Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

The infantry units with bolt actions and SMGs as secondary weapons do not have multiplied SMGs. The standard post-WW2 OOB was to have two SMGs for each infantry squad and three for each Jaeger squad. After surplus Stens were purchased from the UK in 1957 that was increased to three per infantry squad. Jaeger squads got five SMGs (making them the primary weapon in game terms), but even they always retained at least two bolt action rifles as long as SMGs were used.

In other words, after 1940 the Finnish army never used squads with only bolt action rifles or SMGs as personal weapons for Jaegers or regular infantry troops. After 1957 even homefront or "third line" troops got some Stens.

There seems to be many infantry units with the Rk 54 (AK-47). Only a limited number was purchased in the 1950s (I believe 30,000 pieces). The current OOB has many infantry squads and even a reserve section (unit 513) armed with the Rk 54 as a primary weapon. In reality these second and third line units would have used either bolt actions and SMGs until early 1990s or in some cases Rk 62s since the mid-1980s or thereabouts. There were never enough AK-47s for a significant portion of the regular infantry units.

Please discuss if you have something to note or a different opinion, or even facts to disprove what I wrote :D

I am planning to make a custom OOB, so this thread is for that purpose only. Specifically, this is NOT suggestion or correction list for the official OOB :angel

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Please consider citing sources when suggesting changes to an OOB. If a designer is going to use your suggestions for Finnish TO&E, he or she may very well need to know the source.

IMHO

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

The problem with sources on old Finnish post-war infantry TO&E's is that there are very little in the way of secondary sources. The old Field Manuals are not available in electronic form, and often they are not available in normal libraries. Getting sources for 1950s and 1960s stuff would therefore require serious historical research, and I'm pretty sure the original OOB designer did not do that, either. Most likely he used what he could find on-line and in the few secondary sources that are available.

Personally I base a lot of this on what I have heard from people who were in the Finnish army in the 1950s and 1960s. Some of it like the use of mixed bolt action rifle / SMG armament squads was standard in WW2, well documented for that period and even included in WinSPWW2 Finnish OOB. The desire to increase the number of SMGs in squads was also clear; hence the purchase of Stens in 1957 (sources for that are easy to find, but here is one: http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/RIFLES6.htm).

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

More stuff, this time AT weapons:

The 37mm AT guns (both of them, the current OOB has only one) were not really used in AT role after 1945. No source I have seen mentions them as AT assets in the 1950s. A possible exception is the Pak 35/36 with Stielgranate 41 HEAT grenade. However, currently it is not modeled in the game at all. The 37mm guns were kept in storage for infantry gun use until much later, though.

The 45mm AT guns were officially retired from AT use in 1960, but kept for infantry gun use much longer.

I have not seen any evidence that 45mm APCR ammo was ever used by the Finnish army. Almost none was captured during WW2. In the OOB it is provided since 1950. At that time APCR (PzGr. 40) ammunition was purchased for the 75mm AT gun (7.5 cm Pak 40) from West German surplus (there were still many leftover WW2 ammo stocks in Germany), but it's unlikely that they had significant numbers of (captured) 45mm APCR ammo. Soviet Union on the other hand did not sell ammunition or spare parts for weapons captured from them (they were quite adamant on that).

The 75 PstK/97-38 (7.5 cm Pak 97/38) was used in the 1950s and even beyond as an AT gun. Finally retired from reserves in the early 1990s, at the same time as the 75 K/40 (7.5 cm Pak 40).

Source for WW2 vintage weapons info: http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/MAIN.html

95 S 58-61M RCL (weapon 047) should be weapon class 22 (Multi-Charge HEAT). The grenade has a steel "nose" designed to defeat light / 1st gen ERA (even if it's not technically "Multi-Charge"). Official name of the grenade is "Okr 95".

The TOW missiles and launcher names are fudged. TOW missiles used by the Finnish army have been I-TOW/BGM-71C (PstOhj 83), TOW-2/BGM-71D (PstOhj 83M), TOW-2A/BGM-71E (PstOhj 83MA) and TOW-2B/BGM-71F (PstOhj 83MB). The latter two are still in service. http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/portal...oimien+kalusto

A side note about the I-TOW/BGM-71C and TOW-2/BGM-71D: it appears that these missiles are weapon class 21 (Multi-Charge ATGM) in the USA, USMC and Finnish OOB, and probably others as well. However, to my knowledge the standoff probe is not designed to defeat ERA and I have not seen such a claim in any source. The TOW missiles have a relatively low kinetic energy and it's doubtful if a passive probe or "nose" could detonate an ERA block in any case. If someone has a source that claims the passive standoff probe to have ERA defeating capability, I would be very interested to see it.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

The BGM-71C and 71D both use improved warheads (71C better then 71B and 71D better then 71C), but should NOT be a milti-charge weapon. they should be changes to Weapon class 13.
The 71E however is a tandem warhead.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Note: Really need to fix the "Edit" function on these boards someday.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Another factor involved is how the TOW-2 family is divided. Simply put the TOW-2A are your tandem warhead mounted missiles. It is considered a direct attack weapon. you'll notice a multicharge here as well for the tandem penetrator.
Attachment 13081

The TOW-2B are multiple explosive warhead missiles that are designed as "top attack" missiles and will react differently when hitting a target vs. tandem missile. Both will defeat ERA but generally specking a tandem warhead is considered more efficient at it. But remember you can't cover the top of a tank fully with ERA ethier.
Attachment 13082

The TOW-2 family portrait...
Attachment 13083

Good background on all this concerning the TOW-2...
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/tow5.html

It is important to note Tow represents many other folks ATGW systems out there as well as shoulder launched systems. I (And others.) have written/discussed much on ERA in the MBT Thread and elsewhere. It is somewhat more complicated then this however, but you need to ask yourself why certain Eastern European and Asian countries rely so heavily on ERA and most Western and certain Asian countries don't. It boils down to the research in the STEEL and practice of using advanced applique armor solutions. This is why the Russian ARMATA is so important to them. If it lives up to expectations it will compete with the best out there. You can also mark the shift in the Ukraine as well with the OPLOT and more so the OPLOT-M.
ERA does serve a purpose and it does generally what it's designed to do. But NERA type coupled with defensive systems will be more of the future and we're seeing it now. ABRAMS and BRADLEY couple very well see TROPHY or similar systems in the current games lifespan.

NERA...
The easy read...
http://www.aerodefensetech.com/compo...achinery/12841

The technical read but, with neat pictures of the test.
http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublicat...ts/5901287.pdf

Regards,
Pat

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Thanks about the NERA info. I knew about its existence but hadn't looked at it more closely .

About the TOW-2B: I was under the impression that it uses an EFP (Explosively Formed Projectile) warhead, which has relatively low RHA penetration and basically relies on the fact that most of the time the EFPs will hit the lightly armored turret top or the engine deck.

Related anomaly in the Finnish OOB: the Finnish "Kylkimiina" (Side Mine in English) (weapon 154) in the OOB is not really what the Finnish Army nomenclature means by a "Kylkimiina". "Kylkimiina" was initially developed in the early 1970s and it uses the EFP principle, which allows it to be placed up to 50 meters from the target. The mine is placed at the side of the road or other assumed path of an enemy vehicle and detonated by an observer electrically or by a wire pull. It is not a close assault but an ambush weapon intended primarily against unarmored vehicles and light armor, although the heavier version (KM 81) can penetrate the side hull armor of many MBTs. They were not available before the 1970s and the penetration of 20 is quite excessive for the weapons: http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index...68#entry667789 (the links don't work any more)

I don't think the WinSP engine lends itself very well for modeling this type of weapon, but in any case they should not be available before the 1970s (the first model was KM 73).

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

More AT related stuff:

I am going to add a 122 H 63 (D-30) AT unit from mid-1990s. This howitzer has a secondary AT role in the Finnish Army and although it is "emergency only", the gun crews are trained for it and the weapons themselves come with a direct fire telescopic sight. LRF's are used for ranging.

The biggest problem I have with this addition is that there seems to be no reliable penetration data for the BK-13 HEAT grenade. Russian Wikipedia lists 460mm, but no hit angle. I also couldn't find the number in the listed sources, so who knows where it comes from. Russian Wikipedia also claim that max. range is only 1 km, but you can find scanned copies of the original firing tables going up to 2 km (somebody mixed up max. range with "direct fire" range to 2 or 3 meters tall target often mentioned in Russian manuals).

In Western sources the older BK-6(M) is also listed at 460mm at 0 degrees. Russian Wikipedia gives 400mm for it (incidentally, or perhaps not, 400 at 30 degrees is roughly the same as 460 at 0). According to the sectional drawings floating around in the net that come for a fairly reputable Western source, the BK-13 has a wave shaper booster and 105mm cone diameter, which would make 460mm at 0 degrees a much lower than expected RHA penetration compared to others of the same era (late 1970s). So, I assume it is actually at 30 degrees, which gives 530mm at 0 degrees. No more than a guesstimate, but then again the SPMBT OOB's are full of them.

I am also going to add a version of the 95 S 58-61 "Musti" recoilless rifles with a LRF since 1995. The Mobhack Guide says that recoilless rifles should always have RF value 2, but I suppose Don and Andy were not aware at the time of writing that many of them are these days provided with a LRFs, which did not exist during the heyday of recoilless rifles.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

You obviously have not looked at the OOBs - RCL with a ranging MG (MOBAT say) and those with a 12.7 spotting rifle (WOMBAT for example) will have better RF than "naked" RCLs. Check the UK OOB - ther eprobably are others with differing stats as well.

(My battalion had 2 AT platoons, one with each type, back in the 1970s... but 1/51 Highland (V) was one of those truly weird cases that you love to beat TO&E freaks about he heads with:eek:. Heck - one company even had their very own tartan (London Scottish))

The design guides are a starting baseline, and not gospel. So if your team actually had laser RF on some of their RCL - go large. The points calculator will charge for them, after all.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Yes, quite right, I wrote that before thinking about the ranging rifles and didn't check if it they were modeled. So, I apologize for my ignorance.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Quick note about radio values: medium tanks and MBTs have too low radio values. Even during WW2 all medium tanks and the StuG IIIG assault guns in Finnish service had radios, mostly because all vehicles purchased from Germany had one (even ex-Soviet T-34s). The few vehicles captured directly from the Soviets received radios in Finland. Tanks purchased from the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s received two-way sets in Finland.

On the other hand, infantry squads and MGs have too high radio values (60-70) up to 1980s. Finnish infantry did not have platoon radios until the early 1960s.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

And now for the AFV notes:

The situation of the T-26 tanks is problematic. These vehicles were declared obsolete already in July 1944 and took large losses in summer 1944. They should really be placed in the obsolete tank category, since it is very unlikely that these death traps would have been used in combat in the 1950s. However, I am hesitant to do that because the AI pick list apparently includes light tanks even in the 1950s.

T-28e has a wrong main gun, should be L-10. I will assume use of Finnish AP, which was superior to captured Soviet WW2 AP.

T-34's have the ZiS-3 as the main gun. I will copy the correct F-34 from Russian OOB. Although test data for the F-34 is not available, AP Penetration with Finnish WW2 ammo can be interpolated to be 11 and a small amount of WW2 HEAT with penetration 8 was probably available for the T-34s post-WW2. I will also extend the range of the gun by 10 hexes to 70 in order to better match the long range ballistics of the Finnish AP. http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/TANK_GUNS.htm#F-34

The radio codes of WW2 vintage tanks are not very good. The Pz IVj was the most common WW2 medium tank in Finnish service, T-34-85 was second. The T-34 M42 was represented by exactly one tank (...). I will modify them so that hordes of T-34s are no longer selected.

Sabot penetration values of British 20-pounder and 77mm HV gun seem to be too low at muzzle; somebody probably made a poor job at extrapolation. I have used consensus numbers from web sources.

The T-54s in Finnish service were actually model T-54-3 a.k.a. M1951. Due to purchase date (1959) people have often assumed that they were T-54Bs, but T-54-3 has been confirmed by serious sources. Also, they lacked gun stabilizers, which closes the case. They were never modernized in Finland apart from the ammo and radios, so units 410 and 411 have wrong FC and RF values.

The penetrations of the PT-76's D56TS (weapon 086) are quite strange. It appears that the Sabot value is for the WW2 vintage BR-354P APCR and the AP value is for the 1950s streamlined BR-354N APCR. The HEAT value is probably for the 1955 fin-stabilized BK-354М. I'm going to change that so that the AP value (12) is for the post-WW2 BR-354 APCBC and the Sabot value (15, same range as AP) for the BR-354N. Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ПТ-76, except BK-354М. I have no idea if the Soviets actually sold the latest BR-354N and BK-354М to Finland, but I assume so like the original OOB designer did...

The modernization of the T-55 in late 1980s did not include armor upgrades beyond the addition of side skirts, but it did include the Mecar M1000 APFSDS round. At the time it was the most advanced APFSDS round available for the D-10 gun with a high L/D monoblock tungsten alloy penetrator. The only estimation I have found about it is 350 mm @ 2000 meters @ 0 degree. Official figure was penetration of NATO Triple Heavy target at 3000 meters, which unfortunately does not tell us much. So, I took the newer Israeli/Romanian M309 round from the Romanian OOB as a rough guideline using available estimates and ended up with Sabot penetration 45. There were also rumors in the 1990s that the M1000 was supposed to penetrate T-72 turret at 1000 meters and with Sabot Pen 45 that is possible.

The T-55MS also got a new Swedish integrated FCS, the same in fact as the modernized version of the Ikv 91 tank destroyer, which has FC30. Also, according to tankers who served on both the T-55MS and the T-72M1, the former had a much better FCS. T-55MS is still used in small numbers, so I have made it available until 2020.

125mm D-81 penetrations assume Soviet domestic standard rounds. The HEAT numbers are too high (BK-14M HEAT was the best exported from the USSR). Finland also never purchased new HEAT rounds for the gun in the 1990s but continued to use the BK-14M.

No decisions yet on BMP-2 modernization. Probably it will not happen in the current economy, but I will push it a couple of years forward just in case.

XA-180 PaSi still very much in use. Modernization closer to XA-203 standard is planned, but has not started yet.

Vehicle grade Gen3 image intensifier is used on the XA-203 RWS, so Vision 30.

The FC etc. values for the AMV should be the same for both armaments, since the turret is the same. The .50 cal armed version had lower values for some reason.

BTR-50PUM1 was in Light APC class. It is a command vehicle, so FO Vehicle class in the game (although for many command vehicles that does not actually make much sense)

Leopard 2A5FIN was cancelled. Instead, Leopard 2A6 were bought from the Netherlands, so I copied the unit and the 120mm L55 gun from the Dutch OOB.

I may have forgotten some minor changes I made... But as usual: http://youtu.be/nnwWKkNau4I

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

AA stuff:

Fixed 7.62 M/31-40 AAMG HE kill (double barrel with 900 rpm for each barrel) and upped FC to 2 (as far as iron AA sights go, it had a fairly sophisticated one).

Added 7.62 M/32 AAMG. This is the M/32-33 used in AAMG mode (AA sights were standard issue and the tripod could be used in AA mode).

Added 7.62mm quadruple Maxim AAMG truck. These ex-Soviet AAMGs were still warehoused in the late 1940s.

Fixed 20mm VKT AAG HE kill (it was very low for a twin barrel 20mm gun). AP pen 4 (same cartridge as Lahti ATR and German 20mm AA guns).

Added 20mm FlaK 38 AA gun.

Increased FC of 30mm Hispano-Suiza and Bofors M/59 AA guns to 12. They had a electronic predictor sight (Galileo).

Gave the modernized 35mm M/88 (Oerlikon) an LRF, which it does have, and more FC to reflect the GunKing digital FCS. Also added LRF to later radar based versions.

Increased FC of all Radar controlled AA guns. Specifically increased the FC of the 57mm AA gun under radar control (the RPK-1M1 / Flap Wheel was a fairly sophisticated AAA FCS by 1960s standards). On the minus side that makes the Radar FC values "incompatible" with official OOBs, which have lower (too low, IMO) values for the same systems.

Increased the FC of NSV AAMG to 3. It has a pretty good reflector sight, which can be used with image intensifiers. The same sight is used on NSVs installed on Finnish vehicles like the XA-18x series, so they get the same FC/RF values as well. I also gave it AP rounds (value 2). The 12.7x108mm B-32 AP can easily penetrate more than 20mm of RHA at muzzle, so in game terms the AP rounds are superior to HE kill 1 up to 450 meters and even beyond.

Increased FC of 23mm M/95 AA gun (modernized ZU-23-2). It has a fully digital FCS with integrated LRF and TI. (It's just too short ranged by 21st Century standards.)

Disabled Itpsv 2010 AA. Modernization of the Itpsv 91 was cancelled. (The T-55 chassis is obsolescent and spare parts availability for the radar is poor. Installing a new radar would cost a lot for just 7 vehicles.)

Disabled unit 208. Both the ItOhj 86 types were Iglas.

Added Stinger RMP block 1 (FIM-92E) from 2015. http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/ff...df?MOD=AJPERES

As usual, I may have not documented all minor changes I've made.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

You are correct about the 2A6FIN UNIT 021 it was submitted in my last Patch Input and I recommended a simple transfer of Dutch 2NLA6 UNIT 037. I noted the discrepancy in the Patch/or MBT Thread(s) after the last game patch was released (I always bounce my inputs off the released game patch which is how I found the error.) so, it is on my work list to be fixed (Armor was also an issue with the 2A6FIN.) along with the deletion of the 2A4FIN as you noted the modernization was cancelled. Please note that the reason I submitted LEO 2A6 as the 2A6FIN was to hopefully make it easier in transferring over the Dutch tanks to the Finnish OOB. I understand the "FIN" would normally be used to indicate an upgrade/or modernization program for their armor. The remaining LEO 2A4 tanks will at least be in service until 2020 and possibly a couple of more years after. The Dutch tanks included a ten year logistics and spare parts package with the Finnish purchase. As noted in the MBT Thread it would have cost the Finns 1/2 the cost of a new LEO 2A7+ to upgrade their LEO 2A4 tanks vs. 1/2 again that cost to buy the Dutch LEO 2A6 tanks that were fully upgraded and well maintained. What would you do? I'd thank the Dutch for their tanks.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...inland-020936/
I'll also submit a new picture.

Regards,
Pat

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Infantry stuff:

As I wrote earlier, changed many sections to mixed bolt-action and SMG armament. Some still retain SMG or bolt-action only due to limited number of weapon slots.

No horse cavalry after WW2, I'm afraid. Officially the Finnish Dragoons were permanently dismounted in 1947 and became infantry, but in fact they did not have enough horses for all troopers after 1943. I converted the Dragoon units to infantry, so now they are basically just better than normal infantry, although there probably is not much basis for them being any better than average Finnish conscripts. They still get to call themselves dragoons, though...:D

Limited the number of units with 7.62mm RK 54 (AK-47). Only 25,000 of them were purchased in the 1950s. That said, whoever got the brilliant idea of separating all the AK action assault rifles chambered for 7.62x39mm cartridge in Finnish service to separate weapons in the game was way over-zealous. They all have the same specs in the game (except the versions with optical sights).

On a similar note, there are separate weapons entries for the DP-27 (also called DP-28 in some English sources) and DPM LMGs like there were significant enough differences between them which could be modeled in the game. The DP-27 also had too low accuracy; it had exactly the same length barrel as the DPM. In any case, all DPs captured by the Finnish Army in WW2 were DP-27s, so DPM should not appear at all. I will change the DPM to DP-27 which fixes the "problem".

Added 66 KeS 12 (M72 EC LAW Mk.I) for some infantry units from 2015. I also changed some of the the sections to 9 men with 2 PKM LMGs (doubled weapon) from the same date, according to a new squad and platoon level organization being adopted. The details are still a bit fuzzy, but 9 men squads with 3 fire teams seems fairly certain at this point.

Some additional trimming like removing a Marksman with a basic M/39 Rifle after 1994. Created a new DMR unit with an RK 95 with optics to replace it (As if there actually were enough ACOGs for any other units than special forces... :rolleyes:)

Changed the names of some units to make more sense of many similar, but slightly different units with the same name and concurrent availability.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Concerning the XA-203 RWS 3rd Gen TI/GSR you can safely go to VISION 40. At the start of my equipment submissions a few years ago, Don and I had set some basic guidelines in my submitting equipment and data to include TI/GSR values, based on those discussions (I believe this can be found in the early Patch Thread Posts.) some advanced 2nd GEN (ABRAMS comes to mind here.) and all noted 3rd GEN TI/GSR systems should have a minimum value of 40 and some higher depending on the platform and references provided concerning the FCS. RWS are no exception to this at a range of 2000m. Just don't want you to "under sell" your equipment and their true capabilities.
Afterall this is not a game about Business but, a Wargame matching your representative OOB capabilities against your opponents, for better or worse.

Regards,
Pat

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Thank Pat. However, I must point out that the XA-203 does not have a TI sight but just an Image Intensifier (albeit a modern one). So Vision 30 is the correct choice.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

More tank stuff:

I increased the HE kill value of PKT machine guns to 8. The PKT has a higher rate of fire (750-800 rpm) than infantry PK(M). Any reputable source will confirm that.

Extended the availability of Comet, Charioteer and StuG 40 as "Reserve tanks". These vehicles were kept around for a long time after active crew training ended. It is not available in open sources when the army stopped maintaining them and how long ammo stocks were preserved.

The last of the British tanks were auctioned off in 2007 along with some StuGs. At that stage they were in fairly bad shape visually, but probably could have been restored to running condition relatively quickly if the SHTF, so to speak.

In any case, the Comets were always classified as training tanks and at least officially they had no combat role even in the 1960s. I personally do not buy that, however, since just a few years earlier technically inferior WW2 vehicles were still considered combat-worthy. Classifying them purely as training vehicles was probably politically motivated. Before the purchase of T-55s in 1966 Finland had more British tanks (Comet & Charioteer) than Soviet ones (T-54 & PT-76) and in the balancing act of the cold war that would have been a Bad Thing.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

I don't have an interest in Finnish "this or that" at this point and don't anticipate having one; however, I read your fascinating posts for the education and apparent due diligence that your posts exhibit each and every time. I see a post authored by PvtJoker, I read it!

Good job.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

PvtJoker, nice to see someone else from Finland!

I've been bothering the authors for a long time over here and I'm making my own suggestions list for the future. I'd love to work together with you since I lack serious information on 50's-80's stuff and I have - by trial, error and Don's judgement - learned the fine line between authenticity and game mechanics. If you're interested, just drop me a PM and we can exchange email addresses. I thought I'd do it during the summer when I have free time but it turned out that I really didn't and I had to prioritize.

Quick note about "Musti", I've been trying to find any reliable source for the ammunition being DC-HEAT, but failed. If you can find any documentation to back that up it'd be great!

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Pssst! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=50222 in case you haven't read it.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Sorry, real life kept me from answering to this thread earlier. About the the Musti: the warhead is not technically dual charge, but instead it has a hard steel penetrator cap that will trigger at least "light" or 1st generation ERA tiles just early enough that the HEAT "jet" will not be disrupted significantly. Its real life performance against so called "heavy" ERA is unknown. Some have estimated that it won't work at all since the projectile does not have enough kinetic energy to trigger the ERA, but others think that it might work partially. Anyways, it's just guesses unless you have real expertise on relevant fields, which I certainly do not have...

From the point of game mechanics, classifying the 95 Okr of the Musti as DC-HEAT is still quite okay, because heavy ERA is more likely to resist DC-HEAT charges in the game.

For official source I recommend old versions of www.puolustusvoimat.fi from Wayback machine, which have more information that the current pages.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

This technicality is already covered in the Mobhack help.

Relevant section is underlined.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Given that ONLY FINNS have contributed to the Finn OOB it would be ( surprise... surprise.... surprise....) another Finn ( once again..) trying to cram every last weapon used by the Finns into the Finn OOB

If there was room I would change the Info line to read

Version March 2014(C)2014 Rami Sihvo, J.Vihavainen & every last Finn who has ever opened up MOBHack & The Camo Workshop

:)

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

I started to document the possible changes or "could-be-inclusions" collected into a spreadsheet, visible here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...8yPaBM/pubhtml
Trying to include the sources over there as well, currently they're pretty terse.

PvtJoker, I'd very much appreciate if you could chip in. If you can send me your email address in private message I'll grant you edit rights. Or anyone else who wants to contribute or have a say. After looking thru a lot of documents last night (Including the now outdated 1994 antitank combat manual publicly available for any Finnish speaking reader) there's a lot of stuff to comb thru - for example 1994 manual lists laser range finders as 58-61 S 95 platoon equipment. Still some stuff like S 95 being out of service at some point between 2000-2005 before getting the hardened tip ammo back and reinstating it as an effective weapon... definitive dates are just simply missing here!

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

One vital question about vision and rangefinders in the game:

Apilas sections for AT Co/Pl have in 1994 equipment listing night vision scope (1 / section, image intensifier type) and laser range finders (1 / section).

AT combat manual, in Finnish p. 214

For S 95 platoons it simply lists "a range finder" (p. 204) which I presume is an optical one.

The question: Should the LRF be added at all to these teams or will it break game balance either by making them too expensive without any added value or by making them supersoldiers who take down a tank just by looking at it?

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

About 120mm mortar cluster munitions and intelligent ammo:

There are notes that there has been 120mm cluster munitions and armoured vehicle homing grenades, but:
"In 2010, a Ministry of Defence official stated that information on the size and composition of Finland’s stockpile of cluster munitions was confidential.[16]" http://www.the-monitor.org/custom/in...int_theme/3457

I found a thesis from early 2000s stating that there are both cluster and homing munitions but the exact types etc. were redacted from the public version. Most probably there have been STRIX + MAT-120 rounds, possibly others. A 2011 page in FDF site lists cluster munition round for 120mm mortar but this is after MAT-120 was decommissioned. My best assumption is that the ammunition for 120mm mortars and AMOS is exactly the same what our western neighbor (and/or Norway) is using, probably produced by Nammo, Nordic Ammunition Company.

I think I have to turn around and accept the fact that until public information is available, Finnish and Swedish mortar ammo should look the same.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

I know the reason we kept them in the Swedish and Swiss OOBs and other importers of the weapons was because we had verifiable information that those weapons were in storage with these countries. Based on that fact we felt that in a time of war especially from an armor heavy Russia (And look at what we're dealing with now with Ukraine, increased exercises on the Scandinavian frontiers and Russia militarizing the Arctic region.) these weapons would be used until expended against an attack. This discussion occurred 3-4 years ago and I believe is either in the SPA/SPAA Thread or a separate thread Don started on the STRIX. After much discussion we felt it was the logical solution to keep them.

Regards,
Pat

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

I don't think it would make them "supersoldiers". With a LRF hit probability against stationary targets will become much higher, but hitting moving targets with low FC value is still difficult, which IMHO is more or less much how it should be. And of course neither the 95 S (even with okr 95) or the Apilas have enough penetration to be effective against the frontal armor of modern Russian tanks, so players would still have to place them on good positions for flanking fire.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

Thumbs up for the modifications. Have you considired switchign TOW-2 and Spike ER to a Heavy ATGM class like in many other nations (Canada, Spain, Turkey etc.)? Now all the Finnish ATGM's from NLAW to TOW are lumped together. To switch could benefit the AI too.

And if you need any pics from Finnish equipment, I have gathered quite a collection over the years. A small sample:

http://i.imgur.com/GyXLIFk.png

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

I'm actually extending the use of classes in Finnish OOB. One reason is that the game doesn't quite support the Finnish use of ATGMs: For example, BMP-1 PzJaegers kept that AT-3/AT-4 missile on top of the BMP-1 while moving and detached it for fighting. Now in the game if ATGM is in the vehicle it can't shoot and when troops exit the vehicle they can't get the vehicle ATGM out.

In my opinion Finnish troops benefit more when the vehicle ATGM is part of the unit being transported. I'm adding a PzJaeger Co/B where platoons have non-ATGM BMP-1 as a transport and two units for each BMP-1, an ATGM team and PzJaeger Squad with reduced number of men.

Re: Current Finnish OOB - some notes for discussion
 

A friend of mine who was a T-72 gunner confirmed, the older round (1986) was the one that matches the HEAT penetration. So 125mm D81T 88 (weapon #215) should be replaced with D81T 86 (#102).

Although they were mentioned that if the things go international then there will be better ammunition available but possibilities didn't get more specific than that.