Finnish OOB 5.5

[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.

[DRG]

On the list to investigate.......

Don

[DRG]

I try to endeavor to ONLY add units that make it to the troops that have to use them not the date someone in a factory starts bolting them together. OBVIOUSLY the line can become blurred. "Authoritative" sources do not always differentiate between acceptance, field trial testing and actually issuing them to the troops or sorting out stories from someones second cousins best friend with the drinking problem who swears they were in service at date X.

.......so we do the best we can with the info available


Don

[dmnt]

Originally Posted by DRG

I try to endeavor to ONLY add units that make it to the troops that have to use them not the date someone in a factory starts bolting them together. OBVIOUSLY the line can become blurred. "Authoritative" sources do not always differentiate between acceptance, field trial testing and actually issuing them to the troops or sorting out stories from someones second cousins best friend with the drinking problem who swears they were in service at date X.

.......so we do the best we can with the info available
Don

Back from the short holiday trip...

Don, I was hoping for a general guideline on what to report and what to not. I believe it'd help reduce frustration for both players as well as for you when people have some generic idea on the stuff that should be in the OOB. I understand perfectly your point on avoiding going back and forth with the stuff that was supposed to be there but wasn't.

So, if we think of the whole cycle in the FDF point of view:

• Ordering phase (estimated field date possible)
• Manufacturing phase (estimation precision improved)
• First deliveries
• Acceptance testing
• Adjustments (with AMOS, took 2-3 years!)
• More deliveries (accepted tests)
• Field tests
• Training for instructors
• Training for conscripts
• Removed from peace time service: no more in active use, no training of conscripts
• Removed from war time service
• Scrapped/sold

We're currently on item number 8 here. You could say that "ok, we add units typically when they're at point 9, but they can be added at point 7 or 8 if they would be used with high probability in a conflict." Of course there's no point of adding anything at ordering phase as situations can vary and projects be cancelled.

Then to removal, I see that you have put the end dates heavily on the last phase, when it's scrapped and it's 100% certain that no old grunt would propose driving those tanks from the armour museum to the battle field. That's a good line and reasonable and therefore the fights over what should not be available anymore are rare (also; having more choices never limits you, but I digress).

Thanks Pat and Don for your amazing work. People here want to support you, but we need your help to do it so that you feel you've been helped!

[dmnt]

Read some earlier threads about trucks and move classes, but couldn't find a general line: should off-road capable trucks be move class 3?

Finnish OOB (65)

Units 094, 532, 533, 534 Sisu HMTV / Proto / Masi / Rasi (Heavy truck, medium truck, medium truck, heavy truck):

Move class is 2 where as I think it should be 3 (A/T Wheel).
If there is need then some "Civilian / generic truck" or other solution for other than all terrain trucks could be created. These trucks share some parts with XA-180/185 Pasis.

SA-150 in pictures: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu_SA-150
SA-240 in pictures: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu_SA-240
Sisu HMTV: http://www.military-today.com/trucks/sisu_e11t_6x6.htm

variant SA-241 also exists, with a 12.7mm AAMG.

Some nations have heavy A/T trucks: Sweden, Austria, Greece, Yugoslavia/Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

[DRG]

If it's a 4x4 or 6x6 then yes it should be MC 3. If it has drive wheels at only one end it's MC 2 or default


Don

[dmnt]

Originally Posted by DRG

If it's a 4x4 or 6x6 then yes it should be MC 3. If it has drive wheels at only one end it's MC 2 or default
Don

They're all AWD trucks, so 4x4, 6x6 or 8x8 depending on configuration.

All-terrain trucks on FDF site:
Finnish legislation changes demanded that in times of peace the conscripts must have seats even on trucks, so seat capacities are included in the information. SA-150 "MaSi" and SA-240 "RaSi" are not in active use by that list, but are probably stored somewhere still, without seating.

4 "HMTV" class trucks are in use with different specs:

Sisu E11T 6x6: Material and personnel transport, puller: seats 3 + 20, carry capacity 15.7 t (metric tonnes). Produced: ?
Entered service: 1998 (http://www.military-today.com/trucks/sisu_e11t_6x6.htm)

Sisu E11T 8x8: Material transports and pulling: seats 3, carry capacity 19 t. Produced 2000-2006
Entered service: 2001 (http://www.military-today.com/trucks/sisu_e11t_8x8.htm)

Sisu A2045 4x4: Material and personnel transport, puller (esp. 120 mm mortars): seats 3 + 12, carry capacity 6 t. Optional armor. Produced 2006-
Entered service: 2009. Replaces Sisu Proto (A-45). http://www.sisua.net/gallery/v/SA/a2...5+_4_.jpg.html
http://www.suomensotilas.fi/pdf/SISU_english.pdf

Sisu E13TP 8x8 "Kärpänen", "Fly": Armored truck, material transports and pulling: seats 2, carry capacity 10-12.7 t depending on configuration. Produced 2006-
Entered service: 5/2010

[dmnt]

Originally Posted by dmnt

They're all AWD trucks, so 4x4, 6x6 or 8x8 depending on configuration.

I forgot: could 4x4 trucks be classified as Medium trucks and have less space and probably size smaller than 4? Now there's no separation between what FDF designates as heavy truck as compared to the norm. They just have a small radio code difference in the OOB.

[DRG]

I'm assuming the "turret" is fixed (?? ) but we all know what assuming gets us.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by DRG

I'm assuming the "turret" is fixed (?? ) but we all know what assuming gets us.

Yes, it is.

Michal