Well WoT artillery is technically a better representation since tanks get scouted and you use indirect fire. Problem is how accurate WoT artillery are. Meanwhile Gaijin use them in direct fire support.
No, just burn is boring. So russia replaced all flamers with thermobaric ordnance. "A standard ultraviolent hellmaker catastrophethrowers(tm!). They who are crushed are best when burning with their eyes popped and lungs hanging out from their mouths."
They already added the Type 75. It's not exactly a TOS but it's ridiculously effective when used right, as you can not take away it's ability to fire (unless you kill it obv)
The 6K MAX range seems to be by far this things biggest weakness. That means in practice, most engagements will be in 4-5K range, which would be suicidal against a modern enemy. That said, against rebel/terrorist groups like ISIS, this weapon is PERFECT. It's low cost and savage.
Its designed as a support vehicle. Thats why it has the hull and armor of a t72. Its designed to follow the tanks and unleash its payload of a metric ton of "FUCK YOU!" on anything tanks cant handle. Russians have other weapon systems such as Grad's to fuck shit up from farther away.
The Max Range was recently increased from 5-6km to 10km with newly developed Rockets, Along with reduced time getting ready to fire. Overall the system’s combat effectiveness has been increased by 70%
This is the ideal weapon for destroying heavy emplacements in an absolutely terrifying manner. Shock and awe is putting it mildly. Properly supported by MBTs and various other light armor and/or mechanized infantry these would be able to cut a swath through whatever enemy territory you desired. The biggest threat to them is enemy air support but there are of course ways of countering that as well. 10/10 would shit my pants if I saw them through high powered binos
@If you mean the MGM-140 ATACMS or variants, they are not equivalent. That is a guided missile system, not a rocket and costs far more to use. Besides, Russia has many guided missiles as well.
@ Lol you make your comparison even dumber, as this was specifically about thermobaric rockets. Furthermore you do know that Russia also have highly accurate, long range, multi warhead missile systems too? If you want to compare systems you should stick to those that are equivalent and not ones designed for different purposes. Comparing close support rocket systems to long range missile systems is ridiculous, not least when Russia has both.
@ Lol I am not Russisn so they are not mine. A thermobaric warhead has far more energy than a conventional warhead, let alone non explosive tungsten projectiles and covers a much bigger area. Plus they can afford to fire off huge salvos as they are much cheaper than the American munitions. In fact the Russian system can saturate an area of over twice the size of the American system and generate a much bigger shockwave as well as intense heat. Even if they missed by 300m, the salvo covers 2.4 km squared as opposed to 1km for the US system. Alternatively they have a wide range of munition options from cluster guided anti-tank, cluster AT mines, cluster AP, HEAT as well as GLONAS. However, none of this has anything to do with my point that you keep comparing Apples to Oranges. The USA has no equivalent to the TOS-1 system in the video. The MGM-140 ATACAMS fulfils a different role. Furthermore if Russia needed longer, more accurate ranged missiles than the Tornado G, it has them in spades. Far more than the US has for both close and long range.
@Wrong again. First of all both the TOS-1 and Tornado G have a much bigger range than 2.4 km. Even the original TOS-1 had a 3.5km range and the TOS-1A 6km. I also said I was comparing salvos from both the US and Russian systems. Thus everything I said was correct. Your comment about the TOS system not being a weapon of war is so dumb I lost 10 IQ points. Luckily being a member of Mensa I can spare some. It was first used in the WAR on Afghanistan against ARMED rebels. If you think 6km is point blank then you are dumber than I thought. You keep ignoring the fact that Russia also has counter battery fire. By your dumb logic there is no point closing in on the enemy as artillery fire would wipe out any advance. I mean it's not like the Russians would counter fire at the US artillery with their longer range weapons is it? A thermobaric explosion is absolutely devastatingly and will destroy equipment and personnel. If you think a huge area of raging inferno with double the pressure of conventional HE is less scary than tungsten bits flying around you have no understanding of warfare. The tungsten round was designed to minimize civilian casualties as it leaves no unexploded ordanance behind and is not optimised for destruction. Thermobaric warheads however, are one step down from nuclear in terms of destruction. So yes the TOS-1 is indeed a weapon of war and a very effective one at that, as every military expert agrees. Now I am done as it is clear Mark Twain was right and I should never have argued with a fool.
@@GlowingSpamraam Actually all existing Russian Military tracked vehicles would be converted to either to the Armata or the Kurgante platform base on their requirements.
if it comes on t14 chasee then will be maybe 5 prodused. russia has no money, they stop production of t14 as lack of funds. bad russian and agressive politics will bring them to big big stragle of they weaponery. oil and gas soon will be repleace so will be 0 income for russia.
The Western mindset is to find one system that covers a multitude of roles; the Russian mindset is layered. For instance, the Shika: not meant to be a SPAAG on its own, it was there to take on targets after they had been forced into its range by AAMs. The TOS moves forward with MBTs under a barrage of SP heavy mortars and artillery and eliminates any AT squads, supported by the Terminator Anti-Infantry vehicles. If you think Western when contemplating war with Russia, Russia will win: they play a different game. In the words of Field Marshal Montgomery: " If you want to rule the world, don't invade Russia. "
@Tracchofyre as I understood it there are multiple accounts, the main ones being a salvo was fired from Luhansk, and Poroshenkos statement was "pro Russian rebels"... The 2nd being an account of Russian military units firing from Russia, however the evidence provided in the form of satellite images and video footage from a downed drone, was from a video game... There was also an attempt to match up a geo-location via a video someone took of the rocket salvo flying in... Also remember the Ukrainians had brought MLRS systems forward for use, had repeatedly bombed and shelled locations in civilian hubs including Hospitals and schools and had fired artillery which had strayed across the border into Russia... Not saying it wasn't the Russians from inside of Russia, personally I don't trust them and the strike itself turned a lot of heads, but there's no real evidence to support the theory, however we do know it did happen and a lot of people got hurt or killed, thankfully not civilians.
@Tracchofyre ukranian army vehicules is not as armored as nato ones thermobaric warheads are next useless against stanag 4 5 level armor and diorect hits are very rare.
Tracchofyre Firstly - BM - 21 is used on the video. Secondly - the author of the video does not say where he is. In eastern Ukraine, as in Russia, they speak Russian. It’s impossible to determine where this video was shot. Thirdly (and most importantly) on 10/25/2018 - First Deputy Chairman of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Alexander Hug, said that the mission did not find evidence of Russian intervention in the Donbas. 4 years have passed. The Russian army was never found. Stop writing about the alleged Russian army in Ukraine.
By tradition these units are not operated by the regular army, but by the specialised RKhBZ (Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defence) Forces which were the initial users of flamethrowers and smoke screens going back to WWI era. On another note I'm getting my interview for Cadet instructor next week and assuming I pass (which I should) I'll be badged Royal Artillery so we got something in common lol
RKhBZ "forces" are part of the regular army. The TOS are just operated by special units, but they are within the regular command structure. P.S. Congrats on your interview.
@@jurisprudens Yup - just wanted to distinguish between the regular Rocket Troops (NOT the RVSN) & Artillery and the RKhBZ. Idk if ww have a similar thing where our CRBN forces have a dedicated combat equipment over decontamination
@Nikola Poiukov sorry but Russia pulled out because of heavy losses, the tunnel systems and terrain especially made it very hard. Any Country would have had trouble during that period, and Russia was suffering from economic hardship then. Now even with bunker busters and smart hardware the terrain still makes it a very hard Country to invade.
@ Disagree, while Afghanistan has been a resilant fighter throughout the ages and Russia has stayed strong most of its existence China should not be on that list. Japan strategically defeated China taking the Korean peninsula, Manchuria, the east coast, Hong Kong, ect. China was also defeated by the Mongolians and other foreign powers. Russia was also conquered by the Mongols however Russia is a force to be rekened with. The United States easily takes China's spot on your list and in all reality India would be a even choice with afghanistan... mostly because no nation has ever tried a effective strategy against a fghanistan and goes for the usual capture the capital with large army's strategy.
Used against an enemy that doesn’t have access to long range anti vehicle weaponry I think fits this vehicle, like against terrorist hideouts I guess. Knowing the Russians, I would not doubt that some crazy mofo is designing a rocket and a launching platform to put on top of a T-72 chassis with greater range than its predecessor. Just my honest thought.
these already outrage nato ATGM and recoiless rifles tho, they are 'short-ranged' compared to other rocket artillery. so you can sit there with a TOW2 and it will fire at you and you can't shoot back
@Momo Yugovic yup not sure about certain death as nato class armies armored vehicules are actionaly protected against non direct hits stanag level 4 or 5 so the attackers would need to inflict direct hits to be effective which is next to impossible with this kind of systems. otherwise rocket arty leave huge amount of smoke leading directly to its positions making it fat targets for counter battery.
This weapon has been widely used by the Syrian army for years. At one point there was a video where Al Qaeda/al Nusra used an American TOW to hit an ammo depot full of these rockets. Later the TOS-1 helped save christian villages from a jihadi offensive aiming for Hama out of Idlib. Thus saving civilian lives. It was utterly crushed, despite credible rumors of british, french and CIA agents training and advising them.
MrTangolizard yes credible. Remember when the Syrians released names and ranks of captured agents in Aleppo? Captured isis rats talks about it too. So lol youself. Who do u think trains Al nusra in tow missile use? Training is necessary to operate the american system
FreedomFox1 CIA involvement has been acknowledged for some groups and now people seem to think that means every single group in Syria and Iraq is funded by the USA it’s nonsense
I mean 6km is a short distance in modern combat, but you have to keep one thing in mind: This thing doesn't need a direct line of sight into the battlefield and can easily be placed behind significant cover and still be effective.
For infantry mortars and mobile artilery guns are cheaper ammo so more economical but against enemy castled position, anti vehicle (air and armored counter defense), rockets pods are superior. In general Amo should be cheaper then target. Mobile Artillery (especially when combined with detachable drone recon target designation to make the most out of that out range and indirect targeting and some “anti recon/sensor drone sniper gun” drone. Bullet cheaper then drone/sensor. So likely will need that counter support to stay economically. Assuming it does get its support, Interesting stuff.
I think we rolled out T-14 a bit too early, due to tense ongoing political crisis at the time which almost ended up in a war circa 2014-2016. I believe T-14 is still being polished, tested and changed as we speak, so mass production will start later, when the machine is 100% combat approved. The other possible point is that there is really no need to hurry with its mass production; maybe it's just too damn costly, or maybe if too many old tanks are replaced with brand new ones, the crew will find themselves struggling with the new controls and therefore being ineffective.
@Nikola Poiukov Russia does not divide tanks on mediums and heavies. They all are called Main Battle Tank, pretty much like in every other country of the world. These machines, the 72s, the 80s and the 90s, are supposed to be replaced with Armata over time. However, the army says T-14 is too expensive and at the moment it makes more sense to upgrade the older ones. Mere 9 tanks have been supplied to the Army this year, and a bit more than 100 are expected before the end of 2021. However, we might never know the true state of affairs, because Russia has perfected the art of appearing weaker than it actually is.
Good video there. I'll be using it as reference for building a TOS model. Now get some of the Terminator support vehicle, it mounts 4 of these thermobaric launchers and twin 30mm cannon and twin 30mm grenade launchers for close support work.
About 8ha or 20acres each unit. They only way to survive them unless you can take them out is to travel very dispersed. A USA Adviser in Ukraine talks somewhere on TH-cam about two occasions Ukrainian Battalions trying to approach and cross the Russian border moving only at night in wooded country. Somehow they were discovered. A Drone flew over and minutes later both were more or less wiped. They certainly are fearsome.
I think 6km is fine for the range, I dont see this as a traditional artillery piece, its like getting all the bang from a dedicated close air support without having to call up a multi million dollar helicopter or attack plane. Got a tough nut to crack, a well placed fortification thats resting armour and infantry say insurgents or whatever in the middle of an abandoned village/town, just roll up a TOS-1 and suppress the area, dont have them in the front lines keep them back and only use when needed. The days of modern army vs modern army i just dont see as a thing anymore so its not like the US needs to build a vehicle to counter the TOS-1. Yet at the same time for close in area suppression i dont think the US even has anything remotely comparable. US close support is pretty much all air based and they are moving away from A-10s to things like.. launching a B-1B strategic bomber
"The days of modern army vs modern army i just dont see as a thing anymore " You are too optimistic in that, man. The Russian military, actually, still considers being ready for fighting the Western regular armies in Europe to be its primary function.
Hey Matsimus, have you heard of the Aselsan AHS-120 'Alkar'? It's definitely an interesting mortar system and personally I don't think mortars get enough love nowadays.
When you see more than 1 spider in your backyard For real I didnt even know I needed this in my life but I'm extremely happy it is, I love this, thanks Mat!!
As Spiderman's GF I must speak out against your planned use of this weapon. Spiders are the "good guys" . They eat the other "bad" bugs that we humans consider annoying pests like mosquitoes, gnats, flies. Spare a spider and it will eat 10% of its own weight DAILY in other bugs or in other words, spiders eat 36 times their entire body weight annually!
The TOS-1 is the Russian solution to enemy forces dug-in in an urban environment. That's how they handled the Chechen Rebels of course they killed a lot of civilians in the process
It is a designed to do a very specific job, and does it well. It's range is too low for counter battery fire in most circumstances, but it is not designed to. NB, the fact it will be close to the front lines is the reason it is based on a tank hull as apposed to a truck or BMP - it needs the armour.
I find different military philosophies interesting. US: Precision munitions, surgical strikes. Russia: Just completely burn and level that 400m by 200m block over there.
Russian aide: Grid down! Russian commander: What do you mean grid down? Russian aide: I mean that there's no more battlefield. The entire grid is peaceful. Russian commander: But we only deployed a few TOSes. Ohhhh...
The Russian's make serious ass kicking weapons! My favorite is the twin (GE mini gun style) CIWS on there ships...not just one but 8 all around the ship...can't never have to much firepower! Good video btw! Keep the good work! I like your intro also :)
Especially if used with thermobaric warheads ... If you remember that scene in 'Apocalypse Now', during the naplam strike along the tree-line, that entire front was set ablaze in seconds. Given how hard it is to set green vegitation alight (try it with grass clippings ...), for the canopy to be set alight means absolutely crazy temperatures were reached ... no wonder both napalm was banned, and white phosphorus limited to smoke grenades ...
Thermobaric ammo is a very very nasty weapon. Your lungs probably collapsed from a shockwave and you are standing in the middle of vacuum can't take a breath because everything around you just burnt. It's fooking hell.
I remember that the Russian Army used this to great effect in urban combat. In Chechnya, they would get into minimum range and use it as a shotgun from hell (my words) to clear fighters out of large buildings and city blocks while leaving most of the building in tact. The organs of thermobaric blast casualties are severely ruptured (if not turned to jelly) while there is little damage to the dermis. The Russians have even developed thermobaric RPG rounds for urban combat. Would love to see a Matsimus video on this as well!
I'm kinda surprised Matsimus didn't call this one "an absolute beast". :D Could you, in the future, also do Mil Mi 8/17 helicopter & the Kamov Ka 27 helicopter? :)
My old man was a boomhead and he talked about when those systems first came out in germany late 60s-early 70s, and he said the major difference to their tube artillery was the immediacy of the impact. Namely that all "rounds" impacted at that close a time to each other, that there was none of the time space between the shots or the salvos as there was with tube artillery. It wasn't 4-8 shots at intervals landing but a stream of impacts for 20 seconds or more straight, which did rob the infantryman of his chance to dive for cover in his opinion. It was basically the whole firepower of the battery arriving in one salvo. edit: so it fills the same role as the Stug, as a short range "precision" artillery supporting troops against dug in positions. (ok major difference it is not direct fire like the Stug.) ;)
I mean i imagine it can be done, the direct fire thing. If you're desperate enough just level the whole gun tube cluster and start praying as soon as you hit the fire sequence button. I think you have a 95% of getting a statue in your likeness if you do that, also bigger chance it being postmortem.
Can someone answer my question to explosive munitions? Thermobaric weapons are very effective against soft targets and buildings, but apparently not against tanks. What makes them more effective against concrete structures? Similarly, I wonder about the role of aluminum powder in conventional explosives. For instance ANFO (a specific fertiliser + fuel, or other flammable material) has less explosive power than TNT, but with aluminum powder added it can rival it. It apparently increases the emitted heat and thus the reaction speed and gas pressure. However, if you add aluminum powder to TNT, it actually reduces it's effectiveness against e.g. tanks, but it has still been added e.g. in Torpedo warheads. Why?
edi at the second chemical part I can't help u, i wasn't realls in chemistry lessons. But the thermo is better against light vehicles and buildings. That is because it first spreads a cloud of gas/liquid (sth between) and then a second explosion used as incendiary. The cloud enters into light vehicles and buildings because they aren't perfectly concealed like tanks with an ABC-Counter systen.
I think that the thermobaric explosion is stronger, per payload, but distributed over a wider area and regarding the Al in explosives it seems to increase the gas pressure, but it reduces the amount of explosive and thus maybe the gas pressure is higher, but not as much of a hit like a detonation, but more like a slower gas-explosion.
5 points to make: 1: Bravo Zulu again 2:Fire bombs against infantry, Russia does not have CNN or MSNBC to worry about and would have no problem using it on Anderson Cooper. 3:The TOS-1 is more a engineer weapon system then a combat system for the reasons you have mentioned and I am willing to bet it has a secondary role, that of clearing mine fields. 4: If the Russians go crazy I can see the TOS-1 being developed into a formidable anti-tank system or a BM-21 rocket system on steroids. 5: the dislikes need to be drafted
Very effective against any foe who isn't fully mechanized. Range makes it unable to be used against soft targets like bases and headquarters though. I see it mainly as a means to torch a weaker foe who rely in dug in infantry rather than mechanized warfare.
Hey there Matt. I was RA too and thought I knew about most types of systems and counter battery detection acoustic and radar. This is something else and I am surprised that it misses me completely. Thanks for showing it and I can understand why it is necessary, because the Russian key concept of defence is the army for their vast territory. This will certainly deal with dug in positions effectively and probably faster than close air for a fraction of the cost (by weight or ordnance). What an elegantly simple idea And terrifying too, if faced by this weapon system
I am not a weapons expert, but as far as I understand, these weapons were not designed to fight in a flat field. In fact, they don't seem to be all that effective in the field at all. Thermobaric ammunition really shines in closed spaces, such as caves, of which there is plenty in the mountains. When you fight against mujahedeen in the mountains, you don't really need much range. You see, in the mountains everything around is pretty close.
These are metal augmented charges. They use a conventional explosive surrounded by a jacket of compressed aluminum powder, all inside a thick pressure casing. The primary explosive instantly heats the Al powder past its ignition point via compression, then the outer casing fragments, and the powder burns as it comes into contact with atmospheric oxygen, lengthening the duration of the blast wave. Same concept as the MAC version of the Hellfire missile. The white smoke you see is aluminum oxide. They use the term "Flamethrower" because of the elevated blast temperature to bypass the Geneva convention rules, so to speak.
I agree that the 6 kms is relatively short. At this range the army would jeed tank, Anti-air defences and smiliar other things to make sure the enemy dosen't drop bombs/shells right onto these launchers, which would be very bad. But aside from that i think this beast is very deadly, especially making roasted chickens out of people hiding in the bunkers or trenches, that this thing is attacking. Im not in the military but this flamethrower is really scary, if you ever see this thing on enemy sides aiming at you, RUN!
Actually 6 km isn't bad considering its heavily armoured. NATO doesn't even have any ATGM that can reach more than 3 km so it's pretty safe from ATGM threats in 5 to 6 km distance. It won't be operating alone anyway. Also you can increase the range up to 20 km but the downside is that your payload would be much smaller as the range increase. So it nullifies the purpose of this weapon system. By the way new upcoming TOS-2 will have missiles with increased range & vehicle will be based on the Armata platform.
@@shroudedinsecrecy7014 : Oof the Armata platform. The Russians did a massive jump from the good ol' T-series back there. And Agreed, they are supposed to provide support, not be one tank army Lol.
@@comradeweismann6947 Every tracked vehicles of the Russian Military would be converted into either to the Armata or to the Kurganets platform. There would be 3 main divisions based on the vehicle platform- Armata, Kurganets & Boomerang(wheeled platform). Typhoon & Tornado platform will replace all the trucks used by the Russian military.
It's extremely effective for fire support. But it also makes a great target for normal artillery, which has forward observers and around 40 km of range
A interesting point in history with the development of this weapon system. The Germany army utilized the same combustion designs during the battle of Sevastopol. They would fill large strong points with a mixture of aluminum aerosol gasoline and coal to mimic a mine explosion. The results were devastating, but concerned the Russians may retaliate with gas attacks they stopped utilizing it on the eastern front. Another interesting fact was that the Germans were able to develop a type of launch system from a German half track. The unit was stationed behind the port of Calais believing as I’m sure many of you already know that this would Be the main invasion point in France. The unit utilized a mixture of projectiles That could launch above a area, utilize the oxygen and a mixture of aluminium and aerosol fuel. A projectile would then be launched to ignite the area. In the book d-day Through German eyes a operator and member of this unit speaks of how close they were to utilizing it on the western front. It’s an absolutely wonderful read to hear front line stories from the German soldiers who were there. He was confident that the use of the system would have altered the course during the invasion of France. As the unit was getting ready to launch I believe they were hit by allied artillery and close attack aircraft.
The horror...the horror...Well commented that the biggest effect is taking the friggin' oxygen out of the air in the blast (?) zone. You can be undercover or even in a bunker and you will still die. Not much good against tanks, but that's not its purpose. I reckon 6000m is a decent range for this type of weapon.
Doesnt tank engine need oxigen too? I can imagine that crew has some air filtration device to protect them but dirty fried optics and dead engine is already enough to temporary neutralize tank or give your units enough time to kill it until repaired.
it still can kill tanks crew through the hatches and can severely damage a tank with blast and heat. but to be inside MBT under thermobaric blast is much better then be in apc, building, trench or whatever.
Hey Matsimus, I already heard this remake of your intro song somewhere in some mod I think for Men of War ? Or was it something else.. I forget the name each time both of the original and the instrumental remake, care to remind ? Some pop song by I think it was Aviicii
Russia's rocket artillery, ever since the katyusha - what is the point of accuracy when you can remove the entire grid square ?
Underrated
HaZE Taipan even if that grid square isn’t the grid square u want it removed
Yep, during chechen wars TOS-1 was often dubbed as "Allah-Express".
@Tracchofyre, In Modern Warfare (TM) - yes. But in real life only mass of salvo matters.
Tracchofyre
It actually can will burn IFV, APC and even tanks, TOS are exceptional at close range defenses and ambush
- commander, enemy troops on the hillside!
- destroy it.
- you mean, "destroy them", comrade commander?
- nyet. I really mean, destroy IT.
Nomad Nomad does not relate to this comment, go to a different video to talk politics
What's funny is that it would be grammatically correct to respond "Destroy" in Russian with no article specifying the number XD
@Nomad Nomad mate, that's nine zeroes.
Destroy the hillside?
@Nomad Nomad
Wow. We're bad4ss! We've been around for 200 centuries? Dayum! We're a 20,000 year-old empire! Woooo! Eat that, Rome!
Gaijin: (heavy breathing)
Playerbase: Please oh dear god no
I guess you forgot the Type 75 already
@@ThePerfectOwnage at least gaijing haven't ruined wt with wot style artillery ':)
YES
Well WoT artillery is technically a better representation since tanks get scouted and you use indirect fire. Problem is how accurate WoT artillery are. Meanwhile Gaijin use them in direct fire support.
* Playerbase: "JEEZUS NOT AGAIN!!"
A flame throwing rocket. For those moments when the spider is a little to big to crush it with your feet
She deserved it.. sneaking around.. brrr
Hahaha!
Mitchell Vliem
Not only your house but whole city as well
The TOS-1 actually launches Thermabaric missiles at a target. Think of them as air fueled Firebombs.
@@dannyn6558 i understand. Sounds fun to use, terrifying to fight against
No, just burn is boring. So russia replaced all flamers with thermobaric ordnance. "A standard ultraviolent hellmaker catastrophethrowers(tm!). They who are crushed are best when burning with their eyes popped and lungs hanging out from their mouths."
Man, Russians REALLY love Rocket artilleries.
Indeed my other fragment.
Rocket artillery is terrifyingly effective.
And rocket artillery can be cheap launcher boxes (no gun tube) and unguided rockets. Quantity has a quality all of its own...
I hope there's russian mechanicus
We are bets at that, also HEAVY LONG RANGE ARTILLERY GUNS also
Russian Developers: "Ok tanks we use for the ground and rockets for the air, makes sense"
Drunk Vadim: "Wait blyat i have idea..."
Drunk Vadim again: But I want sum flames
Ахахха:D смешно:D
@@Bigtooloperator ds cmecno
I believe there's no vodka involved how can someone develop something like this? 😱😱
@@jonasshiwayu7953 katusha rockets propelled by vodka.... logistics simplified!
No one tell Gaijin. we must keep it secret, keep it safe.
Oh Gawd Nooooooo
The fiery nature of the fuel air explosives would not be kind on my FPE-less tanks.
They already added the Type 75. It's not exactly a TOS but it's ridiculously effective when used right, as you can not take away it's ability to fire (unless you kill it obv)
Who is Gaijin?
@@Rampant16 the warthunder game developer
They probably drive these to work ._.
1:37 Who cares about accuracy. If the rocket annihilate 10x10m2, who cares about +- 3-5 meters, if you fire hundreds missiles at once?
Doesn't have to hit you to kill you either.
yea, why bother with accuracy when you can level the whole grid square
are your really missing if you hit eveything?
even if you miss they'll be running in terror before you're done reloading
well if used in urban areas you'll be pursued by all sorts of organizations....
When katyusha needs to go up close and personnal, the naughty little girl.
Mmm, actually I think little Kate is thicker in the bust.Some bombshell tits that's for sure.
Next TOS variant will have range of no less than 40 km, and some up to 100 km, rocket can be GLONASS guided with type of fuel less but more effective
GUP reference check
Why am I getting turned on
The 6K MAX range seems to be by far this things biggest weakness.
That means in practice, most engagements will be in 4-5K range, which would be suicidal against a modern enemy.
That said, against rebel/terrorist groups like ISIS, this weapon is PERFECT. It's low cost and savage.
Its designed as a support vehicle. Thats why it has the hull and armor of a t72. Its designed to follow the tanks and unleash its payload of a metric ton of "FUCK YOU!" on anything tanks cant handle. Russians have other weapon systems such as Grad's to fuck shit up from farther away.
The Max Range was recently increased from 5-6km to 10km with newly developed Rockets, Along with reduced time getting ready to fire. Overall the system’s combat effectiveness has been increased by 70%
Elon Musk: *totally not a flamethrower*
Russia: "hold my vodka"
I think a Gopnik got a double ration of Vodka for the day he designed it.
First were a handheld (flamethrower) called SHMEL (bumble-bee), only after SHMEL succes TOS-1 concept was born
Maverick_CIV
no, he was very drunk when he created it, sober cannot think of such a thing!
Exactly, when 1000 rockets dropping at you at the same time it will look like a tower of fire... ^^
if this was tweeted we'd see a Tesla trademark for vodka by the end of the week....
This is the ideal weapon for destroying heavy emplacements in an absolutely terrifying manner. Shock and awe is putting it mildly. Properly supported by MBTs and various other light armor and/or mechanized infantry these would be able to cut a swath through whatever enemy territory you desired. The biggest threat to them is enemy air support but there are of course ways of countering that as well.
10/10 would shit my pants if I saw them through high powered binos
Pretty much checks out in wargame, just very situational
It always a blast when Matsimus upload a new military equipment video especially Russian one
Agreed
Good pun.
I doubt they'd just dump all of them to the scrap, they still export a lot of T-72s to countries like India, Syria, Bangladesh, etc.
@@HanSolo__ this comment was strangely beautiful
US: We have napalm it’s quite dangerous.
Russia: Hold my Vodka
@If you mean the MGM-140 ATACMS or variants, they are not equivalent. That is a guided missile system, not a rocket and costs far more to use. Besides, Russia has many guided missiles as well.
@ Not at all. You are comparing apples with oranges. What rocket based, thermobaric system does the US have equivalent to this?
@ Lol you make your comparison even dumber, as this was specifically about thermobaric rockets. Furthermore you do know that Russia also have highly accurate, long range, multi warhead missile systems too? If you want to compare systems you should stick to those that are equivalent and not ones designed for different purposes. Comparing close support rocket systems to long range missile systems is ridiculous, not least when Russia has both.
@ Lol I am not Russisn so they are not mine. A thermobaric warhead has far more energy than a conventional warhead, let alone non explosive tungsten projectiles and covers a much bigger area. Plus they can afford to fire off huge salvos as they are much cheaper than the American munitions. In fact the Russian system can saturate an area of over twice the size of the American system and generate a much bigger shockwave as well as intense heat. Even if they missed by 300m, the salvo covers 2.4 km squared as opposed to 1km for the US system. Alternatively they have a wide range of munition options from cluster guided anti-tank, cluster AT mines, cluster AP, HEAT as well as GLONAS.
However, none of this has anything to do with my point that you keep comparing Apples to Oranges. The USA has no equivalent to the TOS-1 system in the video. The MGM-140 ATACAMS fulfils a different role. Furthermore if Russia needed longer, more accurate ranged missiles than the Tornado G, it has them in spades. Far more than the US has for both close and long range.
@Wrong again. First of all both the TOS-1 and Tornado G have a much bigger range than 2.4 km. Even the original TOS-1 had a 3.5km range and the TOS-1A 6km. I also said I was comparing salvos from both the US and Russian systems. Thus everything I said was correct.
Your comment about the TOS system not being a weapon of war is so dumb I lost 10 IQ points. Luckily being a member of Mensa I can spare some.
It was first used in the WAR on Afghanistan against ARMED rebels. If you think 6km is point blank then you are dumber than I thought. You keep ignoring the fact that Russia also has counter battery fire. By your dumb logic there is no point closing in on the enemy as artillery fire would wipe out any advance. I mean it's not like the Russians would counter fire at the US artillery with their longer range weapons is it?
A thermobaric explosion is absolutely devastatingly and will destroy equipment and personnel. If you think a huge area of raging inferno with double the pressure of conventional HE is less scary than tungsten bits flying around you have no understanding of warfare. The tungsten round was designed to minimize civilian casualties as it leaves no unexploded ordanance behind and is not optimised for destruction. Thermobaric warheads however, are one step down from nuclear in terms of destruction. So yes the TOS-1 is indeed a weapon of war and a very effective one at that, as every military expert agrees.
Now I am done as it is clear Mark Twain was right and I should never have argued with a fool.
Upcoming TOS-2 will be based on the Armata universal platform. It will increase it's combat survivability + crew protection.
Oh god the Thing is getting an upgrade
RUN
@@GlowingSpamraam Actually all existing Russian Military tracked vehicles would be converted to either to the Armata or the Kurgante platform base on their requirements.
Cool cool, will the rockets/launching system itself be upgraded?
@@RusZugunder Yes. The rockets will have improved range, improved ballistic computer & targeting system etc.
if it comes on t14 chasee then will be maybe 5 prodused. russia has no money, they stop production of t14 as lack of funds. bad russian and agressive politics will bring them to big big stragle of they weaponery. oil and gas soon will be repleace so will be 0 income for russia.
The Western mindset is to find one system that covers a multitude of roles; the Russian mindset is layered.
For instance, the Shika: not meant to be a SPAAG on its own, it was there to take on targets after they had been forced into its range by AAMs.
The TOS moves forward with MBTs under a barrage of SP heavy mortars and artillery and eliminates any AT squads, supported by the Terminator Anti-Infantry vehicles.
If you think Western when contemplating war with Russia, Russia will win: they play a different game.
In the words of Field Marshal Montgomery: " If you want to rule the world, don't invade Russia. "
What a beast will literally turn you inside out with Thermobarric Warheads, they can fire from enough distance to remain out of range of most ATGMs
@Tracchofyre That is a serious allegation. Where is that info from?
@Tracchofyre as I understood it there are multiple accounts, the main ones being a salvo was fired from Luhansk, and Poroshenkos statement was "pro Russian rebels"...
The 2nd being an account of Russian military units firing from Russia, however the evidence provided in the form of satellite images and video footage from a downed drone, was from a video game...
There was also an attempt to match up a geo-location via a video someone took of the rocket salvo flying in...
Also remember the Ukrainians had brought MLRS systems forward for use, had repeatedly bombed and shelled locations in civilian hubs including Hospitals and schools and had fired artillery which had strayed across the border into Russia...
Not saying it wasn't the Russians from inside of Russia, personally I don't trust them and the strike itself turned a lot of heads, but there's no real evidence to support the theory, however we do know it did happen and a lot of people got hurt or killed, thankfully not civilians.
@Tracchofyre ukranian army vehicules is not as armored as nato ones thermobaric warheads are next useless against stanag 4 5 level armor and diorect hits are very rare.
Even if they were shooting from the Russian territory, so what? Who are sorry for these bastards? Moreover, it was not TOZ
Tracchofyre Firstly - BM - 21 is used on the video.
Secondly - the author of the video does not say where he is. In eastern Ukraine, as in Russia, they speak Russian. It’s impossible to determine where this video was shot.
Thirdly (and most importantly) on 10/25/2018 - First Deputy Chairman of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Alexander Hug, said that the mission did not find evidence of Russian intervention in the Donbas.
4 years have passed. The Russian army was never found. Stop writing about the alleged Russian army in Ukraine.
By tradition these units are not operated by the regular army, but by the specialised RKhBZ (Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defence) Forces which were the initial users of flamethrowers and smoke screens going back to WWI era.
On another note I'm getting my interview for Cadet instructor next week and assuming I pass (which I should) I'll be badged Royal Artillery so we got something in common lol
RKhBZ "forces" are part of the regular army. The TOS are just operated by special units, but they are within the regular command structure.
P.S. Congrats on your interview.
@@jurisprudens
Yup - just wanted to distinguish between the regular Rocket Troops (NOT the RVSN) & Artillery and the RKhBZ. Idk if ww have a similar thing where our CRBN forces have a dedicated combat equipment over decontamination
Oh no. This brings back nightmares of getting my units destroyed in Wargame by Russian rocket arty spam
TOS literally stands for "heavy flame-throwing system" in Russian
Anyone whom underestimates Russian military hardware is a fool.
@Nikola Poiukov oh yeah nice generalization of 800 FUCKING MILLION people.
Not american btw
@Nikola Poiukov it's all propaganda which powers absolutely every single military power in the world.
@Nikola Poiukov the bias is real
@Nikola Poiukov sorry but Russia pulled out because of heavy losses, the tunnel systems and terrain especially made it very hard. Any Country would have had trouble during that period, and Russia was suffering from economic hardship then. Now even with bunker busters and smart hardware the terrain still makes it a very hard Country to invade.
@ Disagree, while Afghanistan has been a resilant fighter throughout the ages and Russia has stayed strong most of its existence China should not be on that list. Japan strategically defeated China taking the Korean peninsula, Manchuria, the east coast, Hong Kong, ect. China was also defeated by the Mongolians and other foreign powers. Russia was also conquered by the Mongols however Russia is a force to be rekened with. The United States easily takes China's spot on your list and in all reality India would be a even choice with afghanistan... mostly because no nation has ever tried a effective strategy against a fghanistan and goes for the usual capture the capital with large army's strategy.
who cares about accuracy when you launch a butt ton of them
Used against an enemy that doesn’t have access to long range anti vehicle weaponry I think fits this vehicle, like against terrorist hideouts I guess. Knowing the Russians, I would not doubt that some crazy mofo is designing a rocket and a launching platform to put on top of a T-72 chassis with greater range than its predecessor. Just my honest thought.
these already outrage nato ATGM and recoiless rifles tho, they are 'short-ranged' compared to other rocket artillery. so you can sit there with a TOW2 and it will fire at you and you can't shoot back
(TOW range 300-3750m (depending on variant) TOS-1 range 6000m)
They are currently Consepting a TOS-2 on the T14 Armata hull..
@Momo Yugovic
I'm not that silly in thinking that they would be going into action without support
@Momo Yugovic yup not sure about certain death as nato class armies armored vehicules are actionaly protected against non direct hits stanag level 4 or 5 so the attackers would need to inflict direct hits to be effective which is next to impossible with this kind of systems. otherwise rocket arty leave huge amount of smoke leading directly to its positions making it fat targets for counter battery.
This weapon has been widely used by the Syrian army for years. At one point there was a video where Al Qaeda/al Nusra used an American TOW to hit an ammo depot full of these rockets. Later the TOS-1 helped save christian villages from a jihadi offensive aiming for Hama out of Idlib. Thus saving civilian lives. It was utterly crushed, despite credible rumors of british, french and CIA agents training and advising them.
riheg credible lol
@@MrTangolizard CIA involvement has been openly acknowledged for a while now.
MrTangolizard yes credible. Remember when the Syrians released names and ranks of captured agents in Aleppo? Captured isis rats talks about it too. So lol youself. Who do u think trains Al nusra in tow missile use? Training is necessary to operate the american system
Tracchofyre so you think they figured out how to operate the American tow system in their sleep?
FreedomFox1 CIA involvement has been acknowledged for some groups and now people seem to think that means every single group in Syria and Iraq is funded by the USA it’s nonsense
"If you write an enemys name on a bullet, it hits them better."
TOS 1: Dear grid coordinates.
This _artillery tank_ keep's on, *_TOS-sing_* missiles in the air. 😃
Your pun was....
TEARable!
Yeah he really broke the ToS with that one.
badum tsssk ;D
Artillery man’s greatest fear: the other guy’s artillery
I mean 6km is a short distance in modern combat, but you have to keep one thing in mind: This thing doesn't need a direct line of sight into the battlefield and can easily be placed behind significant cover and still be effective.
For infantry mortars and mobile artilery guns are cheaper ammo so more economical but against enemy castled position, anti vehicle (air and armored counter defense), rockets pods are superior. In general Amo should be cheaper then target. Mobile Artillery (especially when combined with detachable drone recon target designation to make the most out of that out range and indirect targeting and some “anti recon/sensor drone sniper gun” drone. Bullet cheaper then drone/sensor. So likely will need that counter support to stay economically. Assuming it does get its support, Interesting stuff.
Matsium mentions rocket artillery
From the other side of canada theres a V3 going REEEEE
saph sergal what’s a v3?
Rocket artillery is artillery V3 is wrong Debate me
joke on someone in the discord.
Hell march 2 intensevies
V3 = Short range, mass produced SCUD.
- How to make an inaccurate rocket accurate?
- LAUNCH THEM IN BATCHES!
why blow up a house when you can blow up the whole village with it in the process. ; )
Quantity has quality in itself, comrade.
It's plenty accurate! Watch this. Now you see target, now you don't!
This is the equivalent to a drunk Russian guy chucking empty vodka bottles at 500 mph.
😭🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
More like filled Vodka bottles, with self made 80% booze and some taped on dynamite.
You know that Russians actually dont drink that much?
You mean drunk Americans?
Couldn't have said it any better.
can you do a video on the SMERCH ? please ?
Color it dark blue and it and it looks like something Destro would use against G.I. Joe.
OMG YES!
GI Joe be smoked! 😂😂
Actually, if you color it blue, it's be something an Autobot woid transform into.
See Cybertron Defence Scattershot aka Galaxy force Backgrid.
Well, GIJOE had the Wolverine
Love from finland, great channel:)
Dude, great video as always. Thanks for the upload. Keep em coming!
(Pew pew).....there seems to be an endless amount of Russian equipment
It's funny how they don't want to mass produce the T-14, even though it's still cheaper than the M1A2
I think we rolled out T-14 a bit too early, due to tense ongoing political crisis at the time which almost ended up in a war circa 2014-2016. I believe T-14 is still being polished, tested and changed as we speak, so mass production will start later, when the machine is 100% combat approved. The other possible point is that there is really no need to hurry with its mass production; maybe it's just too damn costly, or maybe if too many old tanks are replaced with brand new ones, the crew will find themselves struggling with the new controls and therefore being ineffective.
@@cobalt2361 they want to gradually replace most tanks over the next 20-30 year.s
@Nikola Poiukov however, the replacement ratio so far is not too high.
@Nikola Poiukov Russia does not divide tanks on mediums and heavies. They all are called Main Battle Tank, pretty much like in every other country of the world. These machines, the 72s, the 80s and the 90s, are supposed to be replaced with Armata over time. However, the army says T-14 is too expensive and at the moment it makes more sense to upgrade the older ones. Mere 9 tanks have been supplied to the Army this year, and a bit more than 100 are expected before the end of 2021. However, we might never know the true state of affairs, because Russia has perfected the art of appearing weaker than it actually is.
They've used it with a lot of success in Syria. They have scary footage of these
Have you ever heard the tragedy of King Tiger the Heavy? If you get that your awesome.
I see you watch potential history. So, are you a weeb too? ;)
Wehraboo gang represent
@@ItsRawdraft2 hoot hoot
no
Johnny Johnny
Hai senpai
Watching kantai
Nyaa senpai
Telling lies
Nyaa senpai
Open your browser
Anta baka...
That's the most warhammer 40k thing I have ever seen IRL.
Russia has truly understood the meaning of Dakka.
_gets Wargame: Red Dragon flashbacks_
Shush!
Rip 10 infantry squads
Was more effective in European Escalation.
Me: Alright, village secured.
Enemy TOS-1: What village?
Good video there. I'll be using it as reference for building a TOS model. Now get some of the Terminator support vehicle, it mounts 4 of these thermobaric launchers and twin 30mm cannon and twin 30mm grenade launchers for close support work.
By my math, a salvo lights up 34 acres simultaneously.
About 8ha or 20acres each unit.
They only way to survive them unless you can take them out is to travel very dispersed.
A USA Adviser in Ukraine talks somewhere on TH-cam about two occasions Ukrainian Battalions trying to approach and cross the Russian border moving only at night in wooded country. Somehow they were discovered. A Drone flew over and minutes later
both were more or less wiped.
They certainly are fearsome.
If it was british it would either be called...
1. Tea pot 1
2. Tospot 1
Fun fact, it's actual nickname is "Buratino", russian version of "Pinoccio".
Commander: u see that grid square?
Crew: yes, what about it?
Commander: I dont like it
Crew: ayt
You should check out the BM-30 "Smerch". Its basically the longer distance version of the TOS-1, and it has even bigger rockets!
I think 6km is fine for the range, I dont see this as a traditional artillery piece, its like getting all the bang from a dedicated close air support without having to call up a multi million dollar helicopter or attack plane. Got a tough nut to crack, a well placed fortification thats resting armour and infantry say insurgents or whatever in the middle of an abandoned village/town, just roll up a TOS-1 and suppress the area, dont have them in the front lines keep them back and only use when needed.
The days of modern army vs modern army i just dont see as a thing anymore so its not like the US needs to build a vehicle to counter the TOS-1. Yet at the same time for close in area suppression i dont think the US even has anything remotely comparable. US close support is pretty much all air based and they are moving away from A-10s to things like.. launching a B-1B strategic bomber
"The days of modern army vs modern army i just dont see as a thing anymore "
You are too optimistic in that, man.
The Russian military, actually, still considers being ready for fighting the Western regular armies in Europe to be its primary function.
@Nikola Poiukov Oh, yeah, ready to hear one single example. Ждем-с. ;)
@Nikola Poiukov )))) Everything as to Syria does not concern Russia. No 5-7 - BS. ;)
Ivan: You break my hand i'll break your entire city 1:14
Only the trues will understand
*Moskau playing in the background*
Hey Matsimus, have you heard of the Aselsan AHS-120 'Alkar'? It's definitely an interesting mortar system and personally I don't think mortars get enough love nowadays.
When you see more than 1 spider in your backyard
For real I didnt even know I needed this in my life but I'm extremely happy it is, I love this, thanks Mat!!
As Spiderman's GF I must speak out against your planned use of this weapon. Spiders are the "good guys" . They eat the other "bad" bugs that we humans consider annoying pests like mosquitoes, gnats, flies. Spare a spider and it will eat 10% of its own weight DAILY in other bugs or in other words, spiders eat 36 times their entire body weight annually!
The TOS-1 is the Russian solution to enemy forces dug-in in an urban environment. That's how they handled the Chechen Rebels of course they killed a lot of civilians in the process
you know I just love any weapon that looks like it belongs in warhammer 40K
It is a designed to do a very specific job, and does it well. It's range is too low for counter battery fire in most circumstances, but it is not designed to. NB, the fact it will be close to the front lines is the reason it is based on a tank hull as apposed to a truck or BMP - it needs the armour.
I find different military philosophies interesting.
US: Precision munitions, surgical strikes.
Russia: Just completely burn and level that 400m by 200m block over there.
Russian aide: Grid down!
Russian commander: What do you mean grid down?
Russian aide: I mean that there's no more battlefield. The entire grid is peaceful.
Russian commander: But we only deployed a few TOSes. Ohhhh...
TOS-1 "Солнцепек" - that means "Sunheat"
Brilliant area denial weapon.
Love the Russian equipment videos keep them coming.
When there are enemies in an area and you don't know where so you turn to artillery and tell them and the reply is just "k" .
These rocket systems may deliver a devastating first blow but their smoke and slow reload time makes them sitting ducks-easy targets.
The Russian's make serious ass kicking weapons! My favorite is the twin (GE mini gun style) CIWS on there ships...not just one but 8 all around the ship...can't never have to much firepower! Good video btw! Keep the good work! I like your intro also :)
Yeap served many years in the British royal artillery.
We had nothing to match these thermobaric rocket artillery…
Can you imagine this weapon being used in Jungle?
If it exploded within the canopy of trees it would enhance the effect.
At least I think it would.
Especially if used with thermobaric warheads ...
If you remember that scene in 'Apocalypse Now', during the naplam strike along the tree-line, that entire front was set ablaze in seconds. Given how hard it is to set green vegitation alight (try it with grass clippings ...), for the canopy to be set alight means absolutely crazy temperatures were reached ... no wonder both napalm was banned, and white phosphorus limited to smoke grenades ...
@@nigelft Napalm isn't banned, just fallen out of favor.
4:53 Soviet response to help Afghanistan official government. Do not confuse invasion and response to an official government request
Modern katyusha
Modern Katyusha ist BM-30 Smerch (Russian: Смерч, " tornado", "whirlwind")
@@something-kinesis no. katyusha is Grad. and sunburn is more like incendiary nebelwerfer battery. Vanyusha karo4e.
Katusha lv-1 vs-2
Модернизированная Катюша, это БМ-21
Katyusha is a BM-21 Grad
Thermobaric ammo is a very very nasty weapon. Your lungs probably collapsed from a shockwave and you are standing in the middle of vacuum can't take a breath because everything around you just burnt. It's fooking hell.
*WARGAME ROCKET SPAM INTENSIFIES*
I LOVE YOUR INTRO MATE ITS SOO NICE!!
this video gave me chills.
This is the definition of “destroy everything in that direction”
I remember that the Russian Army used this to great effect in urban combat. In Chechnya, they would get into minimum range and use it as a shotgun from hell (my words) to clear fighters out of large buildings and city blocks while leaving most of the building in tact. The organs of thermobaric blast casualties are severely ruptured (if not turned to jelly) while there is little damage to the dermis.
The Russians have even developed thermobaric RPG rounds for urban combat. Would love to see a Matsimus video on this as well!
th-cam.com/video/HYgpQX5HgL8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/2hbkZySdhJg/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/pyYNO90_dp4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/qgJGUxzhof4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aVScDq6O3ro/w-d-xo.html
@@АлексейАлексеев-у2э Thanks for the vids! споси большой
@@dragonsbreath1984 new developments RPG
th-cam.com/video/X9AgsWgyiJg/w-d-xo.html
thermobaric bomb
th-cam.com/video/pHNosdkqK1w/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/cQCEnoldrLg/w-d-xo.html
I'm kinda surprised Matsimus didn't call this one "an absolute beast". :D
Could you, in the future, also do Mil Mi 8/17 helicopter & the Kamov Ka 27 helicopter? :)
Great content and explaining you deserve a SUB XD
My old man was a boomhead and he talked about when those systems first came out in germany late 60s-early 70s, and he said the major difference to their tube artillery was the immediacy of the impact.
Namely that all "rounds" impacted at that close a time to each other, that there was none of the time space between the shots or the salvos as there was with tube artillery.
It wasn't 4-8 shots at intervals landing but a stream of impacts for 20 seconds or more straight, which did rob the infantryman of his chance to dive for cover in his opinion.
It was basically the whole firepower of the battery arriving in one salvo.
edit: so it fills the same role as the Stug, as a short range "precision" artillery supporting troops against dug in positions. (ok major difference it is not direct fire like the Stug.) ;)
I mean i imagine it can be done, the direct fire thing. If you're desperate enough just level the whole gun tube cluster and start praying as soon as you hit the fire sequence button. I think you have a 95% of getting a statue in your likeness if you do that, also bigger chance it being postmortem.
:D True.........as we say, if suffficiently motivated you can do anything! ;)
Oh the burrito. In wargame red dragon it can very easily stop an advance.
Matsimus! If you haven't already. Do one on the SLAM-C ICBM
V3 is screeching so loud i can hear it from here
Can someone answer my question to explosive munitions?
Thermobaric weapons are very effective against soft targets and buildings, but apparently not against tanks. What makes them more effective against concrete structures?
Similarly, I wonder about the role of aluminum powder in conventional explosives.
For instance ANFO (a specific fertiliser + fuel, or other flammable material) has less explosive power than TNT, but with aluminum powder added it can rival it. It apparently increases the emitted heat and thus the reaction speed and gas pressure.
However, if you add aluminum powder to TNT, it actually reduces it's effectiveness against e.g. tanks, but it has still been added e.g. in Torpedo warheads. Why?
edi at the second chemical part I can't help u, i wasn't realls in chemistry lessons. But the thermo is better against light vehicles and buildings. That is because it first spreads a cloud of gas/liquid (sth between) and then a second explosion used as incendiary. The cloud enters into light vehicles and buildings because they aren't perfectly concealed like tanks with an ABC-Counter systen.
I think that the thermobaric explosion is stronger, per payload, but distributed over a wider area and regarding the Al in explosives it seems to increase the gas pressure, but it reduces the amount of explosive and thus maybe the gas pressure is higher, but not as much of a hit like a detonation, but more like a slower gas-explosion.
5 points to make:
1: Bravo Zulu again
2:Fire bombs against infantry, Russia does not have CNN or MSNBC to worry about and would have no problem using it on Anderson Cooper.
3:The TOS-1 is more a engineer weapon system then a combat system for the reasons you have mentioned and I am willing to bet it has a secondary role, that of clearing mine fields.
4: If the Russians go crazy I can see the TOS-1 being developed into a formidable anti-tank system or a BM-21 rocket system on steroids.
5: the dislikes need to be drafted
Oh yeah, love this thing very much!
And we still use them.
Лев Чумаков very very effective
Katyusha's Onii-chan
Very effective against any foe who isn't fully mechanized. Range makes it unable to be used against soft targets like bases and headquarters though. I see it mainly as a means to torch a weaker foe who rely in dug in infantry rather than mechanized warfare.
Ay blin, what do you mean Vadim? What collateral damage?
Dimas Akbar
Civs? You mean "acceptable casualties"?
@@ftyjh45y78 you mean terrain feature comrade Kolya?
You could say that this system is...
Extremely cool and effective.
Hey there Matt.
I was RA too and thought I knew about most types of systems and counter battery detection acoustic and radar.
This is something else and I am surprised that it misses me completely.
Thanks for showing it and I can understand why it is necessary, because the Russian key concept of defence is the army for their vast territory.
This will certainly deal with dug in positions effectively and probably faster than close air for a fraction of the cost (by weight or ordnance).
What an elegantly simple idea
And terrifying too, if faced by this weapon system
I am not a weapons expert, but as far as I understand, these weapons were not designed to fight in a flat field. In fact, they don't seem to be all that effective in the field at all. Thermobaric ammunition really shines in closed spaces, such as caves, of which there is plenty in the mountains. When you fight against mujahedeen in the mountains, you don't really need much range. You see, in the mountains everything around is pretty close.
**MOSKAU MOSKAU INTENSIFIES**
These are metal augmented charges. They use a conventional explosive surrounded by a jacket of compressed aluminum powder, all inside a thick pressure casing. The primary explosive instantly heats the Al powder past its ignition point via compression, then the outer casing fragments, and the powder burns as it comes into contact with atmospheric oxygen, lengthening the duration of the blast wave. Same concept as the MAC version of the Hellfire missile. The white smoke you see is aluminum oxide. They use the term "Flamethrower" because of the elevated blast temperature to bypass the Geneva convention rules, so to speak.
I agree that the 6 kms is relatively short. At this range the army would jeed tank, Anti-air defences and smiliar other things to make sure the enemy dosen't drop bombs/shells right onto these launchers, which would be very bad. But aside from that i think this beast is very deadly, especially making roasted chickens out of people hiding in the bunkers or trenches, that this thing is attacking. Im not in the military but this flamethrower is really scary, if you ever see this thing on enemy sides aiming at you, RUN!
Actually 6 km isn't bad considering its heavily armoured. NATO doesn't even have any ATGM that can reach more than 3 km so it's pretty safe from ATGM threats in 5 to 6 km distance. It won't be operating alone anyway. Also you can increase the range up to 20 km but the downside is that your payload would be much smaller as the range increase. So it nullifies the purpose of this weapon system. By the way new upcoming TOS-2 will have missiles with increased range & vehicle will be based on the Armata platform.
@@shroudedinsecrecy7014 : Oof the Armata platform. The Russians did a massive jump from the good ol' T-series back there. And Agreed, they are supposed to provide support, not be one tank army Lol.
@@comradeweismann6947 Every tracked vehicles of the Russian Military would be converted into either to the Armata or to the Kurganets platform. There would be 3 main divisions based on the vehicle platform- Armata, Kurganets & Boomerang(wheeled platform). Typhoon & Tornado platform will replace all the trucks used by the Russian military.
It's extremely effective for fire support. But it also makes a great target for normal artillery, which has forward observers and around 40 km of range
@@pteppig Russians have counter battery MLRS which can hit beyond 80 km range.
A interesting point in history with the development of this weapon system.
The Germany army utilized the same combustion designs during the battle of Sevastopol. They would fill large strong points with a mixture of aluminum aerosol gasoline and coal to mimic a mine explosion. The results were devastating, but concerned the Russians may retaliate with gas attacks they stopped utilizing it on the eastern front.
Another interesting fact was that the Germans were able to develop a type of launch system from a German half track.
The unit was stationed behind the port of Calais believing as I’m sure many of you already know that this would Be the main invasion point in France.
The unit utilized a mixture of projectiles That could launch above a area, utilize the oxygen and a mixture of aluminium and aerosol fuel. A projectile would then be launched to ignite the area.
In the book d-day Through German eyes a operator and member of this unit speaks of how close they were to utilizing it on the western front. It’s an absolutely wonderful read to hear front line stories from the German soldiers who were there. He was confident that the use of the system would have altered the course during the invasion of France.
As the unit was getting ready to launch I believe they were hit by allied artillery and close attack aircraft.
The horror...the horror...Well commented that the biggest effect is taking the friggin' oxygen out of the air in the blast (?) zone. You can be undercover or even in a bunker and you will still die. Not much good against tanks, but that's not its purpose. I reckon 6000m is a decent range for this type of weapon.
Doesnt tank engine need oxigen too? I can imagine that crew has some air filtration device to protect them but dirty fried optics and dead engine is already enough to temporary neutralize tank or give your units enough time to kill it until repaired.
Its same thing like when soviets used molotovs on tanks
Robert Kalinič It was the Finns
it still can kill tanks crew through the hatches and can severely damage a tank with blast and heat. but to be inside MBT under thermobaric blast is much better then be in apc, building, trench or whatever.
Two things:
1. It's right name would be fire-thrower not flame-thrower.
2. Its impact us just like Napalm.
Morning. Well timed to watch with my morning brew.
Hey Mat, great vid. Can you do a video on the new low recoil AKs (107) and others?
Modern Katyusha!
Hey Matsimus, I already heard this remake of your intro song somewhere in some mod I think for Men of War ? Or was it something else.. I forget the name each time both of the original and the instrumental remake, care to remind ? Some pop song by I think it was Aviicii
TOS1 - 3500M range, TOS1A - 6000M.... Im fine.
Amazing video keep up with the good work
Tos-1 on Russian naval hovercraft very effective
*_Infantry Divisions everywhere shriek in fear as this thing lets loose._*
Joking aside, another great video Matsimus!
an heavy OOF launcher. (it exist) trust me.
Congrats, your already almost at 150k subs.
There's a "it werfs flammen" joke in here somewhere.