It is difficult to find a person in the vastness of our Motherland who has not heard anything about the so-called heavy flamethrowers of Russia in recent years. This formidable weapon is used by Russian troops mainly to destroy fortifications and destroy concentrations of enemy forces. At the same time, one often hears that TOS supposedly has no analogues. But is it really that simple? And why, if “Buratino” and “Solntsepek” are so effective, nothing similar has been created in other countries during all this time, could anyone who saw the heavy flamethrowers (TOS) of Russia? One should not lose sight of the fact that they are very similar to multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS). Actually, that’s what they are. Therefore, statements that Soviet-Russian TOS have no analogues are still somewhat exaggerated. “Pinocchio”, “Solntsepek”, “Tosochka” and “Dragon” – all this, finally, although very specific, is still an MLRS. The unusual name “heavy flamethrower” appeared for two reasons, clinging to each other. First is the type of ammunition used. The second is the specifics of the organization and nomenclature of the Soviet army. In essence, TOS is a short-range MLRS. The idea of creating such systems appeared in the Soviet Union in the 1970s. It was assumed that short-range MLRS would be used as a means of supporting ground forces on the front line. The small firing radius compared to “classic” MLRS required increased security and high mobility of the TOS. Therefore, the chassis of the T-72 tank was initially chosen as the chassis of the heavy flamethrower system. The launcher was supposed to fire 24 unguided rockets (NURS) in smoke ammunition with a firing range of up to 3.6 km. For comparison, some Soviet Grads fire at a distance of 33-40 kilometers, and modern MLRS fire at a distance of 100 kilometers or more. . In addition, in the Soviet Union, since the days of the Red Army, flamethrower units have been under the jurisdiction of the Russian Chemical Defense Plant, and not the ground forces. So the new system, unlike other Soviet MLRS, went to the “chemists” and not to the gunners. At the same time, at the dawn of TOS-1, Buratino did not make a significant impression on the Soviet military. However, work on the system continued. The second wind in the project was opened by the creation of a thermobaric NURS – a volumetric detonation munition (ODB), capable of especially effectively combating enemy fortifications. In the late 1980s, TOS-1 was tested during the war in Afghanistan as part of Operation Typhoon. . The facility showed high efficiency, but it was never put into operation due to the subsequent collapse of the country. The first “Buratino” entered service only in 1995 and remained in the department of “Chemists”. However, they did not hand over the MLRS to the artillerymen. So “Buratino” formally remained a flamethrower, and not a multiple launch rocket system. Apparently, this was also due to the fact that theoretically TOS can be used not only as artillery, but also as a means of thermal disinfection of the area in the event of the use of weapons of mass destruction. Returning to the original question about the presence of analogues, we can say that TOC they both exist and at the same time do not exist. Today, no country really has a direct analogue of the Soviet-Russian MLRS firing incendiary and thermobaric ammunition. And yet, at its core, TOS remains precisely the MLRS, albeit a very specific one. The use of incendiary and volumetric detonation munitions is also not something unique to the Soviet Union or Russia. Everyone uses them in one form or another. The only question is how the weapon is delivered to the target. In any case, all these formalities do not deny the fact that the TOP is an extremely formidable, albeit very specific weapon. Why are TOP analogues not created in other countries? In fact, it is not the multiple launch rocket system itself that is unique, but the ammunition used. Other countries are also creating their own MLRS. However, the armies of different countries have different views on the “problem” and tasks of artillery. This is why the requests to constructors are different. For example, the Americans have long believed that the best type of ammunition for their MLRS would be cluster rockets. At the same time, in recent years the United States has focused efforts on developing new missiles with conventional high-explosive fragmentation parts. This is largely due to the desire to maximize the firing radius. Apparently, the same Americans believe that they can successfully shift the tasks of weapons such as TOS onto the shoulders of, for example, aviation with thermobaric bombs.
0 комментариев