Because its not a particularly good wheeled cannon. They should have bought Centauros for the job, it would have been acceptable too since the Stryker was only meant to be a stopgap so lack of parts commonality wouldnt have been too concerning.
They were given to people who didn't want or asked for a wheeled gun in the first place. Strykers should had been integrated into LAV formations as a counterpart to the Booker for conventional mechanized.
>why are they retiring Stryker mgs?
they were too slow to produce
they were also all flat-bottomed versions that would need rebuilding to modern V-hulls which compounded the above issue
they were also unreliable and had low ammo capacity, due to the stopgap nature of the remote turret and autoloader
it was retired in favor of the stryker dragoon
while the 30mm cannon isnt as effective as the 105mm gun, each platoon gets 2 of them organically, as opposed to 3 per company in a separate platoon
the dragoon turret is simply a swap out with the .50, and a bit of re-arranging of internals while the MGS was a significant rebuild, which is why it was much faster to get dragoons out
as a bonus, dragoons still retain full dismount capability, which is why they can replace all strykers in a platoon 1:1 without altering formation
another thing that expeditated the choice was that SBCTs are being rolled into armored divisions
so the need for organic firepower is much lower when they operate in the same formation as MBTs with much bigger guns and more ammo capacity
How good is the Type 16 compared to the Centauro? Every answer you find online is just some midwit saying "You can't compare them because they're for different roles" while never actually listing what those different roles are
Idk about that specifically, but in general Japanese game plan for a land invasion is to retreat into the mountains and wait for the US to intervene. Based on that, their mobile guns may be intended to be used more like tanks than mobile guns usually are.
They had to cut too many corners on the design to try and keep it within the weight limits for airlifting, which was basically the entire point of the Stryker brigade.
They could have purpose built on a smaller hull and built something much more sensible (see the AMX-10 RC for example), but they wanted commonality with the APCs.
>They had to cut too many corners on the design to try and keep it
on a common hull >They could have purpose built on a smaller hull and built something much more sensible (see the AMX-10 RC for example), but they wanted commonality with the APCs
this in a nutshell
Because we fucking HATE you and don't want you to be happy. We've dedicated 4% of the annual Air Force budget to do this.
>punctures your wheeled armored vehicle's tires
nothing personell
>keeps driving because the rubber is just a suggestion, not a need.
Heh, nothin personell kiddo.
Because its not a particularly good wheeled cannon. They should have bought Centauros for the job, it would have been acceptable too since the Stryker was only meant to be a stopgap so lack of parts commonality wouldnt have been too concerning.
the cannon beats the piss out of them and they can't have a v hull like the other strykers. it was always meant to be a stop anyway
They were given to people who didn't want or asked for a wheeled gun in the first place. Strykers should had been integrated into LAV formations as a counterpart to the Booker for conventional mechanized.
>why are they retiring Stryker mgs?
they were too slow to produce
they were also all flat-bottomed versions that would need rebuilding to modern V-hulls which compounded the above issue
they were also unreliable and had low ammo capacity, due to the stopgap nature of the remote turret and autoloader
it was retired in favor of the stryker dragoon
while the 30mm cannon isnt as effective as the 105mm gun, each platoon gets 2 of them organically, as opposed to 3 per company in a separate platoon
the dragoon turret is simply a swap out with the .50, and a bit of re-arranging of internals while the MGS was a significant rebuild, which is why it was much faster to get dragoons out
as a bonus, dragoons still retain full dismount capability, which is why they can replace all strykers in a platoon 1:1 without altering formation
another thing that expeditated the choice was that SBCTs are being rolled into armored divisions
so the need for organic firepower is much lower when they operate in the same formation as MBTs with much bigger guns and more ammo capacity
How good is the Type 16 compared to the Centauro? Every answer you find online is just some midwit saying "You can't compare them because they're for different roles" while never actually listing what those different roles are
Idk about that specifically, but in general Japanese game plan for a land invasion is to retreat into the mountains and wait for the US to intervene. Based on that, their mobile guns may be intended to be used more like tanks than mobile guns usually are.
Type 16 is much more useful since Jap cities are packed and compact
ERC 90 is cute! CUTE!
The AMX is even better
Army hates small AFVs. Navy hates small ships. Air Force hates small planes.
And guessing Space Force hates small -- rockets or laptop computers. They hate something too.
What does the coast guard hate?
Small subs 😀
This is the fucking MGS that shot up my scout platoon in 2012 (in an exercise 🙂 ). Fuck 2/2 and fuck MGSs.
I just like it bros
They had to cut too many corners on the design to try and keep it within the weight limits for airlifting, which was basically the entire point of the Stryker brigade.
They could have purpose built on a smaller hull and built something much more sensible (see the AMX-10 RC for example), but they wanted commonality with the APCs.
>They had to cut too many corners on the design to try and keep it
on a common hull
>They could have purpose built on a smaller hull and built something much more sensible (see the AMX-10 RC for example), but they wanted commonality with the APCs
this in a nutshell