Last Stryker variant unveiled - with BIG gun!

[benEzra]

I don't know what tungsten shot will do that steel wouldn't have for less money unless they have a Polychoke on the gun.

Range and penetration. A 1" tungsten ball has way more effective range and materials penetration than a 1" steel ball. They're not hunting birds, and they want the capability to shoot at ranges that would be long for a scoped rifle, I suspect..

 

[jerkface11]

mmmmm canister shot makes me feel all warm inside

 

[JShirley]

Once upon a time, we had "heavy" and "light" divisions.

The light divisions, without many fully integrated vehicles, were fast to transport
in-threatre. Once they hit the ground, though, they had to wait until transport
and support vehicles were available.

The heavy divisions had integral vehicles. They were ready to go essentially once they hit the ground. The problem was transporting very heavy/bulky vehicles in quantity. This made heavy divisions, in practice, really only transportable by ship.

Enter the IBCT concept. The Stryker vehicle is designed to be lighter and air-transportable in C-130s. The theory is of a vehicle-integrated unit that is not only fast to get in theater, but that is also ready to go once it hits dirt. Theoretically, the Stryker brings the troops near their engagement area, and drops them. It's not supposed to hang around and duke it out with enemy armor. I haven't paid enough attention to see if that's actually happened in Iraq. I may find out soon enough.

They've been working on that damn MGS system a long time. It's just hard to
control the recoil of a 105-mm on a 19-ton vehicle. When I got to 1-5 Infantry in early 2002, the MGS guys were training with the Centauro
vehicle, which we were renting...and couldn't even fire the guns.

John

 

[Warren]

mmmmm canister shot makes me feel all warm inside

Briefly, anyway.

I can't find it now, but IIRC Sweden (Finland?) produces (or did) a fast, light, low profile, turretless, tracked big gun. Sure you have to turn the vehicle to point the gun but you get that sweet low profile out of the deal. Plus no turret to maintain.

Plus I think it was swim capable.

So why not go with something like that?

I don't remember the caliber though.

 

[Azrael256]

Guys, guys, cool off. The Stryker is an Interim Armored Vehicle. It's gone as soon as they decide on something better.

So I wouldn't expect a service life of more than 30 years.

 

[YellowLab]

Are there enough C-130 in inventory to get a brigade of Strykers to a hot zone?

I say we buy a lot of F-150's, and let bubba and the crew at it.... I'm sure they could get the 105, heck the 150mike mike on it and still be accurtate.

 

[Langenator]

Well, you can mount an old 106mm recoilless on the back of a pickup truck...the Israelis have mounted them on jeeps.

But the only anti-armor round for that is HEAT, while the 105mm cannon can fire APFSDS rounds, which are effective against more modern tanks.

Another consideration in favor of the Stryker, especially in the current operating environment, is that they're a lot easier on the roads than tracked vehicles. Tearing up the roads is not conducive to winning the hearts and minds of the locals.

Also, the base for the Stryker chassis was the LAV-III. The Marine LAV-25 was based on the LAV-I. The base LAV-III does have a 25mm chain gun in a manned turret. When in was in the initial Stryker brigade, some of us wondered why they didn't put the 25mm in a remote turret (the manned turret was too tall for the C130; remote turrets can be lowered.) The 25mm has proven to be quite effective in urban fighting, although it's not as good at blowing big holes in walls as something like a 105. It is very good at putting HE rounds into windows, however. I recall a great video from the second assault on Fallujah of an M2 pulling up to a house that insurgents were firing from and putting 2 HE rounds into each window. Great stuff.

 

[Cosmoline]

Cool and all, but remind me again why we have a burning need for a 105mm cannon right now? A much better design would have incorporated street sweeping small-bore cannons firing modern versions of explosive grape shot. Our guys could really use something that could totally dominate a few city blocks, rather than yet another multi-million dollar device that can kill enemy tanks miles away that don't even exist. From all I've heard from the front lines, our guys would love to be able to lay down fire 360 degrees and blow up buildings. They don't need to be able to kill a tank ten miles away. A series of 15mm or 20mm cannons loaded with a mix of HE and canister could literally slaughter every living thing in a fifty yard radius, or selectively blow apart one room in one building a block or two away. That's the kind of thing we should start thinking about, NOT yet another way to kill the Soviet tanks. As nasty as it sounds, we need to focus on getting back to killing people close up and personal, becuase like it or not this "war of the future" where distant tanks exchange shells just ain't what the future is turning out to be.

 

[benEzra]

I can't find it now, but IIRC Sweden (Finland?) produces (or did) a fast, light, low profile, turretless, tracked big gun. Sure you have to turn the vehicle to point the gun but you get that sweet low profile out of the deal. Plus no turret to maintain.

Plus I think it was swim capable.

So why not go with something like that?

I don't remember the caliber though.

You're probably thinking of the Swedish "S-tank," the Strv 103. Caliber was 105mm.

http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/armourreviews/id17.html

http://home.swipnet.se/t-rex/stank/

 

[Tankcommander]

The S tank was replaced by German Leopard 2s. It had no shoot on the move capacity and tracking a moving target by pivot steering would be pretty tough.

The gun on the new Stryker is a fire support weapon nothing says hello like a 105 HE round. It was not meant to fight tanks but have some anti armor capability.

Also one of the most used tanks in the 3rd world is the T55 which the 105 can handle hands down. The gee wiz stuff inside the vehicle is what no one else has. Digital command and control is supposed to be a major advantage for our guys.

TC

 

[Heraclid]

Well, may be off topic just a little, but those Army bozos should have kept the Comanche helicopter program.

 

[Warren]

That is it. Beautiful.

Not a lot were made but it sure looks like it had a lot of potential, maybe not as an MBT but in other roles.

It would need to be updated, by now it could get more speed out of a better engine. Make it modular so you could mount a 30MM auto-cannon on it (not a 20MM!!) or a main gun or even a missile rack or a mortar. It would make an excellent anti-tank platform


Might need to make it a skosh (about 36 in) narrower though if you want to fit it on C-130


Low, fast and lethal. Hopefully cheap to build and maintain.

If you are worried about tearing up roads just use band-tracks instead of steel tracks, rubber tracks are lighter and quieter and deliver less pounds per square inch than car tires though more weight overall, of course.

 

[Warren]

TC- did anything have shoot-on-the-move from 1966 to 1971?

I'm sure the internals could be replaced to add a better fire system.



just a side note I'm not a gomer for this particular model of vehicle I'm just saying that something low and fast would be a great support weapon.

 

[Crosshair]

The stryker is wonderfull, except it doesn't work and has failed to meet most of its design criteria.

The following article is a very good read.

Stryker, reality of war. 3.5 Mb .PDF file

 

[Nashmack]

Putting a 105 on a Stryker...is the Army trying to replicate the problems they had when they would fire HEAT rounds from a 551 Sheridan?

 

[JShirley]

They don't need to be able to kill a tank ten miles away

Nor is the MGS designed to do so. (That would be more a job for the TOW variant, though, once again, the range is not 10 miles.) The MGS is designed to be able to offer fire support- take out a bunker, for example- in close coordination with the troops.

Understand, I'm no apologist for the Stryker in general, or the MGS particularly, but let's at least understand its design function.

John

 

[History Nut]

Cool Thread

Sounds to me like the Stryker "family" of vehicles is what the Army needs for the type of deployments that have/are occuring in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. The key thing is its rapid deployment ability in one of our more common transport aircraft. It is not meant to replace a MBT. If we go to war, we bring in the heavy armor. If we change, like in Iraq to a peace keeping/security role, then lighter vehicles like the Stryker would work best.

The 105mm gun version would supplement, not replace the infantry carrier Strykers. It gives generic fire support along with the mortar and TOW varients.

It certainly is a better choice than "up armored" HUMMVs. The difference is between a truck that has 'add-on' armor versus a vehicle designed from the start as an armored vehicle. Is it the 'best' idea? Probably not, but it certainly is better than what we have now. The big gun just increases the unit's capability.

Historyically the U.S. Army has not invested too much in wheeled armored vehicles. The Marines proved by the LAV-25 that it fills a combat niche. That and the continuing trend to "low intensity" urban combat, showed the need for such a vehicle as the Stryker.

Regarding a vehicle with lots of high-volume of fire weapons for urban combat, that is something that could be explored but would be of limited use. Spraying lots of explosives down the street is a way to make yourself very unpopular. In Somalia in a "Blackhawk Down" situation, it would be just the thing. In an Iraq-like situation, precision is more useful. Too bad the Army scrapped the pre-WWII M2 Medium tank as it would be a great chassis to update with miniguns and a chain gun!

The Swedish 'S' tank was an engineering marvel for its day. The fire control system was complex to allow the gunner/driver to turn the vehicle in fine increments and "squat" and "tilt" the suspension to aim the gun. I am sure it was a maintenance nightmare. Its main advantage was the very low profile. It actually should be considered an "assault gun" like the the WWII German Sturmgeshutz III and IV. Such a system is very vulnerable from the flanks and can only survive in linear warfare with infantry protecting it.

It all comes down to "air portability". A unit with the right distribution of Stryker variants including the AGS, could arrive "first with the most". The common chassis would simplify logistics greatly. I just hope they aren't frittering away the money just to prove they can spend more than 'the other guy'.

These are my opinions and are not based on any personal real-world experience.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The Swedish 'S' tank was an engineering marvel for its day. The fire control system was complex to allow the gunner/driver to turn the vehicle in fine increments and "squat" and "tilt" the suspension to aim the gun. I am sure it was a maintenance nightmare. Its main advantage was the very low profile.

A low profile is not an advantage in an armored fighting vehicle.

Armchair experts often pointed out that Soviet tanks had much lower profiles than American tanks -- but were at a loss to explain how whenever American tanks fought Soviet tanks (as in the Arab-Israeli wars), the Soviet tanks came off losers.

The reason is tanks, like infantry, must use the ground. American tanks, with their high profiles, can drive up the reverse slope of a hill or ridge until they can just see over the crest. The main gun is depressed, and all the enemy sees is the muzzle and a tiny slice of the turret top. This tactic, called "Hull Defilade" leaves the tank almost invulnerable to direct fire, while still able to use its main gun to maximum advantage.

Soviet tanks, to get their lower profile, had to mount the trunnions lower, and were unable to depress their guns enough to use hull defilade tactics. To shoot, they had to skyline themselves.

 

[Crosshair]

You can't have friendly troops anywhere NEAR that gun when it fires (several hundred yards) because the monster muzzle break will fry friendly troops. No matter how you cut it, the Stryker is a lemon.

 

[Cosmoline]

That almost guarantees the DOD will spend billions on it.

Their idiocy knows no bounds.

 

[Newton]

I confess I like the concept here.

The army wants to put a BFG on a fast manoueverable platform that is not such a gas hog as the Abrams, has lower maintenance cycles, and can be easily air transported.

The 105mm with APFSDS will be a match for almost any MBT and the canister and HEAT rounds will deal with any likely insurgent threats.

I agree it does need to be RPG-7 safe, and that's only a maybe right now. But if I was a grunt, I would feel happy having one of these guys around in lieu of an Abrams.

 

[bowfin]

/*As if the Stryker already wasn't tall enough on the battle field screaming shoot me. With that gun it's got to be at least 5ft higher than an MI.*/

I think many of you think you are looking at a tank or assault gun, not a mobile artillery piece. If your artillery is being overrun to the point it has to fight it out with infantry or armor, you have problems regardless of how high the vehicle is or how thick the armor.

I think this Stryker variant is a modern day version of an M7 Priest, not a tank or an assault gun. Something to fill in between an M109 Paladin and a Humvee towing a 105mm that can, in a pinch, be used for direct fire, just like every 105 ever made.

 

[Cosmoline]

The 105mm with APFSDS will be a match for almost any MBT and the canister and HEAT rounds will deal with any likely insurgent threats.

How is it going to deal with close range insurgent threats? It's huge, slow to aim and so loud and powerful support troops have to clear out from around it before it lets loose. Which of course leaves it wide open to some RPG's from the flanks. It's a foolish, overpriced TOY that looks cool and makes cool explosions, but won't save a single American life and may cost many. We currently face no threats that require that level of long range anti-tank firepower. OTOH we're facing droves of fundamentalist madmen on an hourly basis and our guy could really use more close range cannons to blow them to pieces. Remove that big phallic symbol from the stryker and replace the weight with more armor and a bristling array of 20mm sledgehammers and you're talking. Something simple and low-tech that will protect our troops and allow them to lay down close range firepower to annihilate human men and destroy their brick and mortar cover while being able to take small arms fire and RPG hits.

Sometimes I think we've become adult children. We prefer high-tech gizmos and long range explosions not because they are useful, but because they insulate us from the reality that the current war involves going into some very nasty rat holes and slaughtering people. Ripping them limb from limb. Blowing their heads clean off. If we can see pictures of distant explosions from cool huge cannons, we feel a lot more comfortable about what we're doing. But in the mean time the face-to-face fights still have to be waged and we're sending way too many of our guys into these hell holes with substandard armor and nothing more potent than a .223 SAW to fight back.

 

[GunnySkox]

How is it going to deal with close range insurgent threats?

The 240? The .50 cal? Canister shot? The infantry units it'll be part of?

It's huge, slow to aim and so loud and powerful support troops have to clear out from around it before it lets loose.

You mean like the 120mm cannon on the Abrams that we've been using for years in Iraq? Oh wait.

~GnSx

 

[Cosmoline]

The 240? The .50 cal? Canister shot? The infantry units it'll be part of?

Why not ditch the overpriced, overbored artillery piece and replace it with more armor and lighter, more flexible 20mm cannons and rocket launchers? What's the point of such a huge, incredibly expensive machine if it renders the underlying stryker even more vulnerable to RPG's and IED's? What tanks are we currently having to fight??

You mean like the 120mm cannon on the Abrams that we've been using for years in Iraq? Oh wait.

You're right--there's currently a huge gulf between the small arms of our troops and the big Cold War era heavy weapons and artillery. What we need is a stryker that will fill that void, not exaccerbate it. But the clowns in DC and the whole "popular mechanics" crowd seem determined to buy more and more big booming happy fun toys to cheer on the proving grounds and make Discovery channel programs about.

I'm personally sick of seeing our guys marching into these snake pits with nothing but some paultry body armor and a gopher carbine. They've got the guts to do it, but I'd rather see them backed by fast-moving, well-armored transports that are actually going to help them fight back from good cover instead of just creating yet another multi million dollar death trap that doesn't have enough armor and has a gun so big you don't dare to use it.