More MGS

Defense Tech has some more feedback on the Stryker Mobile Gun System, this time a bit more favorable.

Honestly, most of the criticism I’ve heard or read about doesn’t seem too far out of the ordinary for a new vehicle. And, as the troops in Iraq were calling for this vehicle for years, “rushing” (if you ignore how far behind schedule it was to being with) a not-totally-finished platform into service wasn’t necessarily the wrong thing to do, if that is what happened.

Besides, with the MGS taking the heat, the rest of the Strykers suddenly have become the standards to meet. And only just recently they were pieces of crap. Of course, the previous standard, the M2 Bradley, was also a piece of crap when introduced.

Comments

  1. I can say the reports about the MGS have changed my point of view. I used think the MGS, was overpriced, overgunned, undersupplied (18 shots) with a hazy mission and inability to meet its program goals.(C-130 transportable) Now I’ll have to change my view to add, that its also a death trap for its users. Honestly here folks, most of the MGS’s problems center on the use of a 105mm gun. If you drop the gun to 88mm most of the problems go away. To those that say its ‘combat proven’ the statement is false. By the time the MGS entered the fray in Iraq most of what is classically considered combat was over. Not that people are not getting killed, but rather the disparity between to combatants has become so great that the enemy no longer openly challenges our forces.

  2. Death trap’? Because it doesn’t have air conditioning? It’s obviously not quite ready for show time, and I’ve written before about the problems surrounding the MGS. In fact, I wrote at one point that I didn’t ever think it would make it to the field. But ‘death trap’ doesn’t seem to be supported. Though I’m sure there are times that the 105 will come in handy, I too think a smaller gun might have made all the difference. Or at least the low-velocity 105mm from the M8 AGS. And I continue to believe that a 25mm Bushmaster Stryker would have a lot of value. Particularly in the fight the Stryker is in these days. Not as a replacement for a big gun, but as another option.

  3. Every piece of infantry armor ever made was and is a piece of crap, and a death trap. It’s the nature of the beast. The best just suck less than the rest.

  4. Murdoc, What you’re suggesting is in service; it’s called the LAV III; it’s been in Afghanistan for the past four years. Cheers JMH

  5. The death trap moniker comes from being a vehicle that is intended to have an ‘overmatch’ capability but is instead a vehicle that tries to do to much and ends being defined by its limitations rather then its capabilities. 105mm is the central problem. To big a weapon, it requires a lot of stabilization and modification to work on the vehicle. As a result, you carry few rounds, but even worse, you have a small crew (3) with horrible lines of sigh. Small hatches that prevent escape, and I do not consider the lack of AC to be minor issue. Oh sure you can put IV’s in the men, but what about those poor computers? But seriously, what do you think would of happened with MGS if Israel had them (Instead of the Merkoava’s) vs Hamas in Lebanon?

  6. I am a MGS Platoon Sergeant in 1-38 INF 4/2 BDE. I have fielded the MGS in combat in both Baghdad and Baqubah Iraq. The vehicle is designed to breach walls, clear obstacles, engage threats with any of the 3 weapons systems (105mm main gun, 7.62 machinegun, or .50 cal machinegun). It has been used in all types of operations since in theater. I am a fan of the vehicle because it’s fast, quiet, highly mobile in tight environments, and provides a sense of fear in insurgents that may prevent them from conducting attacks on my unit. I have bashed, beaten, and abused this vehicle and she’s still going strong. Some vehicles have those gremlins that keep causing problems for some MGS’s and there are a few mods that need to be made such as the design of the 7.62 coax mount. Some MGS’s such as mine have no stoppages and some have a lot. These kinks will be worked out. The vehicle will not replace the M1 series. (But) I think that we now have the ability to control the battlefield both open terrain and urban with the addition of this vehicle. I have combat proven this vehicle on everything from RPG teams to HBIED’s (house borne improvised explosive devices). I have breached walls and houses, engaged multiple snipers with machinegun, destroyed VBIEDs, destroyed IEDs, you name it we have done it. It is a great platform for Iraq urban environment. It will not replace tanks but has tank defeating capability. Some vehicles have issues and some don’t –..nothing new to the army. I find my platoon’s vehicle reliable. It has 4 sights, day and thermal capability with 360 degree viewing. The articles on military.com (anti-MGS) came from a young soldier in another battalion of 4/2 bde who has not given the public the whole story. I have contacted him and what he says is not really vehicle related but chain of command related. I can answer any questions you may have. SFC Collum smash1 tanker_legend@yahoo.com