Some of you might remember my entry from Iraq a couple weeks ago criticizing the new Stryker vehicle version called the mobile gun system, or MGS. I spoke with three MGS crew, including an MGS platoon sergeant, who said the system was crap.
Well, in the interest of giving each side their due, Im going post some comments sent to me this weekend from another MGS platoon sergeant who was quoted in the Bloomberg story I cited in my story.
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.
And later he wrote me…
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.
The MGS platoon sergeant also pointed me in the direction of some YouTube videos featuring the MSG. Heres one, and a link to the others.
So, take a look for yourself. All I can say is the crew with whom I talked in Baqubah hated the vehicle and argued it was rushed too soon to combat. Our new source says something completely different, and its totally fair to argue that my story was based on the opinions of just a handful of people.
Well follow up with any further disclosures on the MGS from all sides.
And, PS: Im back from the Sandbox. A hearty thanks to my dear leader, Ward Carroll, for hosting the blog in my absence. He did a first rate job and I can see you all enjoyed his aimless blathering…
– Christian
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
The MGS eems a high cost solution. In VN the Australians created a FSV by putting a turret from a Saladin armored car on an M113 APC. I would think a 76.2mm gun would be adequate for most purposes in urban and rural combat against insurgents, and a recycled turret would be cheap. Also, wouldn’t the shorter barrel result in a more maneuverable vehicle in narrow streets and alleys? If you want to go new, other options would include a breech-loading version of the 81mm or even 120mm mortar. Lots of HE ammo, and short barrel. There are even low-recoil 90mm tubes that the French and I believe a number of other Europeans use on armored cars.
I like the previous comments, but lets face it, the Army wants a “light tank” that can go anywhere on the field and be transported rapidly.
My thought on the subject is the transporting of the M1A2 is a transport problem, not a vehicle problem.
This new Striker is not made for what we are doing now. Of course neither was the HUMVEE or half of the equipment they have over there….
The one question I have is about the cooling system.
Do they really wear cooling suits? And if so, what moron decided to buy a vehicle that cannot keep the crew cool?
Every time I hear about a new toy, they all seem to have either maintenance problems or serious design problems…….
It makes me wish Caterpillar would jump into the fray and provide some much needed competition. Their heavy equipment does not break down everyday and they manage to keep the operators cool
The MGS is relatively expensive for a counter-insurgency vehicle. And it is big & the barrel is long. There are tens of thousands of T54, T55, T62 & T72 series tanks in service around the world (I’m too lazy to look up specific numbers). A 105mm gun is necessary for parity in firepower. Secondly, the MGS is a bridge to future tanks with 3 man crews. The Army needs to develop tactics for tanks without 2 machine guns on the turret roof.
“And if so, what moron decided to buy a vehicle that cannot keep the crew cool?”
Temperatures in the Abrams can reach 130 degrees: 1600 horsepower turbine, desert conditions, sealed for NBC protection, heavy armor.
Few military vehicles emphasize crew comfort.
Here, to use an anecdote: I joined the Corps some 10 years ago; I wanted to go grunt, but aced the ASVAB and my recruiters pointed me to aviation. I looked at the shiny brochure and said, “Cool, I get to work on F-18s. So long as it isn’t that old one, you know, with the two big rotors. Man, what a hunk of shit.” 12 weeks later, we sit down, and the heavy hat says “Hall, 0311; Hankinson, 6112; Hernandez, 0311.”
6112? What the hell is 6112?
Yep, the damn helicopter with the two main rotors. Jeez. It was slow, weak, nothing sexy, nothing powerful. It was the only helo that has actually appreciated in price and cost in the Marine Corps inventory (because they just don’t make any of the big parts anymore, they rebuild them).
Talk to me as a private, a lance, or even a junior NCO, and I’d point out how bad the airframe sucked. Then I made Sergeant, lat moved to crew chief, and I was no longer retarded, and I realized exactly what we can do with it, and I became a fan.
I became a huge fan. Yeah, some parts of the platform sucked, BUT what it did, the H-46 did awesomely.
What I heard from the last post was just the normal bitching. The MGS is a Stryker – a very capable weapon system in itself – married to a heavy cannon. A Stryker with a big gun.
That would be pretty damn useful.
History is littered with reports criticizing weapon systems… that’s usually until people see them work, or the bugs are worked out of them. (ie. Apache, Abrams, F-117, Osprey, etc.)
I’m a bit surprised they couldn’t bolt an air conditioning unit onto the exterior of the vehicle. And what about the NBC capabilities of the MGS… are crews expected to wear MOPP gear & a pro mask in the vehicle? Or does it have a filtered overpressure system?
Regarding all the different variants… I wonder if a 120mm Mortar/Short-range Gun, with a programmable breech & automated turret would be more effective. It would combine two variations of the Stryker. You already have an ATGM variant for fighting tanks, as well as dismounted infantry. And the fact that guided mortar rounds are coming into the fold, not to mention the feasibility of a RAP shot that could give you an almost-flat trajectory from a 120mm mortar tube in a low elevation… eh, just rambling.
“MGS Stryker Intro”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41CpIA1Jytk
I used to work for GDLS, and I heard a lot of concerns about how some of the parts on that thing would rattle loose after a few shots. I sure hope they got that problem fixed before they went to the field…
It but it sounds like the MGS is undergoing the normal teething troubles that come with just about any new weapons system.
I suspect that in the long run your latest correspondent is more correct and the MGS will prove to be a valuable asset, but I hope the brass pays attention to the complaints of the first crew you talked to and fixes them in a hurry.
Warts and all, if the troops like it, fine. Beats getting shot to pieces in a Humvee. Here is some fun reading though on how one of the Army creators got off with some good paydays and revolving door stuff. I bet he thinks the Stryker is great.
http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-040101-stryker.html
Keep up the good work Christian.
Like I said during the previous article: I can’t see how a tank that can easily be defeated by a RPG is valuable.
Look at the birdcage surrounding this thing in the picture. I am sure this thing dominates AK-47 toting insurgents. But what happens when it has to go against any relatively new tank. I seem to recall the 105mm main gun on the M1 was replaced for a reason (the same gun this thing is using). This thing would be best served in a defensive position, a lot of dirt piled in front of it, and the turret being the only thing visible.
This seems to be a waste of money to me from a logistical standpoint. Why not buy more ATGM and mortar versions of the Stryker. That way you don’t have to support another type of vehicle.
Let these tankers drive something that can take a licking and keep on ticking.
DC2
DC2-
The MGS is not a tank as is not designed to fight tanks. It is designed to support infantry, ie blowing up pillboxes, knocking down walls, shooting up lightly armored vehicles, etc. I was not designed, nor will it go toe to toe with a MBT.
The reason the 105 gun was droped from the M-1 was that it couldnt defeat modern tank armor, but again, the stryker wont be fighting MBT’s.
> Why not buy more ATGM and mortar versions of the Stryker.
Those variants have different roles, the ATGM version to gight tanks, and the morter version will provide indirect fire.
Acad.
The styker was chosen over the M113 APC in the late 90′s. While a 76.2mm gun might be a good fit, the US doesnt have any weapons that size.
NTV,
In that case, then the rapid firepower it brings would be better suited than the ATGM version. I just have a hard time coming to grips with a vehicle having a basic tank design that cannot survive a RPG hit without the birdcage.
To me it seems more like a Sheridan than anything else.
DC2
There is NO justification for a 105mm canon on a 20 ton wheeled vehicle. Needs a 35mm/50mm Bushmaster III auto cannon, some TOW 2, and maybe a GAU-19 .50 cal minigun. Now that is some serious usable urban warfare fire power.
NTV,
They promised Jessica Lynch & her company that they would never see combat,& we all know how THAT turned out(why weren’t those Iraqis cheering in the streets & throwing flowers?).The idea that the MGS will never see an enemy tank is unrealistic.Again,for what the MGS is supposed to do,there are other “Low-Recoil” tank guns out there,both in 105mm & 120mm,that won’t shake the MGS apart when they are fired.If you got to have a “big gun,” then whats wrong with the RUAG 120mm “with muzzle brake” Compact Tank Gun? It is replacing the 105mm gun,like what the MGS has,on M60 tanks in other countries,& Jordan is even putting it on their Challenger 1 tanks that they got from the UK.If the Clinton’s had not killed off the M8AGS,then there would be a tank gun,”low-recoil,” that could also do what the MGS is supposed to be doing today.I understand that the automatic loader is much better on the AGS than the MGS.Also,BAE Land Systems have upgraded the tank gun on the AGS to 120mm “Low-Recoil.” This is what I question the most,the choice of “THAT” gun(M68 105mm Tank Gun,that again,wan’t good enough for the M1 & made the M60s & the M48A5 obsolete,among other things),WHY……THAT GUN?
Off-topic & trying to sound as paranoid as I possibly can,I think that the reason for the Stryker Vehicles is to see how they’ll “really” perform in “urban environments,” because the tactics that our military are using today in the big cities of Iraq can also be used in event of martial law,under the provisions of the Patriot Act,in the U.S,& the MGS will indeed not face enemy tanks in the U.S. streets,unless private collectors unleash their “refurbished” WWII tanks(like,what was that movie that James Garner made in the 1980′s about being a Sergeant Major who owned his own private “refurbished’ WWII tank?) on the streets.Of course,all of this will only happen when Hillary becomes president & reduces our military to a domestic Gendarmerie like Mexico’s.
Roy, I see you are progressing rapidly to basic paragraph structure, which is an improvement, but there is still this visceral insanity whenever you post, like I’m walking into a cafe to sit down and read the paper with a cup of joe, and you grab my suit lapels and shove me against the door, then start quoting Revelations.
Dude, just chill. Just chill. Just. Chill. Just chill.
Just wait until a democrat come into officer. Our military will shrink, and face cuts like never before.
Back to the Stryker. Why not do away with the MGS and the ATGM variant and combine them into a version with a 30mm cannon and a tow or javilon mounted on it. That way the brigades are more flexible, they keep their INF, mortar, and other variants. The 30mm would be better suited for an urban combat due to a shorter more maneuverable turret and greater rate of fire.
Question.. Can this thing fire on the move like an Abrams? Excuse the syntax below.
took a look at the videos mentioned. the rig looks solid. one question comes to mind though: if an infantryman were to hunker down behind the thing while it is providing fire support for him, what’s to keep him from getting hit in the head by the spent shell casings? those things get thrown out pretty far…
Ok…so I don’t know any great details on the MGS, but I do have friends that work on the program. So, to answer some of your questions, yes, it does shoot on the move. No, it is not meant for tank on Tank combat, especially when it is not a tank. Its meant to take out a building, etc. Roy, calm down man, you’re not firing on all cylinders lately. You keep going like that, you’ll blow a gasket, or whatever. No matter if this thing will see combat with another tank ever doesn’t matter. It wasn’t made for that, and if someone tasks it for that job, then they have gone way out of its scope. Everybody knows this thing has problems, but no, as you can see in some of the videos, the thing does not flip if you shoot the gun off when angled at a 90 degree from the body of the thing. As for the RPG threat, even the Abrams has the cage because some parts of its hull isn’t strong enough to take an RPG hit, and all will have the Active Protection System (APS). Whoever mentioned that BAE has a great turret/gun system they could have put on the thing, remember that BAE (i.e UDLP) is General Dynamics largest competitor right now. Sure they’re working together on FCS, that just means more opportunities for infighting in the program, and for one to try and take the other’s work. Forget about it. The 105 was chosen, its done. Its a good vehicle, the needs some upgrades. they’re on their way. In the beginning, they’re constantly coming. Watch and most you’ll see the guys on the ground will love em. I know, even some guys within GD have their doubts, but not about the vehicle’s performance to specs, but whether a vehicle of those specs will is really needed, but they work on the Abrams. See where they’re coming from? Strykers are popular, and the MGS will be too, when the kinks are worked out.
Tactically,I thought that the Stryker Vehicles were supposed to be wide open spaces types of vehicles.In wide open spaces,These vehicles should be able to flank & maneuver behind heavy enemy armor.They are not supposed to go all “Charge of the Light Brigade” on heavy enemy armor.
Seriously,my question would be if they can operate in mountain passes,like what you would expect in Northern Iraq,Afghanistan,both South & North Korea,&,what some people don’t seem to get,Iran?
As nutty & crazy as I sound,it is also a sensible question to ask why they put Strykers in an urban environment when they are supposed to be ideally suited for savannas like in Africa or open plains.
If Strykers,including the MGS,are suitable for the Iraqi urban environment,they are then also good for American cities if……unrest,demonsrations,& riots were ever to occur again just like they did in the 60s.Lets face it,the Stryker is better suited for martial law in an urban environment than maybe the M1 Abrams &/or the M2 Bradley.
History ALWAYS repeats itself.There is another “Kent State” just waiting to happen.
In talking about what kind of armament would work best on the Stryker vehicle,you have to consider what kind of “missions” that you would use it for.
How would “YOU” “arm” a Stryker if the National Guard were called into a riot situation in say Los Angeles like the “Rodney King” situation in the early nineties?
Maybe my idea of Hillary being the next president & the horrors that would follow is absurd,but the idea of using Stryker Vehicles in the U.S. in event of civil unrest(again,like Los Angeles in the early 90s) is a very sound question to ask,& they are better than heavy armor in our streets.
How about a Stryker or Stryker type vehicle “armed” with a water cannon for domestic crowd control? I know that the National Guard Units had M60A1s & M48 tanks in the 80s,which was ok for crowd control,in the U.S. because there was obviously no credible threat against them here. Since we got rid of all of those tanks,what else but the Stryker vehicle,including the MGS,would work for crowd control? Now I’m starting to understand the logic of Mexico’s wheeled light armored vehicles.
Whats all this jibish about using the stryker for “crowd control” in America? “Hey look bob, the pink ladies are protesting, send in the MGS, that will scare them off” Do we not have riot police and the NG for this?
Roy, what the hell are you talking about?
Do you want to know what we use for riot control? Batons and face shields, tear gas and flak jackets.
We use the big sticks to knock down buildings in urban warfare. Like the MGS. Like the Abrams.
If you don’t see that, get LASIC.
“New Stryker Sucking”
“MRAP a boutique weapon”
That is a “sensationalized” way of reporting about equipment and weapons and their specifications and abilities.
you are all wrong. the Stryker in whatever configuration or the Bradley are NOT what is going to be used for crowd control. it is going to be the MRAPs. that is why they are buying so many of them. just look at what south africa is using their MRAP-type vehicles for. for crowd dispersal they are planning to use the flail-equipped mine clearing vehicles. those will go through a crowd of protesters like butter.
Roy,
Yes, is some conflict MGS’s may in fact run into a tank, but so would Hummers as well. The simple fact of the matter is the MGS isnt armored enough to do battle with a MBT. So, regardless of the size of its gun, in the event a MGS comes up against a MBT the MGS is going to go “the other way”.
People need to understand that this isnt a tank, but a weapon to support dismounted infanty.
I think a big point is the fact that these quick reaction force strykers can now engage booby trapped or highly defended buildings without having to weight for air support or relying on indirect fire all while being buttoned up.
Hell,could you imagine if the Stryker Vehicles were introduced in the 80s? If the 9th Infantry Division test bed had been given the Strykers to match their FAV dune buggies(as they wanted all along),maybe the senior command wouldn’t have been so quick to kill the 9th Infantry Division experiment.The MGS was what the 9th Infantry Division needed but never got.It’s ironic that the fist Stryker Brigade was formed in Ft. Lewis where the 9th Infantry Division was stationed in the 80s.Also they would have been excellently suited for the Berlin Brigade during the Cold War.Imagine pictures of East Germans walking past Strykers instead of M113s when the wall came down.
I know that Stryker Brigades are assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division,but are any Strykers actually in country in South Korea?
Good Morning Christian,
First off welcome back from the sand box. The fact that the Army took the trouble to slime your article by some unnamed (most likly fictious) NCO is testament that you got it right.
I just hope you haven’t been “Axed” by your honest writing.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Not to add more fire to Roy’s insanity, but there has been a project called, i believe “Shield” where riot control devices like the microwave emitter were built on top of a stryker chassis, meant as a military police type vehicle. No, Roy, it doesn’t mean that Hilary means to put us in a police state, but yeah the Styrker is a good fit for a riot control vehicle.
Congradulations Christian, you made it into Defense Industry Daily.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Stryker-MGS-Problems-in-the-Field-04731/
Does anybody know why Strykers have not been deployed to Afghanistan? The Canadians have their Kodiak LAVs in Afghanistan & the Old Soviet Union had their BTR-60/70s in Afghanistan,why haven’t we deployed our Strykers,or,does anybody know if the Marines are going to deploy with their LAV-25s to Afghanistan?
Actually,it doesn’t matter who is going to be president,the Stryker Vehicle is still a versatile vehicle that can be used both in urban & rural environments.
With the controversy over illegal aliens,various Hispanics could engage in civil protests that could degenerate into civil unrest. Also,how many times have we seen civil unrest over the police shooting &/or beating someone up like in Los Angeles,Miami Dade County,& Cincinnati? The anti-war crowd is bound to become more frustrated over our not pulling out of Iraq & they could become more violent. You have eco-terrorists & animal rights groups out there who could also become much more violent. if the WTO decide to meet in an American city again like they did in Seattle,I think in the 90s,you have to worry the protesters & anarchists that can cause civil unrest.There is a laundry list of potential domestic bad guys who could engage in civil unrest.You also have natural disasters that you have to worry about like Katrina.You’d need the National Guard to instill law & order & the Stryker would be a sturdy vehicle for that.
Maybe you could even give Stryker variants to the U.S. Border Patrol to better guard the border against the heavily armed drug gangs that keep crossing it.
We could yet luck out & not have a Hillary presidency.If that happens,I’ll shout for joy the loudest,dance the hardest,& sing “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.”
“The MGS is not a tank as is not designed to fight tanks. It is designed to support infantry, ie blowing up pillboxes, knocking down walls, shooting up lightly armored vehicles, etc. I was not designed, nor will it go toe to toe with a MBT.”
In other words it’s the modern day equivalent of the Sherman tank.
“The reason the 105 gun was droped from the M-1 was that it couldnt defeat modern tank armor, but again, the stryker wont be fighting MBT’s.”
Neither was the Sherman, that was what we had the Tank Destroyer Corps for…
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a8_1203087526&c=1#comments
I think that video really shows how the MGS can help. I read that 105mm HEP rounds cost about 1 thousand dollars and they blow like 80cm square holes in 6 feet of reinforced concrete. A jdam costs what? Like 30k and a Javelin 100k? Plus the strykers don’t have to wait to nuetralize booby traps and bunkers and they directly fire and see damage immediatly… or when the smoke clears at least. I mean after 1.40 in that video they are knocking down houses/buidlings they think are booby trapped I wonder how well the 25mm or .50 calibur would do in that respect. Probably could do it but not that fast.
Byron,
“The fact that the Army took the trouble to slime your article by some unnamed (most likly fictious) NCO is testament that you got it right.”
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Canada was supposed to replace it’s leopards C2′s with the MGS, luckily a new government saw sanity and instead bought Leo2A5 & 6M’s
As a fire support vehicle is should do ok, not my first choice though. Be aware that “Sparky” has a hate on for this vehicle and anything that might replace his beloved M113, anything that mentions “Gavins” or spelt with large Caps is him, he goes by many names.
to respond to byron the army did not slime the article. I gave a different view. the vehicle is a great asset. I have probably used the vehicle more than any other mgs commander and I wanted to put the facts out there. when i responded to the original article i was professional