Com-Central.net

www4.army.mil/ocpa/rea...d_key=9467

Hi Folks!

"Wheelie-bin-based pretend tanks..."

It's NOT a tank , it's NOT a tank , it's NOT a tank.

It's an UPGRADE from a recoilless rifle mounted on a jeep.

For all you tankers out there, this old scout would suggest that you all climb down off your real tanks, set down in a jeep and think about it for a few minutes. Or if you will, take off your tanker's boots and put on a pair of infantry walking boots.

Styrker is an upgrade for light infantrymen, not a down grade from main battle tanks. Not counting the Canadian Military in which case the current plan, if not changed, will result in the MGS being a down grade from the Leo I C2 MBT.

I spent most of my career as a scout riding on M-114s (7-8 tons), M-113s (11-12 tons) and the M-151 4x4 MUTT with just a M-60 machine gun backed up by a pair of M-40 106mm RRs.

From an infantryman's point of veiw, the Stryker MGS is a lot better than a jeep or even an uparmored Hummer.
Sgt, Scouts out!

It was my understanding that the gun system on the MGS Stryker was the same as an M1 tank, am I wrong? I saw one firing on the move last night on the Military Channel and it looked quite impressive!

Its an M68 105mm gun. So yes, same gun on the original M1, but not the M1A1. Kind of misleading.

And Roy is exactly right. It's not a tank, it's not a replacement for a tank. It's an infantry support weapon. Better than a couple guys carrying recoilless rifles or something similar.

I agree, the Strykers are not replacing the tanks/heavy mech, they are replacing the light infantry. The Army has realized that we need more guys with rifles than the tank/mech team had.

They realized after Somalia that the guys with rifles (no matter how elite) were too vulnerable with no organic armored transports.

So they figured, let's put guys in armored cars. We know it won't stand up to a tank, but it's better than an armored HMMWV. And if we need to face tanks, we still have our tanks to send in first.

Hi Jeff! Hi Folks!

- SFC_Jeff_Button

It was my understanding that the gun system on the MGS Stryker was the same as an M1 tank, am I wrong? I saw one firing on the move last night on the Military Channel and it looked quite impressive!

That is part of the problem with the MGS. People see a 105mm cannon, the standard NATO tank killer for many years, carried on most NATO MBTs and they get a mine set that the MGS is sometype of new tank. While that cannon can kill a lot of the current tanks (notice, I didn't say MBT) that are on the plant, it would have trouble with many of the state of the art heavy weight MBTs.

The Stryker BCTs have been put together with a lot of TOW systems and AT4s as their PRIMARY MBT killers. The last system they would call forward to kill MBTs with would be the MGS. But like those TOWs and AT4s, great care must be used because the MGS, like the TOW carriers and the infantry with their AT4s are NOT Main Battle Tanks.

As SABOT said, The Stryker MGS is an ARMORED CAR. People need to call them Armored Cars and then maybe folks will STOP THINKING of them as some type of new tank.

In the case of the Canadian Military's plans to replace their Leo 1 C2s with MGS, if that goes through, those troopers are going to have to be very smart in how they deploy those vehicles. Just like an infantryman in a jeep with a recoilless rifle.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

He, he! I remember watching the Military Channels 'Anatomy of a Stryker' and they covered the version with the M1's original 105mm gun and I thought: WOW! Imagine if you were the enemy and saw THAT speeding towards ya"! That had to be the most menacing looking non-tank I had ever seen!

Thanks for the link.

I just finished reading Stryker Combat Vehicles by Gordan Rottman (part of Osprey's New Vanguard series) & IMO, he gives a good, balanced account of the Stryker. What it is & what it isn't, what it can & cannot do & what it was designed for. I was rather surprised to read about the short development to deployment time for the Stryker. If you're looking for a good general history of the Stryker, I would recommend this book. Plus it's chock full of photos & drawing that are a hallmark of the NV series.

As an aside, it's refreshing to read a forum discussion on the Stryker that isn't full of bluster & BS that one too often sees on other "AFV enthusiast" sites.

I picked that one up to, but hate all the CGI they used for the pictures. In many cases they used CGI (including for the cover) when there are plenty of actual photos they could have used...

Neil

- Neil_Baumgardner

I picked that one up to, but hate all the CGI they used for the pictures. In many cases they used CGI (including for the cover) when there are plenty of actual photos they could have used...

Neil

Yea, I agree. They just resently started using those "CGI drawings" & I wish they would quit doing it. They just don't look right. I may write Osprey's customer service & express my opinion.

For what it is worth, the LAV III, Bison and Coyote family are doing heroic service in southern Afghanistan. The 25mm is the heaviest gun in the section (not counting M72 LAW and 40mm M203's). On three-round burst it is very controllable, and effective at piercing walls. The mobility is not equivalent to a tank, and nobody is trying to use it that way. But for a HEAVY APC it is doing quite well.

The bad guys have hit a number of convoys with their heaviest weapons, but as far as the open source reporting goes, they haven't knocked out any LAVs. There are some photos of a crippled LAV that was destroyed by 500 lb bombs on purpose, but I think it was too badly stuck to be recovered.

The Canadian MGS has not been in the news much. There have been stories about a halt to the Leo C2 disposal and some reporters mused about putting those tanks in AF, but this was flatly denied by the spokesmen.

I think there'd be less confusion regarding this Stryker variant's mission if it had been called the Infantry Support Gun System, instead of MGS.

On a related thought, maybe its time to start a thread on the Abrams's successor, the XM? Legacy . . .

- A2_Prius

On a related thought, maybe its time to start a thread on the Abrams's successor, the XM? Legacy . . .

I don't think we will see an Abrams successor for a long time.
But for the sake of discussion What will it's name be? Given that the last few tanks got their name from 'the leading practitioner of Armored Warfare from the previous generation' (my description of the name class containing Patton & Abrams) would the next one be

the Schwartscopf? ( I know I probably mis-spelled it, which would be an ongoing problem.) On the basis of the campaign in Desert Storm he is probably as deserving as anyone.

- Neil_Baumgardner

I picked that one up to, but hate all the CGI they used for the pictures. In many cases they used CGI (including for the cover) when there are plenty of actual photos they could have used...

Neil

Hi Guys:

Ineresting thread. Osprey woud not be using photos for the "plates" in the middle of the book. That is always reserved for artwork. Nowadays I suppose it is much easier to use the computer to do the art part.

What I am disappointed about in the book is that it has too much of the pre-production Stryker illustrated. The driver's thermal imaging vision enhancer camera is constantly shown in front of the driver. It was relocated to the upper center of the hull. The few Iraqi deployed photos show this. Also, the two cylinders behind the driver's hatch (I think at least one is for the NBC system) were changed in production models and look quite different now. I suppose the author and illustrator had to rely on information available at the time and this is the problem with writing on a new vehicle, but if that is the case then this book took quite awhile to publish since these changes have been in place for at least three years.

Thus, guys like me who are modelers need to be wary of these photos for reference as it relates to production vehicles.

As far as the MGS goes it seems like a good idea. I just hope they got all those pre-production quirks worked out.

Bob