tidbits from an MGS commander

[akd]

Over at mp.net, a Stryker MGS commander posted some interesting pics in a reply to MGS detractors:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=127879&page=6

(BF, we need barrel markings. ;P)

[dima]

I don't really know all the problems with Stryker MGS and why it is being bashed.

BMP-3 got 100mm gun and together with 30mm cannon and ability to shoot ATGM's it is considered very good and versatile AFV, and fairly popular on the world market.

What's wrong with MGS?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well, my beef is that it's very much a neither here nor there vehicle. The US army tried to make a do 'everything vehicle' and as a result it's a jack of all trades, master of none.

The L7 is the biggest blunder, IMHO. Not your first pick to take out a modern MBT these days, yet too much gun to lob HE. Note that the ammo count is pitififul, partially because of this. Seen the size of those shells? For an infantry support vehicle only to be able to chuck token amounts of HE is laughable. Good enough in Iraq or Afghanistan, but bound for failure in a conventional war.

IMO they would have done better to drop a manually loaded 75-105mm howitzer on there and perhaps a pair of ATGMs.

Also, the sucker is too heavy for what the Stryker concept was intended to do. Air mobility? Transporting a vanilla Stryker in an C-130 was farcical, doing so with the MGS is out of the question.

[dima]

Well, my beef is that it's very much a neither here nor there vehicle. The US army tried to make a do 'everything vehicle' and as a result it's a jack of all trades, master of none.

The L7 is the biggest blunder, IMHO. Not your first pick to take out a modern MBT these days, yet too much gun to lob HE. Note that the ammo count is pitififul, partially because of this. Seen the size of those shells? For an infantry support vehicle only to be able to chuck token amounts of HE is laughable. Good enough in Iraq or Afghanistan, but bound for failure in a conventional war.

IMO they would have done better to drop a manually loaded 75-105mm howitzer on there and perhaps a pair of ATGMs.

Also, the sucker is too heavy for what the Stryker concept was intended to do. Air mobility? Transporting a vanilla Stryker in an C-130 was farcical, doing so with the MGS is out of the question.

Well, perhaps giving it a higher ROF 40mm gun, like the one on CV-90 would do the trick. The weight would've been less, more ammo could be stored and it could still provide great support for infantry against enemy in buildings and even stuff like BMP-3.

Similar discussions are going on in russian forums regarding BTR-90 that has 30mm gun and 100mm gun (same as BMP-3). A lot of criticism there as well

[John Kettler]

akd,

Don't know which I like better: his pics or the great discussion? Loved the comment on what had better be happening if he had to expend all 18 rounds in combat! The pics are terrific and show how incredibly dinged up, grubby and worn even new equipment rapidly gets in the field. Excellent mod training there!

dima,

The 100mm gun on the BMP-3 and the 105mm L7A1 on the MGS are two entirely different types of weapons. The former is intended for smashing infantry, infantry weapons and associated positions with low velocity HE/frag and killing tanks with the AT-10 Bastion TLGM. The BMP-3 carries 40 rounds of 100mm HE/frag and 8 AT-10.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/

The latter's (L7A1) primary purpose is direct fire high velocity (~1200 m/sec) KE engagement of tanks, with anything else being secondary. The small ammo load the MGS carries (14 rounds total, no ATGMs at all) makes it a fair analogue for the WW II German Marder series, albeit with a nastier gun, better sensors, all aspect armor and all-round traverse. Even so, it's an eggshell with a hammer.

Elsmar Bijlsma,

Maybe we should replace it with the 75mm on the ARES tank?

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-romeo/romeo/rdf_series/rdf-series.html

dima,

Way back in the 1980s, the Bundeswehr was looking at where to go on IFV design and was considering Marder IFV upgrades including a new turret sporting a very potent 57mm cannon.

Regards,

John Kettler

[luderbamsen]

We seem to keep forgetting why the Stryker came about: A quick fix.

The US Army transformation plans call for air mobile mechanised brigades. Air mobility require aircraft to be able to land on rough airstrips and that means C-130's and C-17's. Thus, there are strict limitations on size and weight of the armoured vehicles. As far as possible, the limitations on combat power (survivability, lethality e.c.t.) are to be negated through technology.

The long-term solution is (so far) the Future Combat Systems. But there was also a requirement for something that could be fielded quickly, and this was the Stryker: It was (intended to be) the best airmobile mechanised equipment that could be developed and deployed within a short timeframe.

As it were, the Stryker has proven quite capable in it's own right. That the airmobile element has been somewhat degraded (through addition of slat armour e.c.t.) is another story. But that still doesn't mean that it should be compared to the Bradley and the Abrams. The Stryker was never intended to replace/improve on the Bradley/Abrams. It was supposed to offer something different.

As a side-note: The biggest hurdle for the airmobile armour concept is still USAF airlift capability, which is woefully inadequate for the job. Interestingly, some observers are quietly noting that if the USAF decides to aquire the necessary airlift capability, the best solution would be the Airbus A400...

[John Kettler]

luderbamsen.

Good points, but I wasn't the one making the comparison your were inveighing against. Were I going into battle, and assuming I actually fit into the thing, I'd prefer the Sprut-SD over the MGS:

Unmistakably not just air transportable, but air droppable (mit crew inside)

Fully stabilized, able to fire on the move, amphibious, low profile, can squat

Holds 40 rounds (18 for the MGS), much nastier gun, and a 5 km range TLGM!

http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/Sprut-SD_a000346003.aspx

Mind, were I going some of the places the MGS goes, I'd want what the Russian call bar armor (slat armor to us), which they started installing for MOUT after the Grozny debacle.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lampshade111]

Interestingly, some observers are quietly noting that if the USAF decides to aquire the necessary airlift capability, the best solution would be the Airbus A400...

I believe the best solution would be more C-17As. While it may not match the C-130J it can still take off and land on short and rather unfinished runways and it is has proven very successful. It can also carry much more than any C-130. The C-5M upgrade program will also help move heavier assets.

In my opinion the Stryker is a fine vehicle for what it was designed from and for. While it may not match dedicated "light tanks" like the cancelled M8 Bufords or Russian 2S25 Sprut it was a good design considering limitations involving the Stryker (LAV III) chassis and weight.

[akd]

more interesting tidbits from mr. mgscommander:

The Danish M113G3's also perform very well in Helmand.

And with the Israeli Add-on armour it also protects the crew well(as shown serveral times over there).

M113 still has a future...

Edit: Btw. i like the MGS concept but prefers a real turret like CMI's CV-CT turret.

i will give the cv-ct turret some credit i like the .50 cal rws and the seperation of ammo and crew. noy buying off on the advanced 105 ammo compatible to 120 and dont like the wide rpg attracting turret. everything else is the same as the mgs they just describe it in fancy wording

...

Please go talk to the brass, because MCS is currently designed around a two-man crew. They are counting on unproven technology to do the work of men

yea who is designing the vehicle, some 24 yr old guy with a playstation 3 and engineer degree. let me help you out if the vehicle commander is killed does the vehicle return fire on its own or if the driver is killed does the vehicle go into aut drive mode. you think one guy can maintain 360 degree visibility, listen to the radio, control his driver, make command decisions when sh$$ hits the fan. no, just my opinion does not means its right but 2 man crew.....dumb

...

I don't think Belgians are worse in using fancy words compared too American firms.

Don't know about the new ammo, but i'm sure this turret is going too be sold to alot of countries. Portugal seems too be the first.

The turret can be up-armoured.

your right but as a crewman of the mgs i can read what they are saying and know they are describing everything the mgs has. i do like the rws for the.50 cal that allows you to swap with a mk19. no need to get out to fire the weappon. you need a lot of uparmor to protect against some rpg's so that inturn changes the weight of the vehicle, will it still be c-130 user friendly, does it change the performance of the fire control system. one thing i have noticed is that for every action there is a reaction. when gdls or any corporation that makes vehicles changes something they never calculate the effects. a good example was the .50 cal mount on the mgs the old one was too high and far to reach plus it was not sturdy and had no protection when you fired it. so they put a new low profile mount with shields on it........great improvement, easy to fire, got a little protection...however the shields blocked about 20 percent of the commanders panoramic viewer and all of my front visibility while inside the vehicle if i placed it in front of me. if i put it to the side i could see straight ahead but now i have to expose myself longer to get the .50 cal in a firing position. i was almost shot in the temple trying to get the .50 into firing position during contact. endstate....i never used the .50 every vehicle has plus and minus, everyone has a favorite, but one thing is certain. anyone that makes equipment for the military needs to have a few military members familiar with it to prevent these....improvement errors

...

Just a couple of questions - please feel free to quote opsec if that applies

1 - Whats the longest shot you've ever taken with the mgs

2 - Is the 105m adequate + could "real" scenarios be met with a lower calibre - say 75mm ?

The reason why I ask is that I do wonder if 105 is overkill - for instance 75mm gives you a lighter package which can mean more armour or rounds. It also means that there is less temptation for someone to try and deploy it as a tank rather than fire support.

Agree with your take on crew numbers. Two can do the job of three if someones gets hit, if you could find jobs for four, that would be even better. Always good to have eyes in the back, front and sides.

the longest shot with maingun was a hep round at 700m, into a car with a sniper the longest shot with 7.62 coax MG was 1500m (that was immediate suppression) longest kill was 800m.

there is no need to have more rounds i like the 105 because it only requires 1 round to breech a wall big enough for a squad to get through or clear a room. smaller caliber weapons require more rounds to be fired.

the mgs is never treated like a tank. the first statement in the training manual description in big bold letters says IT IS NOT A TANK AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS SUCH we are all aware that it is not. the 105mm does not give the crews a false sense of security. it does have armor defeating capabilities however we know that our primary role is to support infantry and provide them with breeching, supression, and intel

...

But I wonder if a 120mm breech loading mortar would have been better than the 105 cannon: less recoil, higher angle indirect fire etc.

most shots when your making a hole or shooting in a house are no more than 200 meters if your lucky. you have to remember bigger is not better you have to try to limit collateral damage. i guess you just have to be on the vehicle to know how kickass it really is.

...

Yeah, our LAV IIIs are pretty impressive to watch doing stab runs with the 25mm and the coax, looks even better from inside watching from the inside at 40kmhr

i have experimented while in iraq out in the desert area and fired the coax at about 50 - 55 mph and hit. i have fired the maingun at about 45 and hit so the vehicle has a tight boresight and keeps it. the system is very responsive

[Combatintman]

Ok its time - this light forces thing is a crock of sh1te. The US Forces had a perfectly good solution - its called the M1 and the M2/M3 Bradley. The bottom line is if you can dominate an enemy at warfighting you can dominate an enemy in stability operations. I've heard a lot of bullsh1t about tracked vehicles upsetting people - from what quarter - the sodding media. Bosnia a classic case - when we sent Warrior over there - the opposition knew about it and that combined with the fact that we were prepared to shoot back soon made the locals stand up and think.

So this network centric stuff and early intervention is a total crock - its been discredited in Iraq and it is a Cheney/Rumsfeld doctrine which unfortunately others have followed (the UK's FRES programme being a classic example).

And don't start me on the airlift requirements. Flawed doctrine which begat a flawed solution.

...End of

[MikeyD]

Those "MGS detractors" include the Pentagon itself! The vehicle very nearly got defunded the start of this year for being 'ineffective in combat'. The 2007 mid-summer interior heat was simply frying their computers. But that was last summer and fixes were theoretically put into place. i wonder how they're faring this mid-summer. Frying the computers is a big deal in MGS. You lose your rotating wide-field-of-view camera topside and your situational awareness would drop like a stone. Commander can't exactly poke his head up and look left.

About the gun. it seems the primary round is the old HEP squash-head which is fired at about the LOWEST muzzle energy the gun can tolerate. So its basically a medium-pressure HE chucker with one or two high-pressure KE rounds 'just in case'.

[tiny_tanker]

So why did the MGS have these overheating issues? The regular Styker has tons of computers doing nearly the same functions and you never hear of any issue, and I've seen them rolling out in mid day heat since they hit Iraq. So whats the difference??

[YankeeDog]

So why did the MGS have these overheating issues? The regular Styker has tons of computers doing nearly the same functions and you never hear of any issue, and I've seen them rolling out in mid day heat since they hit Iraq. So whats the difference??

AIUI, space in the MGS is so tight they had to remove the majority of the climate control (i.e., air conditioning) present in the infantry carrier models. As noted, in a climate such as Iraq's this is hell not only on the crew but also on the electronics.

IMHO, the MGS is clearly a Frankenstein, stop-gap design, intended to fill the gap and test doctrine until the FCS vehicles can be built (something I'm guessing we'll be waiting for for quite a while). The 105mm is a second-hand MBT main gun; the US military basically looked in Big Brother Abrams' closet to see what it had outgrown, found the 105mm, and handed it down to the Stryker MGS. But the high velocity of this gun is mostly wasted in the MGS, which is intended to mostly fire HE and HEAT against hard, stationary targets like bunkers and reinforced buildings. It would be much better off with a lower MV (and therefore lighter) gun, which would then allow the vehicle to carry more armor, ammo, and maybe even an air conditioner.

It's intended to take on enemy armor only as a last resort -- the primary vehicle-mounted Anti-Armor asset of the Stryker Brigade is the Strkyer TOW.

Overall, I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the validity of the Medium Brigade doctrine based on the MGS. As noted, it's a stopgap design that I consider pretty poor. Concluding Medium Brigade doctrine doesn't work based on the MGS is like concluding Italian food sucks, based on your experience with microwaved Chef Boy-ar-dee.

Cheers,

YD

[John Kettler]

YankeeDog,

Well said! And did you know that same maligned chef, who from the program I saw was actually pretty good, made about a zillion rations for the Army during WW II?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

As a reminder, the first batch of Strykers that went into Iraq had major overheating problems with their FBCB2 systems. The solutions soldiers implemented to keep them cool were typically inventive

One thing to keep in mind about initial problems with a vehicle in combat conditions is that no vehicle in the history of vehicles has gone in and received a perfect report card. Bradleys and Abrams had their share of teething problems too. The only thing that matters is if they are worked through or not. Cooling can be fixed. It's just a matter of engineering time and money.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Just read some of that thread... and funny enough, the MGS crews have found a work around for the heating issue just like the other Stryker crews

Steve

[MikeyD]

Its fun digging through my older references and seeing the original MGS turret design mockup being offered as an M60/Centurion turret replacement waaaaay back in 1984. That 'modern' turret design has been knocking around in one form or another longer than some of its crew have been alive!