BAQUBAH, Iraq — The newest version of the Armys 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 Armys 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 — dont 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, 4/9s MGS platoon.
“Its a piece,” another MGS platoon member chimed in. “Nothing works on it.”
Read the rest here.
all the real tankers know that the stryker is a POS. from the beginning the thing had problems firing its main gun and sometimes even tipping over if they fired from the left and right flanks.
tipping over looks good on paper?
I remember reading somewhere how the M8 Armored Gun System had a great automatic reloading system that worked really well,but the MGS is a piece of crap.
Is the gun too powerful(too much recoil) for the Stryker? I know that the 105mm gun is exactly the same gun that was on a much larger & more stable M60A1/A3 Tank & on the original M1 tank.
Why didn’t they put a traditional turret on this thing? Also,there are excellent Low-Recoil Guns out there,both 105mm & 120mm,why did the army go with the gun that they did? CMI Defence seems to have an excellent 105mm & turret system that shouldn’t seem to tip the vehicle over.What about the LAV-600 or at least the LAV-105 turret & low recoil gun from the LAV-600? What was the logic of using a gun that supposedly was not powerful enough for the M1 Tank,but obviously is too powerful for the Stryker(or is it just a balancing problem from the gun being too heavy?).
MOWAG had a 10x10 Piranha with a traditional gun turret & 105mm gun(most likely low-recoil though).What was the stupid logic of the Stryker MGS? Is it behaving like the M551 Sheridan did when its gun was fired?
Whats wrong with having LAV-25 or LAV-30 turrets on the Strykers? Rumsfeld sure had a “senior moment” with the Stryker vehicles,thats for sure.
Sorry,one more thing.It probably doesn’t help to have that bird cage on the vehicle when firing the gun.
I have two words for the Stryker MGS,“Muzzle Brake(or does it already have one of those?).”
We should have had M-8AGS.
Funny, no comments have shown up from Mike Sparks yet. You can usually count on him to make an immediate appearance on any message board which comes within a mile of criticizing the Stryker… In the meantime, I’m disappointed but not surprised to hear that, gasp, a newly-fielded system has critics in the field. One question comes to mind; how many of the MGS crews who complained are former tankers? It would be quite a downgrade going from an M1A1/A2 to a Stryker MGS.
In the meantime I hear the Styker ATGM was quite popular, so at least something went right.
One other thought– the “Why no LAV-25 turret?” question came up on another board, and a Stryker company commander said that, among other reasons, the turret basket would reduce the infantry capacity and probably keep it from fitting in a Hercules.
(www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2–15756.aspx if you’d like to read it yourself.)
TrustButVerify,
The main question I have is does the gun have too much recoil? There are many 105mm & 120mm low recoil guns that shouldn’t tip the Stryker over when being shot.
“from the beginning the thing had problems firing its main gun and sometimes even tipping over if they fired from the left and right flanks.“
Just what exactly is causing this?
@Sintax:
Can you provide a reference that shows or talks about a 105mm Stryker “tipping over” from firing?
Tip: Don’t lose too much time, it does not exist. Simple calculations show that recoil force of the 105mm firing sideways would not overcome gravity force except if the stryker would already be more than 30 degrees downslope, on its side. That’s a big slope.)
@Roy Smith
LAV-25 turrets on a Stryker chassis? With Air conditionning as an Infantry Carrier? It’s called a Canadian Lav-3, and there nothing wrong about it. Used in Afghanistan right now, it’s definitly not perfect, it has mobility challenges at times, but it’s still an excellent capability.
@TrustButVerify:
The Lav-3 fits in a Hercules. Been there, done that.
The stryker 105mm is not a tank replacement. But it’s a fast, effective direct fire support for stryker brigades.
Guys,
Its hard to believe that only one person here has actually given real thought about the fact that this is a new design, something just fielded. I know people that work on this project, and yeah it has its problems, but its a good system. I’ve seen videos of the cannon taking a shot, and it rocks the thing, but I haven’t heard about it tipping over because of it. And if the air conditioning thing was a big enough concern, why haven’t we heard about the issues from soldiers using the other variants? The soldiers love the other strykers and air conditioning wouldn’t be left off just one variant. And I’ll tell ya, there will be an overhaul of the Stryker in the next 5 or 10 years. Its already being planned and money is being awarded. FCS technology will be added, and most systems upgraded. I’m not saying its perfect, or ever will be, but its a new system. Give it time to prove itself
It looks good. Nothing like having a big gun, on demand…
Any data known of Stryker survivability from sustained hits by RPG-29, AT-5 Spandrel or AT-14 Kornet-E?
Christian, have these tankers experienced combat against tandem shaped charged-warheads?
The thing i am puzzled about is how the USA manages to create so much crappy weapons? It is without any doubt that USA is the most powerfull country in the world, by the means of scientific research, workforce, financial capability and most of all weapon traditions. And then an advanced programme to crate a weapon system, supervized by the government, the military and the contractor spents 80% of its multibillion budget on burocracy and if 20% on development, to produce an unreliable and uncapable weapon with countless concept flaws, that people with field experience could have noticed and probably did and told so, but just weren’t listened to. I find that sad.
Anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations. I understand even the Chrysler K car had it’s fans.
> Rumsfeld sure had a “senior moment” with the
> Stryker vehicles,thats for sure.
Rumsfeld was not a fan of the Stryker, but after caneling the Comanche and Crusader he couldnt get rid of the Stryker. Shineksi was the main force behind the Stryker.
It seems to me that there are always people hating as soon as a weapon hits the field (Or is even starting in testing) The Stykers ATGM got lots of crap before it left for the field and then the Stryker guys didn’t have enough good to stay about them. The problem with the big gun Stryker is that they don’t know what to use it for yet and some flaws they missed before they got it into the field (Remember the Mustang sucked when they first deployeed it). The AC problem will be fixed I am sure and commanders will figure out how to use them for fire support in the field and people will begin to like it. I mean it’s the LAV, the Marines love them, the Army loves them (Stryker), and our friends in service to the Queen love them.
STRYKER with the basic armor package can only stop 7.62 with the add on steel plates it will stop 50 caliber rounds. as a tanker i just don’t have a positive view of the stryker. ive seen them in combat and they do not survive ied’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFMix3dudU
watch this video how the poor canuks promise the afgan civilians to help them with medic support in a few days and then when they go to help the stryker main bearing breaks in the middle of a mud ditch. what a joke how can we build alliances with the locals when we ride around in unreliable tins cans like the stryker.
well here is a story where a single company lost 5 strykers in a single week. in one attack 6 soldier and 1 reporter were killed from a ied that exploded from underneath the stryker.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/May/20070516News029.asp
in one event the soldiers were being pounded from small arms and rpgs. that they ran our the the stryker and into a house for better protection from the cover of the house they watched there stryker burn to the ground. sure the stryker is fast but rpgs are faster and penetrate armor.
I think that the Stryker would work in flat Savannas like in Africa,but like the HMMWV,its a fish out of water when placed in an urban environment & those birdcages don’t help. Light tanks like the M8 AGS or even the Stingray II would probably work a whole lot better in urban environments.That along with an “Urban Fighter” up-armored version of the M113. I have nothing against the Stryker Vehicles.They were most likely what the designers behind the 9th Motorized Infantry Division Test Bed had in mind in the 80’s.Combine Strykers with Fast Attack Dune Buggies(I saw the FAVs in Ft. Irwin when I was stationed there & thought they were really cool to look at) in wide open spaces & it would probably be a thing of beauty to watch.
Thanks for the Videos BT. They all demonstrate the Styrker’s survivability. None of those videos shows a kill. While men have died in the Stryker, it is a lot safer than other vehicles. The General Lee video (of Michael Yon fame) shows the Stryker taking what appears to be a TKO IED hit, yet no one died, and the thing was repaired and rolling days later. I believe the vehicle fits the bill perfectly for what it was asked to do. The problem comes when you shoehorn vehicles into roles they were not designed for. The Hummer is not a do it all troop carrier. The Stryker is not a tank killer, or even an IFV. The Bradley likes to pretend it is a tank, but it isn’t.
We still need a Sheridan replacement. Something light, with treads, and a building-destruction oriented gun. These vehicles are not going to be on the speer head of any future conflict, so any anti-tank ability is pointless. I just don’t get why they overdid the MGS’s 105mm. It doesn’t need to fire sabot rounds or be able to kill tanks. It doesn’t need a massive muzzle velocity (and therefore tons of recoil) Although it does fire HESH rounds which will level a building in 1 go, which is nice.
I think the MGS, like the Bradley before it, will take some refinement and some getting used to. Commanders aren’t quite sure how to utilize it yet. With an upgrade package, it will turn into a fine vehicle. One that will mesh with the FCS system well. The Dragonfire Mortar system in particular, I believe, will make the Stryker one of the most valuable weapon systems out there. Automated, accurate 120mm mobile mortar fire? Yes please.
Hey Christian, where’s the Landwarrior report? Curious to hear straight from the source.
Either Dragonfire Mortar or the Bighorn Mortar system would work.How about a closed turreted mortar system like the twin gunned Patria AMOS mortar system &/or single gun NEMO mortar system.Or you could have the BAE Systems/GDLS single gun AMS II mortar turret system. I read on Global Security that the army is planning to field a Stryker SP Howitzer armed with the South African Denel LEO 105mm Howitzer Gun.This gun is supposed to lob a 105mm shell as far as the Denel 155mm G5/G6 howitzers do.Too bad that that 105mm gun seems too big size wise for light or airborne units to be able to use,because it sounds like an interesting concept.
It seems everyone is talking around the main question.
The military is concerned with getting heavy assets to places quickly.
Instead of making aircraft that can transport heavy equipment without a huge airfield (like a very large Osprey, or lighter than air concept); or a fast transport (like a large version of the catamaran ferry
The light tank isn’t just in response to the failure of transport. It is also designed to be effective in environments where the local infrastructure (i.e bridges) can’t support the weight of a heavy tank.
That said, one has to wonder what a Stryker MGS is supposed to do that air support can’t do when it comes to AT work.
There’s more to it than that, Dennis. Consider factors such as operating cost and maintenance, just to name two.
Battlefield survivability is my concern with the Stryker. Right now, the threat focus is primarily IED’s and RPG’s. Regarding the latter, a short term fix has been the addition of cage armor. However, a greater threat exists that, while not found in abundance today, could definitely become a problem should Iran be attacked and brought into the Iraq War. That potential threat consists of more effective ATGM’s. Consider the recent experiences by the IDF in south Lebanon.
Dennis, a C-17 costs $200 million dollars and the Air Force isn’t really keen on having all its fighter pilots become transport pilots.
What makes tankers the sole combat arms worthy of heavy armor? Infantry accompany tanks into close combat and need as much or more protection since more on board to get hit by spall. What about scout vehicles? Mortars are near combat units. Artillery is subject to counterbattery. C2 vehicles are big targets.
If you make everything tank size, your procurement costs and logistics challenge/costs go through the roof. Even then, you remain vulnerable to top and rear attack because you can’t make everything frontal armor thick, or you never get across bridges and you get bogged down in soft soil.
Try to calculate how many C-17s you need to move a substantial heavy force all the size of an Abrams (1 per C-17) to secure ports and airheads for follow-on forces. You can build a joint heavy lift rotorcraft to move 30 tons.…but certainly not 70+ tons.
MG Scales has studies that show any armor substantially increases survivability of mounted forces because artillery and small arms are major killers. You can employ active protection systems to thwart RPGs and anti-armor munitions and tactics/sensors to take long range shots against heavy armor sabot rounds.
Some heavy forces will be around a long time to take out the threat’s few best tanks. But to continue logistically supporting the early and long war (logisticians are vulnerable too!)…and secure multiple initial points of entry, a lighter force makes sense. And a lighter force that can be transported tactically within the theater, offering numerous tactical options.
I peronally love the Stryker but think the MGS version is completely useless. Where will this thing be used? I don’t think we would be able to land aircraft in an area where we would have to defend against tanks. And aren’t Apaches capable of being transported by plane too?
We have ships prepositioned around the globe stocked full of M-1s and other armored equipment. This is what would be used to combat enemy armor, not the MGS.
It would make more sense to me to buy the ATGM/mortar version instead.
And putting a tanker in one of these is like making a fighter pilot fly a C-17. Of course they will not be happy.
DC2
That said, one has to wonder what a Stryker MGS is supposed to do that air support can’t do when it comes to AT work.
Posted by: hunter at January 30, 2008 10:20 PM
The MGS being right with the stryker brigade gives them sabots for anti tank, HE shells for knocking out bunkers and cannister rounds for taking down massed infantry. Sure you want more protection than a 19 ton vehicle when going againt an MBT but at least you don’t have to wait 15 minutes for air power to engage it. Other things can do all of that of course but mortars and artillery still take longer than a 105mm cannon that is with all the other stykers throwing 18 shells down range with direct fire that can correct in seconds after each shot and get immediate damage report/results. Air power is even slower to respond than artillery and mortars and rockets systems and we are talking about a quick reaction force being able to hit bunkers in seconds instead of minutes from protection ie inside the vehicle instead of having to expose themselves when firing a should fired rocket and again the set up time of having a round in the breech and locking on to say a VBIED compared to setting up a javelin or even at4 is probably a big difference. AT work is not really what this is for. This is like a mobile bunker buster for stryker brigades. Strykers are for urban combat supposedly and I doubt they get sent in before air power has already worked the enemy armor over.
i am a mgs platoon sergeant and i will say that the MGS has proven its worth in combat if you would like to have any questions answered feel free to shoot me an email. i see there are a lot of myths out there like flipping over when fired, not being able to shoot on the move, etc
email: tanker_legend@yahoo.com
mgscommander14,
Do you know,or have you heard of any plans to upgrade the gun on the MSG with,say,the RUAG 120mm Compact Tank Gun?
Going from a 105 to a 120 does not sound smart. Check out some of the videos of the 105 being fired on this thing, it is obviously at its max caliber.
Some questions I have.. Is this gun even armored? Or could some 50cal or less shred up the working mech. inside this thing. Can it fire on the move?
The RUAG 120mm Compact Tank Gun is supposed to have a muzzle brake to reduce the recoil of the gun for use on light armored vehicles like the MGS(if I understand correctly what it is that a muzzle brake is supposed to do).There are also other 120mm & 105mm Low Recoil Force Guns available from Germany,Belgium,Italy,& Israel that can be used that I’m sure will also knock down buildings & act as a “shotgun” against massed enemy soldiers or irregulars.I thought that the Strykers’ main advantage was their speed in wide open spaces which was why making them “urban” vehicles didn’t make sense & why they had to put the slat armor on them which weighed them down.Have they replaced the Slat armor with the Israeli M-TAPS system yet? The 105mm gun on the MSG was supposed to be too small for the M1 tank & is most likely one of the many reasons why we got rid of all of our M60A1/A3 TTS Tanks,so why is it suddenly “da bomb” for the MSG? Even the M8AGS was going to use a 105mm Low Recoil Force Gun,& I’m sure that it’s more stable a platform than the Stryker MGS.BAE Systems have an upgraded version of the M8AGS out with a 120mm Low Recoil Force Gun.
I AM SFC C A MOBILE GUN SYSTEM PLATOON SERGEANT. I HAVE FRIED 58 COMBAT DRIVEN TANK ROUNDS OFF OF MY VEHICLE ALONE NOT IN MY PLATOON.…ALONE AND APPROXIMATELY 10,000 COAX ROUNDS. I HAVE 4 CONFIRMED KILLS AND ABOUT 4 MORE THAT WERE NEVER FOUND…JUST THE REMAINS. THE MGS IS ACCURATE, RELIABLE, AND A NEEDED ASSET IN IRAQ. IT IS NOT A TANK BUT HAS THE CAPABILITIES OF A TANK. I CAN ZIP ACROSS BAGHDAD IN A MATTER OF MINUTE AT 65 MPH. I CAN AND HAVE FIRED IT AT A SPEED OF 45 MPH. THIS IS WITH OUT A DOUBT A GOD SEND TO THE INFANTRY. IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME ASK THE 160 11B’S THAT ARE IN MY COMPANY.
people:as a MGS commander and platoon sergeant let me just give you a quick background about myself and say a few things then you can decide what you think of the MGS. I have fired 58 service rounds in baghdad and baqubah iraq from the 105mm gun on the MGS. i have fired every type of round heat, hep, and canister. i have 58 confirmed target hits. i have 1 broken window for collateral damage. i have fired a couple thousand rounds of 7.62. i have 4 confirmed kills and 4 unconfirmed (bodies being carried away) i have no civilian casualties. i am not on a glory bus just want you to know that i have used the Sh** out if this vehicle. now let me tell you a few things about the vehicle
1. the vehicle has been used to breach walls, buildings and obstacles. it has cleared large wooded areas with canister rounds. it has destroyed ied’s hbied’s and vbied’s. it has been used as a support by fire and attack by fire. it has been used to provide a psychological advantage. it has been used to follow the dismounts as a deterent while they walked the streets of iraq. its been used as JCOP security, route security and convoy security
2. i have broken down twice because of the turret for less than 24 hours. i have never had a hull problem. yes parts can be a pain because the army is not sure if its going to buy it
3. there is no streets in iraq that i have not been able to get down.
4. the mgs is not a tank and will never be able to be used in that manner can i defend against a tank…yes. it is c130 capable like every stryker.
5. the 105 does not cause collateral damage as everyone thinks i have fired it from ranges of 30 meters to 1000 meters. anything less than 105 is useless the 105 is designed to breach and make a hole large enough to get a squad of dismounts thru.
6. and last i would just like to say that real tankers would know that the mgs does not flip when fired over the side as “sintax” commented earlier. so its apparent that “sintax” works at ft knox as a driver for OBC.
so take what you want from what i have told you and think about it. do not listen to people like sintax and remember there are only 27 mgs commanders, gunners, and drivers qualified to tell you about the mgs.
seriously people the mgs does not flip nor did it ever flip. the flipping over came from test that they did to find out how far the vehicle could lean before it would flip. once they determined how far they but in a inhibit so the gun would not fire at that degree of lean. i have fired currently 74 rounds here in sunny iraq and have never been on my side. sintax so you know i am as real as tankers get. here is the bottom line. a real tanker can take any vehicle with a sabot round and make it the most killing machine on the battlefield.
The stryker sucks big time!!!! let the people who invented the the blasted thing ride it into combat and then if they servive let them ride a M1 in too combat and see the world of differnce the M1 would realy rock there world and the tin can stryker they would fear me personal am allergic too dying and the M1 would help me servive.
“the contractor spents 80% of its multibillion budget on burocracy and if 20% on development, to produce an unreliable and uncapable weapon with countless concept flaws“
That is not true. Wrongly assigning the blame on the contractor when the Government creates the bureaucracy and redtape for the contractor.
Sam Tew,
You heard it from the frontline’s mouth yet you repudiate their hard evidence that the Stryker does NOT suck. I would recommend visiting your eye doctor to cure your blindness.
The Stryker may be actual proof that Americans are dumb. That would be fine with me. But I’m afraid it rather highlights the sheer scale of corruption and treason inside the Pentagon and the US armed forces, where industry lobbyists and their willful cooperators control which equipment enters into service — and not the actual need for that thing, or the real capabilities and merits of the system in question.
In short: The Stryker sucks, and whoever’s responsible for it should pay dearly. It amounts to treason. No doubt that there was massive corruption involved in the decision-making process, too.
You don’t have to be a military buff to see at first glance that the M113 Gavin is by far superior to the Stryker in all aspects. And I mean ALL.
Just watch these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn6cyaOBmUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R-jUZmZQm8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg6c7u1N-Wg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9Xe9MKm9uA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI5wiD3sxwk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PADpWjx5LA
Obama bin laden
It is really just a temporary piece of machinery until the FCS comes out.
I just wanted to comment on someone saying that M113s are good combat vehicles, you’re an Idiot. Those things suck, you obviously never had to ride in one or constantly drag the thing into the motorpool for the track mechanics to fix. I’ll take a humvee any day over one of those.
I love people that make comments like, “are you guys using the new Isreali-missle-interception radio-telegraph machine yet?” Go join the army and see what we have for equipment. We may look like Starship Troopers wearing ACUs and full battle rattle, but we sure as hell don’t feel like one, more like a guy who misses being able to move his arms. And who thought up the ACU colors? Sure lets make some camouflage that doesnt camouflage you in any terrain or environment. And velcro? I like the British uniform, it uses good old fashion buttons. I swear they were just trying to put the sewing shop at the PX out of business with all that crap velcro.
And if you want a safe vehicle for Iraq with all the IEDs, put a Battleship on wheels.
Hey guys — a message from over the pond…
Now i’m not someone who has experienced these actual vehicles, but I AM a CVR-T commander in the RAC, and a general tech nut so I do have some basis of fact…
M113’s suck. End of. ANy US serviceman i’ve ever spoken to who’s used them, hates them. Their made of aluminium? Our CVR-T’s are too, and I know they have a distressing habit of melting if things get too hot. As a recce vehicle its usually fair to say we’re not in line to get that kinda heat.… an APC like the Gavin, is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in one. I think the love affair that seems to be going on with it is that the US has never experienced anything better in the tracked APC line. Try an FV432 Bulldog, with Chobham skirts…now THAT a contender for the stryker.
Strykers, for all their problems, are faster, simpler to maintain, better armoured (than an M113 at least) more comfortable i’m sure. Colby Buzzel, in that blog based book ‘killing time in Iraq’ seemed to love them.
With regards to the MGS… looks like a good piece of kit rushed into service a little too fast. GIve it time to mature and i’m sure it’ll grow into itself, a little like an awkward teenager.
Oh, and Sam Tew? Learn to spell mate, you sound like a f*cking 5 year old.…
PS Crack on with the good work all you US Servicemen. See some of you Op Herrick, 2010! Mines the dinky troop leaders scimitar with the welsh flag on the offside radio antenna
with regards to the stryker and the mgs i just got back from iraq using the blasted things and yes i still stand on what i said before THE STYKER STILL SUCKS M1 ABRAMS ARE STILL BETTER TO MANTAIN AND THE STRYKER NOT the mgs had multi problems and we never used it al it was was a big gov toy bottom line th gov wasted million on them when we could still be saving lives also the terrin we was in the stryker was unable to manuver unlike a m1 almost costing live i know this as a fact basicly infanty are trying to take over the battle feild and on of these days they will need a tank and wont have it aslo iraqis fear the m1 they cant stop it down with the terrist long live the allies no one can change my mind on m1 vs stryker