"New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"

[Peter Cairns]

Didn't Canada have a version of the LAV with the turret of a UK Scorpion with a 75mm gun. Come to think of iyt old UK Saladin and Saracen armoured cars had that option.

As to the low pressure 75mm gun Steve talked about, well aren't there versions od the soviet BTR with a BMP tirret.

As to the MGS, I think the recoil etc isn't a factor when it's pointing forwards and if you turn sideways to the target with that little armour you are asking for trouble.

If it's job is to open up breaches and take out bunkers in support of infantry ( with a single round, rather than a few dozen like the 25mm), then you'll go in head first.

I go back to my previous point, it isn't a tank so don't try and use it like one, its an infantry support weapon on wheels. If you want to fight from or in vehicles in a manouvering war in a built up area,( well actually your nuts if you try that),then use a Bradley.

There is nothing wrong with the Stryker or indeed MGS if you use them as intended, but if you try to use them as IFV's or tanks, you'll suffer. What most of the people attacking Stryker are doing is criticising them for not being something they were never supposed to be.

Look at Somalia, Stryker was pretty much the ideal vehicle for there and the US had to use Hummers, It wasn't ideal for GW1, so apart from the Marines, it took second place to Bradleys.

If you have a bag full of clubs use the best one for the shot, people here seem to be criticising a putter because it's not that good in a bunker or with a tie shot,

Like I said earlier it fills a niche.

Peter.

[hellfish]

I think I read a proposal to mount a Javelin on the rear deck for one of the air guards to use. It'd be nice, but obviously has its limitations.

[Battlefront.com]

M1A1TankCommander,

I think that Stryker needs a AT missile system instead of the big-bore gun,

They already have that in the form of the Stryker ATGM variant, which fires TOW2. This has been the standin vehicle for the MGS, but nobody thinks it made a good replacement.

and maybe a 25mm or 30mm as infantry support, or a MK19 mounted in a remote turret

MK19 can be swapped in place of the .50 already. I've heard some crews say they don't really like it because it tends to jam, but not sure how true that is or if the problem has been fixed. My understanding is this is a MK19 thing and not related to Stryker mounting.

They did experiment with the 25mm on the Stryker. Worked really well, actually. I have an ex-Colonel friend who worked on it. Problems were cost, unable to roll on/off a C-130, weight, and ammo space. So theh concept was officially shelved.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Somehow I'm reminded of that old Russian ambhibious light tank, the PT-76. Why, you ask? Only because its gun fired the same effective 76.2mm shell as the then out-of-date T34-M43 tank.

I also heard - conventional wisdom to the contrary - that it was tougher than it looked. It had a double layer construction for flotation which helped defeat the early LAWs and .50 cal mgs.

That's why I was reminded of the PT-76. The Stryker MGS of its day

[akd]

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

Hell, maybe they should just slap one of these on and have all those options in one, plus a gun.

Okay, you'd have to find somewhere else for the grenade launcher.

[ February 15, 2006, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Battlefront.com]

Ah, the BMP-3 turret... such a cute little thing.

Steve

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ah, the BMP-3 turret... such a cute little thing.

Steve

Well, to be fair it is a "drop-in" unit "designed for full-scale modernization of various combat vehicles (IFVs, APCs, etc) weighing from 13 to 25 t.," that is currently found on the BMP-3, BMP-3M and BMD-4.

Now this, however, is just downright adorable:

[John Kettler]

akd,

Aren't teddy bears and chocolate more preferred this time of year?

Seriously, while I grok the first turret assembly, the other one looks sort of like they robbed a 2S6

Tunguska of half its armament. Presume that's a water cooled 30mm cannon and 4 x SA-19 SAMs. If so,

nasty! Know anything about the optoelectronics?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Peter Cairns]

A general point on which is best for supporting infantry the 105mm or a TOW.

Cost of a 105mm round, between $150 and $250 US.

Cost of a TOW 11 round betweem £35,000 and £50,000 US.

That's roughly speaking you can load an entire companies MGS section with 15 rounds plus extra ammo in the back for the cost of a single missile.

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

That looks more like ATGM's than SAM's to me.

My prefered option ( though as far as I know no one has tried it) is a telescopic mount, with a horizontal bar about 2mtrs long (it might project beyod the sides when lowered), that can be turned through 180..

On each end there would be a "shoe" similiar ( actually ideally the same), as a hardpoint on an Apache. The vehicle could then be fitted witha wide range of weapons that "plug and play" as required.

Gun pods, ATGM's Sams, Grenade launchers, miniguns, rockets ( i onc saw a version of the LAV with a tutrret mounting 70mm rockets for close support/artillery as an alternative to a morter carrier) in effect anything you can get for helicopter.

To reload or repair, you would turn it through 90" and then it would be above the rear roof hatch. Ideally if you then lowered it you could drop the weapon actually in to th e troop compartment, although that might not be practical if it had a pod with a barrell.

Another thing about a bar is that if it had an optical range finder it could accurately target at distance passively without using a laser. As laser detectors are becoming so common, using designators and range finders is increasingly a good way to give away your position.

Peter.

[civdiv]

Well, BF and Steve, you guys have your work cut out for you. We can look back at WWII and over the course of a number years, and through a myriad of engagements, you can extrapolate enough data to reasonably portray the vehicle and the equipment in the game. Now you got a much tougher nut to crack. Now you get to try and model the LAV, the Stryker, the M113, and the litterally dozens of varients of each. And how do you model Chobham? ERA? MCLOS vs SACLOS? IR Jammers, top attack munitions, etc. I predict huge arguments on the modelling of vehicles, some of which have never faced each other;

'Hey, that BTR killed my MGS, there is no way that COULD happen in real life.'

'Hey, that T-72M just took out my M1A2, there is no way that could happen. I mean, it has never happened, what gives?'

[MikeyD]

"A general point on which is best for supporting infantry the 105mm or a TOW."

The commander of one of the Stryker brigades that rotated through Iraq had stated that they're at a significant disadvantage with only the TOW Stryker as infantry support and they're in desperate need for a proper direct fire support weapon (MGS). TOW Stryker has a minimum firing distance, a very slow reload rate, probably has the usual TOW problems firing in rain, high winds, or over bodies of water. In built-up areas one problem they've been having with TOW is the ability of prospective targets to scamper out of the LOS before the missile arrives! I hear they've just about giving up firing missiles at ranges much above 3-400m for that reason.

[civdiv]

The conversation keeps changing. We were talking about whether the MGS was the right fit for infantry fire support, given the 105mm and the limited ammo supply. Someone pointed out that it was ALSO do provide anti-tank support. Myself and several others said we thought an ITOW version would be better for anti-tank support, and now you are evaluating the TOW Stryker for infantry support.

I think it breaks down to this;

1. They have the TOW version, and it is for anti-tank support, not for infantry support.

2. They need a gun platform for infantry fire support.

3. The MGS is supposed to fill the role of infantry fire support.

4. The MGS was fitted with a high power tank gun, which due to a number of reasons adversely affects its ability to provide infantry fire support.

5. MGS supporters point out that the gun is a compromise citing its ability to provide anti-tank support.

Return now to #1.

This is now officially a cyclical argument.

[Battlefront.com]

civdiv,

Yup, we do have our work cut out for ourselves For better or worse, at least we have Iraq to look at. We were comitted to doing contemporary warfare centered around the Stryker Brigade before OIF. At that time only one battalion, manning (IIRC) the ICV and RV variants, existed. Now all variants we are concerned with exist in the field except for the MGS, though it is in low rate of production and therefore more predictable than it was 2 years ago. What this all means is that we have a TON less unknowns now than we did 3 years ago.

1. They have the TOW version, and it is for anti-tank support, not for infantry support.

Correct, but since the Stryker ATGM has been a field subsitute for the missing MGS I think that is why you see this in the discussion here. It wasn't a good substitute, though better than nothing.

2. They need a gun platform for infantry fire support.

3. The MGS is supposed to fill the role of infantry fire support.

4. The MGS was fitted with a high power tank gun, which due to a number of reasons adversely affects its ability to provide infantry fire support.

Correct.

5. MGS supporters point out that the gun is a compromise citing its ability to provide anti-tank support.

I think the compromise was trying to go with "off the shelf" US made weaponry. I really think they should have looked at other systems as I stated above, be it a ground up design or a non-US manufactured weapon. Going with the 105 was a very shortsighted move that I think should have been seen as such years ago. Especially when the initial problems mounting the 105 became evident.

Having said that, I think it would be stupid for the MGS to lack an AT capability. As others have pointed out, SPGs and even field artillery (like 105mm Howitzers and Infantry Guns in WWII) had dedicated AT rounds. They were meant more for self defense than anything else, but they were there and they were used. Heck, the famous German 88 was an AA gun that had a few AT rounds given to it for self defense. So the thought that the MGS should lack this battle proven strategy is as misguided as those that think the MGS would make a good AT platform. The capability of a weapon should never be confused with its optimal application. Just because something can, doesn't mean it should.

But this is what the Army got and therefore it is what they will have to use in the near future. Out of all the Stryker variants we are including in CM:SF, I'm sure the MGS will be the most difficult to use effectively.

Steve

[akd]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

akd,

Aren't teddy bears and chocolate more preferred this time of year?

Seriously, while I grok the first turret assembly, the other one looks sort of like they robbed a 2S6

Tunguska of half its armament. Presume that's a water cooled 30mm cannon and 4 x SA-19 SAMs. If so,

nasty! Know anything about the optoelectronics?

Regards,

John Kettler

Kluiver sigle-seat combat module with gun/missile armament system

The module is designed to equip a wide range of light weight combat vehicles like IFV, APC as well as for installation on light ships including coastal guard boats.

Components

Kornet-E ATGW;

30mm automatic cannon;

7.62 mm machine gun;

automated fire control system.

The armament and the fire control system ensures the following:

-effective firing by all types of weapon when stationary, on the move and afloat, against ground and surface targets;

-target detection and recognition by day and night;

-sighting and ranging;

-estimation of fire settings;

-weapon laying for elevation, traverse and lead;

-firing against air targets based on the ballistic computer algorithm;

-FCS state monitoring.

[Peter Cairns]

If part of the rational of the US in CM:SF is to minimise friendly casualties then the obvious way to use the MGS will be to keep them back until the infantry come up against a stubborn enemy in a hardened position, and then just role the MGS in to sight and blow them away.

Obvious syrian tactic to avoid this is to have there hardened positions set back in the second or third line of buildings so they can fall abck in to them when the MGS appears, so that they can offer light resistance to advancing infantry while avoiding taking hits from a 105mm.

Secondary tactic is to have ATGM's hide and hold there fire until the MGS is brought up to do it's job and then take them out, although that needs planning skill and a bit of luck.

On a seperate subject I came across the use of modified 70mm Hydra rockets for laying down smoke, for infantry, is this something that will be in the game for the Styker or US froces.

Peter.

[John Kettler]

akd,

Kornet E, eh? Score one for Peter Cairns.

Okay, so we have a fully stabilized mount, day/night sight (thermal?), laser rangefinder?, ballistic computer, BITE, and something called "estimation of fire settings." Any idea what that is?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Mike]

Looking at the MGS I am reminded of battlecruisers........which of course were designed to ne'er fight against battleships......

[akd]

I think I just found the cutest turret:

Singapore, 21 February 2006 - Metal Storm Limited (Metal Storm) and Electro Optic Systems Holdings Limited (EOS) today announced the unveiling of the Redback Weapon System prototype at the Asian Aerospace and Asian Defence Technology Exhibitions in Singapore.

...

The system is designed to include the following features and benefits:

-- Firepower. Redback deploys multiple 40mm Metal Storm barrels

firing a range of munitions at selectable rates of fire, including the

ability to engage up to 3 targets in 1.2 seconds. With EOS precision

sensors and control systems, this results in intense directed firepower.

-- Light. Redback will be available in system weights from 70-100 kg

- less than one conventionally equipped combatant.

-- Fast. Redback control and servo systems will allow multiple

threats to be engaged, fast enough to engage incoming missiles and

projectiles for vehicle defense.

-- Intelligent. Redback has proven EOS networking capabilities that

allow multiple systems to operate with a coordinated response to large

threats.

-- Versatile. Redback can carry a mixed load of munitions to allow

non-lethal and lethal response at the same time. This range of response is

an unmet market need for peacekeeping missions and urban warfare with non-

combatants present.

Redback has successfully test-fired 40mm munitions jointly developed by ST Kinetics and Metal Storm. In a related development, Metal Storm this week announced the successful firing of jointly developed high explosive, enhanced blast and airburst rounds with ST Kinetics in Singapore. These munitions are compatible with Redback, and add significantly to the versatility of the weapon system.

The Redback development effort is on schedule for customer trials this year with the objective of having it operationally ready by the end of 2007.

http://www.metalstorm.com/index.php?src=news&prid=164&category=Latest%20Information

http://www.metalstorm.com/clientuploads/directory/videos/STK_HE_16FEB06_mpg.zip

But how the hell does it reload without any moving mechanical parts. Oh boy, another RWS you have to stick your head into fire to reload.

[juan_gigante]

I'll stick that on the top of my 1988 Chevy Nova.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by akd:

I think I just found the cutest turret:

[snips] lose the techie bit[/snips]

But how the hell does it reload without any moving mechanical parts. Oh boy, another RWS you have to stick your head into fire to reload.

By the looks of it, you could potentially elevate the barrels to vertical and remove them downwards into the vehicle, with the fresh ones going back up, rather like the sea dart launchers on the type 42 frigate. I believe that the early Aegis cruisers had a similar set up. This would produce a weak point, but you could put an armoured hatch or something in there.

[Peter Cairns]

From what i know of other metal storm projects they use a system of multiple rounds in the same barrel that are fired electronically.

This in theory allows multi-barrelled weapons that have rates of fire that "theoretically" run in to the millions of RPM. sounds crazy but if you have ten barrels and ten rounds in each fired at intervals of 1/100th of a second then you can fire at 1,000 rps, or 60,000RPM.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Yes, the barrels are sealed units and preloaded, so to reload after having 'shot your bolt', so to speak, one must replace the barrels.

The rate of fire is a cheat. I could get some pretty high rates by gaffa-taping miniguns together, plus they'd be easier to reload.

[Peter Cairns]

As I see it it's a bit like the 105mm v TOW debate. The Tow is more effective, but costs 100 times as much per round.

MetalStorms logic is that if you can use multibarrel rapid shot technology to fire 100 rounds that cost a 1/1000th of a large guided round and have the same or better effect, then you get a times 10 increase in cost effectiveness.

As they seem to be looking a point defence against aircraft, helicopters and missiles, it should be seen more as a replacement for a HAWK, or Standard or even a Phalanx, than as an alternative to a MGS or bushmaster.

Peter.