dejawolf Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/20080131rcmobilegun/jesus this thing twitches like a leper when firing its main gun over the side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscar19681 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Rather be twiching like a leper then be on the bussiniss end of that gun! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Better be on level ground when using the main...Thank goodness we got the Leo 2's instead of this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSnake79 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Man, I bet that thing stings. If I recall correctly that gun (105mm) is that of the original M1 Abrams. So with the right ammo its a tank killer.A key thing to remember is that this thing can be transported quickly via C-130. And while it isn't a MBT, It can be there when a MBT can not. Its more like a modern highly mobile tank destroyer.But I do agree that it looks like some more fine tuning is needed with that gun. More recoil absorption or something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 C-130 transportability isn't really that great.what is great with the stryker is low operational costs and high road-speed, which makes it perfect for police duties fighting low-tech insurgents. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outontheop Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 It's not really a tank destroyer, it's an assault gun. Designed to support the infantry against enemy hardpoints, with some additional capability against armor. That's a large part of why the 105mm was selected; it has a wider variety of rounds available.As to comparing it to the Leopard, that's complete apples and oranges, and just a stupid comparison in general. It is designed to be easily strategically deployed, travel quickly in theater (high road speed) and I will tell you that its maintenance needs are much, much less. We had Strykers that had done 27 months of combat and who KNOWS how many miles without needing significant repairs or retrofit. They also offer suprisingly good survivability against HEAT, EFP, and blast effects. And unlike a tracked vehicle, they will continue to drive even with a wheel blown off. Many attacks that would immobilize a bradley or even abrams failed to stop our Strykers.Just try that with a Leopard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Such a beautiful video. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 @outontheopWould you rather have the Leo 2 as the backbone of your armoured corps, or the Stryker MGS? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSnake79 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I don't think that he's trying to say that Tacbat. It's just when you mention them both together it kinda implies that the MGS is supposed to play the same role. I think OIF proved to a lot of people that there is, and will be into the distance future the need for the big heavy MBT's. For us anyway. On a side note. In steelbeasts we should have a vehicle simular to the MGS in the near future. Requested by the Spanish army I think. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/centauro/ BTW op, and a Apocalypse. AFV club made an awesome stryker kit last year. You should check it out, if you don't already own it They also have the MGS in the works. http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/afvclub/afv35126.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LtGeorge Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 It looks like the vehicle itself blows up when the main gun fires. Hold on inside... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 I don't think that he's trying to say that Tacbat. It's just when you mention them both together it kinda implies that the MGS is supposed to play the same role.Unfortunatly our politicians were under the impression that the MGS was the way to go and were going to retire our tank fleet altogether. I understand the MGS has a role to play in the combat team, and I wasn't comparing the two at all. I was just relieved when I heard we were going with the Leo 2's, instead of the MGS, that's all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabot_Up Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 I think its pretty cool that various militaries are realizing that they still need good old-fashioned 'assault guns' along the lines of the StuG III, Su-76, and Howitzer Sherman. They all got lost along with the gun-armed turretless tank destroyers when ATGMs came along. I think the MGS can play a quite useful role, but it shouldn't be mistaken for a tank or a tank killer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outontheop Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Exactly. They're two very different vehicles for two very different roles. Obviously the MGS isn't designed for stand-up fights with tanks (incidentally, there IS an ATGM Stryker variant, but it's really more to provide a credible AT defense than to go hunt tanks), it's designed to be an assault gun.No, it doesn't have the armor a Leopard does. Nor does it have the armor penetration of the 120mm smoothbores. Nor is the cross country mobility nearly as good. But it has a better gun for general purpose use against infantry hardpoints and the like, it's much more survivable against most threats than one would think (like I said, against HEAT/HE it's fantastic. Wouldn't want to take a major caliber KE hit, though), it has fantastic strategic redeployability (I know, I conducted three major redeployments in theater) as it moves quickly over road and does NOT require the lowboy trucks and two maintenance/supply trucks per tank. Stryker moves itself, totally self sufficient. And the maintenance requirements allow it to maintain easily 4 or 5 times the combat readiness. At points when tank units are down to one platoon per company functioning because of breakdowns and maintenance, the Strykers are at or around 100%The capabilities and limitations of a true tank and the Stryker MGS are so completely disparate that a comparison almost isn't worth making. Which is better depends on what you're doing and who you're fighting 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 incidentally, there IS an ATGM Stryker variant, but it's really more to provide a credible AT defense than to go hunt tanks), it's designed to be an assault gun.I'd go hunting with it. It's fast, low profile and TOW's are still effective AT weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotTom Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Better be on level ground when using the main...Thank goodness we got the Leo 2's instead of this.TB:Why would you even compare the two? This isn't an MBT...it's an infantry support vehicle.And what good are Leo 2s if you never take them outside the wire?HT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outontheop Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Apocalypse, I suppose you COULD, but I think they're really best used in a defensive manner in prepared/ well concealed positions with multiple firing positions. For one, they're SACLOS missiles, which requires being stationary while firing. Beyond that, well, I won't get into the technical details/ capabilities/ limitations of the vehicle, as that information can potentially be exploited by hostile forces. Either way, for HUNTING tanks, I would still prefer an Abrams 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Why would you even compare the two? This isn't an MBT...it's an infantry support vehicle. ...I wasn't comparing the two at all. And a tank is an infantry support vehicle. And what good are Leo 2s if you never take them outside the wire? Definitely outside the wire: In theater photos: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.