Stryker MGS TANK

[Hoth_902]

Well this will make you very happy, Mr. Panzer. The US Army is getting rid of there Stryker MGS guns.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/us- ... 44311.html

Looks like the RPNW will be the only people operating them. LOL

[Roger H]

It really didn’t work that well in the first place .

[Hoth_902]

So I have read. I still think is was a cool weapon system concept even if it was a bust.

[panzergator]

Yes, I have always believed it was a ** CENSORED ** child of the Infantry Schook, a tank wannabe on the cheap. Geez, they had to mount the 105 upside down. A substitute for a light tank that was a substitute for a tank. Another gimmick to sell Stryker to the Army_ which, itself, was a misconceived notion.

So, GOOD RIDDANCE!

[Hoth_902]

Panzer, You love the Stryker Tank. Its so awesome. Its going, you can admit to it now... LOL

[Hoth_902]

Panzer,

All kidding aside, in your expert opinion, is it that the MGS is a piece of shatzle or is it the concept itself that is so horrible. In my non expert, UN-educated mind, I could see a world in which there are uses for a competent system, such as the MGS could be useful. Probably more in Third world LIC conflicts, more than anything..,

[MechCommander]

The problems with the Stryker MGS is that the recoil of the gun can actually flip the vehicle on its side, plus the Gun itself tends to be expensive to maintain, and its bottom cannot be upgraded to protect it from IEDs.

[Hoth_902]

Mech,

I have never read that it flips on its side when firing. . please provide a reference for that little gem.

As for the other stuff, I am aware of that, its all in the article that I linked to. What I am looking for is some people with experience, such as Panzer or Robel to give me there thoughts on the concept. In particular, I would like to know more about Panzer's objections from a real world understanding.

[Roger H]

One of the other issues that the article doesn’t delve into, regarding the MGS , is that the US industrial base no longer produces 105mm tank ammo. Like the 76mm guns on the old Scorpions and Saladins, the shelf life ran out and the contractors who produce the ammo have long retooled over to the NATO standard of 120mm . What stocks of 105mm we still have are being sold to our allies who still have M-60 MBT or the M68 105mm tank Gun to sustain those systems.
So like the Saladin and Scorpion, the Stryker MGS has to be retired because its Gun and the ammo it fires is pretty much obsolete .
Unfortunately, the Stryker is too light a chassis to put a 120mm gun on it . There was always a joke that floated around in the “old Army” of the 70s and 80s that you could always tell a Sheridan gunner from the big shiner he constantly wore .

[redleg]

The ROD has a few MGS and we will continue to use them for the foreseeable future, though certainly not in a traditional tank role.

Good point about the ammo, Roger. I have been around the Stryker Infantry Carriers a little bit, but never in a Stryker unit, and never even seen the MGS. Does anybody have any experience or any information about how the gun might perform as an infantry support weapon? Is it useful for reducing obstacles or strong points? Blowing holes in walls to give the grunts access to a compound or a building? Maybe just a place to hang your socks while they dry?

[MechCommander]

More likely (since they are based on the LAV III chassis.) The Ex USAF Stryker MGS will be sent back to New Canada to convert them into regular LAV IIIs and the 105mm Barrels be used as spares for the Leapord C1s. Or if some NC army Commander is desperate enough for new vehicles, actually place some MGS in service with his regiment, though the use would be limited to a Self Propelled gun.

[chrisswim]

I was thinking at the time the US Army should have gone with Rooikat 105. Basic vehicle tested, driven, experienced, evolved from insurgent conflict. Lower profile. But not made here....

[Hoth_902]

Roger H thanks for that in site on the 105 round limitation. Basically the MGS was a dinasour, with days being numbered even before it put wheels to pavement

Redleg,

Looks like we will have to start a joint 105mm round production program for our M60s and our Strykers.

[chatto]

Interesting discussion about the limited 105mm ammo.

This would be changing though with the implimenting of the new light tank. Seeing as both utilise a 105mm cannon then that has to be updated.

I think the bigger issue is just the poor design of the MGS, and the high chance of introducing a proper light tank into service means it's time to let this less successful variant be replaced.

It will be interesting to see if they are outright broken down, or simply mothballed and put into cold storage noting the current political dynamics!

[Roger H]

The replacement for the MGS Stryker is the new updated rehash of the old RDF Stingray light tank that GD and Raytheon are trying to sell to the Army . It’s supposed to have an updated main gun and is hoped to provide the Infantry BCTs with at least a company of light armor . It would also be the armor for the Stryker Brigades .
The Stryker MGS was never intended to be a tank . There was no Sabot or APDU rounds available for it to fire and it was found it would come out on the worst if it stumbled up into a fight with a BMP-3 ,not to mention a T-80 or T-14 .
It’s only redeeming quality was it could blow a hole in a Mideast concrete wall . It’s anti armor qualities suck . The Javelin and TOW2 are really the only antitank solutions in a Stryker Brigade .
As far as the folks at Benning are concerned ..........Good Riddance .