New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field

[IMTT]

New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field

Military.com | By Christian Lowe | January 29, 2008

BAQUBAH, Iraq - The newest version of the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle is garnering poor reviews here from Soldiers assigned to man its tank-like hull.

The General Dynamics Corp.-built Mobile Gun System looks like a typical eight-wheeled Stryker, except for a massive 105mm gun mounted on its roof. The gun fires three different types of projectiles, including explosive rounds, tank-busters and a "canister round" that ejects hundreds of steel pellets similar to a shotgun shell. But while the system looks good on paper and the Army’s all for it, Soldiers with the 4th Battalion of the 9th Infantry Regiment -- one of the first units to receive the new vehicle for their deployment to Iraq -- don’t have a lot of good things to say about it.

"I wish [the enemy] would just blow mine up so I could be done with it," said Spec. Kyle Handrahan, 22, of Anaheim, Calif., a tanker assigned to Alpha Company, 4/9’s MGS platoon. "It’s a piece," another MGS platoon member chimed in. "Nothing works on it."

The gripes stem from a litany of problems, including a computer system that constantly locks up, extremely high heat in the crew compartment and a shortage of spare parts. In one case, a key part was held up in customs on its way to Iraq, a problem one Soldier recognizes is a result of a new system being pushed into service before it’s ready.
"The concept is good, but they still have a lot of issues to work out on it," said Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Teimeier, Alpha, 4/9’s MGS platoon sergeant and a tanker by trade.

According to a Jan. 28 report by Bloomberg News, the 2008 Pentagon Authorization bill included language limiting funds for the MGS pending an Army report on fixes to the vehicle’s growing list of problems. The Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation said in his annual report the vehicle was "not operationally effective," Bloomberg reported.
Soldiers here say the searing heat in the vehicles -- especially during Iraq’s blazing summer -- forces them to wear a complicated cooling suit that circulates cold water through tubing under their armor. Ironically, Soldiers often complain the suit makes them cold, Teimeier said, adding to their vehicular woes.

Despite the poor review from DoD auditors, the Army is standing by its vehicle, Bloomberg reported.
"The Army has determined that the MGS is suitable and operationally effective," Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Martin Downie, told the financial news service.

Where there is no debate is in the lethality of the vehicle’s firepower. But Soldiers in the middle of a tough counterinsurgency fight here in Diyala province say commanders are reluctant to use the vehicle’s lethal gun on enemy strongholds out of concern of killing or wounding civilians. As a result, many of the dozens of MGS vehicles go unused while precision air strikes have become increasingly prevalent -- along with the usual Soldier-driven raids.

That’s got MGS drivers here frustrated. Not only do they have to deal with a complex system that gives them fits, but when it is working, they’re not allowed to employ the vehicle in combat. "You can kick down doors and risk losing our guys," Handrahan said. "Or I can just knock down the building from a [kilometer] away and call it a day."

SEE LINK;
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160981,00.html

[SBL]

-edit-

124567890

[Ought Six]

It says 'Military.com' right at the top of the post.

[kutter]

Source:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160981,00.html

edit: Damnit Ought Six, just beat me. :)

[Roy Batty]

Sooooo glad we scrapped the MGS project.

Thanks for posting.

[IMTT]

After all the US Armies original vehicles were purchased & borrowed from our Canadian friends. They worked in excellent fashion from my understanding from several 25th and 2nd ID boys.

[jetsetter]

These problems sound like they can be fixed.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

These problems sound like they can be fixed.


Yeah any problem can be fixed, but at the cost of soldiers lives? Come on...

Sometimes, when the big green machine gets too involved with the contractors that provide it the weapon systems that soldiers use, they forget to FULLY test the system first.

The Stryker system of vehicles that General Dynamics sold the army, at the rock bottom price of a whole bunch of dead Americans.

I wonder if General Shinsisobraindead ever wondered what the troops might be facing in the NEXT war..I mean, there are tanks, artillery, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers. But I guess someone was so caught up in the moment of embarrassment when our tanks could not cross bridges in the Balkans due to the fact, maybe they had been bombed and shelled in combat, that they went to congress and sold them a load of crap to help Michigan and Ohio keep jobs. Maybe, they SHOULD have spent more money and bought ribbon bridges and bailey bridges so we could construct bridges so the weapons systems could cross and get to their jobs.

Never have been a fan Stryker. And, it will take a miracle to change my mind to see how wonderful the media says it is.

What is currently being done with the Strykers armor, like adding slat armor, is being done to the Gavin. The weight problems the Stryker has, does not happen with the Gavin. What upgrades the Stryker has gotten, the Gavin has been getting. So, we basically wasted billions building a fancy, rolling death trap for the squad inside. Maybe money would be better spent if someone would wake up and quit smelling the manure, and build more Bradleys, Gavin's, and Crusaders...not the piece of tin with a penchant for attracting IEDs and bullets.

[JKD]

The Stryker system of vehicles that General Dynamics sold the army, at the rock bottom price of a whole bunch of dead Americans.
I think the problems they're talking about in the article pertain to the MGS not the whole family of vehicles


Never have been a fan Stryker. And, it will take a miracle to change my mind to see how wonderful the media says it is.

****monkey's served with Stryker units in Iraq, he seems to think they're alright. And last summer I got to speak briefly with an old friend from my hometown who's in a Stryker brigade that likes them just fine

[LoboCanada]

Sooooo glad we scrapped the MGS project.

Thanks for posting.

I agree Sig, MGS was ugly as hell too. Tanks are the way to go!

[jetsetter]

Considering it is being used in combat so early after introduction problems are to be expected.

[muttbutt]

What is currently being done with the Strykers armor, like adding slat armor, is being done to the Gavin. The weight problems the Stryker has, does not happen with the Gavin. What upgrades the Stryker has gotten, the Gavin
The Gavin!.....your not Mike Sparks are you?:roll:

[bikewrench]

The 'Gavin'!!!
You mean the M113!
Holy ****, you're one of them...

[James]

Never have been a fan Stryker. And, it will take a miracle to change my mind to see how wonderful the media says it is.

Have you ever even seen a real Stryker? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that you'd gotten out of the Army quite some time ago.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

The Gavin!.....your not Mike Sparks are you?:roll:

No, I am not. But, there of those of out here who are not fans of the Stryker. The point I was trying to make is, when the army jumped into this program feet first and sold out the troops who are using them, they already had a vehicle that had the SAME properties albright the tires.

What rips me is that no one on the planning committee actually thought about the LONG term when they got those rolling coffins. They were too focused on the Balkans embarrassment of having the bridges become unsafe to drive. Well, here is what I have to say...of course they are! Some of those bridges were as old as old is. They were not built to with stand a heavy armored division crossing a river, let alone damaged by air and artillery strikes. So, instead of taking a look and thinking, maybe we should have poured more money into ribbon bridges and the other types of bridges the army depends upon, in comes general dynamics and shyteheadski general and they propose a solution that not only is a big waste of money, but has had to be upgraded so much, that you need a whole fleet of C-17s just to carry a company, because the vehicles are too heavy and too wide to fit into a C-130 with all the trimmings you need to operate in a war.

The Russians got it right when they developed their BMDs and BTRs for their airborne units, They even went the extra mile and built transports to carry heavy armor into battle.)those same planes are being rented by NATO to ferry equipment in and out of Afghanistan, and the USA is also renting them to carry equipment into Iraq and Afghanistan.

As I said, the Russians got it right. Why does the USA have to dump millions and billions of dollars into a program, that in the NEXT war will be totally in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Besides...for shock value, and holding ground, the Bradley's, Abrahams and Gavin's do a great job of doing what the Stryker is doing now, a lot cheaper, better, and faster.


FYI...I never heard of Sparks until now, and never read his articles. I am going off of my experience with combat vehicles to comment.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Have you ever even seen a real Stryker? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that you'd gotten out of the Army quite some time ago.

Incidentally, yes. And, I have seen the LAV the Marine corps use. The Stryker, is nothing but a rolling coffin in which the role it plays puts soldiers at risk. Its not the 14.5mm machine guns you have to worry about too, but the 20,25,30mm anti-material rifles too. And, If the armor is what they say it is, I bet its like the earlier hummers, which were supposed to protect from 155mm shell fragments and small arms...too thin to do the job. And I bet, if you took a ZSU gun and engage the Stryker, I be that thing will go up like a roman candle without additional armor protection. And, the occupants dead or severely injured.

Now, granted the M113 has the same problems. but for what the army has invested in a rolling coffin, I bet they could have a full compliment of M113 Gavin's in service right now, with upgrades such as rubber band tracks, hybrid diesel/electric engine, and improved reactive armor for the sides, and a reinforced floor to protect from blast dangers at 1/2 the price of what has been spent.

As I said, I am not a fan of the Stryker. For what the Army wanted, they could have done better.

These are my thoughts on the Stryker program. I have never been a fan of it, and never will be. I have seen the vehicle on static display, and from what I have seen, its just not a good investment. Lets hope the new vehicles that Boeing is devoleping for the army does better than this current piece of death.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

The 'Gavin'!!!
You mean the M113!
Holy ****, you're one of them...

If you mean that I do not like the POS Stryker, then I am.

[Dispatcher]

Incidentally, yes. And, I have seen the LAV the Marine corps use. The Stryker, is nothing but a rolling coffin in which the role it plays puts soldiers at risk. Its not the 14.5mm machine guns you have to worry about too, but the 20,25,30mm anti-material rifles too. And, If the armor is what they say it is, I bet its like the earlier hummers, which were supposed to protect from 155mm shell fragments and small arms...too thin to do the job. And I bet, if you took a ZSU gun and engage the Stryker, I be that thing will go up like a roman candle without additional armor protection. And, the occupants dead or severely injured.

Now, granted the M113 has the same problems. but for what the army has invested in a rolling coffin, I bet they could have a full compliment of M113 Gavin's in service right now, with upgrades such as rubber band tracks, hybrid diesel/electric engine, and improved reactive armor for the sides, and a reinforced floor to protect from blast dangers at 1/2 the price of what has been spent.

As I said, I am not a fan of the Stryker. For what the Army wanted, they could have done better.

These are my thoughts on the Stryker program. I have never been a fan of it, and never will be. I have seen the vehicle on static display, and from what I have seen, its just not a good investment. Lets hope the new vehicles that Boeing is devoleping for the army does better than this current piece of death.

I have quoted you. No reason. p-)

[RSone]

Most "light" army vehicles would have a very, very bad day when they get shot at with a ZSU. So that's not only the stryker, and besides, the "gavin" isn't very thickskinned either

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Most "light" army vehicles would have a very, very bad day when they get shot at with a ZSU. So that's not only the stryker, and besides, the "gavin" isn't very thickskinned either

That is very true. But, why waste billions on a program that has the SAME problems in protection? Thats my point. The M113, is a very good vehicle. In some cases, better than the stryker. You can put it in a C-130, put slat armor on it, put reinforced armor on it, comes with kevelar spall liners, and you can put rubber band tracks on it. At a lower cost.

[James]

Well I'm just going to have to defer to veterans like ****monkey who have multiple combat tours and think they're ok, rather than whatever you do now. No offense. I just think he's got a bit more credibility than you do in this argument.

I just don't understand why you have such a visceral hatred of the Stryker. The government spent billions in a program that could have been managed better? Really? :roll: What else do you hate? Seawolf submarines? F22s? V22 Ospreys? B2 bombers? B1 bombers? Commanche? Sergeant York?

[Sivil4ever]

http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html

Just to ad the part on the "Gavin".

Sorry for my of topic but, the Gavin name is just wrong.

[RSone]

http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html

Just to ad the part on the "Gavin".

Sorry for my of topic but, the Gavin name is just wrong.

LOL, i once had a argument with "sparky" or Dynamicpara(as he calls himself on youtube, i didnt know about him back in the day, i just thought he was some weird old skool zealot) about the Dutch Army replacing the AIFV( a m113 version) with the BOXER MRAV and the CV90, which according to him were both crap. His arguments were that the CV90 was too heavy, so it would get stuck in cross country, the same with the Boxer.

this what he had to say about the boxer:
"When your wheeled vehicles need roads you have to change your paths to accomodate them EVEN IF YOUR "COMBAT" forces are in tracks. Paths that must be near roads are predictable to the enemy.

A chain is only as strong as its WEAKEST link.
When your wheeled vehicles need roads you have to change your paths to accomodate them EVEN IF YOUR "COMBAT" forces are in tracks. Paths that must be near roads are predictable to the enemy.

A chain is only as strong as its WEAKEST link.

Having weak Boxers is stupid"

He also claimed he worked on the "subject area" proffesionally and that i should forward his points to the appropriate MOD staff:|


Although I agree that the Stryker project was mismanaged, the Stryker is better suited to the kind of operations in Iraq the USA use it for,than the M113 "Gavin" as he called it.

[ShakesFIST]

What is currently being done with the Strykers armor, like adding slat armor, is being done to the Gavin. The weight problems the Stryker has, does not happen with the Gavin. What upgrades the Stryker has gotten, the Gavin has been getting. So, we basically wasted billions building a fancy, rolling death trap for the squad inside. Maybe money would be better spent if someone would wake up and quit smelling the manure, and build more Bradleys, Gavin's, and Crusaders...not the piece of tin with a penchant for attracting IEDs and bullets.

I actually had to look up what a Gavin was. :) I never knew they were called Gavins I just always called them M113's or One One Threes.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

I actually had to look up what a Gavin was. :) I never knew they were called Gavins I just always called them M113's or One One Threes.
The whole point is that they are NOT called Gavins. Now stop before you get started on it too. :)

They're 113s.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

The whole point is that they are NOT called Gavins. Now stop before you get started on it too. :)

They're 113s.

Tomato, or tomato...

they are also known as 577s, 901s, and FISTV

[ShakesFIST]

they are also known as 577s, 901s, and FISTV

Those are all very different vehicles though. They are only based off of the same basic design though.

[bikewrench]

I'll bet you like the Paladin though. Don'tcha gunbunny.

Seriously, I agree with James. With so many utter debacles in procurement you go on about how the Stryker is a waste of money that is killing grunts. Then you concede that it has roughly the same amount of protection as a 113.
[They were never and are not called Gavin's, General Gavin was a paratrooper anyway.]

[StrykerLead]

The Stryker has its detractors and certainly looks to have been a slightly flawed concept given the current environment it finds itself in.

This is nothing new - all sorts of military projects get designed to fight past battles and roll out long after the enemy they're designed to beat has disappeared.

There are times though, that kit designed for one function exceeds expectations and excels.

The Brit BVS-10 Viking is an excellent example, and while probably not great for Iraq, it is seeing excellent service in Afghanistan. The Royal Marines took them out there and then the Army asked if they could use them!

M113 (Gavin??? WTF?) meet Viking.

[LoboCanada]

^ how has the Viking been in Afghanistan? What makes it so good?

[MoFo]

^ how has the Viking been in Afghanistan? What makes it so good?

The Vikings said to be performing very well in Afganistan according to the Marines.

[T for Tetrapod]

You have to think to yourself though in these arguments about armor protection...when the hell has there been a time were armor vehicles were impervious to everything and anything thrown at them? Shermans went up like roman candles during WWII, Jeeps didn't have armor protection of any kind...it is kind of just a fact of life that if your vehicle gets hit by a huge piece of ordinance, the fvcker is going up in flames. I mean damn, haven't you ever watched star wars? Those big ass AT-ATs went down if you hit them in the right spot. p-)

[seraosha]

Right in the article it states that they are asking a 19K what he thinks of a Stryker. That's your first mistake, asking a tanker for an opinion and expecting anything other than negative on a vehicle that isn't a MBT.

[IMTT]

I possess no experience or qualifications regarding the LAV or Striker. I rode around in the back of M113 A2 & 3s, Bradleys and Amtracks but never in conflict, just training and many years ago. When the LAV Army types first came into the inventory I knew several troops who were working the initial project numerous years ago before the on going conflict and enjoyed the vehicle very much and spoke highly of it. These vehicles were Canadian at the time and some other mix and match types.

Overwhelmingly all of the younger guys I have spoken to regarding the Striker speak highly of it and support it. The most recent soldiers I spoke to at Fort Lewis after the most recent 2nd ID deployment had nothing but good things to say about the Striker. It seems the grunts were happy with the Striker and its protective capibilities. For whatever its worth.

Respectfully

[Wilco]

Here is a short video of the MGS firing in Iraq incase you all haven't seen it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=728_1201373855

[Breakfast in Vegas]

From what I've read the Stryker is pretty capable... if they get the MGS bugs fixed, it could be a real boon in terms of mobile firepower and live up to the expectations. Like many others here, I've been reading mostly positive things about the Stryker from the troops. Would be interested to know what the BTDTs have to say.

[Michigander]

The M113 has thin aluminum armor. It's designed for protecting passengers from shrapnel resulting from mortars and artillery while being light enough to be easily transported by air.

It also is compact and tracked, which allows it to traverse rougher terrain and turn on a dime.

The Stryker has thin steel armor. This is heavier than aluminum but also denser, stronger, and has much higher melting and combustion temperatures.

It has wheels which require less maintenance but requires a bulkier drive train. And, it needs more space to turn around.

They are different vehicles with different advantages. I'd say it's best we have some of both. But, if riding around Baghdad boulevards where the most significant threats to either are the more sophisticated IED's, I'd give the nod to the Stryker.

Though, the 105mm gun just does not belong on top of it, IMHO.

[muttbutt]

FYI...I never heard of Sparks until now, and never read his articles. I am going off of my experience with combat vehicles to comment.

For a guy who's never heard of Mike Sparks you seem to use his terminology, the Stryker is a "coffin" the "Gavin", christ MS even has an entire website dedicated to his pet project, the almost mythic regard he holds the M113 in including his fantasy suped up versions.....hmmmp-)

[Adam Wilhelm]

http://www.combatreform2.com/m113combat.htm

http://www.geocities.com/gavinpetition/

From Sparky.

[catch22alwashdup]

Though, the 105mm gun just does not belong on top of it, IMHO.

So where would you stick it lol. This is the first combat fielding of this system and everyone acts like it was going to revolutionize combat. Iraq is a good testing ground from they stryker variants but not the MGS one. Its not really needed or able to be used properly there. Just cause it has a gun (and a tiny one at that) doesnt mean anything. Its a just another tool but its just in the wrong place right now.

[guest]

Yeah any problem can be fixed, but at the cost of soldiers lives? Come on...

Sometimes, when the big green machine gets too involved with the contractors that provide it the weapon systems that soldiers use, they forget to FULLY test the system first.

The Stryker system of vehicles that General Dynamics sold the army, at the rock bottom price of a whole bunch of dead Americans.

I wonder if General Shinsisobraindead ever wondered what the troops might be facing in the NEXT war..I mean, there are tanks, artillery, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers. But I guess someone was so caught up in the moment of embarrassment when our tanks could not cross bridges in the Balkans due to the fact, maybe they had been bombed and shelled in combat, that they went to congress and sold them a load of crap to help Michigan and Ohio keep jobs. Maybe, they SHOULD have spent more money and bought ribbon bridges and bailey bridges so we could construct bridges so the weapons systems could cross and get to their jobs.

Never have been a fan Stryker. And, it will take a miracle to change my mind to see how wonderful the media says it is.

What is currently being done with the Strykers armor, like adding slat armor, is being done to the Gavin. The weight problems the Stryker has, does not happen with the Gavin. What upgrades the Stryker has gotten, the Gavin has been getting. So, we basically wasted billions building a fancy, rolling death trap for the squad inside. Maybe money would be better spent if someone would wake up and quit smelling the manure, and build more Bradleys, Gavin's, and Crusaders...not the piece of tin with a penchant for attracting IEDs and bullets.


Wow.. as soon as you mentioned "Gavin"..I lost all respect.

Oh, and as one who has fought in, and around LAVs.. I'm quite happy with them in general.

Note I said "fought"..as in received and returned fire.

I did not say "rode around on base.."

Seriously, I don't care if you worked on, rode in, or spit-shined every weapon system/vehicle in the US Army.

If you haven't fought with, in or around "Strykers"..Your opinion is just that, opinion.. and "UNINFORMED" on top of it.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Wow.. as soon as you mentioned "Gavin"..I lost all respect.

Oh, and as one who has fought in, and around LAVs.. I'm quite happy with them in general.

Note I said "fought"..as in received and returned fire.

I did not say "rode around on base.."

Seriously, I don't care if you worked on, rode in, or spit-shined every weapon system/vehicle in the US Army.

If you haven't fought with, in or around "Strykers"..Your opinion is just that, opinion.. and "UNINFORMED" on top of it.


Before you discount what I have said, check this out....the Patria, a modular design 8 wheel APC/IFV/C2 post, and NBC vehicle, manufactured by a company in Finland, is currently in testing to replace the Marine Corps LAV25. So is the Stryker, or LAVIII. BUT....(check out the current story on todays defense industry daily)

The Stryker, is still a POS. There are a lot of vehicles out in production today, that can either surpass the Stryker, or can do as equal of a job. And what is still an example of an old design still doing its job..is the Fv 430,and it has been upgraded!

Personally, I find the Patria, with its modular design, and certification by the SA defense forces for mine protection to be the best option.....now, back on topic.

The Stryker, concept is a novel idea on paper. There are a lot of flaws that are becoming apparent. The need of roads, which makes operations somewhat troublesome, the lack of proper armor protection, and the weight of the vehicle, not to mention the mobility. But, if you are happy with the vehicle, then your experience was positive.

All I know, is in the NEXT war,or troop surge, the Army is going to find out just how much of a mistake the Stryker was, and is. Especially when confronted with the latest generation of Russian designed anti-armor weapons,(that will defeat slat armor) and some old standbys...the ZSU23/24, the recoilless rifle, especially in 106mm,(still in use today in 3rd world countries across the world), and upcoming improvements in land mines or buried IED/EFPs.

The U.S. army could havedone a lot better...and as I said, this is my opinion. And, thank you for your service, by the way.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Here is another problem...the stryker already has a high vehicle profile..but, putting a 105mm on top was just stupid.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Here is another problem...the stryker already has a high vehicle profile..but, putting a 105mm on top was just stupid.
If I was in the field I'd like to be able to have some direct fire 105.

In a tank war the AFVs are all deathtraps.

We are fighting different kinds of wars now. The verdict is still out on the Stryker.

[IMTT]

Whether we like it or not "we are doomed to fight our last war" as some very intelligent person said once. For what's worth and it might not be much I think the concept and execution of this project was visionary. The same guy came up with that stupid looking d-mn cap (black beret) of which I hate which is another story. I'm sure there is many who are breathing today that owe their lives to the Styker and the LAV.

Respectfully

[Havoc345]

Incidentally, yes. And, I have seen the LAV the Marine corps use. The Stryker, is nothing but a rolling coffin in which the role it plays puts soldiers at risk. Its not the 14.5mm machine guns you have to worry about too, but the 20,25,30mm anti-material rifles too. And, If the armor is what they say it is, I bet its like the earlier hummers, which were supposed to protect from 155mm shell fragments and small arms...too thin to do the job. And I bet, if you took a ZSU gun and engage the Stryker, I be that thing will go up like a roman candle without additional armor protection. And, the occupants dead or severely injured.

Now, granted the M113 has the same problems. but for what the army has invested in a rolling coffin, I bet they could have a full compliment of M113 Gavin's in service right now, with upgrades such as rubber band tracks, hybrid diesel/electric engine, and improved reactive armor for the sides, and a reinforced floor to protect from blast dangers at 1/2 the price of what has been spent.

As I said, I am not a fan of the Stryker. For what the Army wanted, they could have done better.

These are my thoughts on the Stryker program. I have never been a fan of it, and never will be. I have seen the vehicle on static display, and from what I have seen, its just not a good investment. Lets hope the new vehicles that Boeing is devoleping for the army does better than this current piece of death.

You obviously have never rode in an M113 in combat. I've seen many a picture of soldiers during Vietnam riding on top of the damn things roof because if you were in one of those things when it hit a mine or got hit by a RPG first off you would be killed and second of all the thing would go up like it was covered in gasoline. Being inside a magnesium vehicle while it burns is like being in a crematorium

[Ought Six]

A_OCCS:
"Being inside a magnesium vehicle while it burns is like being in a crematorium."The armor on an M113 is aluminum, not magnesium. However, when an RPG or other shaped-charge weapon strikes and penetrates aluminum armor, it does create an incandescent jet of molten aluminum which both burns white-hot and generates extremely toxic vapors. Bad stuff to be sure. Upgrades to the M113 help mitigate the problem with Kevlar spall liners, which break up and absorb most of the jet as it enters the troop compartment, and add-on external armor (spaced steel laminate on the Dutch YPR-565 IFV variant of the M113) to prevent penetration in the first place.

[Former Gold Falcon]

What everyone seems to forget is that vehicles are equipment and at the end of the day, equipment are nothing more then "tools in a toolbox".

There does not exist a perfect tool/vehicle for every potential combat scenario, and by most accounts the Stryker has proven itself when used for it's intended mission ability.

1. In support of non-highthreat mounted and unmounted patrols. Bradleys would be better for high-threat missions.

2. Mounted DA insertions (raids) where both speed and minimal auditory signatures (think stealth) are critical.

3. Realtime location and digital video/audio feedback are required.

113's serve their purpose, however combat scenarios and countering tactics are always fluid; and it would appear that mout ops in Iraq are better served with the next gen of Mech Infantry vehicles.

On a personal note, having spent a (thankfully) short week riding around in 113s, I'd prefer the new Strykers.
113's were noisy, sh!tty ride, noisy, cramped, deafening, slow, loud, either too cold or too hot and did I mention FREAKIN NOISY SOBS?!

just my .02


T.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

A_OCCS:The armor on an M113 is aluminum, not magnesium. However, when an RPG or other shaped-charge weapon strikes and penetrates aluminum armor, it does create an incandescent jet of molten aluminum which both burns white-hot and generates extremely toxic vapors. Bad stuff to be sure. Upgrades to the M113 help mitigate the problem with Kevlar spall liners, which break up and absorb most of the jet as it enters the troop compartment, and add-on external armor (spaced steel laminate on the Dutch YPR-565 IFV variant of the M113) to prevent penetration in the first place.


Thats true. Thats why the M113A3 has spall liners inside...., or are supposed to anyways

[8thidpathfinderpower]

If I was in the field I'd like to be able to have some direct fire 105.

In a tank war the AFVs are all deathtraps.

We are fighting different kinds of wars now. The verdict is still out on the Stryker.

So does the average infantry man...but, what good is 105mm fire if the vehicle is on fire hit by a HEAT round from a RPG29?

War is war...whether it be a fluid battle field,(no front lines, guerilla type fighting) or a blitzkrieg style attack.

[Hunterhr]

War is war...whether it be a fluid battle field,(no front lines, guerilla type fighting) or a blitzkrieg style attack.

No I'm pretty sure war is different.

Blitzkrieg warfare is very, very different from assymetrical warfare.

[Ratamacue]

So does the average infantry man...but, what good is 105mm fire if the vehicle is on fire hit by a HEAT round from a RPG29?So what vehicle of similar class to the Stryker is going to shrug off a HEAT round from an RPG-29? Please, do enlighten us.

[gafkiwi]

Originally Posted by 8thidpathfinderpower
So does the average infantry man...but, what good is 105mm fire if the vehicle is on fire hit by a HEAT round from a RPG29?

Ratamacue "So what vehicle of similar class to the Stryker is going to shrug off a HEAT round from an RPG-29? Please, do enlighten us."

Yeah I dont think anything thats availible at Bn level in a striker unit would deal well with being hit by one. Also the way I'm looking at it is if everyones shooting at the MGS thery're not shooting at me, my wagon or my section.
Anyway I think I'd rather have a 105 backing me up runnuning at 70% than none at all.

[Lokos]

If your APCs are getting hit by HEAT rounds designed to penetrate tank armour on the frontal arc, you're doing something wrong. This vehicle is a modular, fire support and personnel transport platform. It's versatile, well armoured for its classification (as an APC) and highly mobile. The M113, surely, is a capable vehicle. But it is one vehicle, as opposed to the array of capability provided by the Stryker family.

These vehicles are taking losses from IEDs and RPGs. They were never designed to shrug off such weaponry. No APC is designed for that level of protection. I get what you want; continuity. But the way forward is with forward thinking designs. The flaws are there for all to examine. But, please, give some thought to the advantages of the Stryker, too.

My only qualm with the system is the weaponry. I would have liked to see a greater number of options on a single chassis.

Lokos

[Alfacentori]

I suppose the only APC's that may be "Designed" to take AT fire from RPG's etc would be ones derived from obsolete MBT's like some in use by the Israeli Defence Forces, but of course these don't have the mobility and modular advantages of dedicated vehicles like the Stryker.



Alfa

[gilgoul]

@ 8thidpathfinderpower (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=20981)

Dude, I'm kind of out of the picture, since I will probably never ride a Striker or any of it's LAV cousins.
But I can tell you one thing, everything seems better than the M113, even the cool upgraded IDF one.
So noisy you'll be completely deaf before you reach your objective, so cramped that with a full load, it takes you forever to get to the ramp.
So badly protected that even 7,62X39mm goes through on some spots, and just hope you'll never get hit by a burried charge, cause it won't be fun to identify whatever remains of you and your crew.
add to that a high profile, the inherent risk of loosing a track at the wrong moment, while the mobility ain't the best, especially with the up-armoured ones.
Well, you don't make a new APC out of a 60 years old design.

[Jagr]

They are different vehicles with different advantages. I'd say it's best we have some of both. But, if riding around Baghdad boulevards where the most significant threats to either are the more sophisticated IED's, I'd give the nod to the Stryker.

Though, the 105mm gun just does not belong on top of it, IMHO.

Strykers are very quiet and very quick..they also don't tear up the ground (or roads) like tracks do. They also ride a lot smoother and the electronics package is pretty impressive. No vehicle is going to provide MBT type protection unless it is based on an MBT like some Izzy IFV's. In a conventional environment slat armor probably would not be used....you wouldn't expose them to MBT's or IFV's since almost anything on the battlefield kill any IFV if it lets itself get engaged.

[Michigander]

The electronics in the Styker are nice. That also makes them more expensive to build and requires more training to use (properly). Though, I don't know what more than 20% of those switches do myself. I do dig the night vision.

I also suppose the M113's could be upgraded to have many of the same features with the same caveats.

The slat armor is great for addressing RPG threats. But, it adds something like 2.5 tons and a couple of feet to each side and, in doing so, dramatically changes the handling. So, I agree, it would not likely be applied in some environments.

[guest]

[quote=Lokos;3019465

My only qualm with the system is the weaponry. I would have liked to see a greater number of options on a single chassis.

Lokos[/quote]

There are a whole range of weapon/turret options for the Stryker/LAV hull

Example: in the CF we have the AC Delco Turret with 25mm. Options for upgrade go all the way to 35mm and 2 TOW launchers. Just with this turret alone.

I have seen (either in person, or pictures) a turret mounted 105mm (NOT MGS autoloader), There are at least 3 versions of a LAV-TOW vehicle, Ours (LAV-TUA), American (Stryker-TOW).. and a third.. (can't remember ), N-LOS uses what is basicly an M777 155mm on a LAV Chassis, There are mortar varients as well, from 80mm to 120mm, There's a stinger/Gattling Gun air defence system (based on the LAV-25, but would be easy to switch to the Stryker/LAVIII). There is also our MMEV concept, which placed an ADATS (Air Defence,Anti-Tank) missle system on a LAV chassis..

There ARE options out there..

[Bzzliteyr]

What everyone is forgetting are the principles of building an AFV.

All AFVs have three main characteristics: Firepower, Protection and Mobility.

When designers plan to build a vehicle, they usually take one or two of the three and build around it, one or two of those elements will always be missing.

We are fighting a losing battle arguing the "which one is better" here. Each one is well built for the role is was intended to be used in. (I am referring to the Stryker vs. M113 battle here, not the MGS).

FYI: I am qualified on both the Stryker and the LAV-25, and have been a tanker on Leopards off and on for the last 14 years. I love my tracks but they are not ideal for all locations. Sometimes you need speed over protection and that's where the LAV families come into play.

[CH4RL13]

This is one of three Stryker MGS I have seen in Iraq. The other two were in similar condition.

http://www.kurtvogeley.com/deploymentII/nov11/stryker2.jpg

[RSone]

Well, there goes your testbed....

[Bzzliteyr]

Okay, it's missing it's front wheels. What's so bad about that? It looks like it's still fully kitted with it's equipment. It's probably just waiting for some second line parts. The success of your vehicle bed also depends ALOT on the support trades and mechanics that keep it running.

If they haven't ordered parts through the supply system then you will have vehicles sitting for too long waiting (though and drive train issues should be fixable with regular Stryker parts).

On a tanker side of the house, the MGS did not sit comfortable with me.. to many whiz bang gadgets to ensure that it can keep fighting after a direct hit. The military has been trying to hard to do what society has, go high tech. There are certain things that can handle being high tech, but other that need to stick with KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)!!

[kongman]

the aussies have been using the stryker/aslav platform for a while now and everyone i have spoke to think it is excellent....i agree thats only a couple of mates who are still in.....it has 2 key abilities i like speed and better mobility than the m-113

[guest]

the aussies have been using the stryker/aslav platform for a while now and everyone i have spoke to think it is excellent....i agree thats only a couple of mates who are still in.....it has 2 key abilities i like speed and better mobility than the m-113


ASLAV is a LAV-25 Hull/Drivetrain.

Different from a Styker/LAVIII

NZLAV is a Stryker/LAVIII Hull

[SJumppanen]

Hi! I'm new and i decided to open my mouth now that i got aproval to do it.

I think that some people are missing the point here. AFAIK Stryker never was suposed to compete with any other vehicle in US inventory (or maybe LAV-25), it was suposed be that vehicle that fills the gap between Hummer and Bradley. Or basicaly be vehicle that is properly protected from mines, IEDs and small arms fire. And could be used when Abrams, Bradley or even M-113 are "undesirable", due the mission. In other words: it was suposed to be used in peacekeeping missions like Somalia and Balkans.

As we all know vehicle was very unwanted by those people who were/are mostly concerned about conventional warfare, who didn't want to lose any resources to uses that would not be of any use during the war. For this reason several features in Stryker were created (including this MGS). If they succeeded in this is another thing.

But point is, there was a good reason to get Strykers, they were aquired just in time and IMHO they have proven their worth in Iraq.
Or just think about it if there was no Srykers?

[James]

So does the average infantry man...but, what good is 105mm fire if the vehicle is on fire hit by a HEAT round from a RPG29?

War is war...whether it be a fluid battle field,(no front lines, guerilla type fighting) or a blitzkrieg style attack.

Stop posting in this thread.

[sp2c]

Here is another problem...the stryker already has a high vehicle profile..but, putting a 105mm on top was just stupid.

you think the Patria AMV is good and then complain about Strykers profile?

odd

[SJumppanen]

you think the Patria AMV is good and then complain about Strykers profile?

odd

Well, to his defence (and AMV:s, specialy AMV:s), AMV wasn't build to be transportable by C-130 (it has been done BTW.) so it is wider and heavier, so it should be bit more stable. (IIRC they are about same height as OWS needs to be removed in both when loaded in C-130)

[sp2c]

Well, to his defence (and AMV:s, specialy AMV:s), AMV wasn't build to be transportable by C-130 (it has been done BTW.) so it is wider and heavier, so it should be bit more stable. (IIRC they are about same height as OWS needs to be removed in both when loaded in C-130)

im not saying AMV is bad, just that it has a bigger profile
hell, I'm a BOXER fan myself :)

[RSone]

Hehehe, our BOXERs will blot out the sun!!!p-)(the damn thing is HUGE)
Don't think any insurgents will be around to shoot at the boxer anyway. I know i'd be scared ****less if something the size of a house was driving towards you.:)

[wild_wild_wes]

http://www.defensetech.org/


At this time in my opinion am one of the most combat experienced MGS vehicle commanders in the army today. I have fired 58 rounds in a combat situation...none of them were just for fun rounds. I have used the MGS in every manner possible and used it for things it was not tatically supposed to be used for. It pisses me of that only 1 or 2 guys were asked about this vehicle in 4-9 INF, 4/2bde.

I just want the vehicle to get a fair chance and for people who think it a waste of tax dollars to realize that we now control the battlefield both cross country and urban.

[Bongopete]

Im a bit late on this, but wanted to ask some questions. I havent ridden in a 113 in many many years and my main memories are the noise and hitting my head on a couple of occasions.

Did Rummy back the Stryker based on what he foresaw as the future operations theater of war (ie, low intensity or 'Iraq like') figuring that the future of war would preclude tanks?

Was the original idea when spooling up to field the Stryker to add the slat armor or was that after Strykers first got into the field?

How much does the slat armor cost to add on?

What is it effective against?

Does the additional armor significantly alter the cg of the Stryker? Have any of them rolled from non combat use?

How vulnerable are the tires to small arms fire?

Mechanically, does anyone know how it compares....mechanically speaking..to the old Russian BTR series?

[ColinP]

The 'Gavin'!!!
You mean the M113!
Holy ****, you're one of them...


I was wondering if you guys knew about Mike and his "passion"

[Seiran]

Christ man, you revived a 5 month dead topic just to ask something like that? PM's are there for a reason bro.

[ColinP]

I missed the date, sorry

[kosse]

I was wondering if you guys knew about Mike and his "passion"
Yeah, I've seen some of his videos and websites. The guy seems pretty devoted :lol:

[mgscommander14]

here are some pics and videos of the mgs in iraq. it has completeed its test run and without a doubt is the best vehicle in iraq for urban combat. all of these pics are my vehicle and have not been manipulated in any way. i will continue to defend this vehicle and its capabilities as it has save a lot of lives and has taken a few enemy lives. if you have any questions you can email me at
tanker_legend@yahoo.com

54791

54792

54793

54794

54795

54796

54797

54798

54799

54800

54801

54802

54803

54804

54805

54806

www.youtube.com/tankcommander33 (http://www.youtube.com/tankcommander33)

[ColinP]

One of the concerns tankers had up here was the Commanders situation awareness. I suspect you can't really answer the question for Opsec reasons.
The Canadian government wanted to use them as tank replacements, luckily common sense prevailed. Nice pictures by the way.

[SilentType]

Oh boy, is this a Mike Sparks thread? That guy is on a one man crusade to end the Stryker program, did a Stryker BCT guy sleep with his wife or what?

The statements that these initial and uncomfortable problems of heat, computer issues, and logistical issues are translating to loss of life just isn't supported by facts. I'm sure it is frustrating to deal with the initial problems anything new will have once deployed for the first time, but during war you do your best to get new systems out to the folks that need them and you can only do so much testing regardless. Murphy's law is always in full effect and that's life. You don't scrap the program though tossing you hands in the air and go oh well we give up we've had a few slight issues.

[SilentType]

One of the concerns tankers had up here was the Commanders situation awareness. I suspect you can't really answer the question for Opsec reasons.
The Canadian government wanted to use them as tank replacements, luckily common sense prevailed. Nice pictures by the way.

SBCT isn't suppose to replace an HBCT. It's suppose to provide a more mobile mechanized force for infantry.

Rather be in a Stryker anyday of the week over an HMMV.

[mgscommander14]

One of the concerns tankers had up here was the Commanders situation awareness. I suspect you can't really answer the question for Opsec reasons.
The Canadian government wanted to use them as tank replacements, luckily common sense prevailed. Nice pictures by the way.

there is plenty of situational awareness plus you have dismounts in support of you while you support them or another stryker. however if i did not i simply clear the area i am going into and use the commanders panoramic viewer to watch my back and stay alert. the canadian gov made a smart decision to not replace tanks but they made a poor choice of not adding the mgs into the army. it is a great asset in an urban setting

[Hippo]

man, i wish you were in this thread when 8thidpathfinder was here running his mouth off of how bad the strykers were when he had no personal experience with it

anyways, thank you for your service

[Ought Six]

It is interesting to see a situation where a vehicle (the Stryker MGS) is considered to have too much firepower to be useful. I imagine WWII, Korean War, and even Vietnam vets would find that idea quite bizzare. I wonder how the Stryker would fare if the next war was more conventional all-out battle than COIN warfare.

[Winger]

here are some pics and videos of the mgs in iraq. it has completeed its test run and without a doubt is the best vehicle in iraq for urban combat. all of these pics are my vehicle and have not been manipulated in any way. i will continue to defend this vehicle and its capabilities as it has save a lot of lives and has taken a few enemy lives. if you have any questions you can email me at


Glad to hear it from a direct source and not someone with an agenda.

[Winger]

man, i wish you were in this thread when 8thidpathfinder was here running his mouth off of how bad the strykers were when he had no personal experience with it

anyways, thank you for your service

I swear he's either that "Gavin" guy or one of his ghey club members.

[SBL]

man, i wish you were in this thread when 8thidpathfinder was here running his mouth off of how bad the strykers were when he had no personal experience with it

anyways, thank you for your service
****monkey had experience and it didn't matter one iota. There's just no convincing some people.

[Seiran]

****monkey had experience and it didn't matter one iota. There's just no convincing some people.

Yea, some people have their head seated so far up their own ass, they couldn't hear a bomb if you detonated it right next to them.

[Hellfish]

there is plenty of situational awareness plus you have dismounts in support of you while you support them or another stryker. however if i did not i simply clear the area i am going into and use the commanders panoramic viewer to watch my back and stay alert. the canadian gov made a smart decision to not replace tanks but they made a poor choice of not adding the mgs into the army. it is a great asset in an urban setting

Just to get it out in the open, I really like the Stryker program. Always have. I do have a couple issues with the MGS, however. If you wouldn't mind answering some questions, within OPSEC:

What are the biggest design problems you've experienced with the MGS so far? Is the vehicle too top heavy? Too heavy period? Autoloader reliable?

Have you had any problems with regards to the limited ammo capacity (18 rounds) of the vehicle?

What would be some useful upgrades for the vehicle?

[ColinP]

SBCT isn't suppose to replace an HBCT. It's suppose to provide a more mobile mechanized force for infantry.

Rather be in a Stryker anyday of the week over an HMMV.

Our previous government saw it as a "cheap" way to replace our tanks and they didn't like tanks as they were to "nasty" as it was the current government has contracted to buy 100 Leo2's from the Dutch and leased 20 Leo2A6M's for about the same price as 66 MGS.

[mgscommander14]

man, i wish you were in this thread when 8thidpathfinder was here running his mouth off of how bad the strykers were when he had no personal experience with it

anyways, thank you for your service

well he would not be the first. there are so many people that base the vehicle off of what they read and not the facts. i enjoy people like that. it gives me a sense of :fork:.

[mgscommander14]

Just to get it out in the open, I really like the Stryker program. Always have. I do have a couple issues with the MGS, however. If you wouldn't mind answering some questions, within OPSEC:

What are the biggest design problems you've experienced with the MGS so far? Is the vehicle too top heavy? Too heavy period? Autoloader reliable?

Have you had any problems with regards to the limited ammo capacity (18 rounds) of the vehicle?

What would be some useful upgrades for the vehicle?

1. to be honest i think the biggest design flaw is the outside .50 cal mount. the weapon has to be fired from the outside and in the beginning there was no chicken shield around it. i damn near got shot trying to fire it. needless to say that weapon collected a lot of dust for the next 15 months. they did redesign a mount and put it on. it was a lot better but i still do not like the idea of coming out to fire it.

2. 18 rounds is plenty of ammo. there is no threat out there that requires more rounds. the max i have fired i think was 10 rounds (mostly breeching rounds.) 18 rounds reminds people that it is not a tank if you give us 40 rounds like the abrams then we go into the tank mode. if i fire 18 rounds during enemy contact i better hear the roar of jets and the whiz of arty

[mgscommander14]

Oh boy, is this a Mike Sparks thread? That guy is on a one man crusade to end the Stryker program, did a Stryker BCT guy sleep with his wife or what?

The statements that these initial and uncomfortable problems of heat, computer issues, and logistical issues are translating to loss of life just isn't supported by facts. I'm sure it is frustrating to deal with the initial problems anything new will have once deployed for the first time, but during war you do your best to get new systems out to the folks that need them and you can only do so much testing regardless. Murphy's law is always in full effect and that's life. You don't scrap the program though tossing you hands in the air and go oh well we give up we've had a few slight issues.


some people had computer issues and yes it was hot.....big deal the vehicle does not need a computer to fire. we are trained to fight in degraded mode and the heat problem was easily resolved by putting icewater in the cooler. on occassion the computer issue turned out to be ghost faults. it may say the blah blah is not working but in reality it was and the system was still fully functional. the problems sometimes is in the crew. they see a fault on the display and instead of doing some checks they just run to maintenance and maintenance does the same thing they see the fault display and order the part. the vehicle just sits and waits. in my platoon the standard was that "if any weapons can still fire you go out the wire"

[wild_wild_wes]

mgscommander, the Future Combat Systems "Mounted Combat System" is virtually the same concept as the MGS, but only has a crew of two. How do you think that will work out?

[Stan187]

1. to be honest i think the biggest design flaw is the outside .50 cal mount. the weapon has to be fired from the outside and in the beginning there was no chicken shield around it. i damn near got shot trying to fire it. needless to say that weapon collected a lot of dust for the next 15 months. they did redesign a mount and put it on. it was a lot better but i still do not like the idea of coming out to fire it.

Is there no plans to integrate a remote system, like on the TUSK kit, or the Israeli IFVs?

[mgscommander14]

mgscommander, the Future Combat Systems "Mounted Combat System" is virtually the same concept as the MGS, but only has a crew of two. How do you think that will work out?
a two man crew in my opinion is not advisable. the mcs has both direct and indirect capabilites which i feel would puts to much of a strain on 1 person especially in contact. you have far less situational awareness around the vehicle (2 sets of eyes are better than 1) when it breaks down mainteneance is going to be a big issue. takes more than 2 people to do everything.

[mgscommander14]

Is there no plans to integrate a remote system, like on the TUSK kit, or the Israeli IFVs?
they are looking at putting a rws on the like the stryker on the back of the turret. big big mistake. to many low hanging wires and i see a height issue for aircraft. now thats not confirmed its a idea they are throwing out but we'll see what happens

[RSone]

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc258/RsShogun/Foto5mail1.jpg

OMG 1337DELTA-GAVINS!!!111one!!!!!p-):)

[mgscommander14]

i'm going to assume you a gavin fan

[gafkiwi]

a two man crew in my opinion is not advisable. when it breaks down mainteneance is going to be a big issue. takes more than 2 people to do everything.

HELL yeah, even as a dismount in a LAV III you learn to appreicate the wagons and what they offer. As for maintance I ve helped change and bead my share of those tyres and thats where the crews appreciate the extra "Grunt power" in the back, 3 crew is hard enough bugger having 2. Imagine how long the stag timings would be

[ColinP]

a two man crew in my opinion is not advisable. the mcs has both direct and indirect capabilites which i feel would puts to much of a strain on 1 person especially in contact. you have far less situational awareness around the vehicle (2 sets of eyes are better than 1) when it breaks down mainteneance is going to be a big issue. takes more than 2 people to do everything.

Not to mention guard duty, etc

[RSone]

i'm going to assume you a gavin fan

Why would i be a "gavin" fan? For starters, that rustbucket wouldn't even be a "gavin" as it's a AIFV(Dutch designation YPR-765), not a m-113. The Dutch army is replacing them with CV-9035 and the BOXER MRAV, which I like much more. Unfortunately "Sparky thinks" the m-113 is a sort of transformer(you should see what kind of crazy crap he's come up with) that can perform every combat role the US can come up with

[sp2c]

nah the YPR is cute, performs better then many of us thought it would
but I'll be glad when the last one is on the Vliehors with a couple of brand new holes in it though

[martinexsquaddie]

talking of gavins the British have just produced Bulldog the rebuilt fv432 similar to an m113 its actually pretty good by all accounts.
not hi tech but works
which is more than can be said for panther or fres

[The Dane]

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.

http://www.cmigroupe.com/files/files/defence/BATdefense-ctcv.pdf

[wild_wild_wes]

a two man crew in my opinion is not advisable. the mcs has both direct and indirect capabilites which i feel would puts to much of a strain on 1 person especially in contact. you have far less situational awareness around the vehicle (2 sets of eyes are better than 1) when it breaks down mainteneance is going to be a big issue. takes more than 2 people to do everything.

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.

[mgscommander14]

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.

http://www.cmigroupe.com/files/files/defence/BATdefense-ctcv.pdf
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

[mgscommander14]

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

[The Dane]

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

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.

[mgscommander14]

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

[oldsoak]

@mgscommander14

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.

[mgscommander14]

@mgscommander14

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

[wild_wild_wes]

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

[mgscommander14]

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.

[wild_wild_wes]

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.

And you would know!

[mgscommander14]

And you would know!
that i do. i have seen some smaller caliber weapons that would be good on an infantry stryker. i would like to see the bradley bushmaster 25mm on a stryker or some kind of weapon for wooded areas.

[gafkiwi]

that i do. i have seen some smaller caliber weapons that would be good on an infantry stryker. i would like to see the bradley bushmaster 25mm on a stryker or some kind of weapon for wooded areas.

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

[mgscommander14]

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

[guest]

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


Except the 25 has been frustating to use against certain targets.

It was a Godsend to watch 105mm HESH make short work of things.
If we had them in Panjwaii in early 'o6, lives would have been saved.

Assualting with 25 as your DFS was a big fukn no-no, the lesson was learned... the hard way.

[Sauragnmon]

Sometimes, you just need a BFG - guess this is one of the benefits of the BMP-3's combination of 100mm with coax 30mm. Not sure if it has a MG beside that, that I recall, but I know it puts a 30mm beside the 100mm, which can also cold-launch a guided missile round. Tactically Flexible, Solid, not to mention, roll it down the beach and across the river amphibious. Sure, there are still tricks and kinks that might benefit from improvement, like designing the fuel storage, if it must be where the seats are, with thick bulkheads that run floor to ceiling and are designed so the tank blows vertical in the event of a mine strike, as well as the spare tanks reinforced on the inside so the fuel goes Outward. Crew Survivability - it's a good thing!

[gafkiwi]

Except the 25 has been frustating to use against certain targets.

It was a Godsend to watch 105mm HESH make short work of things.
If we had them in Panjwaii in early 'o6, lives would have been saved.

Assualting with 25 as your DFS was a big fukn no-no, the lesson was learned... the hard way.

Well for us poor kiwis, the 25mm turret is a hell of an improvment over that of the APCs we used to roll around in the back of. I could just imagine our tankies busting a nut if they ever got their hands on the MGS. Remembering the LAV III is the only "AFV" in our army.

[mgscommander14]

Well for us poor kiwis, the 25mm turret is a hell of an improvment over that of the APCs we used to roll around in the back of. I could just imagine our tankies busting a nut if they ever got their hands on the MGS. Remembering the LAV III is the only "AFV" in our army.

we had hard lessons as well such as firing hep in to metal gates to courtyards. it seems the metal is too thin and will continue its flight into the house....go figure...so the gate would require a heat round....which by the way will immediately detonate if it hits a screening panel made of 1/4 inch plywood...

[Sauragnmon]

Of course it would, short of potentially firing the round into the ground in the immediate area of the gate itself, like, say, the ground right in front of the gate - unfortunately, I doubt the gun's got enough depression capacity from that high-sitting mount to actually Do that.

[mgscommander14]

Of course it would, short of potentially firing the round into the ground in the immediate area of the gate itself, like, say, the ground right in front of the gate - unfortunately, I doubt the gun's got enough depression capacity from that high-sitting mount to actually Do that.

well we put people in the turret that just do not have the experience to know that. i however do but for some it comes a little late. we can depress it enough to hit a gate about 50m away. the biggest problem the mgs program had was that the infantry stryker commanders did not allow needed mgs training. they also failed observe the training to figure out its limitations so we caught hell with performing in combat

[wild_wild_wes]

The Future Combat System's Mounted Combat System has a new 120mm cannon, so the BFG is not dead!

It seems MCS will play the same role in the FCS as the MGS does for the Stryker Bns.

[ColinP]

well we put people in the turret that just do not have the experience to know that. i however do but for some it comes a little late. we can depress it enough to hit a gate about 50m away. the biggest problem the mgs program had was that the infantry stryker commanders did not allow needed mgs training. they also failed observe the training to figure out its limitations so we caught hell with performing in combat

Did you get a chance to try out the Centario when it was at Ft Lewis? If so how do you compare the 2?

[Sauragnmon]

I've never seen combat, MGS, my wife managed to catch me before I signed on the dotted line to join the Canadian Infantry. It's just a simple thought to apply, that would result in less use of higher grade rounds. "ok, the gate's too flimsy to be blown open. let's use the ground right in front of the gate to detonate the round and we'll blow this f***er right wide open." It's like a rolling instant-order breaching charge!

[mgscommander14]

Did you get a chance to try out the Centario when it was at Ft Lewis? If so how do you compare the 2?

i did not, i wish i did. the centario is more of a light tank. i cant really compare the 2 because i have not been on it.

[mgscommander14]

I've never seen combat, MGS, my wife managed to catch me before I signed on the dotted line to join the Canadian Infantry. It's just a simple thought to apply, that would result in less use of higher grade rounds. "ok, the gate's too flimsy to be blown open. let's use the ground right in front of the gate to detonate the round and we'll blow this f***er right wide open." It's like a rolling instant-order breaching charge!

well this is when we first got there and we were not aware what it took to detonate the round. this was the vehicle commanders first time shooting the hep in combat. it was kind of funny later when you think about it but it was a good thing the house was a cache storage area and ****y trapped. the round going through did not cause collateral damage since it was an aqi hangout. was kind of funny to see a big hole in the gate and the front of the house missing. i have combat vids at www.youtube.com/tankcommander33

[wild_wild_wes]

mgscommander, has the Army actually worked up doctrine for the use of the MGS? Or are the guys in the field writing the book?

[mgscommander14]

mgscommander, has the Army actually worked up doctrine for the use of the MGS? Or are the guys in the field writing the book?

both, there is a stryker doctrine and it does have ways to employ the mgs. it was written prior to actually having the mgs so we are adding and changing doctrine since we were the first to use it in combat. there is a gunnery standard however we are submiting changes to that as well.

[mgscommander14]

one thing i want to bring up about the 25mm, some may feel it is to small but if you have ever seen 25mm he and 30mm he in action thn you know it's a force to be feared. don't let the size fool you it packs a punch and can cover a wide area. i have seen bradleys bring down bunkers with it in a matter of seconds

[Sauragnmon]

Do you think it might have been a potentially useful combination to mount a 25/30mm gun coaxial to your 105mm, as there are not always times where the 105 is "just what the doctor ordered"? For example, when rapid fire with modest round-power might serve more effect - engaging an area target that isn't a single fixed object, like a group of insurgents, hiding amongst cover. Or do MGS units travel beside something that carries an A/C with them.

[mgscommander14]

Do you think it might have been a potentially useful combination to mount a 25/30mm gun coaxial to your 105mm, as there are not always times where the 105 is "just what the doctor ordered"? For example, when rapid fire with modest round-power might serve more effect - engaging an area target that isn't a single fixed object, like a group of insurgents, hiding amongst cover. Or do MGS units travel beside something that carries an A/C with them.

for the mgs's purpose i dont think a 20 or 30 mm would be effective we need to be able to breech walls with 1 shot and destroy bunkers and fortifacations. we do have a 105mm canister round for groups of insurgents that is very effective against them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8
the mgs is has full stab, 1 105mm with 4 maingun selections, 1 .50 cal MG, 1. m240 7.62 coax MG

[Sauragnmon]

I meant the 25/30mm in addition to the 105mm, as in replacing the .50 with something a little heavier. Canister rounds are good, but have their limitations, namely that they spread over range, like one collossal shotgun, which could have the potential for friendly fire or collateral damage in some cases. A very specialized round, but still frighteningly effective - the Germans proved it with Canister in their StuG III's.

[mgscommander14]

I meant the 25/30mm in addition to the 105mm, as in replacing the .50 with something a little heavier. Canister rounds are good, but have their limitations, namely that they spread over range, like one collossal shotgun, which could have the potential for friendly fire or collateral damage in some cases. A very specialized round, but still frighteningly effective - the Germans proved it with Canister in their StuG III's.

hhhhmmm. well here is why i like the set up now. it gives me a degree of escalation. if coax is not enough got to .50, if thats not enough go to maingun. the problem is the .50 is a flex mount and is fired from the out side. now engaging insuregents with 2o or 30 mm is going to cause collateral damge as well. i am sure i would have to shoot more than 1 or 2 rounds to hit insurgents. there are times i would like to have 20 or 30mm to clear palmgroves or lightly structured buildings. i guess every weapon has its purpose. the problem is there are some many scenarios with limited amount of weapons

:cantbeli:

[GiladS]

Do you think it might have been a potentially useful combination to mount a 25/30mm gun coaxial to your 105mm, as there are not always times where the 105 is "just what the doctor ordered"? For example, when rapid fire with modest round-power might serve more effect - engaging an area target that isn't a single fixed object, like a group of insurgents, hiding amongst cover.

IMI developed APAM for these cases:
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jah/jah_3048.html

[wild_wild_wes]

I meant the 25/30mm in addition to the 105mm, as in replacing the .50 with something a little heavier. Canister rounds are good, but have their limitations, namely that they spread over range, like one collossal shotgun, which could have the potential for friendly fire or collateral damage in some cases. A very specialized round, but still frighteningly effective - the Germans proved it with Canister in their StuG III's.

lol- you want us to adopt the BMP-3!

Interesting concept. It would be easy to develop a guided 105mm missile, like the BMP-3's AT-10 ATGM; this would allow the TOW variant of the Stryker to be replaced with a more flexible 105 gun/missle launcher. But I can see that a 25mm/105mm turret would be un-godly complicated.

But I always thought the Army should have developed the MGS further: moving the engine to the rear of the vehicle would have allowed a much lower vehicle, and a more stable firing platform.

[Sauragnmon]

Well hey, the BMP-3 isn't that bad of a concept, in truth. As to lowering the chassis, it's not a matter of the engine being in the rear of the vehicle - that's where the gun and munitions are. If they widened the chassis, they could actually find more space and shrink the height down. A 25/105 turret wouldn't be That hard to design, just a matter of sorting out the ammunition feed to the 25mm so it doesn't get in the way of the 105's loading mechanism. As to the 105mm barrel-launched missile, that'd be a real novel concept, since you can carry More of them in the vehicle, rather than packing them in external box launchers, but they'd have to develop a cold-launch missile to make it effective while keeping any form of accuracy in the gun's normal mode of operation.

[mgscommander14]

the problem is if you widen it you have a problem, if you shorten it you have a problem, if i put the engine on top of my hatch i have a problem. i just accept it the way it is and fight. everyone has valid points and great ideas but the problem is when you have a good idea someone will make up some bull why we can't use that great idea. i want you all to know i shot the good idea fairy with 7.62 coax

[Stan187]

I meant the 25/30mm in addition to the 105mm, as in replacing the .50 with something a little heavier. Canister rounds are good, but have their limitations, namely that they spread over range, like one collossal shotgun, which could have the potential for friendly fire or collateral damage in some cases. A very specialized round, but still frighteningly effective - the Germans proved it with Canister in their StuG III's.

The .50 is still quite useful, and replacing it with something as heavy as 25/30mm cannon would leave much fewer options when you want to not damage surrounding infrastructure, or shoot through 4 sets of walls and kill people on the other side.

[mgscommander14]

The .50 is still quite useful, and replacing it with something as heavy as 25/30mm cannon would leave much fewer options when you want to not damage surrounding infrastructure, or shoot through 4 sets of walls and kill people on the other side.

i agree the .50 cal is a measure of collateral damage but on the mgs you take a chance trying to fire it since it has to be fired from the outside. it needs to be able to be fired in a remote fashion

[sp2c]

what about mounting it on the barrel of the gun like you see on Israeli MBT's sometimes?

[mgscommander14]

what about mounting it on the barrel of the gun like you see on Israeli MBT's sometimes?
we thought about that to but you loose the ability to fire multiple weapon systems. we can fire .50 and maingun or m240 and .50 at the same time. if we mount it to the gun we loose that ability. they are currently resolving the flex mount issue. i think i know what they are going to do but for security reasons i will have to keep that to myself

[sp2c]

we thought about that to but you loose the ability to fire multiple weapon systems. we can fire .50 and maingun or m240 and .50 at the same time. if we mount it to the gun we loose that ability.
you know what ... I knew that was coming about 3 seconds after I posted that last one :D



they are currently resolving the flex mount issue. i think i know what they are going to do but for security reasons i will have to keep that to myself
knew that was coming too ;)

well I hope they fix your problems without creating new ones (like a superheavy turret), other then that I don't really have anything to add on the subject so I'll just stick to lurking :D

[mgscommander14]

you know what ... I knew that was coming about 3 seconds after I posted that last one :D
i do the same thing. i get a case of the good idea fairy and realize that it probably was thought of already

knew that was coming too ;)

well I hope they fix your problems without creating new ones (like a superheavy turret), other then that I don't really have anything to add on the subject so I'll just stick to lurking :D
they will fix it however what they propose is going to cause some other problems. i guess they will fix a problem so they can create another

[Sauragnmon]

Five bucks says they're thinking of something along the lines of the Wave remote-operated stabilized weapons position for the .50 cal. Relatively the same size as the flex mount for height etc, fully stabilized, and capable of supporting a number of weapon systems.

But then, my thinking could be too bright for the military - we know they do have sometimes this tendency of just not going for the smartest idea, 90% of the time because some idiot starts quoting prices. Cheap Solution =/= Good Solution, too many times they forget the equation. Though, the navy's really the worst for it sometimes, more often ****e to outdated thinking but I won't go into that.

[mgscommander14]

Five bucks says they're thinking of something along the lines of the Wave remote-operated stabilized weapons position for the .50 cal. Relatively the same size as the flex mount for height etc, fully stabilized, and capable of supporting a number of weapon systems.

But then, my thinking could be too bright for the military - we know they do have sometimes this tendency of just not going for the smartest idea, 90% of the time because some idiot starts quoting prices. Cheap Solution =/= Good Solution, too many times they forget the equation. Though, the navy's really the worst for it sometimes, more often ****e to outdated thinking but I won't go into that.

i can tell you its the dumbest idea i have seen presented to the MGS and it will cause more problems than if it is left the way it is. i called my buddy to verify my gut feeling and i was correct. the new design is retarded and will not work

[ColinP]

They tried 20mm coaxial on MBT's and gave up on them. A decent mount and protection for the .50cal is not that hard, although the US army has a track record of making the simple difficult.

[Sauragnmon]

A remote operated stabilized mount is the best possible choice. And the coax 20mm isn't that bad of a concept, but if I recall, when they first made the tests on them, they didn't pay off because of the nature of the 20mm autocannons of the time being methods like clip-fed. And mostly, if I recall, the main problem they found with the coax 20mm was that it had a limited supply of ammo when compared to lighter weapons.

[ColinP]

Early MGS :)

http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRA6221