Comments on: Push-Back on the MGS

By: sfc collum

sfc collum — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:37:19 +0000

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

By: Colin

Colin — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:40:56 +0000

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.

By: WR

WR — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:56:13 +0000

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.

By: txzen

txzen — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:13:49 +0000

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.

By: jsallison

jsallison — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:28:13 +0000

“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…

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:59:01 +0000

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.”

By: NTV

NTV — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:11:18 +0000

Congradulations Christian, you made it into Defense Industry Daily.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Stryker-MGS-Problems-in-the-Field-04731/

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:12:26 +0000

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.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:40:42 +0000

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

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:02:08 +0000

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?