Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos ru-vid.com/group/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D Please click the link to watch our other Finnish Systems videos ru-vid.com/group/PLEMWqyRZP_LqM_radviiktE2tjOqLHw-B Please click the link to watch our other Swedish Systems videos ru-vid.com/group/PLEMWqyRZP_LpBbgCM_Ndw0Lq6CMmhBsrp Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Land videos ru-vid.com/group/PLEMWqyRZP_LpFkS9hH3KD9uTEKBDVQZRp
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Many countries still use 120mm and 80mm mortars despite their shorter range. Though, usually those mortars are not installed on expensive vehicles.
Shooting the mortars with high arc work well in the forests of Finland where the dense forest and rocky hills prevent more direct firing. Also difficult to locate because of the high mobility.
My own guess is that Finland is soooo heavily forested that any Land Combat will be at closer ranges compared to, say The Great European Plain. The Fins know their plan
Massive amount of logging roads combined with specifically developed road infra allow platforms like AMOS just zoom from logging road to another, dump barrage and leave before enemy shells even land, even if they have drone spotters to direct fire moment AMOS stops to fire, so counter battery fire is very unlikely least from traditional artillery. How ever direct fire capability comes in handy once war has gone little bit since those forests tend to open up rather rapidly into plains after enough artillery strikes and we have extensive experience from that. Also since forest gets cut and logs do get collected, there is forest openings that can be very large. It takes about two years to become filled with brush enough to hide vehicle via foliage on summer, couple more to cover most hill side roads as well. On winter its bit more different story, but over all this system is perfect to our specific areas. Since there is so much of those logging roads going like spider web all over the place command can set variety of barrage spots utilizing the range of the system and they can retreat fast as well. In central european plains it could be different story where man portable system hiding in what little visual cover there is make more sense, but also makes things more dangerous, specially in new age of thermal camera drones, though those pesky kamikaze drones can be a issue for AMOS as well depending on E-warfare capabilities, but then again this is completely new age of drone warfare no one is really developed for except maybe Russia, US and such who have operated military drones for long time as scouts ie developed measures against electronic interference. Still AMOS could be useful tool to armies of the European countries if they develop how to utilize it further. Given we are back to trench warfare who knows, we might see armored and armed trains again how we make loops in strategy and tech -.- and AMOS in train would be really funny, specially if there was dozen mounted on the train carts... Just think the barrages that thing could deliver, mowing the route part of spearhead. Seriously though i doubt it will happen due costs and how easy blowing the tracks is, but it would be funny...
@@jone8626 Smaller than an artillery battery, and more nimble. So from that perspective harder to hit, but of course they have to stay closer to the front lines due to their range. What is better will maybe (hopefully not) seen in the future.
When I did my military service, we got a demonstration of this platform. I was in the Marines, but we had a joint exercise with the army. No video does it justice. We were in a simulated war, holding a position in trenches. Then everything in front of us just exploded. We heard a muffled series of blasts from the guns behind us and then overwhelming blast from the mortars actually hitting the ground and exploding. I don't know how long it took, but it felt like ages.
A war is not only about fine equipment. It is also about financies. Building something madly expensive, which can be destroyed by something much more affordable. I understand that Finland knows, what in get. And has it.
The average mortar artillery strike lasts a minute, so I assume that was what they went with during the exercise. It can be a long minute when you're waiting for the shells to stop dropping.
@@onoff1268 I didn't serve in AMOS squads, only standard heavy artillery so I can't speak regarding that, but it is my understanding that artillery strikes also serve as area denial not just racking up bodies, in which case it would serve a better purpose to drag out the strike longer rather than be done in 15 seconds. I believe 1 minute is the agreed upon number which is long enough, but just short enough to allow time to gtfo to another spot before the enemy retaliates with their artillery.
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.
@@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.
This vehicle is not meant for direct combat. It is meant for situational supression of opponents. It shoots and scoots. Later version can shoot while scooting.
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.
Its a hell on earth. On my service my small group got to go and see how the 1min barrage came down. Lapland, we were on a hill, and all the big guns shot on a another hill in front of us. Contained 2*3pcs 155mm artys, 2*3pcs 122mm artys, and 3*3pcs 120mm mortars... That hill vanished. 🙀 There would not be anything living after that.. it looked.. well.. hell on earth. 🥹 I served in mortar company, so when we floored our 120's, it was nice to know what it does where we hit.. 8km away was where we could shoot. They are capaple for longer, but it needs that much more punch that in peace time they dont want to abuse the barrells so much.. Early Amos could shoot 8 grenades before the first came down.. (if i remember correct) so they could shoot many of them and hit the same time.. devastating blow. Drones are turning the world upside down in warfare.. Nothing is safe from them. 😑
"from twin 120mm mortar" actually ... I understand that a single AMOS is just one part of the pain delivered. Finns have developed heavily integrated way of applying force from multiple sources to a defined area. One "twin mortar" is (idealistically) just one piece of the puzzle weighing kilotons dropping on you.
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.
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.
This indeed is an interesting system assuming that the declared technical characteristics correspond to reality. Equipping armored, mechanized and perhaps motorized types of units with the AMOS would be great. The important issue/limitation of this system is that at the end of the day a mortar is an infantry support weapon and as such it should be available to them anytime and anywhere. In 1999 we were defending Serbian territory along the Serbian-Albanian border from frequent Albanian incursions including two large invasion attempts. This is a heavily forested mountainous terrain and every dirt road ends 5-10km before the border. There's no way to bring even a tracked vehicle close enough, only man-portable weapons could be deployed with very few exceptions.
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.
It is mandatory to have some toxic fumes in your vehicle. Otherwise you are considered a pussy, stripped off your rank and commanded to scrub the toilets for eternity.
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.
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".
More special, they signed for the Mjölnir turrets as far as I know. The CV90 is undergoing a Midlife Update in the Netherlands and some of the rebuild undercarriages will get a Mjölnir turret.
All foreign hands on the program decided that common defense can be outsourced onto Finland without cost, risk or loss. It was also terribly convenient for the swedes to bait-and-switch in a manner to exhaust "competing" finnish milind research resources and then direct the expected investments onto inferior but domestic products.
Genomförandegruppen under the Reinfeldt cabinet was out to prove that the military could not handle their budget, and that a lot of cost savings could be done by cancelling unnecessary programs. Well, they cancelled AMOS, leaving the army without mortars, nothing to put in the 40 hulls already prepared and waiting, and no money as the penalty for breach of contract was higher than the allocated purchase cost.
Sweden did buy it! That is, they went for NEMO, the lighter and cheaper single barrel variant. But apart from the name and the number of barrels it's the same weapon as AMOS. Several other countries have bought or are planning to buy NEMO too so although AMOS as such never caught on, the project as a whole has been quite successful. The reason Sweden switched to the smaller variant may not only have been money btw.
@@tessjuel Sweden had 40 CV90 hulls ready and waiting for the AMOS-turrets when the Reinfeldt cabinet had Genomförandegruppen perform amateur's evening, cancelling projects at random... which meant the money set aside in the budget for the turret procurement instead were spent paying the penalties for breach of contract and of course Finland losing confidence in Sweden as a military partner which had to be rectified with other purchases at the expense of our domestic industry. The Mjölnir part is a much later development, when the issue of a 12 cm mortar came up again after the realisation that a few Archers can't provide the necessary support finally dawned at the department of defence. Alas, the budget had already been spent on the penalties, so the only way to get meaningful numbers was a domestic cheapskate option.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These self propelled mortars are not meant to replace all traditional mortars. They have their own use and purpose. That is why Finland has less than 50 of AMOS and 800+ 120mm traditional mortars, that have gotten feedback from Ukraine.
@@teemup9247 what is their own use and purpose? Its a mortar right? So... indirect fire at incoming assault? You need a +6 milion 120mm mortar platform for that?
@@LEric49 They are most useful in mobile phase e.g. counter attacks when moving with advancing units. That is why there sre SPG with armored units instead of towed artillery.
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....
If im correct, unmanned versions should be at test phase now, those can destroy targets independently from fast movement. With some AI, could be quite interesting...
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.
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.
@@NexnDystxpia 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.
@@NexnDystxpia 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.
@@NexnDystxpiaalso 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
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.
And in an artillery duel, having more mortar vehicles makes individual losses less painful. Unfortunately even as the most advanced 120 mm mortar system, there are inherent limitations. A 155 mm howitzer is always going to outrange it. It's seems hard to justify buying a very expensive mortar system that is very vulunerable on the modern battlefield given how close it needs to operate to the frontlines.
@@Rampant16 True. They are ideal for the Finnish territory, though. In heavily forested areas with very limited visibility, a highly mobile mobile mortar can be king. Smaller amount of needed vehicles is a plus. They do cost a fortune, so not sure if it's worth it in the end. Still a good addition for sure.
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?
There is three main disadvantages in the Finnish sales in general. They are; marketing, marketing and marketing.😂 It's a tradition when Finnish marketing team getting closer personal contacts to the potential customers their working condition is related with heavy doze of the alcohol in their veins. That's because the marketing personnel only get off from their families (wifes) when "going to work". When liberated (excused with) they're not concentrated for the work but instead "the vacation state"!😂 Who cares the deals, the screw cork is open! There was a slogan on Finnish airlines in millenium; "Back to home for the evening!" Why do you think that slogan released? To proof the wifes there will be no excuses staying overnight in the business trip for their husbands!😅
Told the chat that AMOS Wikipedia page in Finnish has a casino page in the refrence links ( "Patria Hägglunds") and now after it all my answers keep vanishing... is this a bot or human deleting actual and factual information? wtf
Amos has range of up to 10 km. Most modern armies have standardized around 120mm mortars that have an average range of less than 8km. 155mm howitzers, of course, outrange it by miles, but those are a different class and require much more logistics. The M777 Howitzer currently used in Ukraine is also much more vulnerable to shrapnel. Also: The main threat to 155mm howitzers in Ukraine remains UAV Zala Lancets, which outrange any artillery and will continue to do so in the future. Here, the mobility from being self-propelled is perhaps a bigger advantage than range would be. The real reason why AMOS is not used in Ukraine is not range, it's cost. Ukraine has used 61mm and 81mm mortars to good effect, and there's little reasons to assume that AMOS would not significantly outperform these in the same role, given a world of infinite resources. Ukraine has even used 30/40mm "mini-mortars". The fact just remains: Towed artillery systems are way cheaper than self-propelled ones, and quantity matters.
There were big differences between the Swedish and Finnish AMOS. The Swedish one had a much more advanced loading system. Finland went for simplicity. Sweden should have a fully automated loading system capable of delivering 14 rounds of MRSI, something that never worked… Finland have a much simpler version of AMOS, but it works! On the XA-361 the AMOS have an MRSI-capability of 4 rounds on target. I’ve seen a platoon of XA-361 AMOS (3 guns) conducting an MRSI-mission and they landed 12 rounds in less than 0.5 seconds on target!
I really wish the Swedes had gone ahead and built the CV90 with the AMOS mortar system. That mortar system, along with this, Patria AMOS, is still the most advanced mortar in the world.
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)
@@McDuggets AMOS was the original, a joint project between Finland and Sweden. Scaling back to one tube made the turret a lot lighter, which allowed it to be used on other vehicles as well.
Scandinavian military equipment has always been 90% legendarily goofy and 10% the future of warfare for the next hundred years. There is no in between.
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
@@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.
@@johanmetreus1268 fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS-kranaatinheitinj%C3%A4rjestelm%C3%A4 Its in the Finnish one LOL its still there - hit the first link "Patria Hägglunds AMOS-sivusto"
@@johanmetreus1268 Oh somebody deleted my reply... (maybe because it had the Wikipedia link for Finnish version of AMOS page) Try Finnish version and go to the very first link in the refrences: 1. "Patria Hägglunds" That link will take you to a casino page instead of to Patria. Its been like that for years - no one does anything about it
@@johanmetreus1268 Try the Finnish version of AMOS wikipedia page and go to Refrences links and top one is "Patria Hägglunds" . That one is the casino link
I would assume AMOS would actually work really well for Finland, a single vehicle hidden and traversing forest, could lay enough fire (and scoot) to halt a large enemy force advance given they would too need to negotiate through narrow corridors. You can tell some other countries don't really know how to use such mortars since they train using a whole battery, moving and establishing firing positions for multiple vehicles, which is a waste of advantages of lighter (compared to 155mm howitzers) 120mm systems. A detached single fire support vehicle proceeding behind the frontal force, accompanied by a single IFV with dismounts should work for asymmetrical needs of the last 2-3 decades, and Ukraine showed any grouping of even longer range howitzers is a no. Also unless they refined it, I recall polish 120mm mortar should be considered as a fail, since reportedly it was not compatible with NATO munitions. The whole idea behind it was an extended range compared to existing 120mm mortars, but when they accepted the system into service it turned out there are no such rounds ready for production, because during mortar design stage the designers just hacksaw existing 120mm soviet rounds into a new extended range rounds to meet the requirements.
Looks like the wheeled version just need some out-riggers at the rear to swing out and press down on the ground to stop wear on suspension and absorb the recoil and improve accuracy.
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.
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.
5 km range in finland is huge, thanks to dense forests, hilly landscape and lakes. ATGM-teams and drones have very hard time finding these things. Also mortar vehicles are not alone in the woods.
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.
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.
@@olekzajac5948 if I remember correctly decision to build our own system came before technology demonstrator was ready. The only part that was working was the breech mortar itself as I remember how doubtful I was about the feasibility of HSW completing that project as they were having a lot of problems with the krab SPG program.
@@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').
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.
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.
An extremely "in-depth" analysis that does not show why this mobile mortar should be the "most advanced". Well, this video was probably created for a thesis, so it's better not to answer such questions. As for the mortar itself... Equally advanced (and, unlike the one in the video), proven in battle is the Polish RAK wheeled mortar
