• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Army to retire Stryker MGS by 2022

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
643
Points
940
Even the Germans in WWII learned that the not having an MG on assault guns/support tanks was a bad idea. The Stug and Hetzer was their first vehicles fitted with a RWS.

I am kind of amazed that the MGS got through the US procurement process which has effectively stopped the light tank program from giving birth. There are better versions of the idea out there. If we had extra funds left over after buying SPG's, new artillery, new ATGM's, etc, it would be nice to have a squadron of these at a training camp that armoured reservist could cycle through.
There was no independent procurement for the MGS as such. The procurement process was a US$8.7 Billion contract (actually a series of contracts) to purchase a total of 2,131 vehicles (sufficient to equip 6 complete interim brigade combat teams (later Stryker BCT)) in what was to be eight production ready variants plus two additional variants which required further evaluation testing. The two variants which were still under evaluation were the MGS and the NBC recce vehicle. For the MGS there was a significant delay ( roughly 1 year) while they tried to make the autoloader function.

There's an interesting Governmental Accounting Office evaluation of the program for 2004 here.

There are now seven Active Army Stryker BCTs and two National Guard SBCTs (the 56th SBCT in Pennsylvania and the 81st in the Pacific NW) with roughly 360 Strykers per SBCT.

🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
From the Popular Mechanics article upthread.

It is not a tank. It is not a replacement for a tank. It is not a light tank, a medium tank or a recce tank. It is not a supplement to a tank. It is what the Wehrmacht designed the Stug to be. A replacement for the field guns that traditionally accompanied the infantry. It is a Carl Gustaf on wheels. It is a bunker buster.

And, on occasion, given the right circumstances, it can do other stuff.

"My platoon and I know the real deal, so let me tell you what your tax dollars bought," says Sgt. 1st Class Scott Collum, who has served in Army tanks for 19 years, including combat tours in Bosnia and Iraq during operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. He is assigned to A Company, 1/38 of the 2nd ID, deployed in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. "Some commanders look at the MGS as a tank," he says. "I cannot stress enough that it is not a tank; it is a support vehicle with some tank-related features. This vehicle is fast, maneuverable, quiet and accurate. In my opinion, it is the most lethal ground vehicle for an urban environment in Iraq today."

If Collum sounds defensive, it may be because this vehicle's weapons and resiliency have saved his life and the lives of the soldiers his crew supports. While in an open field to "get eyes" on a small town, Collum's MGS was struck by an improvised explosive device that blew out all eight tires and one antenna mount. "I was still able to drive the vehicle approximately 2600 ft. to a secure area," he says. "After replacing the tires, a few caution messages were displayed on the computer. I powered down the MGS and powered it back up; all cautions were cleared and the vehicle was fully operational. I drove farther south and hit a second IED, and the same damage occurred. This time I identified the triggerman on the roof of a building 820 ft. away. He ran out of a door on the top floor. With no tires or [communications] and a few caution messages, we were still able to engage the spotter with 20 [7.62 machine gun] rounds while on the move to eliminate the threat."

Collum admits that the vehicle has its faults. He says the added weight of the turret causes trouble with the Height Management System, which raises and lowers the vehicle pneumatically to fit in tight spaces, requiring it to be recharged with nitrogen more often. He suggests shortening some sensors that get tangled in low-hanging wires and a redesigned gun mount for the coaxial weapon to reduce jams. His wish list would also include a remotely fired weapon like the one on Abrams tanks. "I am not thrilled about getting out of the MGS to fire the .50 cal. You become an instant sniper target. I have been engaged by a sniper while trying to unlock the .50. The round hit 4 in. from my head."

It is not a fighting vehicle. It is a support vehicle. A vehicle to be brought up from the rear to operate with protection in support of forward troops.

Keep it away from the cavalry. And their brothers in arms the mounted infantry.

By all means add an effective small calibre RWS for self-defence and potting UAVs. But don't add crew just to defend the gun.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
Three Pounder "Grasshopper" - Early MGS.

Light guns like the 3 pounder were not new in the (American) Revolution. In the early 1600s Gustavus Adolphus fielded light guns very effectively, usually in support of a specific regiment, but their use goes back to the infancy of gunpowder artillery. Although largely ineffective against other artillery, light guns were effective anti-personnel weapons and improved infantry morale.


Three Pounder Grasshopper
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
Nice vehicle to accompany tanks.

How many dismounts does a Squadron need to be operationally effective?
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
643
Points
940
Nice vehicle to accompany tanks.

How many dismounts does a Squadron need to be operationally effective?
Eight dismounts strikes me as a fairly decent number for these type of vehicles. and one more than Ajax.

Infanteer should have some good opinions on that.

🍻
 
Top