AMOS - XA-361 | Why has no country, other than Finland, preferred such an advanced mortar
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2024
- We are investigating the AMOS and XA-361, the most advanced and powerful 120mm mortar system. #artillery #maavoimat #mortar
What are the features of the AMOS?
What are the features of the XA-361?
What advantages do the AMOS and XA-361 offer compared to conventional armoured mortar carriers?
Why could the AMOS not achieve international market success?
00:00 Introduction
01:10 Programme history
03:42 Design
09:51 Specifications (XA-361 / AMOS-FIN)
10:32 Variants (SSG120 / Stridsbåt 2010-mounted AMOS)
11:08 Analysis
Welcome to our channel. All the weapon systems are like books. They tell us their stories. The Weapon Detective investigates these books, reads between the lines, analyses, and tells the untold. At the dawn of the Second Cold War, the fruits of new projects give us clues about the future. But current weapon systems also have their own stories. You can find in our videos technical information, historical backgrounds, what happened during the development processes, combat experience and political projection. Let's investigate the weapons together when the Second Cold War is rising.
© Finnish Defence Forces, Karjalan prikaati - Karelia Brigade, Finnish Army, Videoforum, Yleisradio Oy, Patria, WSentry, BAE Systems Hägglunds, Swedish Armed Forces, Saab Bofors Dynamics, Försvarets materielverk, karamelles98, Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, U.S. Department of Defense, Leonardo, stephane combelasse, ppdub73, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Bundeswehr, Boeing, Delco LLC, Imperial War Museums, nert-film.ru, Lambos Maritime Overseas Ltd, Huta Stalowa Wola S.A., Försvarsmakten Inblick, Al-Hadath
Music: Jääkärimarssi
La Banda Militare: Italian and International Military Music
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos
• Weapon Detective
Please click the link to watch our other Finnish Systems videos
• Finnish Systems
Please click the link to watch our other Swedish Systems videos
• Swedish Systems
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Land videos
• Weapon Detective-Land
/ weapondetective
/ weapondetective
weapondetective@gmail.com - Наука та технологія
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos
ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D.html
Please click the link to watch our other Finnish Systems videos
ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LqM_radviiktE2tjOqLHw-B.html
Please click the link to watch our other Swedish Systems videos
ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LpBbgCM_Ndw0Lq6CMmhBsrp.html
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Land videos
ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LpFkS9hH3KD9uTEKBDVQZRp.html
120 mm mortar has too short a range .Very dangerous because it is in the range of FPB drones .
All contry now moved to 152/155mm SPG on truck.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa
Many countries still use 120mm and 80mm mortars despite their shorter range.
Though, usually those mortars are not installed on expensive vehicles.
It's a shame Sweden went with the cheaper option, the AMOS is clearly superior to the semi-automatic muzzle-loading we use on our current Mjölner CV90 mortar carriers, the turret being able to be entirely enclosed not just against shrapnel, but also has a better potential for NBC protection, and in general a more advanced breech-loading system is just more future-proof.
At the time cost was a concern, but recent years have demonstrated that cutting costs for our military has been a bad idea and one we should never have latched onto. Like Finland, Sweden's military is small and needs to be able to punch well above its weight.
We dissed them?! They are like "close" range archers bruh. Lob 5 shells have em land at the same time.
Still, the Dutch went for the Mjölnir. Patria AMOS is better no question about it, but is it worth the hefty cost and more complicated maintenance?
@@benktlofgren4710 A few AMOS systems can replace several of the simple versions, making it harder to hit and reduce the amount of soldiers to train and maintain
@@TheEsseboy While this is true we could not afford to outfit all battalions wtih AMOS only 1/5th (at that time), mjölnir was more "bang for buck" and was achievable. Also a lesson from Ukraine is that quality of a system matters tactically, but quantity maters both tactically and operationally.
Yet the carrier, CV90 is superior to the Patria. Aside this, many countries operate the CV90 which makes logistics way more easy.
As a former Artillery Officer, this weapon system gives me a chub. It’s a bit insane for Finland to not include a 50 Caliber machine gun for crew protection.
There is an optional 12,7mm automatic gun turret that can go on top. If you need 50 cal at least in Finnish doctrine something has gone horribly wrong. This is not direct fire support or close range support we have different platforms for those cases.
I suppose the direct fire capability more than compensates for the lack of a machine gun.
@@xYarbx In future conflicts, the threat of drones plausibly means every mortar carrier needs a machine gun for protection. The effective range of drones exceed the practical range of mortars.
@@IsaacKuo I agree but why should it be 50cal when 12,7mm is just as capable of shooting it down. I would argue it's better since you can more easily carry more ammo for it. If we are talking drones that are in the size class of Reaper or Bayraktar TB2 neither 50cal or 12,7mm has the range to take them down and you would much better be server with something like 30mm round of Gepard. Also we don't really know yet if kinetic counter measures will be the way to go or if something like directed energy weapons will become the norm.
We don't fight in a way that requires that kind of equipment on this kind of vehicle. Our entire system of warfare is based on hit and run guerilla tactics, if you find yourself and your AMOS in direct contact with enemy something has gone terribly wrong. It might be useful for drone defense but I think there are better systems for that than good old machine gun.
Nemo is single barreled version of this. Just more cost effective and still highly effective and more modular too. That's why people in the end choose that. Edit: This was comment before watching full video.
Also, like he mentioned in the video, it came much later. Now is a much more popular time for such a system, which is crucial to its success.
Patria NEMO is a simpler single-barrel mortar system with a cheaper price tag and lower weight. It also requires more crew to operate. That seems somewhat more successful.
The mortar on the NEMO turret is actually indeed just the left mortar assembly of the AMOS, so the system is just a less complicated, single tube AMOS.
Thanks for the video. Today, armies need a combination of such high firepower and mobility.
until the war devolves into a war of attrition and everyone ends up in a trench...
A drone flies faster than a tracked mortar. A drone hast a bigger range than a mortar shell. That looks like a problem vor any mobile mortar because the have to be kept around the Frontline and sooner or later a spotter drone will recognize it and we have all seen what happens afterwards.
@@drrichardwiesenhuber Mortar shells are way cheaper and easier to produce than a drone. So, they are more suitable for a long and full-scale war. They cannot be jammed. The frontline troops always need a close-range fire support vehicle, so the range advantage of drones is irrelevant in this tactical scenario. In a real war, you have to accept some losses. It is not a video game.
Interesting.
I remember that a similar long-range support firearm, which was supposed to be mounted with a double barrel, was also being considered in Russia.
However, that one was abandoned and became a conventional single gun form.
Even taking into account the fact that it is a mortar, the fact that the complex mechanism of the double barrel gun system was realized and mounted on a wheeled vehicle shows a high level of technological capability.
It is also noteworthy that the AMOS is capable of operating the Strix mortar round, an anti-tank Precision-guided munition.
If this weapon is used effectively, it will pose a significant threat to ground weapons, including infantry, as well as vehicles, including tanks, without exaggeration.
Patria is part of BEA systems and only industry in Europe that has been given the right to esamble the F-35 front frame outside of US. And company that has been given right to build the engines of F-35 block 4 by pratt and Whitney. And is company that just bought Finnish drone factory. So imagine if they producing the things like Patria AMV's Patria 6x6 and AMOS and NEMO etc.. at this point. What they shall build in future after they have fully mastered stealth tehcnology jet engine technology and drone technology?
Russian one became too heavy for ground vehicle, so they make 1-barrel one and double-barrel one can be used on ships. Also they manage to increase rof of 1-barrel version.
About similar weapon it more like nona or vena machines.
@@trololoev russia do not have that system since both AMOS and NEMO is Finnish product.
@@ospehu1 learn to fucking read
As a Swede . I to prefer the Amos.
Sverige hade 2009 en borgerlig regering ledd av statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt från Moderata samlingspartiet. Regeringen bestod av en koalition mellan fyra partier som tillsammans utgjorde "Alliansen för Sverige".
It's a fantastic Mortar Vehicle built on AMOS. 👍 🇸🇪
When we look at the Ukrainian war it is clear that 1 of these vehicles could block an enemy attack with its precise high rate of fire BUT this looks like a VERY pricey vehicle and they would be hunted by every Lancet operator out there. Conclusion for me: very high risk vs high reward. A couple of trained mortar crews with a truck mounted 120mm mortar could also stop an assault if we look at all the footage... so not sure if this device is worth it (just thinking in sheer bang for buck vs potential money lost). It sure is an amazing engineering marvel tho.
A similar design is RAK mortar mounted on Rosomak APC (this vehicle also has a Finnish origin) It is used by the Polish Armed Forces, and is currently used in Ukraine).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M120_Rak
Also, I am not quite sure about this fact, but the turret is considered by the US Army.
I'd compare the Rak to the NEMO instead, which is more compact and seems to have a higher level of automation. The US is currently looking for a new motar carrier but have not decided on a systme yet, but the AMOS and NEMO are strong contenders.
@@hawkstable8889 AMOS isn't considered in the FIFT program as it's not in production anymore. As for the Rak vs NEMO comparison, while the NEMO is indeed more compact, it does not offer more automation as it isn't autoloaded. And based purely on the FIFT program requirements, the Rak is actually more likely to win, especially that the version being offered is not the current M120 but rather the new M69, which has longer range and faster fire rate than the NEMO.
Sadly US army is likely considering ampv with a standard manual 120 mounted at the back. No fancy turreted stuff.
Poland will pay for its support of Nazi-Ukraine.
Where do you think the ukro-nazis will go when ukraine surrenders and cedes all Russian land.
Patria is part of BEA systems and there for NEMO is also Patrias product and what comes to Rosomak it in fact license product of Patria AMV to be fair. There for eany system that is planed to fit in Patria AMV can be mounted to Rosomak as well. And in fact on US army strikers as well since they are build by BEA systems.
I can tell some reasons. The Nemo is cheaper and less complicated and you can have more room for shells. It's also lighter. You lose some volume of fire but in modern conflicts having massive volleys of shells is pretty rare anyways. With the NEMO, you can have 3-4 rounds impact the area simultaneously and then you move elsewhere and do it again.
The AMOS is good but you can do well enough with the NEMO and well enough or good enough is what militaries are looking for, typically.
For most countries NEMO fits better and while NEMO would be good addition for Finlands ranks, the AMOS suits them better because the need is to defend and maul chocke points rather than advance quick and onbtain lot of territory quick. Finland's war is not based on gaining territory but not losing it. Also lot's of killzones and layers, Finland is like onion when it comes to defending their land.
That's why NEMO suits other countries better because the strategy is different and the war is different.
Ps. NEMO don't have to stop for shooting, it can also shoot while driving.
@@GrumpyGremlin. I agree to an extent, but 18 vehicles is barely enough to support a mechanized brigade. Problem for us going forward will always come down to money. Even with FiAF and FinN having their respective high profile programs well underway there might not be enough to buy more AMOS. My money is on NEMO being installed on Patria 6x6/XA-300 or the upcoming Patria FAMOUS that is scheduled to replace our Sisu Nasi and BV 206 fleets. All that with the big tube artillery also requiring replacement.
@@tirepo Yeah I think NEMO is going to replace AMOS too, but my point was even tho Mjölner is cheaper Finland don't really have need for Mjölner because AMOS provides the support more suitable for Finland, and NEMO exist if money is tight.
Also what is this about new Patria I hear now. Could you provide more info, I must know more.
Ps. Istn't there like 6 more AMOS coming? The original agreement was for 24 AMOS was it not? Or have those 6 been dropped out.
@@GrumpyGremlin. AFAIK they cancelled the remaining 6.
Patria FAMOUS is Finnish led program to replace the Sisu Nasu/BV 206 fleets and potentially the MT-LBs for Finnish army, for others it is likely to be marketed as an M113 replacement. It's in essence a Patria 6x6 with tracks instead. Patria had a video up about it for a few hours before they took it down.
@@GrumpyGremlin.also rocket artillery like tracked M270 or wheeled Himars already cover the suppression and saturation aspect. That and the Mjornir means that the ATMOS kinda losses its niche
Another wonderful video was shared by an excellent ( weapon detective 🕵️♂️) channel...video about AMOS-XA 631 advanced mortar holding armor vehicles... Video clearly explained all characteristics of that Finland 🇫🇮 designed with participation of other North western europ countries of some different versions...thanks for sharing....
Maybe we will see some NeMo mounted on the new USMC landing craft, plus a few hundred on the new M10 booker chassis. Maybe even test a few on MK6 gunboats.
And for SBCTs and ABCTs the NeMo could be mounted on some of the AMPVs and Strykers to hang with the maneuver element while the more traditional mortar carriers could be massed as fires for more planned and deliberate situations.
@@kolinmartz Fine plan
Great video!
The only virtue I can think of with muzzleloader mortars is the ease of using oversized munitions that might be useful for unconventional munitions. Mortars might be well suited to anti-drone munitions because of their low pressure. I suspect most SPGs will have fire control systems that integrate with a centralized radar array, so air bursting guided mortars might be a common solution.
Dutch military is looking to buy these kind of vehicles based on the cv90 with the Mjölnir turret. They should just buy the AMOS
The issue is that AMOS cost a lot more, someone said you could get 2 Mjölnir for the cost of 1 AMOS.
They signed for the Mjölnir.
Swden planned to and it was fitted cv90 and cb90 as prototype. Some issues but with politics perhaps
Imagine receiving direct fire from twin 120mm mortar 💀
Sweden choosed the Grkpbv90 Mjölner system instead. The Netherlands recently bought 20 such systems as well.
The Patria NEMO sure seems slick, and the war in Ukraine shows that 155mm ammunition consumption can be a major limiting factor.
Even though a mortar has less range, the fact that it can provide more ammo for less cost/weight/logisitics could be a critical advantage. But is it enough range, for the mortar carriers to be usefully survivable?
The suitability will be largely dependent on the terrain in Ukraine's case I could see my self FDF reservist with knowledge on how we deploy these bringing 1-2 on the edge of town giving them fairly good cover from artillery's generally more flat trajectory and at the same time allowing them to fire into town with high arcs of fire and mobility to relocate to good fire angle. Trying to employ them on wide fields as substitute for artillery will most likely end badly. Without going into detail in our doctrine NEMO or AMOS does not carry out fire same type of fire missions to K9 Thunder or 155 GH 52 APU.
@@xYarbx Thanks for the info! So basically, it's definitely not a "replacement" for long range artillery, but useful in particular situations.
But I wasn't thinking in terms of the threat of enemy artillery, but rather enemy drones. Currently, the drone threat is something like observation drones directing "FPV drones" that can fly around buildings that would block flat trajectory artillery. Observation drones make it more likely the enemy will spot the mortar carrier getting into position, and then the "FPV drones" make it difficult or impossible to find a place with useful cover.
The give and take between drone offense and defense is very dynamic right now, of course. Something like anti-drone drones might change the balance without even any modifications to the AFVs. And the addition of a simple 12.7mm machine gun with a drone tracking sight might make FPV drone attacks dramatically more difficult.
Oh, damn, I thought the intro parade looked familiar. I take the bus from that street corner almost daily.
I can easily see why the NEMO was the preferred option.
Sweden has the Mjolner based on the cv90 chassi, no automatic loader though.
Sources say it will be fitted to AMPV as a sub variant.
I belive that lack of direct fire capability might have lessend desirability of the system- That was one of the reasons why Poland never adopted it despite it being nearly certain back in 2000s.
I want this so bad in war thunder it so cool looking
Please make video about Titus 6x6!
Amos/Nemo is excellent but would you trade one Amos for two Mjölnir, I think it was about that more expensive.
It depends if you are able to bring more than 1 vehicle to take part in fire mission, do you have enough crew trained, is money actually the issue or do you just need more capability. We have to keep in mind that shopping for military hardware is not same as bargain hunting for groceries. Each country has very specific set of needs and resources that they need to take into account when making the decision. Sometimes you need quantity sometimes 1 or 2 of the absolute best is needed to execute something that the more average grade hardware just can't do.
Sweden have quite a lot of Mjölnir making the costs matter.
Requiring special breech-loading mortars was its biggest issue for me. The logistics costs aren't justified.
its sexy AF but the nemo is vastly more practical and fieldable
Yeah that's cool and all, but can the the turret be fitted on a Hilux?
OmNomNom!
Cost and complexity.
Poland needs these!!
We have a better system already, the M120 Rak.
@@olekzajac5948 TY!!
@@olekzajac5948Rak also has Finnish origins so i approve this
@@McDuggets It doesn't, it was designed entirely in Poland by HSW, the fact that it's mounted on the Rosomak chassis (so a modified Patria AMV) has nothing to do withthe origin of the turret itself.
@@olekzajac5948 it is far from beimg ambetter system, budget version would be the right term
I do wonder the usefulness of using an entire armoured wheeled chassis for a mortar when you can buy a similar vehicle with essentially the same maintenance costs but in 155mm. The 5km range really puts this into a dangerous operating zone with drones and enemy artillery or even ATGMs being able to easily engage while not providing enough boom in return. Also if you are going to use an IFV chassis you have the room and weight capacity to make this a fully automatic auto loader instead of getting 80% of the way there and then shrugging your shoulders and saying well it still requires at least 2 crew to operate.
Mortars have their uses and you need system like this to be able to hit accurately and even land all shot shells at the same time to the target, which gives huge area of destruction and no time to cover. Against infantry, it is nasty system. Also everything in war is destructible, that is why there are systems protecting these things from such threats.
155mm is heavy and dont have elevation to be used effectly in forests. It needs open ground to operate if you dont want to hit the trees in front of you.
Finland is Europe's most densely forested country.
how long do you think it will take them to add this to wt
Need
Are there some potential customers in the Far East? I can't help but feel that there are.
極東にはいくつかの潜在的カスタマーが存在するかなぁ？いるような気がしてならない。
More than likely something like this would fit very well in the doctrine of S-Korea. Finland and S-Korea already do arms trade so getting a deal is not that unlikely if they find the need in their doctrine.
South Korea and maybe Vietnam.
South Korea already has a shit tons of locally produced explosive slinger. They likely want to produce their own and sell them abord, competing as opposed to buying stuff.
Vietnam... can they afford those gold plated solution high tech stuff?
Sometimes simplicity is more effective.
The AMOS has been replaced by the NEMO
Nope, NEMO is AMOS but with just one tube, NEMO is used usually more on finnish boats and AMOS on these amvs both are still used. (also if i remember correctly AMOS was made after NEMO)
Too advanced and modern for it's time. Right product in right place but wrong time, came out too early when people were not expecting it or need for such.
Such shame. Could had done way better on selling wise if came out later when others would had realized need for such is greater than they originally thought.
This would be absolute cancer in war thunder
26 rounds per minute is insane for a single vehicle. Having a battery of 4 AMOS turrets can dump the munitions for deleting an entire location before the rounds even land on target
That fire rate is actually not real, I don't know who wrote it on English Wikipedia. Patria states on their website that AMOS' fire rate is 16 rpm maximum and 12 rpm sustained.
I can confirm that as a former amos trained conscript. 16rpm was maximum
Weapons systems are never cheap, but the very high worker cost does us no favors. It is very good for the Finnish Defence Forces, but it is a very specialized (some might say niche) system. The NEMO is far more successful. And lastly, Finns just suck at marketing. There's a history of failures and one scandal with felony custodial sentences.
In all reality, Finland tends to develop these systems mostly for their own defender forces, not for international distribution. Just like Sako/+valmet provides Finnish military all assault rifles, machine guns, sniper rifles. All custom ordered/produced for Finnish defense forces.
I am Sergeant from IDF Mortar Devision - look Iron Sting - Israel New Model with GPS and Laser with Accuracy for A4 Paper - also before we have 'Morty' Mortar... On All Merkava Tanks Have included in turret 60mm mortar from 79
Over 7 months member let's do another 7 years 😂
i think money was a big reason for a lot of weapons systems not being widely accepted in our finnish inventory, further developed, made domestically in large quantities. like how this system wasnt, why didn't we build and develop artillery of our own instead of buying from korea, why not electronic warfare, missiles, etc.
like we still in 2024 dont have acogs and grenade launchers on our service rifles as a standard. always better than sweden, but.. 1,29 % of gdp in 2015, 2020 1,3 %. it was lower than 2% for a long time. now it finally goes above 2%.
it was over 4% when soviet union existed.
Poland use same lvl advanced mortar. SMK 120 RAK
SMK 120 RAK is not comparable to either of these systems it's much closer to regular mortar slapped onto APC. This was done to lower the per unit cost because they needed more units than they they could afford NEMO.
@@xYarbx Huh? The Rak is also a turreted system, like the NEMO, but it's better than the NEMO in basically every way (while also being cheaper), so I don't know what do you mean.
@@olekzajac5948 Lay of the copium there is no trial evidence that it would be and it lacks features like on the move fire capability. I know you want to be nationalistic and claim something from your home country is the best but when there is no data to support it you just end up looking like 12 year old fan boy that does not know what end of the gun the projectile comes out of.
@@xYarbx The only person who "does not know what end of the gun the projectile comes out of" here is you after you suggested that the Rak is more comparable to towed mortars, just mounted on an APC.
Firing on the move is a useless gimmick for artillery, be it for mortars like the NEMO or SPHs like the RCH 155 - it offers no advantage whatsoever while reducing accuracy and increasing complexity of the system and thus its price. Other than that, the Rak has faster sustained fire rate then the NEMO and is fully autoloaded which means that its fire rate is constant no matter the firing angle, as opposed to the NEMO which needs to turn the turret forward and lower the barrel after each shot so that the loader in the hull can place the round onto the rammer's tray. So yes, there is a lot of data that clearly shows which system is better, and it's not the NEMO.
Edit: your comment seems to have been deleted, it's not visible when browsing the comments.
@@olekzajac5948 If your fire mission takes more than it couple of minutes you run the risk of counter battery fire so long sustained fire-rate is not high on the to have list. You need lot of burst potential to execute the fire mission fast and boogie the hell out of there.
There is absolutely place for firing on the move for example retreating fire support ask any artillery man and they will tell you shoot and scoot is the norm.
Auto loaders have always been unreliable and lead to huge compromises. Just look at the Russian tanks in Ukraine joining space program. There is a reason why every western nation has stuck with manual loaders. In addition highly trained crew is almost always faster at loading than auto loader.
Also if we are talking about the NEMO purely as unit it can be placed on shipping containers that can be made fully auto loading. Weird that you foam about complexity when auto loaders are prime example of making systems more complex & costly for no obvious benefit.
RCH 155 is not mortar it's wheeled SPG and covers totally different type of fire mission need.
According to OSINT SMK 120 RAK has sustained rate of fire between 6-8 rounds a minute where as NEMO can fire 10 rounds a minute burst and sustain 6 taking into account the duration of average fire mission there is hardly a huge advantage if any.
SMK 120 RAK weighs 25 tons Patria 6x6 weighs 15 tons and NEMO 1,9 tons making it significantly lighter allowing it to cross smaller bridges, better off-road maneuverability and most importantly less wear and tear on the drive train. That is gonna be huge on industrial scale war.
Yet again I restate SMK 120 RAK was made with the idea of "good enough" where as AMOS/NEMO are pushing the technology forward.
The comment was indeed deleted by someone that was not me.
Because when you go to AMOS wiki page and go to links - it links to a fkn CASINO instead of to a product page for AMOS system LOL true story
If still destroy by nuclear for nothing
The problem is: Mortars are supposed to be cheap and simple alternatives to proper artillery howitzers. The only thing a mortar can do that a howitzer can't do better is being cheap and being lightweight enough to be carried by infantry.
Putting a mortar on a vehicle is already getting close to being overkill, but it still works because it still is cheaper and simpler than a self propelled artillery gun.
But when you then also complicate things and make then expensive by making it a turreted high-tech thing, you definitely jump the shark.
Now the question has become: Why not just buy a self propelled howitzer instead, which has a waaaay longer range?
It makes no sense to use all that hardware, the vehicle, the turret, the loading system, the computers and so on and then just put a mortar on it.
Howitzers have a flatter trajectory and longer range so it's unsuitable for close engagements. Infantry-mortars are basic mortars that are inaccurate and require volume of fire to achieve effect. This advanced mortar however can use scouting and other friendly inputs to put down accurate fire on enemy locations in a short span of time because friendly infantry or aerial spotters can simply locate the enemy's coordinates and send the information directly to the vehicle's GPS and the mortar will automatically calculate the trajectory.
And true, instead of putting a mortar into such an accurate fire control system, they could've put a howitzer instead. But howitzers have limited fire arc, and volume of fire is low. A mortar system makes sense because it can fire 6-10 mortar shells directly in an precise area, creating more chances to knock out infantry. The choices of munition is also something this mortar can do that howitzer's can't, such as airburst, cluster and guided rounds. Guided rounds are crazy because it's essentially a heat seeking mortar round, like a heat seeking air-to-air missile. It will guide itself into enemy vehicles and land directly on top of them like a top attack rocket.
@@Jake-dh9qk Volume of fire for howitzers depends on the loading system too and there are howitzers that can fire as fast as this mortar.
Your comment on ammunition leaves me a bit dumbfounded.
You think there are no airburst or guided ammunitions for howitzers?
You never heard of Excalibur?
Also there is stuff like the German SMART 155mm artillery round, which ejects 2 self guiding sub-munitions with heat seeking sensors in the air, which then search for their targets.
And arc of fire is also not a good argument. There is no kind of target that a mortar can hit better from 5 km away that a howitzer can't also hit from 40 km away.
The shape of the arc is the same, just is the howitzer's arc much bigger.
ESPECIALLY nowadays with kamikaze drones swarming around everywhere near the front, keeping distance is all the more important.
Being close to the target offers no advantage to a indirect firing weapon.
Finland has a lot of swampy areas so having a lighter vehicle with more mobility and decent off-road performance makes sense to me. Finland is already producing the apc it is on top of. That eases logistics compared to having an entirely different vehicle with different parts and configuration. Also Finland has been making good mortars for a long time now so it too makes sense that it might put one in a vehicle. Finland also is capable in the field of technology and especially software. Considering all of this this system makes sense to me. It is an unusual looking vehicle but it is basically like those apcs with a mortar on top of it (as seen in this video) but able to use direct fire and has better protection. If there are reasons to use those aforementioned vehicles then so does this have.
@@TrangleC
1. "And arc of fire is also not a good argument. There is no kind of target that a mortar can hit better from 5 km away that a howitzer can't also hit from 40 km away."
-Somehow you think terrain limitations don't exist and all wars are fought in Middle-East style flat terrain? Good lucky waiting 1-2 hours positioning an artillery battery unit to hit a target that's obstructed by terrain.
2. "The shape of the arc is the same, just is the howitzer's arc much bigger."
-The 120mm Mortar and the average 155mm howitzer have completely different velocities. The howitzer has almost twice the velocity of the mortar. Did you not even realize that differences in velocity equals differences in trajectory arc?
3. "ESPECIALLY nowadays with kamikaze drones swarming around everywhere near the front, keeping distance is all the more important."
-The same argument can be said about artillery units from 40km. There are counter battery units that can send a missile to artillery units 40-100km away. Just because there is a threat doesn't render it obsolete, it just means you have to take more defensive measures.
4. "Being close to the target offers no advantage to a indirect firing weapon."
-Being close to target means you can immediately respond to threats with accurate and precise mortar fire. You don't have to wait for artillery to reposition, you don't have to worry about artillery missing. Being close to combat is also sometimes a necessity due to terrain limitations that an artillery unit can't reach. Level of signature is also a great threat to artillery units, you will be easily spotted by jets, who can either directly attack you or simply report your coordinates back to a counter-battery unit. Mortars leave lower signature.
@@TrangleC idea of such mortar is to be part some mechanised unit so movement and fast reaction time to shoot are more important than range, it is even capable to shoot directly targets while moving.
Sweden have it also
No, Sweden uses Mjölnir and that's a different system that doesn't have the same rate of fire but is simpler and cheaper.
@@znail4675 the Mjölnir was actually a byproduct of the AMOS project, as it is based on the very first AMOS prototype, which was later named AMOS M (M for "mynningsladdare", 'muzzle loader').
maybe because theyre expensive? and cant be mass produced?
Very expensive and easy target for drone .
Right now that applies to literally any and all vehicles except for counter-UAV ones.
120 mm mortar has too short a range .Very dangerous because it is in the range of FPB drones .
All contry now moved to 152/155mm SPG on truck.
It's a ridiculous system, a mortar team can fire faster and for 100th the cost.
and about there end infantry carried mortars advantages.
It is unusual but its effectiveness is unclear as it is not battle tested. For a country of 5.5 million people every saved life matters. When compared to Finland's most likely enemy Russia Finland's population is tiny. Considering these facts I can see why the ministry of defence has interest in this vehicle. It does offer protection and mobility to two mortars.
Mortar team is also less mobile, unarmored, take much longer to aim and less accurate.
Towed mortars have less range and are way less mobile, which is a big disadvantage in a high intensity conflict - a self-propelled mortar can get out of the firing position before it gets blasted with counter-battery fire or a loitering munition while a towed system cannot.
@@olekzajac5948 The main advantage with having a mobile mortar vehicle is that you can have organic mortars in your mechanized units and that's a big thing. They also add long range anti-tank capability to your mechanized units with the STRIX round.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS