Thread: Stryker MGS cancelled?

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Army times is reporting the MGS has been cancelled, but i'm not a subscriber, so i can't access the article on thier site.

Anyone got a subscription, so i can get the dirt on this?

Thanx.

I looked at the cover of the Army Times when I was at the commissary yesterday and there was no mention of the article on the front cover. Also, I haven't seen any other articles on the MGS in the EarlyBird or strykernews.com, so it looks like to me that they either missed some testing gate or the article is just highlighting the fact that it hasn't been fielded yet.

Got this from Strykernews.com



No Mobile Gun System for Stryker — for now

Link to Full Article
By Matthew Cox, Army Times (subscription)

Stryker brigade commanders, in need of more firepower, have asked for an early fielding of the Mobile Gun System variant for street fighting in northern Iraq.

But they’re going to have to do without it.

The high-tech, wheeled cannon won’t be seeing combat for at least a year after the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (SBCT) returns home this fall, Stryker program officials say.

Read the Entire Entry...»

The high-tech, wheeled cannon won’t be seeing combat for at least a year after the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (SBCT) returns home this fall, Stryker program officials say.

The unit is equipped with the Anti-tank Guided Missile Strykers, but the wire-guided, TOW missile system is proving to be ineffective against fast-moving insurgent forces operating in crowded neighborhoods of Mosul.

“The Stryker Brigade Combat Team needs a vehicle capable of rapidly delivering direct fire explosive projectiles in confined urban terrain,” said 1-25 commander Col. Robert Brown, in an email from Iraq. [...]

The plan is to begin equipping Stryker brigades with the MGS in fiscal 2007.

“The unit is operating at a reduced capability until they get MGS,” Fuller said, describing how 1-25 had sent an “urgent operational needs statement” in March asking that the MGS be fielded as soon as possible.

Where are the Carl Gustavs?

And the Mk19s?

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

And the Mk19s?

MK19s are there, 2 per infantry rifle platoon, infantry recon platoon, and I believe 2 per recce platoon. My BDE requested Carl Gustavs, but they were turned down. I don't know the reason, but most likely because the Javelin can target vehicles and the AT-4/ SMAW can be used in an anti-material role. The TOW BB will destroy a bunker, but it still doesn't pack the punch that a 105mm round can. The expanded portion from strykernews (it didn't expand when it was first posted and I didn't check after that first time) makes it seem to me that the article is based on the request to have it fielded ASAP and the fact that it isn't ready to be fielded right now.

Thanx for the clarifications guys.

I've always wondered why the Amry didn't just go with a Cockeril 90mm gun or even a Oto Melara 76mm gun instead of the 105mm. True they're less powerful, but they are lighter, have less recoil, the MGS could carry more rounds and there's more variants of the 90mm available than the 105. Since the MGs is primarily an infantry support platform and not a tank killer, the lower armor penetration shouldn't be as big an issue.

Originally Posted by shek

MK19s are there, 2 per infantry rifle platoon, infantry recon platoon, and I believe 2 per recce platoon. My BDE requested Carl Gustavs, but they were turned down. I don't know the reason, but most likely because the Javelin can target vehicles and the AT-4/ SMAW can be used in an anti-material role. The TOW BB will destroy a bunker, but it still doesn't pack the punch that a 105mm round can. The expanded portion from strykernews (it didn't expand when it was first posted and I didn't check after that first time) makes it seem to me that the article is based on the request to have it fielded ASAP and the fact that it isn't ready to be fielded right now.

Any idea how the XM307 25mm grenade launcher will alter these numbers?

Originally Posted by Wraith601

Any idea how the XM307 25mm grenade launcher will alter these numbers?

From what I've read, it's role will be AP and not AT, so I don't think it will have a huge impact. I would think that platoons will be equipped with MK19 and M307 when it is fielded.

Originally Posted by Wraith601

Since the MGs is primarily an infantry support platform and not a tank killer, the lower armor penetration shouldn't be as big an issue.

If it looks like a tank, it will be used like a tank.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

If it looks like a tank, it will be used like a tank.

Sir,
Trust me, the 19Ks were acutely aware of the fact that their ATGMs were not tanks. While I'm sure there will be gunnery tables for the 105mm, the guys will still know that the armor on the Stryker is just not the same of the armor on a M1A2. Also, by the time the MGS actually comes out, you'll have guys that are very practiced in supporting the infantry.

Captain,

Just going by history and experience here. I have no doubt of its intentded role but I also know the army has a way of bastardizing every kit into situations to which they're not designed. Our COUGAR DSFV was intended as a tank trainer and not supposed to be deployed in an tank role and yet, there it was in SFOR doing exactly that. Going back to WWII, we have entire tank destroyer battalions deployed as tank units.

The 66 MGS that we're buying is going to the Lord Strathcona Horse (Royal Canadians), a tank battalion and to "A" Squadron, 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise's), the tank school company. And we've already wargame the MGS out in an anti-tank role (and it sucked but like you said on another subject, it's doable).

I have absolutely no doubt that the MGS will perform in its primary inf spt role (really sounds like a demolition gun intent - ie, an engineer's role) up to and maybe even beyond expectations. It's the 2ndary and unintended roles that got me worry. When you have right now zipperheads re-roled into grunts (with captured AK-47s), the odds of the MGS not performing a tank role does not exactly fill me with confidence. It's been done before and it will be done again.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Captain,

Just going by history and experience here. I have no doubt of its intentded role but I also know the army has a way of bastardizing every kit into situations to which they're not designed. Our COUGAR DSFV was intended as a tank trainer and not supposed to be deployed in an tank role and yet, there it was in SFOR doing exactly that. Going back to WWII, we have entire tank destroyer battalions deployed as tank units.

The 66 MGS that we're buying is going to the Lord Strathcona Horse (Royal Canadians), a tank battalion and to "A" Squadron, 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise's), the tank school company. And we've already wargame the MGS out in an anti-tank role (and it sucked but like you said on another subject, it's doable).

I have absolutely no doubt that the MGS will perform in its primary inf spt role (really sounds like a demolition gun intent - ie, an engineer's role) up to and maybe even beyond expectations. It's the 2ndary and unintended roles that got me worry. When you have right now zipperheads re-roled into grunts (with captured AK-47s), the odds of the MGS not performing a tank role does not exactly fill me with confidence. It's been done before and it will be done again.

Sir,
I forgot to add that their quick destruction on the NTC battlefield helped to reinforce the fact that it wasn't a tank (we crushed the OPFOR at 2km and in with our Javelins, so they hit our ATGMs as their primary target and then stood off at beyond 2km and would pick us off - we didn't have CAS other than about 2 hours a day in our scenario).

The only vehicles needing do be destroyed are trucks and cars. I don't see why we need such a huge gun for that role.
And BTW, what happened to that one experimental TOW that delivered 43 megajoules or something?