# US Army drops 105mm Stryker?



## Kilo_302 (4 Jan 2006)

Hey guys, 

I have a buddy who is an 11 Charlie in the US Army's 2ID. The 2ID is known as the "Stryker Brigade" as they were the first unit to receive Strykers, and are generally the "test bed" of the US Army.  He was visiting over the holidays, and told me that the US Army is scrapping the 105mm gun equipped Strykers due to stability and high centre of gravity problems. I was surprised as I had heard nothing of this, and could not find any verification of it in print or in online resources. Can anyone confirm or dispute this claim? Aside from the 105mm, according to my friend, the 120mm mortar carrier and the .50 cal RWS Strykers are great pieces of kit, and are getting rave reviews from 2ID soldiers in Iraq and the US.

Thanks


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Hey guys,
> 
> I have a buddy who is an 11 Charlie in the US Army's 2ID. The 2ID is known as the "Stryker Brigade" as they were the first unit to receive Strykers, and are generally the "test bed" of the US Army.  He was visiting over the holidays, and told me that the US Army is scrapping the 105mm gun equipped Strykers due to stability and high centre of gravity problems. I was surprised as I had heard nothing of this, and could not find any verification of it in print or in online resources. Can anyone confirm or dispute this claim? Aside from the 105mm, according to my friend, the 120mm mortar carrier and the .50 cal RWS Strykers are great pieces of kit, and are getting rave reviews from 2ID soldiers in Iraq and the US.
> 
> Thanks



Still have not seen anything regarding this ....has anyone else?


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2006)

He could be referring to the MGS or the 105mm SP howitzer developed by General Dynamics. Personally I would like to see MGS canceled in favor of the tracked M-8 Thunderbolt also developed by GD. I like the GD weapons system as it could provide both direct and indirect fire. Officially I havent seen any announcement of a cancelation of either program. GD states that once they have a contract they can deliver 18 fire units in 18 months.

http://www.strykernews.com/gallery/strykerhowitzer

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001258.html


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Jan 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> He could be referring to the MGS or the 105mm SP howitzer developed by General Dynamics. Personally I would like to see MGS canceled in favor of the tracked M-8 Thunderbolt also developed by GD. I like the GD weapons system as it could provide both direct and indirect fire. Officially I havent seen any announcement of a cancelation of either program. GD states that once they have a contract they can deliver 18 fire units in 18 months.
> 
> http://www.strykernews.com/gallery/strykerhowitzer
> 
> http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001258.html



It looks like people on the second site have some interesting thoughts about Canada and the new CSOR.
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003281.html


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2006)

ShawnSmith said:
			
		

> It looks like people on the second site have some interesting thoughts about Canada and the new CSOR.
> http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003281.html



He said a strange thing about artillery though:



> The GDLS 105mm howitzer mounted on the Stryker is unlike anything in existance today. It has an extremely effective muzzle brake that actually has less recoil impulse than the 105mm MGS. The gun is designed to be fired without spades and yes, it can be fired over the side without rolling the vehicle. Max range is 30+ KM (not kidding). The rounds actually go supersonic when fired (fairly rare wehn talking artillery). The military has been offered the first battalion of 18 vehicles just 18 months after someone signs the contract. It fits within a C-130. In fact this vehicle was just last week flown to Fort Sill on a C-130 rolled off, live-fired, and then rolled back on and flown away. I'm not generally impressed by artillery, but this one has me thinking.



That line sure got ME thinking. Any gunners want to comment?


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Jan 2006)

Probably the comment relates to a RAP munition as the advertized range of the G7 gun is 30 km.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2006)

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/04_vickory_105mm_Indirect_Fire.pdf
http://www.strykernews.com/archives/2004/04/26/howitzer_test_firing.html  

Here's a couple of links talking about the system.  As Tomahawk6 points out the info stipulates a 30 km range (120m CEP) for base-bleed boattail rounds, no rocket assist.  On the other hand the second link refers to an actual trial with a range achieved of 32 km.



> ... In the meantime, officials from the U.S., U.K., Canadian and South African armies
> are considering buying the system to meet long-term transformational goals.
> 
> Representatives from the four militaries were present at the demonstration
> ...


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Jan 2006)

As far as I know, the Stryker MGS is now in limited production.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Jan 2006)

You are correct. Delivery was made last month at Anniston Army depot of 2 MGS. They are the first in a contract for 72 MGS. Hopefully the problems are worked out of it before going to Iraq.

Article concerning the jamming problem with the loader.

http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=0-292925-548455.php


----------



## Franko (7 Jan 2006)

Talked to a few Yanks in A 'stan who served in Iraq in the Stryker units....

They were saying as of 21 Dec (last time I talked to them) the MGS was not going to be implimented...citing the above mentioned problems.

Mind you these guys were both E7s and their knowledge was a bit outdated.

Makes you kinda wonder though. If the US is willing to drop them, save 70 odd vehicles for testing purposes because they were already on order at the time, what are the real reasons behind it? Capabilities? Price? Effectivness?

Something to chew on.....

Now as for the artillery....that sounds like a feasable option. Mind you 34km is pretty good IMHO, but how effective is this and how realistic is the claim. I know a few mud gunners from Wiskey Batt in Gagetown and here in 2 horse....they RARELY ever used max bag charge, even in Suffield (too hard on the gun I guess). Will this be the same case with this platform combo?

Regards


----------



## ArmyRick (7 Jan 2006)

Just some food for thought. I remember in '96 down at Camp Lejeune, a US Marine (This particular guy was rather green and the buttend of his platoons pranks) swearing that US troops were not serving in Bosnia. As we know, their was a division in Bosnia at the time of US troops.

Also, I have met other people in our own line who spoke when they did not know. I am thinking of an RCD WO telling me for sure that the MGS program was cancelled in October. I asked him if he could verify and I got some nonsense about he knows because he is armoured. TI could not find any fact to back this up. IMO, this is how rumors start.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (7 Jan 2006)

I saw on the military channel that the MGS has an 8 round autoloader then that article says that the 2        5 rounds will be replaced by one 10 round autoloader. I'm all confused. Annyways I wish that the gunner will be able to select the type of ammo.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jan 2006)

I was chatting online last night with a Lt in a stryker brigade who preparing to receive the MGS. The plan is to replace a rifle squad with an MGS. Evidently they are taking a man from the rifle squad and adding him to the crew of the Stryker. A fourth 2 squad platoon is being formed per company. I am not comfortable with these adjustments to the TO&E.


----------



## 3rd Herd (25 Jan 2006)

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> I saw on the military channel that the MGS has an 8 round autoloader then that article says that the 2        5 rounds will be replaced by one 10 round autoloader. I'm all confused. Annyways I wish that the gunner will be able to select the type of ammo.



Clement...
While not directly being able to answer your question I did find this site as a result of some chat room discussions last night. It has a nice explanation of modern (post cold War) Revolving Magazine systems in the Merkava Mk. 4 
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html

Choo


----------



## Armymatters (25 Jan 2006)

From the literature I have read, most of the problems with the MGS centers around the gun and air portability. As stated in a article in 2003 by the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies:


> Still, there are several reasons to doubt the validity of these justifications, as well as the wisdom of entrusting direct-fire support to the MGS. From a technical standpoint, the system is still immature. A report to New Jersey Congressman Jim Saxton has claimed that the recoil of the low-pressure 105-mm main gun was too great to be safely absorbed by the 8-wheeled LAV chassis. This may result in stability problems when firing on uneven terrain. The automatic loader is apparently unable to recognize different kinds of ammunition. Further, the amour package intended to give the vehicle protection against the cheap and ubiquitous rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) was found wanting. As a result, US Army Strykers currently deployed to Iraq must make do with only the vehicle’s base armour plus a makeshift ‘fence’ of mesh armour to defend against an increasingly determined insurgency armed with RPGs.
> 
> From an operational standpoint, it is an open question whether the mobility claims made by LGen Hillier justify the faith placed in the MGS. The CLS noted that the vehicle can be flown aboard the C-130 Hercules. In reality, this capability has never been proven; only the infantry carrier version of the Stryker has been flown in the Herc. Not until the weight of the MGS is lowered by at least two tons (at the expense of armour protection?) will it be so deployable. But even assuming this goal can be realized – meaning that detachable armour panels would be transported separately - Canada’s Hercules fleet is not sufficiently serviceable to move the MGS in any reasonable quantity over a tactically or operationally useful distance.
> 
> ...


http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_ArmyMGS.pdf


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (25 Jan 2006)

Thanks for that 3rd Herd.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (26 Jan 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Revolving Magazine systems in the Merkava Mk. 4



Would it be possible to fit that in the turret of a leo 2, even with some extensive modifications?
Just curious.


----------



## Armymatters (26 Jan 2006)

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to fit that in the turret of a leo 2, even with some extensive modifications?
> Just curious.



Probally (from a engineering standpoint, anything is possible), but is it economical? Autoloaders in tanks have a bad reputation compared to manual loading, as they are prone to failure, and reduces crew situational awareness around the vehicle. A well trained tank crew can fire and reload just as fast as an autoloader equipped tank. Also, autoloaders have a nasty tendancy when hit directly to cook off ammunition, blowing off the turret.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (26 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Probally (from a engineering standpoint, anything is possible), but is it economical? Autoloaders in tanks have a bad reputation compared to manual loading, as they are prone to failure, and reduces crew situational awareness around the vehicle. A well trained tank crew can fire and reload just as fast as an autoloader equipped tank. Also, autoloaders have a nasty tendancy when hit directly to cook off ammunition, blowing off the turret.



Did you check the link? This is an electrically operated revolving magazine which permits the loader to load the gun in less than 2 sec. It has a protective container for every of the 10 rds and a built-in tester.


----------



## Armymatters (26 Jan 2006)

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Did you check the link? This is an electrically operated revolving magazine which permits the loader to load the gun in less than 2 sec. It has a protective container for every of the 10 rds and a built-in tester.



I have, but I still have misgivings over an autoloader in a tank. I would prefer to see at least the schematics of the autoloader or at least the autoloader in person and assess it there. I have actually seen the damage from a autoloader cooking off ammunition in a T-72. Ain't that pretty, especially if you are near the tank. A well trained crew in a tank can reload the main gun in 3-5 seconds. However, tactical situation encountered in war should be looked at; It is generally regarded by most tacticians to be unusual for a tank crew to spot more than four targets a minute in most tactical situations. Combat history in the past have proven this.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Feb 2006)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/new-stryker-variants-gear-up-for-testing/index.php

Update on the MGS. Looks like 15% of the work is being done in London,Ontario. The bulk of the work is at Sterling Heights, Mi.


----------

