I don't care what you fuckers say, this was an amazing idea killed by.
1. Shitty political bickering.
2. Bad doctrine
3. Refusal to fix a few outstanding problems.
I don't care what you fuckers say, this was an amazing idea killed by. 1. Shitty political bickering. 2.
Yeah.
So, why did the Army dump them? Specifically?
Shitty political bickering, bad doctrine and a refusal to fix a few outstanding problems.
So, the Army’s stated reasons for dropping the vehicle from service are: "Political bickering", "bad doctrine" and "refusing to fix problems"? That must be an amazing document please share.
It’s true I was there
real
100% legit
>leaking classified documents to prove some internet autist wrong
Based retard. Have fun with your Court Marshal.
It’s obviously fake, idiot.
real
Get Dunked on you redditor fuck lmao
because they were always recognized as an interim vehicle, and they were all eventually replaced by the stryker dragoon
they dropped them because they couldnt procure them fast enough, an SBCT only got 10 instead of 27
and because they were a stopgap vehicle with a lot of issues with reliability and cost
in the end, instead of a small number of stryker MGS held at the battalion level they instead decided to have each stryker company have 2 stryker dragoons in them
>I don't care what you fuckers say, I'm retarded
Suit yourself
Couldn't get the gun to work safely
>they were always recognized as an interim vehicle
The ENTIRE Stryker fleet was supposedly "interim", not just the MGS
>they were all eventually replaced by the stryker dragoon
Only because they were withdrawn; Dragoon is supposed to be the "true 8x8 IFV" that will replace the infantry carrier variants too
>compared to the Bradley
Idiot
>They wanted a replacement for the Sheridan, a tracked, lightweight vehicle
>To equip an all-wheeled brigade
Mong
>The ENTIRE Stryker fleet was supposedly "interim", not just the MGS
This is one of those myths that never dies, like the claim that the M1128 couldn't fire to the side.
Not a myth when the name of the program was initially "interim combat vehicle". It was expected the whole shebang would be replaced by FCV in the 2010's but that whole program got canned.
>Not a myth when the name of the program was initially "interim combat vehicle".
>References to the vehicle being "interim" were dropped before it ever entered service.
No shit, you stop calling it an "interim" vehicle when it comes time to pitch it to congress.
>An early phase of the plan called for the introduction of an Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV), which was intended to fill the capability gap between heavier and heavily armed, but not easily deployable, vehicles, such as the M2 Bradley, and easily deployable vehicles that are lightly armed and protected, such as the Humvee.
>The IAV was intended as an interim vehicle until light air-mobile vehicles from the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles program came online, none of which did before the program was canceled.
see
>So, why did the Army dump them? Specifically?
OP is a retard, the M1128 was retired because it is a flat bottom hull Stryker.
>Design vehicle that is direct fire infantry support
>US Army: We don't have a doctrine that suited for it even though we told you to make it and said we were going to work on said doctrine
>US Army: Okay it has a 105mm gun so its a tank right? we can use it like a tank?
>US Army: WTH!!!!! ITS NOT WORKING LIKE A TANK!!!!!!!!!
its going to be the same issue with the M10 again.
meds, Sparky
He's right. It's been a common critique at NTC rotations. A lot of the AARs claiming Strykers were being employed like an ABCT are available online.
If weapons and vehicles were canned on account of what some mong did with it in NTC, the Army would be as equipped as a caveman
A lot of vehicles get canned because of that,
Look at the M50 Ontos, it was canned because the army/marines weren't using it as an Anti-tank vehicle but were using it as a direct fire infantry support weapon (Basically an assault gun) where it was super effective.
Command didn't like that and since it wasn't being used as an Anti-Tank vehicle they didn't order any more...
>A lot of vehicles get canned because of that
EVERY vehicle would be canned if that was the case
>Look at the M50 Ontos, it was canned because
Recoilless rifles are outdated for anti-tank work and it's a shit asault gun because you're armed with nothing more lethal than a recoilless rifle jeep, and can literally shoot only six rounds and then you have to duck into cover, GET OUT of the damn vehicle and reload the rounds by hand
Recoilless rifles just aren't vehicle-mounted weapons in any NATO army any more, and that has nothing at all to do with what some dumbfuck does or doesn't in NTC
The army is roughtly 20 years behind the navy and about 40 years behind the Airforce, yes. They've been canning all of their hi-tech projects over the last decades and are lucky to have even something as basic as MRAPs.
In the current climate, they probably would have rejected the Abrams.
Army will always use a system outside of it's intended role. Which is why they should only be allowed towed artillery and mbts
>platform wasn't stable enough
>not able to operate on the front line where direct fire weapons of that size are useful
>better just to use a medium tank like the M10 or the M1A1
>rockets and missiles can achieve the same thing + 50mm canon
basically the argument is circular and direct fire weapons are really synergized with front line combat, otherwise using an indirect fire platform is always better than a direct fire platform. the #1 reason for a direct fire platform in modern combat is armor penetration, everything else just icing on that cake. if you want a HE round use a 30mm grenade, a 25mm autocannon, or a 80mm mortar. if you want an anti material round, use a 25mm auto cannon or 80mm mortar. the 105 and 155 are useful for quick change of rounds but under army doctrine and mixed unit tactics there is usually a more specialized option. this concept was also intended for air-mobility, but the serious lack of armor means that a javelin/TOW was more effective and safer to use as it could be fired indirectly.
Centauro but worse 2bh
Yeah.
You just described 90% of US defense procurement programs since 2000.
Well, every variant except that one worked pretty good, I think you're just not supposed to put that big of a gun on that size of chassis.
Needlessly complex and didn't add any additional capabilities over other existing designs like the Centauro, Rooikat, or Type 16. "8x8 AFV but more expensive and worse" is not a revolutionary concept. MGS was decommissioned for a reason.
>needlessly complex
What specifically
>didn't add any additional capabilities over other existing designs like the Centauro, Rooikat, or Type 16
The MGS fired full on 105mm tank rounds. All those other vehicles used various snowflake loadings for their canons
war thunder player detected, opinion rejected. Also the type 16 came out years later
>didn't add any additional capabilities
mong
Its a worse Centaro/AMX10. If you wanted something like that the CV90120 would be the best option.
>if you wanted a tank gun on a wheeled vehicle, the best option would be a tracked vehicle
*Centauro 120/45/Centauro 2
But that's not what they wanted. They wanted a replacement for the Sheridan, a tracked, lightweight vehicle valued for being able to operate in the middle of a jungle.
>valued for being able to operate in the middle of a jungle.
Yes, yes. An environment where wheeled APCs like the Stryker thrive.
So, in reality, it was dropped because maintenance was a major headache and didn’t have a V-hull upgrade. The Dragoon took over the direct fire support role for the SBTC.
BTW, the Stryker in general is bad. Not mechanically, but in capability terms. It’s light and fast on roads and deploys much faster than an armored BCT — but these things are thin-skinned, under-armed junk compared to the Bradley. Maybe the light forces concept will always just be light forces and thus fragile and with limited firepower.
>Not mechanically, but in capability terms
it fills the medium role, which is tactically faster than foot mobile infantry and less logistically intensive than tracked vehicles
which makes their primary role that of fast reaction, since you can quickly plug holes or respond to threats or enemies very quickly with a stryker battalion
hence an armored division has 2 ABCTs and 1 SBCT
the armored units with the brads are the maneuver element while the SBCT gives them a infantry-heavy unit that can keep up with them while advancing
It was killed by GD being unable to build a working vehicle.
>Ajax
Many such cases
Ukraine shows that tanks are useless in a real war.
>drones
>mines
>artillery
>atgms
>helicopters
Tanks already started to become useless in WW2.
Want to add, this is when you have big battles, they can still be useful in certain situations.
You know someone has absolutely no fucking clue what they're talking about when they say the tank is obsolete.
>tanks are so useless
>here's the 5 different anti-tank things we have to deploy in order for our infantry to not get rolled over
>our infantry still gets rolled over
Tanks are useless because the enemy spends 90% of its resources on anti tank drones, anti tank mines, anti tank attack helicopters, anti tank guided missiles, make their own tanks to counter our tanks, weigh down all their vehicles with additional armour to protect against tanks, dig anti tank trenches, give up terrain that cant be defended against tanks
>Autistically focuses entire military on anti-tank capabilities
>Gets JDAM'd from 40,000 feet instead.
>Dies.
>US tanks advance unhindered.
>Ground war is over in 100 hours.
>tanks are so useless they force the enemy to expend 90% of their resources on counters
hmmmmmmmmmm
Ukraine has made it extremely obvious that having old-school weapon branches like
>armor
>mechanized
>motorized
>light foot
>air cav
>artillery
is absolutely essential.
Russia is hanging on in the war just due to their massive advantage in manpower and hardware.
But that’s meaningless if you can actually do long range precision strikes in high volume. Russia is holding on because the peak of Ukraine’s weaponry is Storm Shadow slapped onto MiGs, 40 HIMARS trucks and some preproduction Hrim-2s.
What if the artillery branch has long range precision artillery also then smart guy?
Infantry are obsolete
>drones
>mines
>artillery
>helicopters
>tanks
>small arms
>grenades
>flamethrowers
>ifvs
It was dropped because I gave the order.
>Soldiers ask for a tank
>Don't give them a tank, give them an APC that can't move where their tank could
>Builder offers to make it tracked, eliminating the problem
>Decline, replace it with a bloated 40 ton IFV with an abrams turret
Just DoD things
>replace it with a bloated 40 ton IFV with an abrams turret
SBCTs aren't getting the M10.
It was axed because the weapon had low readiness rates, constantly in need of maintenance
PrepHole yet again proving itself to be worse than reddit of all places for discussing military equipment. Can't say I'm surprised anymore.
>In May 2021, the Army announced they would divest all Mobile Gun Systems by the end of 2022. The decision was made following an analysis that found its autoloader had become expensive to maintain and that the M1128 had not been upgraded with a Double V-Hull. It was more efficient to eliminate the platform and focus on firepower improvements such as equipping Strykers with 30 mm cannons and CROWS-J mounts, providing better distributed lethality capabilities that will not be lost from removing the MGS.[6][35]
It was a good idea but a very bad implementation. It was unreliable and difficult to maintain, and didn't really recoil properly in general.
No one needs a low pressure 105mm tank gun. They need 35 tons of armor so that the only thing that can defeat them is a 105mm + cannon or dedicated ATGM.
The designers made the classic mistake of thinking the tanks main roll is shooting the main gun to defeat other tanks. That's not the main job of a tank. The main job of a tank is ass raping infantry. They do this by having enough armor to up the weapons needed to even start to try and hurt them to a specialized dedicated weapons platform. Shooting other vehicles, tanks, bunkers and so on is just in service of getting at the sweet ass of the infantry and raping them to death.
the role of modern tanks is really just to fight other tanks
infantry can be easily dealt with simpler means
tanks are quite vulnerable to infantry anyway
Exactly my point, ignorant people think that tanks don't hunt and kill infantry as their primary role.
>low pressure 105mm tank gun.
It's an M68. The ammunition, barrel length, and performance are identical to the guns found on the M60 and the early model M1 Abrams.
The gun is the same but due to the vehicle's frame cracking they had to reduce the powder charge. The gun can totally fire the old 105 rounds true.
It was one of the reasons for the system being shuffled off; they had to modify all the ammo and reprogram the FCS. Nothing like buying a shiny new weapon and being told it can't actually use the old ammo like you said it could and oh we also need to reprogram all the computers we just sold you.
wrong retard
It's
Not a tank, doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Not a tank, doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Not a tank, doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Not a tank.
>roll
opinion ignored
I think you're describing an IFV.
Tanks need to be doing tank things, not infantry direct fire support assault gun things. Main canon rounds are cheaper than missiles with faster time to target and lower exposure time. ComBloc shitboxes with rubber filled ERA the enemy can barely field and sustain will be plenty overmatched regardless, and the armored/mechanized infantry units that have them will have over match against enemy auto-canons-only formations. They're a stop gap when and if enemy MBTs show up and complimentary to other systems intended to delay until tactical reserves with proper tanks can arrive.
>Tanks need to be doing tank things, not infantry direct fire support assault gun things.
Tank things is killing infantry not "supporting infantry". IFV support infantry, tanks are supported by infantry in case they run into so many infantry so fast the tanks can't kill them all before the infantry runs away in different directions.
sounds like low press 105mm would be fine for ass raping infantry
The US Army wants them for demolishing bunkers with.
I remember Spookston interviewing a MGS Stryker crew member talking about the MGS and the SBCT
this bro has a furry profile pic
Does that make the information from interview invalid? You should watch his videos anon especially the ones where he goes over the design history of certain tanks. He even did a interview with one of the engineers for the HSTV-L
>Does that make the information from interview invalid?
Yes.
Should have been developed into a finished combat vehicle. RDF-LT was almost there but they kept changing configurations for it.
They Stryker was terrible and literally would damage itself when it fired. The army should have just bought Centauros. Brazil is acquiring modified Centauros which will be running on gear underpinning the Guarani 6x6, which is also related to the SuperAV 8x8 which the new US Marine 8x8 is also using so maybe the US will replace these with a similar Centauro based vehicle soon.
brazilians must be really short if they can fit in that
>They Stryker was terrible and literally would damage itself when it fired.
fuddlore
The problem with centauro or boxer is that they are fucking huge.
>no 8x8 Guarani with the Centauro gun or 6x6 Guarani with the Centauro gun
PAIN
PAIN
PAIN
PAIN
Pain is also what the BR Army will feel when the squid's government cuts and contains their budget soon and they'll have to delay the Centuaro acquisition.
Is it true it can roll over from recoil?
No.
shut the fuck up retard
Um they didn't kill the idea they just put tracks on it instead of wheels
So BASICALLY the Army wanted a light tank but industry wasn’t able to produce an adequate one so they eventually gave up and settled for the Stryker package (and now M10)?
neither are light tanks means being used primarily for recon, scouting, and flank protection like the M5 stuart was used for
the closest thing to a light tank is the M3 bradley, which is used in armored cavalry units and comes with a pair of scouts instead of dismounts
the stryker MGS was used to provide some extra firepower to an SBCT, a role now taken by the dragoon, which can replace a regular stryker 1:1 instead of having an additional stryker attached
the M10 is going to be used primarily for infantry support, with the recon role going to dismounted recon units or wheeled recon units, and its closest ancestor isnt a light tank like the M5 but an an assault gun like the M8 scott
>using a Light Tank as a fire support vehicle
They really just wanted to cancel that program but didn't have the balls didn't they?
the stryker MGS was never considered for the light tank role in the first place, it was intended as extra firepower for SBCTs from day 1
it was cancelled because the autoloader was unreliable, they only used flat-bottomed strykers, and production was way too slow
and they ended up using stryker dragoons instead
The last time the Army was interested in a light tank was the eighties.
See:
So, what's wrong with wheeled tanks exactly?
Wheeled vehicles cannot be armored sufficiently to fulfill the role of an MBT and vehicles like the Stryker MGS or Centauro are not tanks nor try to be.
this one looks better
Tank beats Ghost
>OMG TOW MISSILES COST MONEY
The US Govt has now shortage of funds. Why couldn't they just keep the ATGM variant.
just because you can spend tens of thouands of dollars per shot doesnt mean you should
especially when its not actually needed in that role when something can do the job better for less
the army isnt against using a TOW missile on a machine gun nest, they do that all the time
they are against wasting a TOW missile every time they need to eliminate a machine gun nest every single time when they could just have a 30mm cannon do the job better because it can fire more than twice in a row
for actual anti-tank roles, strykers can just take javelins in their remote-turret
>don't care what you fuckers say, this was an amazing idea
agree
they shoulda:
reset with clean sheet design, from other contractor
if needed to make it reliable and workable, drop it down to 105mm
IIRC the 120mm wasn't fitting in certain aircraft (c-130?) just barely too big, but maybe 105mm could.
Flat bottom not so mine resistant hull. Somehow I think mines less an issue for long range fire support than a battle bus for grunts.
It had a 105, numb nuts