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.

[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.

[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

[Pibwl]

An interesting Leopard 2R mineclearing tank: http://www.tanknutdave.com/component...nt/article/360

According to a Polish article from 2007, they were to be delivered by 2009, maybe in 2008. Armament: NSVT AAMG, 16-tube SD, crew 3.

Michal

[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