The Idiots Guide to Stryker MGS tactics

[JonS]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

and can not go Hull Down because the turret is too far back on the chassis - so what do you do,

You have an odd understanding of hull-down.

[JonS]

Originally posted by RMC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Computers.

Bingo. </font>

[RMC]

Originally posted by JonS:

Which is just feckin stupid if you ask me. Computers are merely a tool, an enabler. They aren't a principle. It'd be like older armies having P for Paper. C3IP, or sumfink

Might as well have H for Hammer, R for Rifle, or better yet S for Soldier in there.

It's not a principle. It's a Battlefield Operating System. Actually in Stryker brigade terms it's C4ISR - Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconaissance.

It's reflection that the ability of a commander to effectively command and control his forces he has to be cognizant of the various enabler systems supporting him. From SINCGARS FM radios, to FBCB2, AFATADS, MCS, Blue Force Tracker, ASAS on up to GCCS, the commander has to know the capabilities and limitations of these systems.

[JonS]

Well, yes. Quite. Thanks for paraphrasing my post.

[MikeyD]

I heard those Centauros used in U.S. training were roundly despised - but the ironic thing is they were despised for precisely the same flaws as the Stryker MGS had! Cramped crew compartment, iffy autoloader, tendency to break something on the exterior when the big gun was fired, kicked up too much dust, huge turn radius.

Being an old CM hand who's commmanded light tanks by the hundreds, I think Stryker MGS will work just fine if deployed properly. Treat it like its got no armor at all. Treat it like its got no hope against a real tank. If you use it like that it'll have a long happy life on the battlefield.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by RMC:

"The intended purpose of the MGS is primarily to close with and destroy enemy infantry."

-FM 3-21.11, App B

An odd statement - I thought it was infantry that was supposed to close, and guns weer supposed to stand off!!

How close does the army intend these things to get??!!

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

and can not go Hull Down because the turret is too far back on the chassis -

Anything can go hull down by having its hull concealed by terrain and its superstructure visible - whether it has a gun or not.

the position of the superstructure might make it easier or harder to be hull down in specific situations, but has nothign at all to do with the ability to hide the hull in general terms.

For example the limited depression of Soviet tanks is often said to stop them going hull down - but it does no such thing.

It limits their ability to be hulldown when shooting downwards, but that limit may be irrelevant to the target and only important in respect of other vehicles at the same height as the soviet tank in question.

added: Global Security.org's page on the MGS

[ October 11, 2005, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[jrcar]

The use of the MGS is as an inexpensive direct fire weapon to engage machine guns, crew served weapons, buildings and bunkers. The other option is the use of ATGW (which is expensive and not as effective as 105mm direct fire).

In the modern world of "rock, paper sissors" tactics:

Infantry advance.

MG/crew served weapons kill/supress infantry.

MGS (or tank) kill/supress MG/crew served weapons.

Tank kills MGS/Tank.

ATGW kills tank.

Providing the crew see an ATGW an MGS can engage the crew before the missile hits... maybe

The MGS is NOT designed to tackle tanks, like the Germans in North Africa they would fall back behind an infantry screen and allow Javelin to do the work as the 88 did. They would then move forward and help the inf advance by taking out enemy crew served weapons etc.

Cheers

Rob

[Guest Mike]

According to Global Security the 105 is able to destroy "Class II" armoured targets - the gun was an MBT-class weapon up until 15 years ago afterall!!

If they didn't want a tank destroyer then they should have used a low-pressure 105.

the rounds for the weapon are HE/HEP, "Kinetic energy" (prolly APDS), HEAT and cannister.

Again - the only reason for the kinetic round is against heavy armoured vehicles - the HEP & HEAT are perfectly capable against anything else.

[hellfish]

I always thought an old M102 105mm howitzer would have made a good main gun for the MGS.

[Wisbech_lad]

Wasn't there an interesting ans useful direct fire mash up in Vietnam? Something on the lines of 4x90mm recoilless on a M113?

I see the MGS as the spiritual successor of that. Agree that to go for MBT gun is a bit odd - but presumably cheaper than trying to design a new low pressure/ recoilless 105mm gun with an autoloader.

[Beastttt]

Ontos

had 6x105 recoiless rifles

it need to be reloaded from the outside rear

for me give it a 75 he gun and mount a 2 rnd tow system

you might be able to double it's ammo loadout

and maybe 2 extra tow's to reload

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Wasn't there an interesting ans useful direct fire mash up in Vietnam? Something on the lines of 4x90mm recoilless on a M113?

I see the MGS as the spiritual successor of that. Agree that to go for MBT gun is a bit odd - but presumably cheaper than trying to design a new low pressure/ recoilless 105mm gun with an autoloader.

[mattwagner]

Originally posted by RMC:

There were also the Canadian LAV IIIs and German Foxes there too.

The foxes were deployed to Iraq. The Stryker apparently is not working as an NBC platform. They can't get it sealed for an NBC attack.

Foxes were nice as far as audio goes... so damn quiet. Once I was walking around in the motor pool and somebody yelled at me to get out of the way. Was a FOX VC. It was about 12 feet behind me. Didn't even hear it.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy:

and can not go Hull Down because the turret is too far back on the chassis - so what do you do,

You have an odd understanding of hull-down. </font>

[Wicky]

Chock the rear wheels up a notch...

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Mike:

Anything can go hull down by having its hull concealed by terrain and its superstructure visible - whether it has a gun or not.

Sorry - I meant "Can't go hull down" in the way that I can't play professional basketball or I can't waterski, not the absolute "can't" like I can't pull a marching band out of my arse.

The MGS is not an ideal design for finding unprepared positions from which it can engage the enemy without exposing its hull.

(Dang! I need to work on my communication skills a bit more. mD nailed me on this sort of thing before - the whole Whittmann SS Goebels stink - why can't you jerks just read my frigging mind?)

[rune]

What I posted was the contract for the gun and autoloader went to Curtis_Wright. Production is to be complete within months, and the MGS version of the Stryker to be out Fiscal Year 2007, which is late June 2006. As much as the Pentagon wastes money, i doubt they will waste the money on a system they aren't going to use.

Rune

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by rune:

As much as the Pentagon wastes money, i doubt they will waste the money on a system they aren't going to use.

Two words: Sergeant York.

Michael

[RMC]

Originally posted by rune:

to be out Fiscal Year 2007, which is late June 2006.

Government FY07 starts 1 October 2006.

[bboyle]

Basically it's used as a SP direct fire gun? (Now I'm thinking SU-76)

It sounds like a backassed (is that possible?) Archer!

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by bboyle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Basically it's used as a SP direct fire gun? (Now I'm thinking SU-76)

It sounds like a backassed (is that possible?) Archer! </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Chock the rear wheels up a notch...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy:

</font>

Rotate the hull ninety degrees behind the obstacle - if you're hull down, it doesn't matter if your front hull aspect is towards cover. In fact, it would probably be beneficial if someone flanked you...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by rune:

What I posted was the contract for the gun and autoloader went to Curtis_Wright. Production is to be complete within months, and the MGS version of the Stryker to be out Fiscal Year 2007, which is late June 2006. As much as the Pentagon wastes money, i doubt they will waste the money on a system they aren't going to use.

Rune

We outfitted all our Leopard tanks with brand new turrets, and then mothballed the tanks. It was "officially" a life extension program to make them good to 2020 or so. Over 100 Leos had a major upgrade worth I think 400 million dollars ending in 2002. Tanks are now officially out of service and will be replaced with LAV gun tanks.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

We outfitted all our Leopard tanks with brand new turrets, and then mothballed the tanks. It was "officially" a life extension program to make them good to 2020 or so. Over 100 Leos had a major upgrade worth I think 400 million dollars ending in 2002. Tanks are now officially out of service and will be replaced with LAV gun tanks.

Oh boy but this is a sore spot for Mr Ruddy... you had to bring it up, didn't you?

Did you happen to catch how much the MGS systems cost? grrnngh...! (the vein in my forhead is popping out)

This crazy new concept of a medium weight brigade came out of some NDHQ think-tank's arse, I think I know what I would tell them to do with it...

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Sure it can hide behind a tall enough object or use a man made berm to get 'hull down' but most positions that a proper AFV could use as hull down are not hull down positions for the Stryker.

(Crests of a hill, small gullies etc...)

The reason is you can not depress the gun far enough to allow the vehicle to be in a hull down position. [Edit - Sorry about the awful pic - as you can see, my attempt of displaying a stryker like vehicle trying to go hull down resulted in a duck hunter...]

That assumes that there's a slope as per your diagrams - try a situation where the ground it is on is flat, and there's a small elevation in front of it.

Sure the vehicle can't go hull down in the positions you have drawn - but they are not the be-all and end-all of hull down situations.

Certainly the positioning of the gun is a limitation in those situations of you want to face forwards - but if I was in this vehicle I think I'd rather have the "front" pointing away from the enemy so I could make a quick getaway - I'd be happy shooting over my own butt!!

AS someone else said - an Archer in reverse!!