Comments on: New Stryker Sucking

By: johnny boy

johnny boy — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:19:27 +0000

They should export them to the UK. The MOD likes buying suspect vehicles. and it looks so cool such a shame.

By: Duffelbag84

Duffelbag84 — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:10:45 +0000

All I know is that the guys that complain and bitch about this system are bias. I was with 4th brigade 2nd Id when the very first mgs deployed to Iraq. Yes the system has its problems but I never had that big of issues with mine maybe because my vehicle commander made us do proper maintenance on it or maybe I was lucky and got the one good one made however i doubt it was the latter. It is not a tank it is there to support which mine did wonderfully. Yes I complained and bitched that it wasnt an M1 but after my deployment I understand that. So sure there are issues with the vehicle but you guys need to think about another system that had the same growing pains the m-16. Soldiers in vietnam hated the thing and complained that it was horrible. The army seen those shortcomings and fixed the thing and now as long as you maintain the weapon it works great. All in all let the mgs get some time under its belt and let the company fix the short comings. Then if it still has issues it might be time to find something else

By: MGS Instructor

MGS Instructor — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:53:40 +0000

First thing, no MGS has ever tipped over while firing. That's some urban myth those in the know take as gospel. I've watched hundreds of rounds fired from MGS's and none have ever come close to tipping. As for a muzzle brake, prototypes had a "pepper box" muzzle brake on them. The problem with that is all that over pressurized combustion gas gets redirected back to the vehicle (that's how brakes work) causing a whole different set of problems. The point that most crews are made up off tankers from the Abrams world is very true. A big chunk of these guys compare the MGS to a tank which it is not. The MGS is best viewed as a assault gun used to support the Infantry with the ability to kill a tank if needed. And to be honest many soldiers complain no matter what you give them. It's the old "Your last or your next duty station is the best place to be but you hate where you are."

By: sam tew

sam tew — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:51:36 +0000

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

By: Brit-Tankie

Brit-Tankie — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:22:52 +0000

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

By: bigsir10mtn

bigsir10mtn — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:42:21 +0000

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.

By: Steven Skovranek

Steven Skovranek — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:32:30 +0000

It is really just a temporary piece of machinery until the FCS comes out.

By: WARLOCK

WARLOCK — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:51:06 +0000

Obama bin laden

By: Axel_Bavaria

Axel_Bavaria — Sun, 18 May 2008 14:44:56 +0000

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=_R-jUZmZQm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9Xe9MKm9uA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PADpWjx5LA

By: WR

WR — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:35:07 +0000

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.