GHQ Models Forums

Just so there is no confusion, the word "Tank" in the title was meant as a playful jab at Panzer. I am fully aware that its not a tank and could not go toe to toe with a tank.

Roger H, thanks for all the information you are giving. Its good stuff. Keep it coming.

Who knows? Maybe after 30 years, the Army has finally found a successor to the Sheridan .

Will rant about this in a couple days. Too tired right now.

Will rant about Stryker in a couple days. Too tired right now.

OMG, I been waiting since I posted the first post.

One of the major flaws of the BCT indeed the entire US Army is lack of ADA at the divisional and Brigade levels. We lagged because we were invested in a long drawn out asymmetric struggle.
Now we are faced with the very real possibility of a near peer conflict.
IMHO opinion I would remove the turrets from the MGS Stryker and replace it with a avenger type turret and reissue them.

I think that is what they are doing.. I have seen a recent article that is testing a new air defense system on the Stryker.

Update, I believe I just read article that said units in Germany getting first SHOT AS. Strykers.

I’m afraid what they are trying to do is “reinvent the wheel” . Instead of creating an adequate air defense vehicle by mating the Avenger on a Stryker, they are creating a do all vehicle that fires a missile ( that they haven’t invented yet) that can kill tanks as well as aircraft, UAVs, and incoming missiles. This supposedly will replace the TOW .
I’m always a skeptic when it comes to defense procurement
and fielding . Too many people get involved making too many requirements to make something that that can’t do anything . (IE the Sgt York Syndrome)

Why not just bring back the Canadian ADATS unit? As that can engage both Tanks and Aircraft.

MechCommander wrote: ↑

Sat May 22, 2021 8:00 pm

Why not just bring back the Canadian ADATS unit? As that can engage both Tanks and Aircraft.

No!

Though I have added some ADATS to my forces and am debating matching the ADATS system to some modified Stryker Chassis, that is imagination world.. Real world, those systems did not do very well and was not that reliable in both Kills and performance.

Well its better then nothing.

The ADATS could do both of it's intended tasks. However..
For a very high cost you got a less than optimum system for doing either one of those tasks.
It was always going to be a compromise from day one. What you need to punch a hole in a tank is not going to help you hit a small, very fast moving target and vice versa.
By spending a silly amount of money it was made an "operational" second best solution.
You could at the time buy cheaper off the shelf systems to do each separate task, better. Which is what happened.

The biggest drawback however came in the way it would be tactically deployed (in West Europe at least).
The best position for an air defence system is not going to be of much use to kill tanks and the best anti tank ambush site will be a crappy AAD location.
So just employ it for one or the other and you will have a good second best solution.

Rant over.

I always thought it would be interesting to have the traditional Stryker unit vs another peer to peer motorized unit in a platoon scale game with the MGS but agree with the consensus that the MGS wasn't the best application.