Talk:TOS-1

Add Ukraine?

Apparently the Russians have just abandoned at least one of these fully loaded in a field for whoever wants it in Ukraine, as of March 1, 2022.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.37.26.246 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We don’t know where it is, it might be in a Russian controlled area and has been towed away by now. Even if the Ukrainian army did capture it they wouldn’t count as operators unless they are actually operating it, which would need to be proven. PrismaCosmos (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

As there is no proof of Ukraine capturing any of these weapons, the claim that they are operating any should be removed. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia Acorn897 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Nexta TV reports that Ukraine has used a captured TOS-1A against the Russian army. Would this be valid source and evidence for Ukraine to be considered an "operator" of this system? 2403:4800:7419:D073:CD1F:FF1D:9378:97C5 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Not a flamethrower!

It is hard to see how this weapon could be called a flamethrower. It simply isn't a flamethrower, it's a rocket launcher, so it "throws" missiles, not fire. Judging by the very old topic "Naming" here-above, it's a mistranslation, and if that's indeed the case, then it has proliferated since, see

related to TOS-1A

• List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces
• List of equipment of the Azerbaijani Land Forces
• Thermobaric weapon
  

not related to TOS-1A

• Armata Universal Combat Platform

"Spitting fire" (see Spitfire) or "spewing fire", like a dragon, used metaphorically, would indeed make sense, but this pseudo-technical use of the clearly defined English term "flamethrower" simply does not. Please clarify and modify all the affected articles accordingly. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I see your point - you could follow WP:BEBOLD and just edit the articles? I don't know Russian so can't translate accurately, and Google Translate makes it "flamethrower", but I understand it is not a flamethrower in the English sense. I think the mention in the title depends on what the actual translation actually is (and I don't have the skills to tell you that)? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not up to me. That's why I pointed out to the translation of "SourCream&Onion" in the "Naming" discussion here-above, but he was a one-time-only contributor, so I don't know if to trust him. Is there a Russian topics forum around? They would be the right ones to ask. Good US and NATO sources would also be great, they have their own specialists. Arminden (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

If you consider that "пулемёт" literally means "bullet-thrower" but is always translated as "machine-gun", and "миномёт" is literally "mine-thrower" but gets rendered as "mortar" or "mortar launcher", I think it would be reasonable to render the "огнемёт" in TOS as "MLRS with thermobaric warheads" or whatever. 184.146.49.106 (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Protected from precision weapons?

The article claims that the TOS-1 is "protected from precision weapons".

What on earth does that even mean? That it is not protected from imprecise weapons? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Operators

I am perfectly okay with adding Ukraine as operator with a SINGLE vehicle captured. But as moderators of other articles (See Javelin and NLAW articles) in this very wiki are blatantly opposed to add Russia and Donbass militias as operators, with DOZENS of them captured, so is TOS-1 here and I deleted the line. You don't want to be caught naked with double standards and hidden agendas, don't you? 2.143.11.115 (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Steaming pile of nonsense.

To suggest Ukraine is an 'operator' by way of having a few captured units is nonsense. Such equipment requires training, parts and ammunition etc. 220.253.243.14 (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the heading to "Trained large-scale operators" then? Imo you're splitting hairs over a contextual issue. AbominableIntelligence (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please Fix Description & InfoBox to Remove iPhone, ProMax, and Other Bizarre Edits

This should not be the intro: Russium multipre shermographics SiriuM'siPhone13ProMax® founders 2601:601:8100:D4A0:48AB:85AC:70C6:27B6 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

thanks. reverted the vandalism – robertsky (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

G de la o parte din categoria jocuri cu tancuri despre oferta cu ID de messenger for a while now I have to get together

Get together soon as possible thank you for your help and your family are doing well and they have to get together soon as possible thank you for your help with the hospital and they have to get together soon as possible thank you for your help with the hospital and she was the hospital and they have to get together soon as possible thank you for your help with the hospital and they have 2A02:2F0D:B606:2700:7973:65CF:2635:C7AE (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Surely there’s more than 45 in service at this point

These vehicles are being used regularly on almost all sectors of the front, at the rate Russia is producing other artillery pieces wouldn’t the number they have (currently listed as 45) be higher? 49.196.45.116 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

A statement in the operators section i doubt the validity of

"No ammo production in Ukraine means the only ammo for the systems which can be used is captured." can't Ukraine use modified uragan ammunition with the captured TOS-1s? I saw some speculation that they might be able to do that D1d2d3d29 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's unreferenced, so I have removed it. (Hohum ^@) 18:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Describing Individual Losses in Ukraine

I added some sentences a couple of months ago about individual instances of TOS-1A systems being destroyed in Ukraine. Two more instances have surfaced since then, but I stopped myself from contributing, as I feel like documenting the ongoing loss of units, while perhaps interesting, might make this article feel bloated. Documenting individual battlefield engagements does not suit the encyclopedic purpose of this article. The way it is now, with two (albeit outdated) instances of Ukrainian forces destroying TOS-1As could be kept, because it characterizes their vulnerabilities on a modern, somewhat symmetrical battlefield, although I would not be opposed to cutting that, as well. Before I do anything, though, I would like some input from anyone with more experience contributing, as I still consider myself new to editing. Trilomonk (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

"МO.1.01.00" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect МO.1.01.00 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 20 § МO.1.01.00 until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)