They will be decommissioned next year. While they have been used for training purposes, their primary role has been historical and symbolic. Finland’s maritime defense is built on far more advanced and effective systems including the MLRS, Gabriel V and Spike missiles as well as our naval mine system recognized as the best in Europe. These assets combined with a highly trained and versatile defense force make Finland a formidable presence in maritime security.
MLRS is not meant to be a maritime weapon system in Finland. The army operates them and has more use for them. Naval mines and anti-ship missiles are the best methods of today. The coastal jaegers have their own, portable shorter ranged weapons in addition of course. Finland is looking into buying truck mounted artillery pieces supposedly for more mobile coastal artillery use. In addition to the fixed emplacements and fortress islands there used to be a mobile coastal artillery component to the coastal forces during the cold war years that used towed artillery for the job.
@@johndough1356 Nothing immobile survives a serious attempt to take it down on the modern battlefield unless you are willing to shoot down each and every incoming munition precise enough to land a direct hit on it. Perhaps we could do that for a while, but the precious interceptors capable of doing that are not infinite and there are many more crucial and expensive assets they need to defend as well.
@@herptek You are absolutely correct that the MLRS is not primarily a maritime weapon system and is designed to engage land based targets. However, it could also be used in coastal defense scenarios, particularly when rapid and high volume firepower is needed against slow moving or stationary maritime targets near the coast. In Finland, collaboration between different branches of the defense forces is a key element and they work closely together, especially in situations where equipment or expertise needs to be shared across branches. This flexibility means that assets like the MLRS could potentially support broader defense efforts if the situation demands it.
Taiwan has 204 giant artilleries. They are under ground with steel gait protected after fired each time. Each fire can destroyed area of several football fields.
They are mostly obsolete these days. Finland is slowly buying more and more anti-ship missiles and eventually all of these will be dismantled. It is pretty much accepted that Russia knows most locations so the only real thing they would achieve is absorb some ammunition and slow down the enemy.
They are not obsolete. The fact that Russia knows where they are is not helping at all, if you are not actively lasing the target for precission ammunition. GPS based missiles might have a hit radius of 10m or over, that's not good enough. You basically have to hit this gun with zero deviation to make an effect, which means direct lasing targeting. Which means that there needs to be a russian SOF soldier somewhere doing it, and a russian plane dropping said bomb/missile. Drones are obviously another possibility, but susceptible to AA fire.
@@foleymaj If hypothetically Russia did go for it I assume that they would hit every known position with the bigger glide bombs in the 500kg+ range. It's not like an approach would be uncontested even then due to stuff like naval mines, anti-ship missiles and to a lesser extent even ATGM's like TOW's placed near important coastal positions.
@@matteusvirtanen392 I don't know the design criteria for your Finnish costal artillery forts but the most modern Swedish ones were designed to survive tactical nukes and keep firing. They were, unfortunately, completely defenseless against political incompetence and willful ignorance in the early '00s and got disbanded and dismantled in 2003...😢
Was FO for coastal artillery back in '02 during my conscription. During a firing exercise I was acting as FO, calling in fire and adjusting fire. The target was a pontoon being towed by a ship. Now when a fire command is given a deviation is added so that while from the FO perspective the shot falls on the target it is actually falling behind or in front of the target by a some distance. Contrary to what you might think we don't want to actually strike the target and sink it. Well someone at the battery "forgot" to add this deviation and I have the rare distinction of having a shell go through the "target net" on the barge. The observing officer called ceasefire and chewed me out thinking I was at fault until battery 'fessed up.
I served in coastal artillery 30 years ago. Even then the brass thought that these weapons were fairly obsolete and missiles fired from the inland would do the real job. The island I trained in had these 130 53 TKs. The island I served in had 100 56 TKs, which were basically repurposed T-55 tank turrets. We also got extra duty on a third island, stocking fresh munitions for old 152/50 Ts, so even those were kept in reserve at that time.
Finland is a proud nation that fought heroically to defend itself alone against the invasion of the Communist Soviet Empire. Finland is an example for all sovereign nations.
Looking the setup time and potential counter battery fire, Archer does seem better design, being able to shoot and scoot faster, though there is better designs out there like K9 thunder from South Korea for witch 48 were budgeted and in the end 38 were bought so far if i'm not mistaken. Also designation were swapped from K9 to "Moukari"=Sledge-hammer.
I have been on the 'receiving end' of coastal artillery, doing fire observation at targets a couple of miles away. It's incredible how the whole sky hums from the flying shells during the fire operation.
@@kennethvenezia4400 They are Made in 1980's and before that. Things were different back then. They are still workin, but will be replaced with moving artillery
Not IS, rather WAS. Those relics would have been better if they were embedded with all the concrete ABOVE them, not under them. The Germans knew that much in 1942 at Normandy. A single shell hit would have destroyed them. No big changes in Finland's defense until Ukraine and NATO.
Artillery can be used for firing warning shots unlike missiles. Actually, there should be shells that, instead of an explosive charge, contain a sticky pink foam that stinks like surströmming. For marking the culprits. Would that count as a chemical weapon?
If I recall correctly, the naval missiles Finnish navy missile boats have would be range-wise able to defend the entire Finnish coastline while moored at Turku Harbor. But as many have already pointed out the naval artillery, especially the stationary batteries, are more for tradition and worst case scenario back up than the main naval defense. But of course then again Russia has a tendency to go for attrition warfare so Finnish Defense doctrine is kinda designed against it, which means there's a very realistic change of backup of backup of backup getting fielded 😅
The way missile warfare is today. These gun systems may have a useful role to play. noone has enough missiiles. It is not like the pre missile age. Where 1000- 2000 gun rounds were carried. Now most missiles are counted in the 10s. Which in the real world, means at "least" two missiles fired, to actually hit a target. So everyone will be out of missiles, after a single engagement. Missiles are fragile, very expensive, hard to manufacture and hard to reload. Even fixed target like these require modern missile targeting to get a direct hit. 80s era are unlikey to be able to do it without using a lot of them.
There is also an anti-aircraft system so that the cannons cannot be destroyed by rockets. This is (unfortunately) what a defended border should look like.
Swap the guns out for lasers and it could form a complementary air defense system. The lasers would counter drones and low flying cruise missiles. Whatever the other anti air systems are would then focus on large high altitude threats.
Look or visit the French Maginot line. Undergound ammo transportation on 600 mm tracks. Ammo lifts, roof mounted rails to bring the ammo to the guns. Impressive fot the times, 100 year back. I observed however a lack of ventilation to vent the gunpowder gasses. That was no point in that years.
Only impressive if you grew up in a third world country.
หลายเดือนก่อน +35
Switzerland had a similar fixed and bunkered system in the Alps and along the Jura, but there are now out of service because modern warfare makes them vulnerable.
The defense is multi layered with tons of troops, mobile anti air, air force, navy etc. It will not be easy for the enemy. Ukraine has shown artillery is still king.This is not similar to Switzerland because they are located on islands where you can't move around the artillery anyway so the base last protection is a bunker system.
"decommissioned". . . But if war breaks out they will be recommissioned pretty quickly. Plus, even with the sites being known, it will require some pretty heavy ordinance to actually destroy the positions, meaning probably missiles, of which many could probably be shot down.
i am not sure we are willing to bet the lives of our soldiers on keeping these symbolic guns operating during a hot war. Unlike russia, we are not willing to "waste" our soldiers life in suicide commands.
What it really means is that no new troops are trained to use them and they are not maintained anywhere near as often. If they are needed, we will see if they it still possible to make operational. 5 years out of commission and they can be made to work in a day.
@@zoolkhan I'm rather sure we would. We aren't negligent and suicidal with troops, but losses are normal part of war. If that gun emplacement being manned denies area even for say a week, maybe even takes out the first unsuspecting enemy vessel and then gets taken out and takes, what maybe 3-4 troops with it, it will most likely deemed acceptable. We send tanks to battle and tank getting blown up in battle is similar amount of losses. It's still a bedrock mounted hardened turret. Even on the emplacement getting fired upon on has chance of survival. It is still a weapon, that creates nearly 40 km radius area denial for naval assets, unless enemy first expends some serious effort taking it out of action. Precision hit weaponry and pretty major at that. If I remember correctly, since weight isn't such issue it isn't just a normal tank turret/weight class of one. It is a custom built fortress turret with majorly thicker armor plating. Obviously they aren't saying exactly how thick, but that it is better armored than a tank turret since it is a stationary casemate. Plus the whole installation includes separate tunneled in (and blast door separated) hewn in bedrock garrison rooms, ammunition magazine and so on. Meaning to lose the crew most likely, enemy ship would have to try to pass the denial zone and then at same time missile hit the turret. Since other wise the turret wouldn't be manned. Crew would be on watch deeper in the fort. One doesn't need to be in the turret to keep watch. In fact one wouldn't observe with the turret most likely. there is separate observation troops, who would alert the coastal defence and then the turret gets manned only for commencing firing. Otherwise only reason to be in turret would be for maintenance, which would be only small portion of the day.
@@aritakalo8011 my point is that the gun is obsolete since we "deny area" using missiles from mobile missile launchers or even manpads. Those guns have only one advantage - shells are generally cheaper. As long we have enough missiles, the guns are just large targets, better left unmanned until we have no choice but to man them. And if you pay attantion, then you know the military leadeship agrees with me.
Yes Sweden had lots of this type of fortifications. Towards the end of the cold war they where bering replaced with mobile artillerynand missiles. A curous fact,vwhat is now the Archer startedvas mobile costal artillery
Swedish "RBS15" Saab/Bofors missile has been our main maritime weapon since 1985 too. These fixed gun positions would be destroyed within hours by Russia in case of war, but we still train a very small amount of soldiers for them. I think they (the military) want to see how Russia would do it and how we could deter it.
Never forget the role of stupidity and arrogance in "modern" warfare, as well as faulty intelligence. Look up the Battle of Drobak Sound, Norway, April 1940. Brand new German heavy cruiser Blucher was demolished and sunk by two 11" shells fired from 1890 coastal guns and two 1900 torpedoes (then 40-50 year old technology). Germans disregarded the fortress as a training facility and apparently didn't know about the torpedo battery. And lesson #2: don't mess with Norwegians. If in doubt, look up the destroyer Stord and the other Norwegian units that served with distinction in the Allied effort in WW2.
@paulflory3532 The best thing is that the two guns of the coastal battery were manufactured by Krupp in Germany. "don't mess with Norwegians" - This is an exaggeration, because the Norwegians were then defeated by lightly armed airborne troops and in some places even by Me-110 crews with only machine guns.
@@michelxyz They accomplished their goal, delaying the Germans long enough to allow the King and the Parliament to escape, and I believe the country's bullion (?) to be removed, and then surrendered. Their job was done, and the Germans soon released them.
@@michelxyz Norway was disorganized and overmatched, but they still managed to win time to evacuate their royal family and the core of the government, meaning Germany was denied a Norwegian puppet government. Several army and navy units, finding it difficult to communicate or receive orders to surrender, concluded logically that if one is being invaded, the default action for military is to resist. These hold-out units were well supported by Norwegian volunteers.
The replacement will 100% be archers because they are nordic made system so you know they work in cold and also you only need 3 crew instead of the 6 with caesar.
@hevosenleukajoe I know but to avoid counter battery you really need to move as fast as possible especially on coast where there is not much cover. 155K98 APU & Sisu varients will go to field artillery I would suspect. Costal artillery will develop its own solution. Greetings from Parola.
@@SavolaxMitsu no point shooting landing craft with anti-ship missile the unit economics don't make any sense. Or once you have hit ship with missile no point double tapping it with missile worth 2 milj € when you can shoot small volley of 155 shells that cost about 1000€ a piece. There is a place for coastal artillery still in this age.
seeing that CAESAR doing its fire mission made my soul weep. I'd still be an artilleryman if the Marines had a self propelled gun like that. Looks effortless compared to the blood and sweat a towed howitzer like the M777 takes to emplace, fire and displace.
Swedish "RBS15" Saab/Bofors missile has been our main maritime weapon since 1985. These fixed gun positions would be destroyed within hours by Russia in case of war, but we still train a very small amount of soldiers for them. I think they (the military) want to see how Russia would do it and how we could deter it.
its a shame that we dont have the "old lady" anymore,or the 305mm gun that was decommisioned in soviet times,we did have old 88 aa guns as coastal artillery as long as 2000:s
Just a couple of days ago I thought that I heard sounds of coastal artillery fire. I did not check the Text TV for firing practice warnings: it is hardly boating season any longer.
In the modern warfare, fixed position heavy guns are prime targets of a first strike by bunker buster missiles or hypersonic missles. There are only effective may be at the start of WW2 against enemy cruiser (not even against Iowa class or Yamato Class battleship). Yes you have to assume that Finland has strong air force to repel enemy bomber too😂
Very Cute, 100% obsolete. Better to replace these with either Patriot Batteries that are mobile and/or Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors similar to what is installed in Poland. The addition of SM-3 missiles will give the system anti-ballistic and anti-satellite capability.
The nightmare and horror for every artilleryman is a position that lies on a presentation platter. In addition, the battle tower is also completely unprotected. The German positions in Normandy during the Second World War showed this clearly. Despite bunkers, their fixed gun positions were systematically eliminated by enemy ship artillery. In addition, such systems are well known to a potential enemy and are immediately targeted by targeted fire in the event of a possible attack.
That's what the missiles are for today. Shore guns are still much more effective against landings. CWIS would also protect the artillery from enemy missiles.
These fixed systems are being phased out and replaced with mobile anti-ship missile systems. Fixed locations are too easy targets for modern weapons...
It's too bad these are obsolete because of cruise missiles. If they paired the gun batteries with anti-air batteries to intercept incoming then these could still be useful.
They will be decommissioned next year. While they have been used for training purposes, their primary role has been historical and symbolic. Finland’s maritime defense is built on far more advanced and effective systems including the MLRS, Gabriel V and Spike missiles as well as our naval mine system recognized as the best in Europe. These assets combined with a highly trained and versatile defense force make Finland a formidable presence in maritime security.
MLRS is not meant to be a maritime weapon system in Finland. The army operates them and has more use for them.
Naval mines and anti-ship missiles are the best methods of today. The coastal jaegers have their own, portable shorter ranged weapons in addition of course.
Finland is looking into buying truck mounted artillery pieces supposedly for more mobile coastal artillery use. In addition to the fixed emplacements and fortress islands there used to be a mobile coastal artillery component to the coastal forces during the cold war years that used towed artillery for the job.
Never underestimate brute armor with a gun in it. Though your armor is thin and so are the walls. Syria was mobile too mobile.
@@johndough1356 Nothing immobile survives a serious attempt to take it down on the modern battlefield unless you are willing to shoot down each and every incoming munition precise enough to land a direct hit on it.
Perhaps we could do that for a while, but the precious interceptors capable of doing that are not infinite and there are many more crucial and expensive assets they need to defend as well.
Can't believe they will Finnish using these guns
@@herptek You are absolutely correct that the MLRS is not primarily a maritime weapon system and is designed to engage land based targets. However, it could also be used in coastal defense scenarios, particularly when rapid and high volume firepower is needed against slow moving or stationary maritime targets near the coast. In Finland, collaboration between different branches of the defense forces is a key element and they work closely together, especially in situations where equipment or expertise needs to be shared across branches. This flexibility means that assets like the MLRS could potentially support broader defense efforts if the situation demands it.
I didn't know any nations still operated actual coastal artillery... very cool!
Taiwan has 204 giant artilleries. They are under ground with steel gait protected after fired each time. Each fire can destroyed area of several football fields.
That is exactly what I said when I started the Video
You will if Russia come anywhere near the UK
They are mostly obsolete these days. Finland is slowly buying more and more anti-ship missiles and eventually all of these will be dismantled. It is pretty much accepted that Russia knows most locations so the only real thing they would achieve is absorb some ammunition and slow down the enemy.
They are not obsolete. The fact that Russia knows where they are is not helping at all, if you are not actively lasing the target for precission ammunition. GPS based missiles might have a hit radius of 10m or over, that's not good enough. You basically have to hit this gun with zero deviation to make an effect, which means direct lasing targeting. Which means that there needs to be a russian SOF soldier somewhere doing it, and a russian plane dropping said bomb/missile.
Drones are obviously another possibility, but susceptible to AA fire.
@@foleymaj If hypothetically Russia did go for it I assume that they would hit every known position with the bigger glide bombs in the 500kg+ range. It's not like an approach would be uncontested even then due to stuff like naval mines, anti-ship missiles and to a lesser extent even ATGM's like TOW's placed near important coastal positions.
@@matteusvirtanen392 There needs to be grey period weaponry also. You don't fire warning shots with anti-ship missiles.
@@matteusvirtanen392 I don't know the design criteria for your Finnish costal artillery forts but the most modern Swedish ones were designed to survive tactical nukes and keep firing.
They were, unfortunately, completely defenseless against political incompetence and willful ignorance in the early '00s and got disbanded and dismantled in 2003...😢
@@foleymaj I have a hard time believing that Russia would be using GPS for anything. Glonass on the other hand...
Was FO for coastal artillery back in '02 during my conscription. During a firing exercise I was acting as FO, calling in fire and adjusting fire. The target was a pontoon being towed by a ship. Now when a fire command is given a deviation is added so that while from the FO perspective the shot falls on the target it is actually falling behind or in front of the target by a some distance. Contrary to what you might think we don't want to actually strike the target and sink it.
Well someone at the battery "forgot" to add this deviation and I have the rare distinction of having a shell go through the "target net" on the barge. The observing officer called ceasefire and chewed me out thinking I was at fault until battery 'fessed up.
"korjaus 0 piirua, lautta pohjaan"
🫡
I was in the same position 10 years earlier. At that time, older 120 mm and 152 mm guns were also in use.
We managed to hit the towing cable once. Had to wait for an hour before the ship got the target barge back hooked up
I served in coastal artillery 30 years ago. Even then the brass thought that these weapons were fairly obsolete and missiles fired from the inland would do the real job. The island I trained in had these 130 53 TKs. The island I served in had 100 56 TKs, which were basically repurposed T-55 tank turrets. We also got extra duty on a third island, stocking fresh munitions for old 152/50 Ts, so even those were kept in reserve at that time.
Finland is a proud nation that fought heroically to defend itself alone against the invasion of the Communist Soviet Empire. Finland is an example for all sovereign nations.
P
With its military history, sure. Otherwise it's not faring that well these days
really?? aligning with a EU super state run by Germany and a military alliance under German control ? so yeah how free are they again ?
Not modern, not fancy. But available, if needed.
Sweden's archer is beautiful.
Looking the setup time and potential counter battery fire, Archer does seem better design, being able to shoot and scoot faster, though there is better designs out there like K9 thunder from South Korea for witch 48 were budgeted and in the end 38 were bought so far if i'm not mistaken. Also designation were swapped from K9 to "Moukari"=Sledge-hammer.
Poland is with Finland!
固定砲塔は設置場所が最初から明確だから狙われやすいよな
ターニャ・デグレチャフが言ってたな
だがそこを狙う高価で高精度な兵器に対してのリターンは低い
しかも半端な火力じゃ落とせない厄介さ
Schöne Aufnahmen danke für das interessante Video! Grüße vom Sammelplatz
I have been on the 'receiving end' of coastal artillery, doing fire observation at targets a couple of miles away. It's incredible how the whole sky hums from the flying shells during the fire operation.
Seeing these bunkers embedded in the rocks highlights just how well-thought-out Finland’s coastal defense system is! 💪
It is obsolete now!
@@petter5721 Yea the cannons are, they have missiles and other things now. But they look cool and classic
What's the sense of having these stationary guns in a military precision world, and you can find them on Google maps 😮
@@kennethvenezia4400 They are Made in 1980's and before that. Things were different back then. They are still workin, but will be replaced with moving artillery
Not IS, rather WAS. Those relics would have been better if they were embedded with all the concrete ABOVE them, not under them. The Germans knew that much in 1942 at Normandy. A single shell hit would have destroyed them. No big changes in Finland's defense until Ukraine and NATO.
Liking the Archer 🏹
Näillä uppoaa kaapelin katkojatkin jos eivät muuten ymmärrä pitää ankkuria ylhäällä.
idän miinat miinoittaa kiellettyjä kaupunkejaan.
Stubbi,
LADUILLA HEREILLÄ!
Muuten hyvä.
Artillery can be used for firing warning shots unlike missiles. Actually, there should be shells that, instead of an explosive charge, contain a sticky pink foam that stinks like surströmming. For marking the culprits. Would that count as a chemical weapon?
@@WeightlessBallast If not chemical, it'll surely be regarded as a psychological weapon and a rather cruel one at that. 😂
Onko nää tykit ahvenanmaalla
If I recall correctly, the naval missiles Finnish navy missile boats have would be range-wise able to defend the entire Finnish coastline while moored at Turku Harbor. But as many have already pointed out the naval artillery, especially the stationary batteries, are more for tradition and worst case scenario back up than the main naval defense. But of course then again Russia has a tendency to go for attrition warfare so Finnish Defense doctrine is kinda designed against it, which means there's a very realistic change of backup of backup of backup getting fielded 😅
The way missile warfare is today. These gun systems may have a useful role to play. noone has enough missiiles. It is not like the pre missile age. Where 1000- 2000 gun rounds were carried. Now most missiles are counted in the 10s. Which in the real world, means at "least" two missiles fired, to actually hit a target. So everyone will be out of missiles, after a single engagement. Missiles are fragile, very expensive, hard to manufacture and hard to reload.
Even fixed target like these require modern missile targeting to get a direct hit. 80s era are unlikey to be able to do it without using a lot of them.
There is also an anti-aircraft system so that the cannons cannot be destroyed by rockets. This is (unfortunately) what a defended border should look like.
Swap the guns out for lasers and it could form a complementary air defense system. The lasers would counter drones and low flying cruise missiles. Whatever the other anti air systems are would then focus on large high altitude threats.
The level of Automation in these Guns is Impressive.
Look or visit the French Maginot line. Undergound ammo transportation on 600 mm tracks. Ammo lifts, roof mounted rails to bring the ammo to the guns. Impressive fot the times, 100 year back. I observed however a lack of ventilation to vent the gunpowder gasses. That was no point in that years.
Only impressive if you grew up in a third world country.
Switzerland had a similar fixed and bunkered system in the Alps and along the Jura, but there are now out of service because modern warfare makes them vulnerable.
The defense is multi layered with tons of troops, mobile anti air, air force, navy etc. It will not be easy for the enemy. Ukraine has shown artillery is still king.This is not similar to Switzerland because they are located on islands where you can't move around the artillery anyway so the base last protection is a bunker system.
lol you bring swiss in this topic?....lool
Yes,
but also not.
And none of switzerlands neighbours are dictators with territorial ambitions
@@olivere5497 They are not so far away... Switzerland abandoned the fortifications because they are too vulnerable in the modern warfare.
ここに砲があるというだけでも、制圧のために戦力を割かせる意味はあるから、敵からしたら厄介な存在。
確かに高価な精密誘導弾とそのプラットフォーム使わせるだけで十分な価値はあるな
戦力としては最低限だけど、放置は出来ない厄介さ
動画冒頭に出てきたような砲塔むき出しの固定砲は今じゃ精密誘導弾よりはるかに安い
RPG７の対戦車弾頭を取り付けたドローンで対処されたしまいそうなのが・・・
ロマンがあるのは認める
@@ボルオプト大型汎用機 さすがにドローンはそんなに射程ないよ
@@ボルオプト大型汎用機 多分だが君が思ってるようなドローンは、弾頭付けると数㎞程度しか飛ばないぞ、シャヘドみたいな専用機じゃないと無理
まあこれも大型・低速で簡単に捕捉されてるけど
時代は違いますがドイツ海軍の重巡洋艦「Blücher（ブリュッヒャー）」はノルウェーのフィヨルドにある要塞に設置されていたクルップ製旧式28cm砲の砲撃で被弾し損傷（その後雷撃による被害で横転沈没）している辺り、要塞砲はある程度脅威であるのは確かです。
"decommissioned". . . But if war breaks out they will be recommissioned pretty quickly. Plus, even with the sites being known, it will require some pretty heavy ordinance to actually destroy the positions, meaning probably missiles, of which many could probably be shot down.
i am not sure we are willing to bet the lives of our soldiers on keeping these symbolic guns operating during a hot war.
Unlike russia, we are not willing to "waste" our soldiers life in suicide commands.
What it really means is that no new troops are trained to use them and they are not maintained anywhere near as often. If they are needed, we will see if they it still possible to make operational. 5 years out of commission and they can be made to work in a day.
@@squidcaps4308 Yeah, this is exactly what I think will happen too.
@@zoolkhan I'm rather sure we would. We aren't negligent and suicidal with troops, but losses are normal part of war. If that gun emplacement being manned denies area even for say a week, maybe even takes out the first unsuspecting enemy vessel and then gets taken out and takes, what maybe 3-4 troops with it, it will most likely deemed acceptable. We send tanks to battle and tank getting blown up in battle is similar amount of losses. It's still a bedrock mounted hardened turret. Even on the emplacement getting fired upon on has chance of survival.
It is still a weapon, that creates nearly 40 km radius area denial for naval assets, unless enemy first expends some serious effort taking it out of action. Precision hit weaponry and pretty major at that. If I remember correctly, since weight isn't such issue it isn't just a normal tank turret/weight class of one. It is a custom built fortress turret with majorly thicker armor plating. Obviously they aren't saying exactly how thick, but that it is better armored than a tank turret since it is a stationary casemate.
Plus the whole installation includes separate tunneled in (and blast door separated) hewn in bedrock garrison rooms, ammunition magazine and so on. Meaning to lose the crew most likely, enemy ship would have to try to pass the denial zone and then at same time missile hit the turret. Since other wise the turret wouldn't be manned. Crew would be on watch deeper in the fort. One doesn't need to be in the turret to keep watch. In fact one wouldn't observe with the turret most likely. there is separate observation troops, who would alert the coastal defence and then the turret gets manned only for commencing firing. Otherwise only reason to be in turret would be for maintenance, which would be only small portion of the day.
@@aritakalo8011 my point is that the gun is obsolete since we "deny area" using missiles from mobile missile launchers or even manpads. Those guns have only one advantage - shells are generally cheaper.
As long we have enough missiles, the guns are just large targets, better left unmanned until we have no choice but to man them.
And if you pay attantion, then you know the military leadeship agrees with me.
You got to be prepared with PuXin now days. 👊🏼
mas bien contra los iskander
Vive l'Europe et sa future armée intégrée!
L'Europe est une province sous contrôle américain. Il n'y aura jamais de défense européenne, les États-Unis ne le permettront jamais.
Yes Sweden had lots of this type of fortifications. Towards the end of the cold war they where bering replaced with mobile artillerynand missiles. A curous fact,vwhat is now the Archer startedvas mobile costal artillery
Swedish "RBS15" Saab/Bofors missile has been our main maritime weapon since 1985 too. These fixed gun positions would be destroyed within hours by Russia in case of war, but we still train a very small amount of soldiers for them. I think they (the military) want to see how Russia would do it and how we could deter it.
I was there training with them on that Island, very dope indeed, got your these same turrets located all along the island, pretty sick
it may be obsolete but look at what happened with old ww2 guns still kicking butts during russo ukraine war
These are fixed in place. They won't survive a missile attack.
Are you being serious ?
固定砲台だから自走砲とは違い移動はできないがそれ以外においては格上の性能を持てそうだな。
Never forget the role of stupidity and arrogance in "modern" warfare, as well as faulty intelligence. Look up the Battle of Drobak Sound, Norway, April 1940. Brand new German heavy cruiser Blucher was demolished and sunk by two 11" shells fired from 1890 coastal guns and two 1900 torpedoes (then 40-50 year old technology). Germans disregarded the fortress as a training facility and apparently didn't know about the torpedo battery. And lesson #2: don't mess with Norwegians. If in doubt, look up the destroyer Stord and the other Norwegian units that served with distinction in the Allied effort in WW2.
Battle of Drobak Sound my beloved
@paulflory3532 The best thing is that the two guns of the coastal battery were manufactured by Krupp in Germany. "don't mess with Norwegians" - This is an exaggeration, because the Norwegians were then defeated by lightly armed airborne troops and in some places even by Me-110 crews with only machine guns.
@@michelxyz They accomplished their goal, delaying the Germans long enough to allow the King and the Parliament to escape, and I believe the country's bullion (?) to be removed, and then surrendered. Their job was done, and the Germans soon released them.
@@michelxyz Norway was disorganized and overmatched, but they still managed to win time to evacuate their royal family and the core of the government, meaning Germany was denied a Norwegian puppet government. Several army and navy units, finding it difficult to communicate or receive orders to surrender, concluded logically that if one is being invaded, the default action for military is to resist. These hold-out units were well supported by Norwegian volunteers.
Given that Russia seems to jamming the GPS signals in some areas, these do have the advantage that the shell will go where you gave it pointed.
Where are the fire direction centers for these costal artillery guns?
Justice will be done ! Fight for Freedom !
最後の方に出てきたトラックの屋根に乗っていた機銃がかっこ良かったよ。😊
Ofcorse they will aim at us.
The replacement will 100% be archers because they are nordic made system so you know they work in cold and also you only need 3 crew instead of the 6 with caesar.
Patria is developing 155K98 mounted on Sisu E13TP
@hevosenleukajoe I know but to avoid counter battery you really need to move as fast as possible especially on coast where there is not much cover. 155K98 APU & Sisu varients will go to field artillery I would suspect. Costal artillery will develop its own solution. Greetings from Parola.
Finland uses K9 Thunder.
It will not be archers or any another howitzer gun, it will be more anti ship missiles and MLRS.
@@SavolaxMitsu no point shooting landing craft with anti-ship missile the unit economics don't make any sense. Or once you have hit ship with missile no point double tapping it with missile worth 2 milj € when you can shoot small volley of 155 shells that cost about 1000€ a piece. There is a place for coastal artillery still in this age.
There's a lot of moving parts which can take you on hold and pressure you to death.
seeing that CAESAR doing its fire mission made my soul weep. I'd still be an artilleryman if the Marines had a self propelled gun like that. Looks effortless compared to the blood and sweat a towed howitzer like the M777 takes to emplace, fire and displace.
CAESAR is amazing
Congratulations FRANCE!
Swedish "RBS15" Saab/Bofors missile has been our main maritime weapon since 1985. These fixed gun positions would be destroyed within hours by Russia in case of war, but we still train a very small amount of soldiers for them. I think they (the military) want to see how Russia would do it and how we could deter it.
With modern guided missiles and drones available in such numbers, fixed artillery positions are easy targets.
Those will be replaced with anti-ship missiles not cannon artillery
これかなり前にもこのチャンネルで紹介していた気がします。再注目されたということでしょうかね。
That is a cool system.
Would love to find a source showing the old coastal 12" or 14" guns ripping off a few.
that archer is sick
Facts.
It’s fine
Caesar take very long time to load. Doesn't looks like the canon can turn much so whole truck need to be in the right direction or?
Maybe I'm just dumb but it's odd that the shell has an auto loader but the powder charge doesn't lol
Thanks for sharing. God bless Ukraine..
謝謝分享，南無阿彌陀佛..
There are still coastal artillery batteries in service today? I thought that they all were decommissioned already
still few left :D These turrets are more symbolic than used for actual combat. these last guns are getting decommisioned soon.
German in WW2: I got idea! what about. Panther turret bunker!
Finnish Naval: I make Baltic Fortress Artillery in Baltic sea!
Firstly, Coastal Artillery in way older than the Ground Tank Turrets
Secondly, Finland is not baltic.
Education has failed you, hasn't it?
How old are those guns in the fixed positions.
The rear of the gun says "1984"
Fixed fortifications are a thing of the past. Gliding smart bombs and accurate missiles ended it.
You think something as old fashioned as a map would have ended it.
You'd think something as old fashioned as a map would have ended it.
The first truck gun did a pretty quick fire mission.
참 놀랍네요. 얼마든지 미사일로 제거될 수 있는 고정포대를 아직도 사용하고 있다니...!
3:11 someone has some very unfortunate place for his sauna..
It has a multi-hole muzzle brake, similar to the IS-7's main gun.
its a shame that we dont have the "old lady" anymore,or the 305mm gun that was decommisioned in soviet times,we did have old 88 aa guns as coastal artillery as long as 2000:s
This is super old footage. Finland has nowadays far more multi-layered and sophisticated defence systems even russian ballistic missiles.
👍🏻🇺🇸✌️🇫🇮✌️🏴
Coastal artillery still exists...
I pray that it will not be used in actual combat and that its mission as a fixed battery will be completed safely.
Just a couple of days ago I thought that I heard sounds of coastal artillery fire. I did not check the Text TV for firing practice warnings: it is hardly boating season any longer.
In the modern warfare, fixed position heavy guns are prime targets of a first strike by bunker buster missiles or hypersonic missles. There are only effective may be at the start of WW2 against enemy cruiser (not even against Iowa class or Yamato Class battleship). Yes you have to assume that Finland has strong air force to repel enemy bomber too😂
No signs of droneprotection??
Reminds me of the Turrets from Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert 1
LOL
Gosh, the allies were such underdogs in Red Alert 1.
The Archer is a wonderful new mobile addition compared the the old stationary guns.
It do have its problem, no all countries has roads suitable due 2 its length.
Coastal Artillery is a near extinct branch...but you'll never know...
It remains to announce the project of building bunkers based on the model in Albania.
Without anti aircraft protection they would be toast
Very Cute, 100% obsolete. Better to replace these with either Patriot Batteries that are mobile and/or Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors similar to what is installed in Poland. The addition of SM-3 missiles will give the system anti-ballistic and anti-satellite capability.
These batteries are for keeping Russian ships in port how does a patriot do that?
我想知道這些岸防砲能不能承受155毫米榴彈砲的直接攻擊？
Interesting how they have some wooden practice rounds in the mix as well.
Still working normally and efficiently.
Training site
Finland is going to stop using the 130 mm ammunition. There are already mobile costal artillery that also can aid marines in their operations.
オストヴァルトゥルムを彷彿とさせる風貌でかっこいい(遠目から見ると迷彩のせいでT-34 mod1943っぽいけど)｡なんにせよ蘇った東方の壁砲塔は現代でも有効やね。
this is just as what the machino line was in 1940 / outdated in todays war
The nightmare and horror for every artilleryman is a position that lies on a presentation platter. In addition, the battle tower is also completely unprotected. The German positions in Normandy during the Second World War showed this clearly. Despite bunkers, their fixed gun positions were systematically eliminated by enemy ship artillery. In addition, such systems are well known to a potential enemy and are immediately targeted by targeted fire in the event of a possible attack.
That's what the missiles are for today. Shore guns are still much more effective against landings. CWIS would also protect the artillery from enemy missiles.
hypersonic missile took out your turret, now what do you do?
By the by
That’s not a fixed gun
That’s a stationary turret
Big difference
Even bigger is that they are coastal artillery, not navy units.
I never heard about this cannon.
They are being decomishioned and replaced as we speak...
Right!
Next year
In Finland,
No speak, unless something "important".
Otherwise, why speak?
They'd need both fixed and mobile artillery in an actual altercation.
以前は古い戦車の砲塔を載せていたりしていたんだがな。
補助装填装置付きとは贅沢だな。
100mm was old tank. This 130 mm is Made originally to coast gun
If it is fixed, it becomes good food.
These systems can not be jammed as modern anti ship missiles can so to decommission them seems a bit premature .
Très humblement conservez les 2 systèmes... Ne réformez aucun matériel...
Replace the guns with air defense lasers in the same turrets.
Remember the story of the Siegfried Line
"The Guns of Baltic Sea"
How accurate are they. They look formidable though. But easy target for missiles.
It is better to have them and not need to use them than to need them and not have them
Missiles get jammed ... Gee i wish we kept them guns
each of the gun placements would have been fixed into a targeting system to be neutralised in the event of a conflict
Those are already obsolete but used for training
Why are you showing the location of these guns?? I would keep these guns for BACK-UP.
These fixed systems are being phased out and replaced with mobile anti-ship missile systems. Fixed locations are too easy targets for modern weapons...
設置場所の開示!!
本気だね
It's too bad these are obsolete because of cruise missiles. If they paired the gun batteries with anti-air batteries to intercept incoming then these could still be useful.
Belgium's bunker artillery lasted about 8 hours in 1940. These were obsolete before they were built.
ここのコメ欄ってこんなに英語多いチャンネルだったかな？
↓
最近の日本人ってこんなに英語得意な人多いのか（ちがいます）
Most Finns speak quite fluent English
At 5:49, did that auto loader just grab that guys ass?