What /k/ think of Russian 'Bernardinos'?
Apparently it is their try at copying the original American MLRS but was found lacking, so they sold it to sand people.
After being used in Iraq and Syria, they found out it was not effective in small amounts, Iraq only has 10 so it is a very small number, so it means if you want battles you need a larger number which means more expensive, you can buy Tomahawks for the amount and get a good kill instead.
Second is it causes panic attacks to militia, which is bad because in a panic people disperse and is harder to hit and is bad.
Third is they found very expensive and not mobile and lighter enough. That is why they are changing tracks for wheels instead. So no Armata 'Bernardino'. HAHAHAHA
http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-14624.htm
This is true
Instead of putting tracks on wheels why not put on wheels all the same?
>>28436209
>Apparently it is their try at copying the original American MLRS but was found lacking, so they sold it to sand people.
Are you special?
>>28436209
>Apparently it is their try at copying the original American MLRS but was found lacking, so they sold it to sand people.
>Apparently it is their try at copying the original American MLRS
>the original American MLRS
I am not aware of a American Heavy Flamethrower system. Do enlighten me newfriend.
>>28436362
It's thermobaric but yeah, the US has never deployed or massproduced that shit. OP is just b8.
Burrito is love.
>>28436209
>Bernardinos
Triggered
All I know is they're pretty Gucci on wargame
>bernardinos
AHAHHA WAT
Buratino, op.
Also, the problem with Buratinos is that they have a terribly short range but, no, you don't need big numbers. Each rocket can inflict tremendous damage.
It's just ultra heavy rocket artillery. There are no equivalents to it.
I'd say that the low effectiveness in Iraq or Syria might be because these rockets are effective when you need to knock down a city block, or armored columns, enemy reinforced camps etc. so they're kinda useless against guerrilla movements with little fixed structures.
Wasn't that the weapon that Russians bragged about obliterating everything it hits? Sounds pretty underwhelming from your description. Russian hyperbole as usual.
>>28436551
It's just OP being stupid.
It does obliterate everything it hits, but it has a 6km range at best. For reference, the most basic MLRS hits targets 32km out, and there are GPS guided variants that strike targets 90km away.
The difference? While the MLRS either carries small cluster charges or a single 90kg HE warhead, the TOS-1 rockets carry a 100kg thermobaric warhead, a full salvo can completely obliterate a city block. Not that useful when you're fighting rebels, anyways.
>>28436466
>>28436606
Le armchair Colonels
First post has link to study of the units in actual combat, all those 'thesis' that are being posted are not what happens in a battlefield.
It's shit, they say so.
>>28436606
>6 km range at best
Conventional artillery has over 30 km range. The TOS-1 is only good for gap defense or maybe breakthroughs. Otherwise, it's gonna be pounded by something longer.
>>28436716
>has link to
what link
a study based on some stweet?
>>28436209
>Apparently it is their try at copying the original American MLRS but was found lacking,
It wasn't a copy of the MLRS.
It was meant to be a protected vehicle that could throw incendiaries. But it's armor is trash and the rockets are stupidly short ranged for their size.
Burnedtacos are pretty terrible when you can put incendiary rockets in longer ranged missile systems like the smerch.
>>28436733
yes, that why they called it flame thrower
not MRLS
![slufae[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iAnelwF.jpg "slufae[1].jpg")
>>28436362
>American Heavy Flamethrower system.
Not directly related, but the american develloped the Slufae. It's a thermobaric rocket launcher like the Buratino, but was intended primarily to clear out minefields. It got a really awful range and no protection, though.
>>28436606
> Not that useful when you're fighting rebels, anyways.
Not meant to. It was supposed to directly support the soviet mecanized assault and destroy dug-out strongpoints. Hence the tank chassis, for armor and common spare parts.
>>28436716
>all those 'thesis' that are being posted are not what happens in a battlefield.
Except I said twice that it serves no purpose against small guerrilla groups.
English ain't that hard, son.
>>28436747
It's a meme weapon. The real Russian rocket artillery is the SM30.
>>28436752
>Not meant to.
And that's why it's not useful, no shit m8
>>28436779
>not useful
I'm sure some people in Ukraine and Chechnya would disagree with that statement.
Not to mention that by your logic ICBMs are also useless, since they aren't used in any current wars.
>>28436773
nope
Grad is still the best
FYI they also make thermobaric warhead for Grad and Smerch
Russia are using Tos because their chemical corps need a MLRS to do chemical corps thing
>>28436209
>Bernardinos
mfw
>>28436209
>Bernardinos
>Apparently it is their try at copying the original American MLRS
>you can buy Tomahawks for the amount and get a good kill instead.
>at is why they are changing tracks for wheels instead. So no Armata 'Bernardino'
>HAHAHAHA
lmao what, literally all of that was wrong
>>28436209
Buratino, or at least burrito, fukkboi
