Preparedness & self-sufficiency community
Bring her back
bad idea from the beginning
>big gun on wheels
Hows that a bad idea?
direct fire that without the armor of normal direct fire platforrms(tanks)
if you wanna be light use missiles
105mm is not a "big gun".
There were reliability issues out the ass with it and with MAYBE 600mm of pen on the top end m900 round, it was already useless as a "tank destroyer".
It had mobility problems and many issues derived from attempting to cram an m68 gun into an unmanned turret into what was originally an APC.
It's wasn't a tank destroyer though, the 105 was meant for blowing up buildings and trenches and shit, not for tanks. It was one of the many "tanks are obsolete" periods of procurement and doctrine, and to be completely fair, most of them got through their 20 years of service life never having fought an enemy with tanks.
That's not my point.
The problem is the gun wasn't particularly good for just reducing entire buildings if that was what you were after AND its capabilities against armor were limited to APCs/IFVs in a full scale war situation
Your point was putting that gun on the Stryker was a bad idea, the implication being what they really needed was a tank. But that defeated the point to the whole program which was a big gun for the ultimately very successful stryker brigades. Perfectly suited for the 20 years of counter-insurgency crap they ended up actually fighting, so it's one of the rare cases of US military procurement actually doing a good job for a change, though naturally it was completely by accident.
And IIRC a Stryker company carries 40-50 Javelins for anti-tank work.
Did any even make it to a combat zone? I can't remember a single picture of one painted tan.
Stryker was a good tool chosen for an utterly baffling job.
Who thought it would make a functional replacement for the Sheridan when it isn't as air-mobile and doesn't possess the same tactical mobility, and was sized to an IFV to begin with, making it unwieldy and long?
For a modern take on the armored car a-la the M8 Greyhound which still sees service itself, it's a worthy addition to the motorpool and useful for the same rapid-response street patrols similar Frog and Italian vehicles are used for.
wait... when was she taken away?
It was cool. That's enough.
the m8 greyhound doesn't see "service" today.
Nor was it intended to be an armored car.
I forget we can't have actual discussions here anymore.
the columbians still use them
Truly the peak of vehicular might. The US should clearly follow whatever Columbia is doing
The Army ditched them for a reason. I think it was the maintenance requirements of the gun system was too much. Possibly fixing them all the time wasn’t worth the firepower. Now that the new MPF is in the Army will close that long-term capability gap…but I don’t know what’ll happen to the Stryker BCTs. Just live with it? Get rid of them? Supplement via something else?
Well the Stryker APCs and the other derivatives will remain. Even the M1134 TOW launcher.
It's only the M1128 MGS that got retired this year.
strip out the gun and give them to Ukraine as APCs
Why would you want a high velocity gun
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save name for the next time I post.