Estonia
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Estonia
................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Estonia
Base on the earlier skirmishes, the Estonian e-defences are now so strong that a Russian invasion would have to be carried out with T-55s (that do not rely on any electronics)
- hence the NL versions of CV90 are good enough (35mm)
- whereas the 30mm that was on the Norway model would not penetrate, and the turrets (and the guns) have been discarded in the purchase
- hence the NL versions of CV90 are good enough (35mm)
- whereas the 30mm that was on the Norway model would not penetrate, and the turrets (and the guns) have been discarded in the purchase
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Estonia
..................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Estonia
I honestly find following the development of the Baltic Nations fascinating. They present a very intriguing view on a nation trying to make itself as big a roadbump as possible to deter through stint of simply doing as much as they can before the end.
It's an incredibly fatalistic, and yet strangely logical path they set for their development, tied in with them taking new steps into more advanced equipment with larger vehicles, ATGMs and more organised defences.
I am always eager to see what they develop next. Gotta wonder if we missed an oppurtunity to have things ready to market to them.
It's an incredibly fatalistic, and yet strangely logical path they set for their development, tied in with them taking new steps into more advanced equipment with larger vehicles, ATGMs and more organised defences.
I am always eager to see what they develop next. Gotta wonder if we missed an oppurtunity to have things ready to market to them.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Estonia
SPGs this time, 40 km rangeRetroSicotte wrote:logical path they set for their development, tied in with them taking new steps into more advanced equipment with larger vehicles, ATGMs and more organised defence
- a joint purchase with Finalnd, to save on transactional costs (4-5% saving estimated across the combined quantities)
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/est ... rocurement
I wonder what the Norgies bought in the end (their field testing helped to expedite the process)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: Estonia
Well the competition is still ongoing , but they have narrowed it down to 2 contenders....K9 Thunder and a modernized M109 upgraded by RUAG. Unsurprisingly the Norwegian army is said to favor the K9.ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder what the Norgies bought in the end (their field testing helped to expedite the process)?RetroSicotte wrote:logical path they set for their development, tied in with them taking new steps into more advanced equipment with larger vehicles, ATGMs and more organised defence
Interestingly, they also evaluated the PZH 2000 earlier in the process, and were generally very dismissive of it. Apparently it showed a less than impressive performance in the Arctic mountain environment, breaking down often and struggling with mobility issues. According to Norwegian army sources i know, the PZH was deemed to expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
I guess it just goes to show that german engineering doesn't always live up to the hype.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Estonia
It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited
Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: Estonia
I think the current plan is to keep half of them to bolster their own artillery units and then put the remaining 12 in storage. Maybe they will try to flog them off ...possibly to Latvia which unlike its baltic neighbours doesnt have a modern SPG yet. But personally i think it is going to be a hard sell, since the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.ArmChairCivvy wrote:It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited
Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Estonia
Is it just niggles (does't stabilise quickly enough ...perhaps putting in a bigger spade... or might be called something else, to absorb the recoil; the protective citadel actually fills up with gun smoke residue... how did they manage that when it is all remote operation and automation?)MikeKiloPapa wrote:the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Estonia
The last time around when that was done (AT recoilless guns) one of them ended up back in Sweden, where the Hells Angels where planning to use it in an armoured (money) car heist - luckily the rounds had been better guarded than the weapon itself, so the police got to snatch it in time.MikeKiloPapa wrote: flog them off ...possibly to Latvia
- arent the Latvian defence efforts a bit slack, compared to Lithuania and Estonia?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Estonia
Why failed design?MikeKiloPapa wrote:I think the current plan is to keep half of them to bolster their own artillery units and then put the remaining 12 in storage. Maybe they will try to flog them off ...possibly to Latvia which unlike its baltic neighbours doesnt have a modern SPG yet. But personally i think it is going to be a hard sell, since the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.ArmChairCivvy wrote:It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited
Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: Estonia
Funny story....and kind of scary ....Something similar actually happened to us about a decade ago, where Hells Angels broke into a 20' ISO container filled with weapons and ammo....inside one of our army bases! Since it was unmarked they must gotten inside help and information from someone working at the base. Anyhow they got away with several C7 and C8 rifles and a couple of AT-4 anti tank weapons .....which were luckily all found by the police not long after. Needless to say it led to much tighter security measures being implemented.ArmChairCivvy wrote:The last time around when that was done (AT recoilless guns) one of them ended up back in Sweden, where the Hells Angels where planning to use it in an armoured (money) car heist - luckily the rounds had been better guarded than the weapon itself, so the police got to snatch it in time.MikeKiloPapa wrote: flog them off ...possibly to Latvia
Yes i think they used to be, but it looks like they are trying their best to rectify that situation :- arent the Latvian defence efforts a bit slack, compared to Lithuania and Estonia?
http://www.leta.lv/eng/home/important/1 ... 542728C77/
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: Estonia
Well it would probably be more accurate to say that it is more a case of having bet on the wrong platform. Using a civilian dumper to carry the otherwise excellent Bofors FH77 gun, have resulted in a series of issues and problems that have proved difficult if not impossible to overcome.abc123 wrote:Why failed design?MikeKiloPapa wrote:I think the current plan is to keep half of them to bolster their own artillery units and then put the remaining 12 in storage. Maybe they will try to flog them off ...possibly to Latvia which unlike its baltic neighbours doesnt have a modern SPG yet. But personally i think it is going to be a hard sell, since the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.ArmChairCivvy wrote:It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited
Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
The dedicated resupply vehicle developed to allow quick and automatic reloading was cancelled when its manufacturer went bankrupt. As such reloading now has to happen from a regular supply truck and takes much longer. While it is not a huge issue, it is exacerbated by the fact that Archer itself only carries 21 rounds .
The direct fire capability have also proven problematic since the combination of an extremely stiff/rigid platform and heavy recoil forces apparently causes frequent breakdowns and misalignment issues in the remote weapons system used for fire control in direct mode.
Aside from having a very limited practical firing arc, the Archers biggest problem relates to its MRSI capability. While it IS quite capable of firing the 5-6 round "bursts" required for MRSI, the dispersion of the individual rounds in each salvo is apparently so great as to render the capability useless. The huge spread is thought to be a result of the articulated design of the Volvo dumper platform used, which apparently "flexes" around its pivot point, particularly during burst fire.
The Norwegians found further deficiencies in the Archer before they cancelled it, but i cant remember the rest of them
However the above problems, taken together with its relatively high price tag, alone means it is unlikely to receive further orders.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Estonia
They should have gone for a "proper" dumper truck, without such niceties:MikeKiloPapa wrote: articulated design of the Volvo dumper platform used, which apparently "flexes" around its pivot point
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Estonia
MikeKiloPapa wrote:Well it would probably be more accurate to say that it is more a case of having bet on the wrong platform. Using a civilian dumper to carry the otherwise excellent Bofors FH77 gun, have resulted in a series of issues and problems that have proved difficult if not impossible to overcome.abc123 wrote:Why failed design?MikeKiloPapa wrote:I think the current plan is to keep half of them to bolster their own artillery units and then put the remaining 12 in storage. Maybe they will try to flog them off ...possibly to Latvia which unlike its baltic neighbours doesnt have a modern SPG yet. But personally i think it is going to be a hard sell, since the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.ArmChairCivvy wrote:It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited
Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
The dedicated resupply vehicle developed to allow quick and automatic reloading was cancelled when its manufacturer went bankrupt. As such reloading now has to happen from a regular supply truck and takes much longer. While it is not a huge issue, it is exacerbated by the fact that Archer itself only carries 21 rounds .
The direct fire capability have also proven problematic since the combination of an extremely stiff/rigid platform and heavy recoil forces apparently causes frequent breakdowns and misalignment issues in the remote weapons system used for fire control in direct mode.
Aside from having a very limited practical firing arc, the Archers biggest problem relates to its MRSI capability. While it IS quite capable of firing the 5-6 round "bursts" required for MRSI, the dispersion of the individual rounds in each salvo is apparently so great as to render the capability useless. The huge spread is thought to be a result of the articulated design of the Volvo dumper platform used, which apparently "flexes" around its pivot point, particularly during burst fire.
The Norwegians found further deficiencies in the Archer before they cancelled it, but i cant remember the rest of them
However the above problems, taken together with its relatively high price tag, alone means it is unlikely to receive further orders.
Do you know anything about the French CEASAR system? Similar problems or better?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Estonia
Better, a trip to utube shows up firing trials and the "spade" arrangement used for stability. Soltam makes an even better one, but then the problem arises that not all team members can see each other and with fast firing you need to maintain second-to-second coordinationabc123 wrote:French CEASAR system? Similar problems or better?
- so, either headsets (it is quite noisy so close to the gun) or lots of drill and practice
PS the 8x8 CAESAR has an autoloader, but is not in use yet, so I have not heard any practically oriented commentary
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: Estonia
My knowledge of the CAESAR is tertiary at best but i do know that ,unlike the Archer, it is a well proven system by now, seeing action in Africa as well as Afghanistan.abc123 wrote:Do you know anything about the French CEASAR system? Similar problems or better?
According to rumors from our evaluation of it (the old 6x6 version) the gun and FCS of CAESAR is supposed to be very good. However the Norwegians didnt give it very high marks, probably because of its wheeled configuration.
In this context i think it is worth remembering that systems like CAESAR and ATMOS are not really true SPGs like the K9, but more like a traditional towed artillery piece,...one that just happens to be placed on a lorry. (self-towed gun ....)
But for all their weaknesses and tactical limitations, they still give you an effective indirect fire capability and at considerably lower cost.
How well they would fare on a conventional battlefield is another question.
CAESAR or ATMOS 8x8 with automated loading and higher ammo capacity probably goes some way to bridge the performance gap though.
But why Nexter have chosen to base their upgraded CAESAR on a TATRA chassis is beyond me....it makes no sense at all ?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Estonia
They have more snow than you guys.MikeKiloPapa wrote:the Norwegians didnt give it very high marks, probably because of its wheeled configuration.
Check how the Tatra suspension has done in off-road rally competitions.MikeKiloPapa wrote:But why Nexter have chosen to base their upgraded CAESAR on a TATRA chassis is beyond me....it makes no sense at all ?
Is there an ATMOS 8x8? The normal ATMOS is not Nexter, but derived from the Finnish 155mm piece
-clue: solTAM has Tampella in its name
- Egypt bought 400 of them, too
- not to mention that Israel recycled the design to South Africa (heh-heh, in return getting uranium?), who then put a certain ballistics genius from Canada to work... Saddam bought a few, and his artillery outranged the OpFor in GW1... a pity they did not know how to use them
Patria did pitch an 8x8 design , which had done away with the CAESAR/ ATMOS 6x6 stability problems (the latter has less of them, hence the Polish have adopted that one,onto their own custom-developed chassis)
- Finland also has loadsa snow; hence tracked was chosen
- the Patria design is quite unique as it does not try to anchor or stiffen the chassis, but the whole gun is on a "plate" that is hydraulically lowered onto the ground . Here you can see what they sold to Israel first: mortars, that work with the same idea for recoil absorbtion. As a neutral nation they of course sold their surplus German panzers to Syria, to even out the odds.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Estonia
Not to mention better strategic mobility than say Pzh2000 or K9 and much better tactical mobility than say light howitzers like M777...MikeKiloPapa wrote:My knowledge of the CAESAR is tertiary at best but i do know that ,unlike the Archer, it is a well proven system by now, seeing action in Africa as well as Afghanistan.abc123 wrote:Do you know anything about the French CEASAR system? Similar problems or better?
According to rumors from our evaluation of it (the old 6x6 version) the gun and FCS of CAESAR is supposed to be very good. However the Norwegians didnt give it very high marks, probably because of its wheeled configuration.
In this context i think it is worth remembering that systems like CAESAR and ATMOS are not really true SPGs like the K9, but more like a traditional towed artillery piece,...one that just happens to be placed on a lorry. (self-towed gun ....)
But for all their weaknesses and tactical limitations, they still give you an effective indirect fire capability and at considerably lower cost.
How well they would fare on a conventional battlefield is another question.
CAESAR or ATMOS 8x8 with automated loading and higher ammo capacity probably goes some way to bridge the performance gap though.
But why Nexter have chosen to base their upgraded CAESAR on a TATRA chassis is beyond me....it makes no sense at all ?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: Estonia
Yes i know , i have driven them...they are without a doubt some one of the most capable off-road trucks in the world.ArmChairCivvy wrote: Check how the Tatra suspension has done in off-road rally competitions.
But how many of them do you see on the roads in western/northwestern europe ?....somewhere around zero probably...and they have no local dealers what so ever either so access to spare parts and support is going to be a huge problem.
Renault,MAN, Mercedes, Scania or whatever might only provide 90% of the capability ....but they are already here in abundance and this is what matters. In a Danish context Nexter really should have paired up with Scania, which is the other contender in our truck project.
Yep, based on a MAN HX81 chassis(in danish ,sorry) :Is there an ATMOS 8x8?
http://www.fmi.dk/materiel/udbud-i-gang ... dater.aspx
Very interesting, i did not know that. The Fins have always been good with artillery so that is a good thing. Might explain why ATMOS is considered a favorite in the Danish competition.The normal ATMOS is not Nexter, but derived from the Finnish 155mm piece
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Estonia
No worries, I read these defence blogs in 6 languages... add Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, Italian (even French , sometimes with a little bit of help from Frenchie here)MikeKiloPapa wrote:MAN HX81 chassis(in danish ,sorry)
When you say Scania, do you mean that the other one is this MAN? Arent they the left and right hands of VW in trucks?
That MAN thing may have been directed at the British army - we actually never heard what they made of the 6x6 after the trials
- take the mktng materials with a pinch of saltabc123 wrote: Not to mention better strategic mobility than say Pzh2000 or K9
- the CAESARs in A-stan had to be reassembled, once off the plane (sure, A400M will change things from the Herc)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)