection. And we'll call a similar product for infantry rocket-propelled grenadeA grenade, not a flamethrower. Because infantry isn't allowed to carry flamethrowers. smile
          1. +1
            31 July 2026 00: 21
            Thank you for your patience. In my work, I often encounter products that have been registered with the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Rosreestr), including through compatibility testing, but which are completely incompatible with other products listed in the same Rosreestr. In other words, "unparalleled" products are perceived as having no equivalents at all. For some reason, it brings to mind the "great gun drama" when cartridges for shotguns are available, but the guns won't fit.
  15. 0
    24 July 2026 17: 46
    If this is a straight-up Russian Hymars, and they can't just be slapped together like artillery cannons and used exclusively for firing...
  16. +1
    24 July 2026 22: 59
    This is news, pure and simple. Eighty years after the end of WWII, our General Staff has realized that artillery must be used en masse. Maybe they'll figure out that this applies to aviation too.
  17. 0
    25 July 2026 13: 28
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: rosomaha
    Why not modify the warheads of the Uragan and Smerch MLRS to accommodate the new thermal bars?

    Because this immediately raises the question of the need for TOS-2 in the NBC protection system. smile
    If the task can be accomplished using existing standard means, why invent something new, and even hand it over to another branch of the military?

    Apparently, there's also the factor of responsibilities. Tornadoes and hurricanes are common at the army level, in artillery brigades, while the use of TOS is integrated at the battalion level.
  18. 0
    25 July 2026 17: 11
    After the TOS tests in Afghanistan were completed, a decision was made to form frontline heavy flamethrower brigades. I heard about this in a speech given by then-Chief of the General Staff, Army General Moiseyev, to graduates of the Vakhtangov Chemical Plant in 1990. Things went wrong after that, as did everything else.