Jump to content

"New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"


akd

Recommended Posts

Steve, your points are valid, to a degree. And obviously I cannot effectively defend viewpoints that are anecdotal to me. However, all three of these guys are senior SNCOs (Or senior NCOs in Army parlance). And I'm not going to go into details in regards to their correspondence as I don't want to throw them under the train, but there is more going on than meets the eye in regards to the Stryker evaluation.

Yes, every new pice of equipment has its problems. But personally, I think the whole concept is flawed. Yeah, you ask some guy from the 25th ID who was ground pounding all over Afghaniland how he likes having an armored vehicle, sure, they love it.

In regards to body armor, goto US Armor's website and read a bit about Zylon. There are whole law firms being set up just to litigate body armor issues. But I've gotta go, I'm rewatching the whole Pink Panther series now that I saw the latest movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by civdiv:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And I still despise the MGS. They say they don't want it to be a tank killer, that it's not supposed to fight like a tank, but then they give it a tank cannon with tank APFSDSDU rounds. I think if anything an old 105mm M102 howitzer tied to the chassis with 550 cord would have been a better choice for an MGS than what we're getting. Even better would be a 120mm gun/mortar like the AMOS. An M68 with 18 rounds is not useful, IMHO.

I agree completely. Why give the thing a weapon designed for armor if that's not its purpose? When you say the AMOS I guess you are talking about that neat 120mm direct fire/indirect fire mortar that is mounted on the LAV, right? The Corps was supposed to get it and I really loved the idea. But then they decided against it, because, IIRC, they didn't want to add another ammo type to the logistical train. I did see one though, I think they ended up selling some to the Kuwaitis. Neat concept. I would have loved to have had that extra HE capability, but the 25mm on the existing LAVs are pretty good for buildings and bunkers and stuff. And dang, those things are so accurate even without all the high speed sights the Bradley has. I once watched our LAVs nailing vehicles from like 2000 meters in Somolia on the second burst. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been a couple of years since I really went into the weeds in regards to USMC issues (My last duty station was away from the USMC). But IIRC, the EFSS is that like automatic mortar, right? You just set it up and it aims and fires on its own?

I don't know, seems like too much stuff to go wrong. I remember IFSAS and AFATADS, what a nightmare that was (Sort of computerized artillery C2 systems.). I know technology is the way to go, but within reason. I've always criticised the Army as being to reliant on tech stuff. I watched a Paladin (SP arty) demo once. In the middle of the demo the Army crew killed the battery on their vehicle. So we were like, use charts and darts now (Manual Fire Direction Control, calculators, whiz wheels, etc.). They looked at us like we were talking in Chinese. They didn't know how to compute artillery firing data manually.

I have never been as lost as with a 2nd Looey with a GPS. But then again I once used a GPS to keep my company from going into Iraq in 1995 when the CO was trying to read a map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

civdiv,

If you look at Russian SP guns, they all fire a variety of anti tank rounds,( and anti personnel flechettes) that doesn't mean that they are substitute tanks, but the Russians took the smart choice of giving there long range artillery the secondary capacity to directly engage armour or infantry in an emergency.

Is the MGS designed to engage enemy armour.... No

Does enemy armour know that and won't do it......No

Is it therefore a good idea to give it some AT rounds......YES.

As to M102,s or M-8's etc, thats another two types of vehicles with yet another bundle of spare parts to add to the logistics train.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

I am pretty much with you on this. I think a lot of the debate so far on the Stryker v M-113 misses the point as it seems to focus on comparing them as combat vehicles as opposed to means of transport. As a way of moving infantry quickly with a small logistical tail then the Stryker has the M-113 beat.

As a lot of the cost differential comes from C£ and networking that you would need to add to the M-113 anyway then I don't think it's a factor.

As I said elsewhere, if in a place like Afghanistan you need to routinely move infantry and there equipment rapidly from place to place, then a wheeled APC gives them the best combination, the speed of a truck with the protection of an APC.

A truck is too vulnerable, a tracked APC to slow and unreliable over distance.

Despite it's limitations and the Russians in Afghanistan, it's no surprise that the Soviet BTR series has been the workhorse of third world armiesand operations, for decades, and I would suggest that in that sense the US is catching up, in that it now has a vehicle that fills that "Niche".

Fast, Reliable, Armoured, Small Logistical Footprint, Low Reliance of Engineering Support, Easily maintained in the field, Cheaper than a tracked alternative.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

civdiv,

If you look at Russian SP guns, they all fire a variety of anti tank rounds,( and anti personnel flechettes) that doesn't mean that they are substitute tanks, but the Russians took the smart choice of giving there long range artillery the secondary capacity to directly engage armour or infantry in an emergency.

Is the MGS designed to engage enemy armour.... No

Does enemy armour know that and won't do it......No

Is it therefore a good idea to give it some AT rounds......YES.

As to M102,s or M-8's etc, thats another two types of vehicles with yet another bundle of spare parts to add to the logistics train.

Peter.

The 105 is just a bad idea. It puts too much stress on the turret, it's recoil is right on the edge of destabilizing the vehicle, and because of it being a tank gun, it then carries too little ammo. The gun was built to combat other tasnks, period. It was built for kinetic penetrators, period.

The HEP round (The so-called 'bunker buster' round) has roughly the same penetration as the 25mm bushmaster mounted on the Bradley and LAV. The 25mm can penetrate 12-20 inches of reinforced concrete and 36" of sandbags. The only difference is the 105mm HEP round will make a hole big enough for infantry to fit through, while the 25mm will rmove the concrete, but usually won't remove 3/4" rebar if it is present. The difference in terms of infantry support is you can sand right next to an LAV when it is firing, but you'll probably be killed by the overpressure from the 105mm if you are anywhere near it. I mean, look at the firing tests;

MGSFiring02.jpg

Stryker%20mgs%20firing%205.jpg

Stryker_MGS_Mbile_Gun_System_USA_11.jpg

Do you want to be standing anywhere nearby when that thing goes off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Moronic Max:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What you identified in the red box is the instrumentation cables used to manual fire the gun and collect data. Other photos show the same cables as well.

This is probably a really dumb question, but I think my handle means I can get away with asking dumb questions. Anyway, are those cables part of the production model stryker (as opposed to being there for tests), and if so, are they vulnerable to small arms fire? </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by civdiv:

The difference in terms of infantry support is you can sand right next to an LAV when it is firing, but you'll probably be killed by the overpressure from the 105mm if you are anywhere near it.

Would you want to stand next to any tank, while it fired its main gun? So what's the difference here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those photos above are of an earlier trials vehicle with pepperpot muzzle brake. Note the blast is much MUCH closer to the hull than in the later vehicle picts (without muzzle brake) posted initially. As to overpressure when firing, isn't the same true of tanks? I recall a Vietnam vet telling how an M48 driver got his eardrums burst when the main gun fired while he was'nt buttoned.

About modelling something like it in the game, if CMx1 'supressed' is still in CMx2 I guess they could model anybody not under cover at X feet from a firing tank gun as supressed. I bet that feature would mess up a lot of best-laid-plans of players, considering how close we let tanks get to infantry while playing CMx1!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Splinty:

Originally posted by civdiv:

The difference in terms of infantry support is you can sand right next to an LAV when it is firing, but you'll probably be killed by the overpressure from the 105mm if you are anywhere near it.

Would you want to stand next to any tank, while it fired its main gun? So what's the difference here?

It's not a tank, is it? That's the point. It's supposed to be an infantry fire support vehicle. If it is an infantry support vehicle, then it stands to reason that infantry will be in close proximity.

Infantry Squad Leader; 'Hey, we got this bunker holding us up. We need you to drive way over there, and then engage it.'

MGS TC; 'I can't see the bunker from way over there.'

ISL; 'Ok, you stay here and we will go way over there, and then you can fire.'

MGS TC; 'Well, from over there you can't see the bunker.'

ISL; 'Ok, we'll go over there, you fire, and then we will come back here, and then you go over there and cover us.'

MGS TC; 'Ok, but if I go over there I can't see you so I can't cover you.'

Sounds like that scene from Monty Python in 'Holy Grail'. You know, the one with the two guards;

FATHER; "Make sure the Prince doesn't leave this room until I come and get him."

GUARD; "Not ... to leave the room ... even if you come and get him."

FATHER; "No. Until I come and get him."

GUARD; "Until you come and get him, we're not to enter the room."

FATHER; "No ... You stay in the room and make sure he doesn't leave."

GUARD; "... and you'll come and get him."

FATHER; "That's Right."

GUARD; "We don't need to do anything, apart from just stop him entering the room."

FATHER; "Leaving the room."

GUARD; "Leaving the room ... yes."

FATHER; "Got it?"

(FATHER makes to leave.)

GUARD; "Er ... if ... we ... er ..."

FATHER; "Yes?"

GUARD; "If we ... er ..." (trying to remember what he was going to say)

FATHER; "Look, it's simple. Just stay here and make sure he doesn't leave the room. Right?"

GUARD; "Oh, I remember ... can he ... er ... can he leave the room with us?"

FATHER; "(carefully) No .... keep him in here ... and make sure he doesn't ..."

GUARD; "Oh, yes! we'll keep him in here, obviously. But if he had to leave and we were with him."

FATHER; "No ... just keep him in here."

GUARD; "Until you, or anyone else ..."

FATHER; "No, not anyone else - just me."

GUARD; "Just you ... Get back."

FATHER; "Right."

GUARD; "Okay. Fine. We'll remain here until you get back."

FATHER; "And make sure he doesn't leave."

GUARD; "What?"

FATHER; "Make sure he doesn't leave."

GUARD; "The Prince ... ?"

FATHER; "Yes ... make sure ..."

GUARD; "Oh yes, of course! I thought you meant him!" (he points to the other GUARD and laughs to himself)

"You know it seemed a bit daft me havin' to guard him when he's a guard ..."

FATHER; "Is that clear?"

GUARD; "Oh, yes. That's quite clear. No problems."

(FATHER pulls open the door and makes to leave the room. The GUARDS follow.)

FATHER; "Where are you going?"

GUARD; "We're coming with you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mikey,

While I am not a physics major, the blast still has to go somewhere. They eliminated the muzzle brake, and then they ended up with a very severe recoil problem. And now the MGS has been delayed again.

The MGS was designed to bring more firepower to urban terrain, period. As the Stryker, in all its variants, is road bound, it is thus going to be fighting primarily in urban terrain. So they brought the gun to the city (Though the wrong gun, IMHO), they gave it decent on-road mobility, again, for the city. But they didn't provide it with survivability. And the MGS is so heavy it can no longer fit in some aircraft, and its weight has restricted the range that it can be air deployed. And on the Stryker only 2 axles are equipped with run flat tires. And the MGS is too heavy to move on 2 axles, so it's even more vulnerable than the regular Stryker vehicle.

And just in the last week the Army finally decided that the Stryker was too vulnerable, and they are now fitting them with reactive armor. But, due to the angular shape, and the fact that it is wheeled, only about 60% of the vehicle can be protected with reactive armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is no matter what they call it, the MGS was designed to give a Stryker Company anti-tank AND direct fire support. Now as for all the comments about the ISL and the MGS, I was an ISL and we were smart enough not to be next to or in front of the muzzle blast of any tank when it was firing, oh and BTW I was in Bradleys and although the muzzle blast from a 25mm won't kill you, it's not something you want to be too close to. It's very loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and a reactive armor package may weigh in at 8 tons instead of the slat cage's 2 tons. Ouch! Goodbye mobility!

Basically, the U.S. purchased Stryker because they had looked on with envy as Canadian LAVs led the march into Kosovo while they were struggling to bring their heavies in-theater.

I (rather foolishly) believe the Army's worked out the recoil issues for Stryker. Late Stryker photos look like the recoil system's had a major overhaul. But maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. That angle-iron thing on th Stryker's side in the shot up top does look suspiciously to me like a brace to keep the vehicle from rocking!

Did you hear Belgium's got the opposite controversy! They just ordered a bunch of new LAV-IIIs mounting a Cockrill 90mm medium pressure gun turret, and some commentators are complaining because they didn't go for a standard NATO 105mm! One complaint was that the Cockrill 90mm gun costs twice as much as a 105. Maybe we're looking at an economy-of-scale thing on that issue. Perhaps 150 90mm gun tubed produced vs 80,000+ 105s over the life of the gun system. But I'd bet a conventional 90mm gun turret does NOT cost more than a 105 overhead with autoloader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that the MGS, as it exists now, shouldn't have been developed. As I understand it, the initial decision to go with the 105 was because there was ample supply/production of the rounds. However, that changed over time and undermined the basic premise. Whether that is true or not is probably a secondary thing.

What the military should have done was R&D'd a new cannon in the 50mm-75mm range that is low pressure and can accept a variety of modern munitions. This would then become the standard support weapon for all formations, be it mounted on a Stryker or a tracked chasis. Could possibly be truck mounted and deployed as a stand alone weapon. From a practical standpoint, I bet it would be just as effective as the 105 (even practical anti-armor role).

A new, smaller system would benefit from lower risk to supporting units, greater ammo capacity, lighter weight, and a wider range of potential platforms. At the higher level it would also be cheaper to produce, stock, and ship ammo. It might also allow the MGS to be deployed by C-130 along with the other variants.

But I wasn't in charge of things so we have to simualte what the Army has, not what I think it should instead have :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MikeyD:

...and a reactive armor package may weigh in at 8 tons instead of the slat cage's 2 tons. Ouch! Goodbye mobility!

Basically, the U.S. purchased Stryker because they had looked on with envy as Canadian LAVs led the march into Kosovo while they were struggling to bring their heavies in-theater.

I (rather foolishly) believe the Army's worked out the recoil issues for Stryker. Late Stryker photos look like the recoil system's had a major overhaul. But maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. That angle-iron thing on th Stryker's side in the shot up top does look suspiciously to me like a brace to keep the vehicle from rocking!

Did you hear Belgium's got the opposite controversy! They just ordered a bunch of new LAV-IIIs mounting a Cockrill 90mm medium pressure gun turret, and some commentators are complaining because they didn't go for a standard NATO 105mm! One complaint was that the Cockrill 90mm gun costs twice as much as a 105. Maybe we're looking at an economy-of-scale thing on that issue. Perhaps 150 90mm gun tubed produced vs 80,000+ 105s over the life of the gun system. But I'd bet a conventional 90mm gun turret does NOT cost more than a 105 overhead with autoloader.

Here's a sort of neat Stryker video;

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/154844.php

Real short in content, but maybe you'll like it.

In regards to the 90mm, they aren't facing fighting an insurgency in MOUT conditions. I think I'd rather have an ITOW version rather than the 105 for anti-tank work anyways. But if you are supporting infantry you want HE. And I would take the 120mm mortar like the LAV-M(S). Almost 3 times as many rounds, more for a Stryker version because it is bigger, and a direct and indirect firing ability. But that's just me. It will be a while more before the MGS is ready anyways, so we will have to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I do agree that the MGS, as it exists now, shouldn't have been developed. As I understand it, the initial decision to go with the 105 was because there was ample supply/production of the rounds. However, that changed over time and undermined the basic premise. Whether that is true or not is probably a secondary thing.

You are exactly right. They had 105s and ammo in the inventory, so they sold the gun as a money saving option. And then they decided the 105 ammo was too unstable (The HEP rounds had been made in the mid-60s), so they developed new ammo as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Belgians have the right idea with the 90mm gun. The South Africans did what the Belgians are doing 20 years ago (with the Ratel series - they had 20mm, 60mm gun/mortar, 81mm mortar, ATGM and 90mm variants, among others) and they worked very successfully in the kinds of fights Belgium might face (LICs in Africa or stability ops).

The 90mm was very, very effective in the infantry support role and had a good reputation for taking out T-55s. Anything more powerful than a T-62, however, it wasn't worth trying anything other than a flank shot. Plus, the Ratel 90 could carry troops, if need be, or use the troop deck to carry an extra 200 rounds (!!!!) of ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by civdiv:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I do agree that the MGS, as it exists now, shouldn't have been developed. As I understand it, the initial decision to go with the 105 was because there was ample supply/production of the rounds. However, that changed over time and undermined the basic premise. Whether that is true or not is probably a secondary thing.

You are exactly right. They had 105s and ammo in the inventory, so they sold the gun as a money saving option. And then they decided the 105 ammo was too unstable (The HEP rounds had been made in the mid-60s), so they developed new ammo as well. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I think that Stryker needs a AT missile system instead of the big-bore gun, and maybe a 25mm or 30mm as infantry support, or a MK19 mounted in a remote turret

The Stryker ICV does have a Mk-19 mounted in a remote turret. And it has been a big problem. Can't hit anything on the move, constant jams that require leaving the vehicle to clear, and only 200 rounds in the gun, and you gotta get out of the vehicle to reload it. It is just a Mk-19 in a roof mount with a remote trigger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I'm surprised nobody's mentioned is simply strapping a TOW box to one side of the MGS turret to give it a little extra anti-tank capability!

...of course it would be a b-i-t-c-h to reload, and there would be the dangers of missile stowage in the fighting compartment, and I'm not at all sure even a latest generation TOW missile is better than a 105mm APFSDS dart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...