Finnish OOB 5.5

[dmnt]

Quick dates issue I just today realized:

Units 335, 336, 348: XA361 AMOS/STRIX
(Also affected: 800: Jurmo NEMO)

Availability date is set to 1/2012, when in fact they were rolled out in 2006 and have been presented in FDF military parade already in 2007.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=1#post2549111

AMOS / STRIX is a double barrel mortar whereas NEMO is lighter, single barrelled one. They share the same lethality figures and rate of fire (12). AMOS claims 26 rpm (apparently 2 x 13), whereas NEMO gets rated to 10 rpm burst / 7 rpm sustained.

This doesn't seem to be in line. Perhaps NEMO should be lowered a bit, AMOS is already in the high end there with ROF 12 (and equipping two weapon slots). Swedish STRIX has 8 for ROF whereas the Finnish counterpart has 12. I believe this is a genuine (minor) error that should be fixed. NEMO could probably have ROF 8 then.

 nationid | nationality | obslotno |      name       | rateoffire 
----------+-------------+----------+-----------------+------------
       65 | Finland     |      335 | XA361 AMV AMOS  |         12
       65 | Finland     |      336 | XA361 AMV STRIX |         12
       65 | Finland     |      348 | XA361 AMV AMOS  |         12
       65 | Finland     |      800 | Jurmo NEMO      |         12
       65 | Finland     |      999 | XA361 PASI AMOS |         12
       66 | Sweden      |       49 | SSG AMOS DF     |         12
       66 | Sweden      |      432 | AMV AMOS        |         12
       66 | Sweden      |      433 | SSG 120 AMOS    |         12
       66 | Sweden      |      434 | SSG 120 STRIX   |          8

[DRG]

Originally Posted by dmnt

Quick dates issue I just today realized:

Units 335, 336, 348: XA361 AMOS/STRIX
(Also affected: 800: Jurmo NEMO)

Availability date is set to 1/2012, when in fact they were rolled out in 2006 and have been presented in FDF military parade already in 2007.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=1#post2549111

Rolled out WHERE ???

FYI the winVer1 OOB's show the in service date as 1/2006. A couple released after that it was pushed back a couple of years because of noted delays then the last release was altered based on this info.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...AMV#post769206


Post #40 if that thread

C2. CHANGE: FINLAND/AMV AMOS/UNITS 335 & 348/Fielded dates to JAN 2013 vice Jan 2008. /The below source though not complete does start to mention contract issues. The Jan 2008 date was about the time the Swedes were having their legal issues with PATRIA as mentioned above in the APC section for the AMV. Also it's my understanding that the AMOS and NEMO systems are from the start capable of direct fire support out of the box, wouldn't it make sense to delete FINNISH UNIT 335 based on that and ensure that the SWEDISH AMV AMOS is a copy of FINNISH UNIT 348? Note dates are only 1yr. apart.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-Turret-06692/ Note it says "initial order" for the AMOS.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20563/ Specifically mentions that amendments were made to the original 2003 contract.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news105201.html Again as above.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/propo...e_news_48.html Again as above. I'm convinced that issues with the contract existed and I'm willing to bet it had to do with PATRIAs legal issues in Sweden as part of the cause in the delay as well. If you go to the equipment side of a couple of the above sites they support what's in the OOB however those obviously have not been updated to reflect the news side of these sites from this past Dec. of 2010 when PATRIA released the press notice.

So you and Pat can debate this out. Pat's presented a number of sources to reach his conclusion which is somewhat MORE convincing that one post on a forum showing a unit in a flag day parade in 2007. This does not prove they were in service so I'm not changing anything ( AGAIN ! ) until a consensus is reached.

If you want to prove to me they were actually IN SERVICE in 2007 you'll need to find better sources than Pats or the one you provided.


Don

[152H55]

2013 availibility for AMOS is correct, the Finnish Defence Forces' official site here (in Finnish) (Google translation in English) confirms operational status in 2013.

Other suggestions, Ruotuväki, the official newpaper of the FDF (here, .pdf in Finnish, page 5) mentions that Valmet Redigo liaison aircrafts (unit 543 in Finnish obat, used as an air OP aircraft) are to be retired by the end of 2013. They have been replaced by Pilatus PC-12 NG which are already operational from late summer/early autumn of 2010 (8/2010?).

Also, can anyone confirm that FDF has really bought/is going to buy STRIX ammunition for AMOS as I can't find any source for this.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This could be a "high brow" approach to the question, in such that maybe Finland is trying to hide behind a cloud of mystery as to whether they possess STRIX (Sweden has been using the round since 1994 and is to be used on their AMOS/NEMOS systems.) or not. That they had them, we know, it was tested and considered for AMOS in 2002 when mounted on the XA-200 platform when Finland was evaluating the system. Patria is indicating they (Finland) only use conventional 120mm mortar rounds, this round is the 120 MERHE or Mortar Extended Range High Explosive round. But there is plenty on the net to suggust Finland (In 2005-2007) chose also the MAT-120 multi purpose CM round which in fact Finland has in storage. The MAT-120 is produced in Spain and used by them and others. But an legitimate ammunition industry source shows Sweden, Finland, Australia (SAAB-BOFERS is located there as well.) and Switzerland as users of the STRIX. So as a sampling I'll provide the following below in order of the para above (Hopefully.) First based on the last couple of hours of "word teching" the search parameters and in summary of the topic I offer (Boy I ramble when tired!)
1. 120 MERHE Round-100%
2. MAT-120 AP/AT CM Round/In real war yes to usage and game.-100%
3. STRIX Round based on info available-75% To further quantify this observation I just need to look to #2 above, if you are willing too intend to use MAT-120 (By buying and storing it you are.) it would make sense to have STRIX around as intermediate solution until MAT-120 gets into the field. That's my opinion and some of you already know how I feel about opinions, suffice to say I have a matching set then!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhd1d2sW_3I
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/xa200/
http://www.amos.fi/
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/articl...p?forumID=2231
http://dmilt.com/docs/PGM.pdf

And I stand by my research from last year the PATRIA scandal set back both Finland's and Sweden's programs in the courts of those countries for contract improprieties.

I also know in advance someone will read the Libya article and say something about "they were there" remember all these rounds are interchangeable with fielded 120mm mortar teams and their tubes.

Just saw the above posted. To answer I work with Don on the following basis to avoid programs dying on the vine for various reasons. No equipment (New) for the Patch Posts that are not expected to be fielded within a two year time frame, if modifications do occur these will hopefully be easier fixes for Don down the road, I offer ARJUN and F-35 as most recent examples in the thread (MBT and F-35b Threads.) Exact dates are normally not hard and fast in most sources, so I try to allow for all dates given, manufacturing, shipping and training as best I can; refer to Patch Posts from last years submissions dealing with the BTR-4 to Iraq and Thailand and GRIPEN to Thailand. We maintain a six month "swag" if you will on dates for new and or modified equipment as I submit them. I spend more time on research then putting together the Patch Post and there are numerous examples where I have followed up on equipment status as already put into the game. This is a "check and balance" of what was submitted and if you will a confidence booster for Don and others to my sources and well me I guess for lack of better words. ARJUN, M60T, OPLOT for Thailand the Ethiopian T-72 (And where are they?) are prime examples of how long I track development before submitting them for game submission. This is to avoid the 50+ units just last year I submitted for deletion (That were but for a couple of them EFV and Su-47(?) BERUIK(? MEMORY MUST BE GOING!) because many people have to have it now in the game like the F-35 which I can see being gone for some country users in the game before 2020. You'll get a better feel for all of this and the process in skimming the Patch Posts. Gotta go clock ticking on my rack time and edit time.

Regards,
Pat

[dmnt]

Originally Posted by 152H55

Also, can anyone confirm that FDF has really bought/is going to buy STRIX ammunition for AMOS as I can't find any source for this.

Currently we can only guess, so it probably would be better left out of the list until we know for sure.

Thanks Pat. The FDF states (ambiguosly) on their page:
XA361 can fire all the current 120mm mortar rounds, illuminating rounds and smoke rounds.

[dmnt]

Originally Posted by DRG

Rolled out WHERE ???

Rolled out from factory to the testing for FDF.

Originally Posted by DRG

FYI the winVer1 OOB's show the in service date as 1/2006. A couple released after that it was pushed back a couple of years because of noted delays then the last release was altered based on this info.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...AMV#post769206


Post #40 if that thread

Thanks, I'll check this out.

So you and Pat can debate this out. Pat's presented a number of sources to reach his conclusion which is somewhat MORE convincing that one post on a forum showing a unit in a flag day parade in 2007. This does not prove they were in service so I'm not changing anything ( AGAIN ! ) until a consensus is reached.

If you want to prove to me they were actually IN SERVICE in 2007 you'll need to find better sources than Pats or the one you provided.

Sounds fair and reasonable. The big issue here is how we define if something should be in the OOB or not, so consistency between the decisions. 2013, mentioned in post above, is the day they start training conscripts with the vehicles they ordered in 2010 (start of mass production), as mentioned in FDF site (in Finnish)
"Kehitystyö käynnistettiin 1990-luvun lopulla ja alkuperäinen arvoltaan 120 M€ sopimus kehitystyöstä ja hankinnasta allekirjoitettiin vuonna 2003. Nyt tehdyllä sopimuksen tarkennuksella käynnistetään vaunujen sarjatuotanto."

"The development of concept was started in late 1990's and the original contract worth 120 M€ for development and purchase was signed in 2003. Now signed amendment*) of contract will start the mass produce of vehicles."

*) tarkennus; improvement in accuracy or precision; clarification

I now found out what's the big hassle about:
Original time frame was that the prototypes would be tested in 2006 and mass deployment in 2008-2009.
"Puolustusvoimat tilasi vuonna 2003 Patria Hägglunds Oy:lta Amos- Fin kranaatinheitinapanssariajoneuon kehitystyön, 0-sarjan ja sarjan. 0-sarjan kenttäkokeet toteutetaan vuonna 2006. Sarjatoimitukset ovat vuosina 2008-2009."
http://web.archive.org/web/200711141...&equipment=167

Then national broadcasting company news:
http://web.archive.org/web/200904301...a_566436.html?

After three years of field tests (news in Feb/2009) they are still working to improve the safety of the loading system and the rate of fire. They had been delivered 4 vehicles, 0-series (prototype) as they are called and 20 to be delivered when the deal is finalized.

Now to the consistency issue: FDF has equipment that is not in field use but in test; would it be used in a war or would it not? The same thing goes with every technology they get their hands on, it's first tested for 2-5 years before they decide whether to start training conscripts, improve the equipment or abandon that stuff. I believe I raised this issue also with the Russian made SPA howitzers as well; FDF has them but they haven't trained conscripts to use them. In the OOB the equipment that's in storage is included even though there's no peace time use for it at all. I'll be glad if you Don could give the general guideline on what counts worthy to be within the OOB and what does not. It'd probably reduce the number of invalid error reports.