Com-Central.net

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: Stryker MGS

Hi CIA Agents and all other folks!

Found the following photos over at the the US Army mil web site. Looks like the MGS is finally getting into the hands of the crews who will be using them. These photos are of the 1st SBCT, 25th ID at Ft Wainwright.

For the smaller version and the caption:

www.army.mil/-images/2...09/05/7618

For the smaller version and the caption:

www.army.mil/-images/2...09/05/7619

My 2 cents, think of the MGS as an upgrade from the M151 jeep with a M40/106mm RR carring six rounds of HEAT. Don't think of it as a down grade from a MBT.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

mumfordlibrarian · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 8

Roy this seems to be a "walks like a duck" vehicle. The Army seems to be insisting that this is not an anti-tank weapon.

Paul T. Weaver
mumfordlibrarian

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Hi Paul! Hi Folks!

- mumfordlibrarian

Roy this seems to be a "walks like a duck" vehicle. The Army seems to be insisting that this is not an anti-tank weapon.

Paul T. Weaver
mumfordlibrarian

I think the trick to that would be to use some airplane thinking.

Many fighter planes where built to be used as a fighter. A number of those same fighter planes could be used as bombers.

A good example might be the F104 Starfighter. Clearly a fighter plane, yet during Vietnam, the Air Force hung bombs off them and used them to attack ground targets.

Now it can carry bombs and it can attack ground targets, so it's a bomber right? No, it's a fighter plane that if need be can be used as a bomber.

The MGS is a bit like those old F104s, it can be used to kill tanks, but that is not it's main job. The primary job is direct heavy fire support for the infantryman in contact with enemy infantry.
It's not a duck, but it can, if need be quack like a duck.

Tank killing in the Stryker BCT is the primary job of the TOW carriers.

Just keep telling yourselfs, it's not a tank, it's not a tank, it's not a tank.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

bsmart · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Paul! Hi Folks!

- mumfordlibrarian

Roy this seems to be a "walks like a duck" vehicle. The Army seems to be insisting that this is not an anti-tank weapon.

Paul T. Weaver
mumfordlibrarian

I think the trick to that would be to use some airplane thinking.

Many fighter planes where built to be used as a fighter. A number of those same fighter planes could be used as bombers.

A good example might be the F104 Starfighter. Clearly a fighter plane, yet during Vietnam, the Air Force hung bombs off them and used them to attack ground targets.

Now it can carry bombs and it can attack ground targets, so it's a bomber right? No, it's a fighter plane that if need be can be used as a bomber.

The MGS is a bit like those old F104s, it can be used to kill tanks, but that is not it's main job. The primary job is direct heavy fire support for the infantryman in contact with enemy infantry.
It's not a duck, but it can, if need be quack like a duck.

Tank killing in the Stryker BCT is the primary job of the TOW carriers.

Just keep telling yourselfs, it's not a tank, it's not a tank, it's not a tank.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

I like your general analogy but you chose the wrong example. If you had said F-100 or F-4 I would totally agree but the F-104 was the one totally wrong answer. The U.S. never used the F-104 as a ground attack plane. In fact it was pretty much being slowly taken out of the active force when there was a competition for a new NATO standard strike plane. Lockheed took the basic shape of the F-104 and redisgned everyrhing about it. New airframe, new wings, new cockpit new (upward firing) ejection seat (The original F-104 ejection seat ejected downward, not a good idea for a strike plane that would operate primarily down on the deck). This was designated the F-104G (except in Canada where I think it was the F-104D but I will have to check) The F-104G got a bad reputation early on. It was later figured out that most of the problem was that the plane was much hotter than the F-84s and G-91s that most of the pilots had been used to. As pilot training and experience went up the track record got better. But thinking the late model F-104s that were used as strike aircraft were the same ones as the early F-104C that the USAF used is like saying the M46 and the M60 are both Patton tanks

Dontos · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Paul! Hi Folks!

- mumfordlibrarian

Roy this seems to be a "walks like a duck" vehicle. The Army seems to be insisting that this is not an anti-tank weapon.

Paul T. Weaver
mumfordlibrarian

I think the trick to that would be to use some airplane thinking.

Many fighter planes where built to be used as a fighter. A number of those same fighter planes could be used as bombers.

A good example might be the F104 Starfighter. Clearly a fighter plane, yet during Vietnam, the Air Force hung bombs off them and used them to attack ground targets.

Now it can carry bombs and it can attack ground targets, so it's a bomber right? No, it's a fighter plane that if need be can be used as a bomber.

The MGS is a bit like those old F104s, it can be used to kill tanks, but that is not it's main job. The primary job is direct heavy fire support for the infantryman in contact with enemy infantry.
It's not a duck, but it can, if need be quack like a duck.

Tank killing in the Stryker BCT is the primary job of the TOW carriers.

Just keep telling yourselfs, it's not a tank, it's not a tank, it's not a tank.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

at the 2006 Armor Symposium, I met up with one of my former TC's from one of my tank platoons. An excellent NCO who really knew his stuff. He had been on the MGS for a couple of years. Amoung other things he simply reinforced the point that the MGS, IS NOT A TANK Shocked

, and its primary function is 'Infantry Support".

I equated the parallels of its stated mission, to of the Ontos. Totally dedicated to the role of 'Infantry Support'. (Although the Ontos was classified as a 'Tank Destroyer'.

The problem I think is the mistaken belief that the MGS is a subsitute/replacement for the AGS or even the Sheridan.

The Air Force analogy is a bit off. I was actually surprised that Bob didn't write that.... Rolling Eyes

(ROY you are hereby fined 50 COOL points!! Cool

Don't let that happen again..!!)

Don

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

I like your general analogy but you chose the wrong example. If you had said F-100 or F-4 I would totally agree but the F-104 was the one totally wrong answer. The U.S. never used the F-104 as a ground attack plane.

Say what?

Bob, this VERY OLD JARHEAD is going to have to bring you up to date on some very old history.

During 1966 into the first half of 1967, an Air Force F104 Starfighter unit based at Da Nang, RVN was sending those birds up with ONE BOMB under each wing.

Also this old Scout must report that during one FTX at Hohenfels FRG, sometime around 1975 or 1976, while conducting Castle Guard for the Battalion TOC, the TOC was attacked by four West German F104s. I would guess that if those German F104s were conducting that type of mission during peace time, they were planning on using those A/Cs for that type of mission against Warsaw Pack AFVs.

I though about using the F4, but I went with the F104 because I feel it is possible the best example of something build to do one thing and commanders turned around and used it for something it could just barely do.

Some of my very old history. Sorry no pictures to help back up my claims. Crying or Very sad

Sgt, Scouts Out!

bsmart · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Not doubting your claims. Let me check a couple sources this evening about the Vitenam connection.

The German connection is no problem. That was the F-104G that was a complete redesign of the plane under the same name. The G model was designed as a strike fighter first with a secondary Air to Air capability. To bring it full circle the Italians later reworked the F-104G design with new radar and missles into the F-104S which was a primary all weather interceptor that even carried AIM-7 Sparrow missles in addition to the AIM-9 Sidewinders that were always available on the F-104G

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

That was the F-104G that was a complete redesign of the plane under the same name. The G model was designed as a strike fighter first with a secondary Air to Air capability.

Say what?

Strike Fighter! Shocked

Will that just shows you all how little I know about things with wings!

I hope you find something on the miss use of the F104 in Vietnam. I know their were not flying CAS missions for the Marines, so I guess they were either going out west or up north.

Time for bed, later folks!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

"G-71 coming to assist element of second platoon, over!" Laughing

(This is an excerpt from a longer article, Joe Baugher is a recognized source, listed at bottom)

"The F-104C (Lockheed Model 483-04-05) was the tactical strike version of the Starfighter. It was designed to meet the needs of the Tactical Air Command (TAC), which had earlier found the F-104A to be unacceptable because of its low endurance and its inability to carry significant offensive payloads.

In April of 1965, a single squadron (the 476th TFS) of the 479th TFW deployed with their F-104Cs to Kung Kuan AB in Taiwan, with regular rotations to the forward base at Da Nang Air Base in South Vietnam. Their job was to fly MiG combat air patrol (MiGCAP) missions to protect American fighter bombers against attack by North Vietnamese fighters. They flew these missions armed with their single M61A1 20-mm cannon and four AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. The effect of F-104 deployment upon NVN and PRC MiG operations was immediate and dramatic--NVN MiGs soon learned to avoid contact with USAF strikes being covered by F-104s. During the entire deployment of the 476th only two fleeting encounters between F-104Cs and enemy fighters occurred.

As the MiG threat abated, the 476th TFS was tasked with some weather reconnaissance and ground attack missions. A few of these were against targets in North Vietnam, but most of them were close air-support missions against targets in the South under forward air controller direction. The F-104s were fairly successful in this role, gaining a reputation for accuracy in their cannon fire and their bombing and capable of quite rapid reaction times in response to requests for air support. During this period, the 476th F-104s maintained an in-commission rate of 94.7%, a testimony both to the quality of 476th maintenance personnel and to the simplicity and maintainability of F-104 systems. However, an F-104 went down during a sortie 100 nm SSW of DaNang on June 29. The pilot was rescued with minor injuries.

The 436th TFS assumed the 476th's commitment in DaNang on 11 July, and the 436th began flying combat sorties the next day. Although a few MiGCAP missions were flown, the majority of the missions were quick-reaction close-air support missions in support of ground troops. On July 23, Capt. Roy Blakely attempted to crash-land his battle-damaged F-104C at Chu Lai. Blakely successfully set his aircraft down gear-up, but died when his F-104 swerved off the runway into a sand dune. "

Source: home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_9.html

bsmart · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Looks like I blew it

I haven't found the book I'm looking for but that's okay. I thought the F-104s had been deployed as Anti Mig cover but not used as attack aircraft. Part of my confusion was mis remembering a picture of an F-106 with a bomb under it's wing that was done as a joke on the commander of Air Defence Command. PACAF F-102s were deployed to Bien Hoa and Da Nang in Vietnam and Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand as Air Defence but eventually withdrawn by 1969 without ever engaging in combat.

I shoulkd have known not to try and correct a scout Rolling Eyes

Oh Doug thanks for reminding me about Joe Baughers aircraft pages. I had been there before but in a series of machine replacements had lost the links. His coverage is excellent. This is his page on the F04s acceptance as a NATO strike fighter.
home.att.net/~jbaugher...04_11.html
He leaves some questions unanswered that are actually well known. Let's just say that there were cases of Bribery involving Lockheed and some European officials that were strong enough that Lockheed now has a VERY STRONG ethics program and annual training about 'Truth in Negotiations', 'Foreign Corrupt Practices' and other ethics courses are now mandatory annual training throughout Lockheed Martin

Oh I found it interesting that of the 722 Starfighters ordered for the USAF only 296 were delivered before the contract was cancelled. The NATO deal was all AFTER that.

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- bsmart

.

I shoulkd have known not to try and correct a scout

Scouts always stand to be corrected...where you went so horribly wrong was bring to one under fire without keeping in mind that since scouting is their primary function, they normally will not engage unless they know they've got another element in position to bring mutually supporting fire to bear in case it's needed. Laughing

( "G" Troop emerges victorious.)

But hey, you're Air Force, how could you could know? Don on the other hand.....(and does this mean Roy gets his "cool points" back? Mr. Green

)

I think somewhere in there the article also notes that F104's also got credit for no air-to-air kills in VN, but that needs to be double checked.

AND....I owe my familiarity with Joe Baugher's pages to....Jeff Button, an 11C turned Transportation (where'd he go, anyway?), so there you go...we be's multidiciplinary at the AFV DG!

piney · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

does that mean we have to invite swabbies? Laughing

Jeff Lewis

Dontos · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- piney

does that mean we have to invite swabbies?

Jeff Lewis

There already are several 'floating' around the AFV DG.... Laughing

sorry....

Don

bsmart · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- piney

does that mean we have to invite swabbies?

Jeff Lewis

I don't know about swabbies but there is at least one COASTIE in the group (Someone has to be able to do the maritime safety check before we try and swim an M113)

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Hello fellow CIA Agents and other folks!

To the TC of G71, super thanks for the overwatching support as I took some time out to get some much needed sleep. Well done Sir! That was some heavy duty intell reporting.

To Dontos, did I lose 50 cool points for talking about things with wings or was because I caught you off guard about the history of the F104 in Vietnam?

As for the subject of "swabbies". Well lets see, they have "V" things that are armored and are used to fight from. I would call those super heavy AFVs and therefor more than qualified to be members of this "multidiciplinary" CIA team.

Thanks for the backup G71! "Allons"
Sgt, Scouts Out1

P.S.
As the number ONE conducter of "Alertness Tests" to see if anyone is paying attention to my "flobs ups" I must say that someone has always been there to correct my misinformation so other members will get the correct facts. For all those times, I thank you all.

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big