More on the Stryker MGS

New Stryker boasts plenty of firepower

Michael Gilbert on the latest addtion to the Stryker lineup.


  1. why can’t they just do what the Marines have done, something tried and true and put a Bushmaster on the vehical and leave the big guns to TANKS… its like a midget with a bazooka

  2. Seems they could/should be able to pop on the Blazer AD turret from the LAV-25 varient. 25mm Gau-12, 2X4 stinger pods. But they won’t.

  3. Personally, I’d like to see one with several CIWS pods on top. Sure, it’d look funny, but just think what it’d look like firing. And of course, we need a uav-carrier variant.

  4. ‘why can’t they just do what the Marines have done, something tried and true and put a Bushmaster on the vehical and leave the big guns to TANKS… its like a midget with a bazooka’ Because you cant fly in a 70-ton tank as easily as you can bring it in on a LCAC or LCU. ‘No Anti-Aircraft version? Is that confidence or arrogance?’ Avenger anyone?

  5. Don’t get me wrong, I’m always in favor of big guns (I say with a certain amount of envy), but 6 damn years in the middle of a war to put it in the field? How long would that have taken in WW2, about 6 months? The ‘we’ who suck are those of us in the defense industry. Sad thing is, we seem to have very little control over this situation too. There are a few exceptions, and they suck even more.

  6. Was there really a life or death need to rush this variant into service? In Iraq there are a ton of M1 tanks to use. Also, this vehicle was the last one to be developed of the whole Stryker Family.

  7. Here we have a thin skined multi-million dollar vehicle (even without the multi-million dollar gun) that won’t even stop a 5.56 let alone a 7.62 and that can’t be maintained by the U.S. Army yet. Instead it’s maintenance comes at a hefty price tag of $200,000.00 per manufactured supplied mechanic, and it takes a bunch of them. That figure is per year, per mechanic. Then the gun…which now won’t fire more than maybe two shots without malfunction, but that’s better, it was just getting off one shot. Also it had the bad habit of tipping over the vehicle when it was fired. Also the vehicle is too big and heavy for its intended air transport. And to top it off it barly gets gas milage to match that of an American Gas Guzzling Truck. As an Infantry carrier, it sucks, no room, no head room no equip storage area, and is hot and dark, all this for Millions upon Millions of YOUR dollars. There are other problems with it too. But I figure I’ve covered enought for today. Papa Ray West Texas USA

  8. My point that I was making before was that why do you need a stryker with such a big gun for infantry? I mean you have shooters running all around this thing in combat, I think if a huge cannon like that goes near soldiers its going to give them a very bad day. I have had plenty of friends who where LAV Marines and SWEAR by the 25mm Bushmaster. If the army wanted more firepower they could stick on a 30mm and carry MORE Ammunition and really support the infantry. This thing is just too damn big for urban warfare. I am going to make a prediction that the army will see how this thing preforms in the field and switch out the turret for a bradley turret or an LAV one in 25 or 30mm, but I could be wrong

  9. I think a lot of you guys are missing the point to this system. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the stryker as a whole, I’m just pointing out the reasons for this big of a weapon on an infantry SUPPORT vehicle. 1.) This is not intended as a troop transport/all vehicles in one unit variant. In other words, you won’t see ten of these driving around together. There will be one of these for several of the other variants 2.) This may be a big vehicle, but it will still fit places an M-1 variant won’t. 3.) They are meant for anti-tank or anti-building/barrier support for other strykers. 4.) They can be air-dropped (not out of a C-130, but it can be done), where an Abrams is NOT drop capable. (can anyone say anti-tank support for paratroopers) 5.) Parts compatability for the running gear and basic components with the rest of the stryker family, rather than a whole new vehicle (cough, cough, Buford, cough) which would be far more expensive than any figures mentioned above. 6.) The stryker is someone’s pet project, and they have a ton of political clout in the pentagon. I’ve talked to some guys, they like them. I’ve talked to some guys, they don’t. We’ll see how they come out in the end. Now don’t come unglued at me fellas, and or ladies. I’m not saying it’s a great vehicle, I’m not saying it sucks. I’m just giving you some possible justifications for a 105mm ‘main gun’ stryker variant.

  10. well my point is that is all well and good, and 100% correct as per what your saying… I just think that for an INFANTRY support platform 30mm is a better choice since you can carry more ammo and it is easier to operate with infantry running about. Further the Marine Corps has tons of experience with maintainance of these cannons as well as the Army in their Bradley’s I just think that 30mm would have been a far better choice for many diffrent scenarios carry 100 round instead of 30 and it would prolly be even lighter then it is now and MORE maneuverable. the Marine LAV I am convinced is one of the finest pieces of military equipment in the US arsenal and would like to see the army go in that direction.

  11. The 105mm on the Styker always made me squint. 105mm was pulled from the M-1 because it was not strong enough to destroy MBT’s at an acceptable range. 105mm is way overkill vs any other armored vehicle. Now if you are looking for infantry support in urban areas – the 105 is overkill, plus brings a lot issues to the table, recoil, muzzle blast… A 75 or 88 mm vs non-armored vehicles – bunkers and the like can be nearly as effective as a 105 with a lot fewer drawbacks. As a side bonus your ammo supply greatly expanded. The 18 round supply on the stryker is too small. Espacially if you are tossing in a mix of several shell types.

  12. my exact point! I Mean if you are on campaign in a drive on a city you will need to reload every few minutes in heavy combat! I mean after an hour of battle these things are basically going to just be mounts for their .50 cal machine guns when they run out of 105, this whole MGS is a waste of time, like I said 30mm is the way to go! I think the army is going to realized this very quickly once they get done testing them under simulated or real battle conditions.

  13. Once again, I think you fellas are missing one of the points of the MGS for the stryker. It’s to be used as heavy support FOR OTHER STRYKERS! That means it is to be called in when another group of strykers runs into something they can’t punch through. The idea is they shouldn’t need that many rounds, and I know, I hate to rely on that ‘should’ either. I’ve talked to a lot of folks that’ve been to ‘the box’ within the last few years, and most of them want something like this. I’d say if it’s what they want, let’s hurry up and get it to them. Maybe we should put together a 25mm bushmaster variant too. The idea is that you use tanks (m-1s) against other tanks (t-72 or 80) and you use this to take out hardened points of resistance (bunkers and buildings) and use it against tanks only in emergencies. I’d say we need a dedicated TOW or Javelin launch version that could replace the whole back area with vertical launch versions of the javelin for anti-tank duty. Put the site on a turret, and whoosh, WHILE you are moving. Better yet, put the site on a telescopic mast, get behind a building or other cover, launch it F&F, and evade while they are trying to figure out where it came from.

  14. The MGS is an assault gun. Meaning that is infantry support weapon. Nor intended for anti-armor, but has an anti-armor ability. Now justification that the MGS is for supporting other strykers goes without saying. Implying that its mission, allow it to have a small ammo supply smacks of power point justifications. Go read the action reports in fallujah. A MGS in that environment would be out of ammo in a hour. 400 .50 cal rounds and 18 main rounds is not enough.

  15. Guys, I think you miss my point. I’m not saying 18 rounds is enough. I’m just telling you why we need a stryker with a 105. With HE it destroys buildings and barriers. That is its function. First thing I’d do is lay in some more ammo. I’m guessing the first thing they’ll do is strip out the infantry seats, and throw in some more ammo. (Field mods are an army tradition, look at the ‘hillbilly’ armor on HMMWVs)

  16. Chad – I agree with you in general. The MGS should have a large calibure weapon. The 30mm is fine, but there are times when more is needed. My position is that, there is not much more you can do with a 105mm that you cannot do with a 88mm. Both are excellent vs the targets you are refering to. Niether are capable of taking out MBT’s Going with an 88 you can multiply your ammo supply by 3 or 4 times. Increase your rate of fire, and reduce maintance and wear on the vehicle. As I understand it – the rational for the 105 is an economy move. We have a bunch of left over 105 tubs and rounds. So the though is we would save money by not having to develop new rounds and systems. While that rational is true – IMO the cost savings for the 105 are lost when you create a expeditionary vehicle that cannot sustain its role in combat beyond a few shots. Remeber this baby carries (4) different types of rounds. By the way – the MGS seats only 3. The rest of the vehicle is used to house the gun and its auto loader.