via DefenseWorld (go there for the whole story).
Poland recently signed an agreement with Finnish company Patria Land Systems to extend a contract until 2023 for producing more AMV armored vehicles.Uh. Wow.
The original contract which was signed in 2003 expires this year. The new agreement allows producing, selling, upgrading and modifying AMV armored vehicles, with the additional rights to service and repairing for a period upto 2052.
"It's a good deal for the Polish and the Ministry of Defence," said Adam Janik, CEO of the WZM Military Mechanical Plant, Poland after the signing of agreements on further production of wheeled APCs.
Markku Bollmann, Vice President of Patria Land Systems said that the Finnish side is very pleased with the level of negotiations and the effect for which consists of a new cooperation agreement. "Our goal is to not only continue, but also to further develop the project. The agreement is also important for Patria, for generating new jobs.”
First they combat proved the vehicle in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact it shined while the Stryker failed.
Now, Poland is about to take the act on the road and probably will develop modded vehicles that tickle customers in the right way.
So tiny Poland is doing what the mighty USMC can't. Get a vehicle into production and into the hands of its troops. Well done.
Be cautious when describing one system as "shining" and another as "failing" in a particular context. Much depends on how they were used.
ReplyDeleteit seems pretty accurate in this example. the Stryker Unit lost so many vehicles it damn near became combat ineffective, they suffered discipline problems (probably related to all the losses and lack of confidence in their commander) and they practically relieved the whole crew (if i'm recalling events correctly...i'll look it up).
Deletemeanwhile the Wolverine did quite well, earned enemy praise and performed well in a truly trying environment.
The polish roosomak is a wheeled IFV with a 30mm cannon which only carries 8 troops.
DeleteIt is also sorta amphibious, but in theatre add on armoire eliminated that feature.
The stryker is a non amphibious wheeled APC with a remote. 50 cal machine gun, which carries 9 men.
They are to different vehicles with different roles
wrong sir. they fulfill the exact same role in their respective forces. the US Army can't hide behind that feature to explain its faults.
DeleteDid the Pols and Strykers operate in the same areas? With the same threat levels? Or did the Pols operate in more benign regions, and operate less aggressively?
DeleteThe AMV SHOULD be more survivable. It's significantly heavier.
Yes there was a co-op of our forces in Ghazi province. Threat levels ? you can die in all parts of Afganistan, there is no safe place there for ISAF. We operate as part of NATO forces, we patrol the roads, intercept enemy raids and fight with them. We lost 40 soldiers by now.
DeleteAlso Wolverine with Hitfist-30P turret is only one of the version. Many Wolverines in Polish service are classic IFV with remote controled MG turret.
Wolverine with Hitfist is an IFV... Infantry FIGHTING vehicle, let me say that one word again, FIGHTING. Yes in Afgan version there is only 6 soldiers in the back, but 6 soldiers with massive firepower backing them up. Even Taliban insurgents notice that. So you want 9 grunts with .50cal or 6 grunts with 30mm and 7.62mm MG.
As I said in other topic, in 2012 some US officers said that they will be happy to exchange two Strykers for one Wolverine and add a crate of beer extra.
Shas,
DeleteNot all of Afghanistan are created equal. Also, the initial SBCT deployment was fraught with command issues.
That's not to take anything away from the performance of Polish soldiers or their equipment. I'm just trying to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. How much of the poor performance of SBCTs was due to the vehicle itself, and how much was due to other factors?
And like you said, the Wolverine is a different type of vehicle. The Stryker is a wheeled APC. Wolverine is a wheeled IFV.
thats bullshit and you know it dude. the Wolverine weighs more because it has a 30mm cannon. compare the APC Wolverine to the Stryker and you have similar vehicles that operated in similar terrains, against similar enemies with much different outcomes.
Deletethe Stryker failed and the Wolverine shined.
also, you can talk about command issues and i can't argue that but whats noteworthy is that the US Army began sending Stryker units to Afghanistan without their vehicles and had them riding in MRAPS while the Poles continued to use Wolverines.
i luv US kit but in this case the Wolverine is superior (oh and by the way the Stryker is Canadian).
the more i think about this the more i'm wondering what you're trying to pull Smitty! comparing the IFV version of the Wolverine to the APC version of the Stryker is like comparing the Stryker MGS against the IFV in the fire support version. it doesn't work but then again, its not suppose to.
Deletethe APC version of the Wolverine proved much more capable than the Stryker. the funny thing? the Australians and the Marines operated LAV-25's which are much lighter than the Strykers and suffered fewer deadly hits against them.
FYI they're not buying any more right now (although they do plan to). This agreement grants Poland the right to build and market AMVs for the export market.
ReplyDeleteFYI. i directed readers to follow the link to the article. it was a concise title to the blog post and they could get additional information at the site. never once in my blog post did i indicate they were buying vehicle. i did indicate that they were going to be building and modding the Wolverine.
Deletesatisfied?