Wheeled tank destroyers are wonderful. Who needs light tanks when these beauties exist?
Wheeled tank destroyers are wonderful. Who needs light tanks when these beauties exist?
Wheeled tank destroyers are wonderful. Who needs light tanks when these beauties exist?
Not OP, not all that well-versed in tank tactics.
What IS the point of a light tank in the modern battlefield when TD's like that exist? What benefit is a light tank compared to something like this?
A wheeled tank destroyer has more armor per ton than any equally heavy tank, a smaller logistical footprint, better fuel efficiency, better reliability. There is zero advantage in light tanks over wheeled TDs.
>There is zero advantage in light tanks over wheeled TDs.
Cross country performance.
OP has already lost all credibility,
Wheels preform much more poorly offroad than track
Who needs wheeled TD's when you have portable TD's like Javelins and NLAWS?
This is the stryker mgs. It exists because 2nd cav wanted something to kill tanks with.
This will not kill tanks. No one is dumb enough to engage a mbt in this fricker. They get a bit more uparmored before theater but we've had 7.62 go straight through these
Javs aren't even that good at it honestly we were always told to expect a mbt to take 4 or more hits.
>Javs aren't even that good at it honestly we were always told to expect a mbt to take 4 or more hits
Ukraine war seems to call the wisdom of this into question
Ukraine war also calls the entire Western doctrine into question because apparently OPFOR hasn't bothered to build a single fricking tank in fifty years and we've all spent decades arming up for a conflict with a peer enemy that literally doesn't exist, it's just Saddam Husseins all the way down
China numbah wan?
but we pretend like they aren't to keep the MIC jobs program going, as a result we stay winning conventional conflicts.
Quiet with that kind of talk! Do you want cool weapons or not??
>we've had 7.62 go straight through
Really? That's kinda shit. Can't MRAPs even handle 7.62?
Daily reminder that the Stryker MGS is being phased out because 105mm is not enough for anything.
>Daily reminder that the Stryker MGS is being phased out because 105mm is not enough for anything.
>armored trucks
>infantry in all positions
>vehicle columns of all kinds
>side and back armor of all Russian and Chinese tanks, front of plenty
Huh?
You can literally go read the Army's statements. even just googling "Stryker MGS" will have articles about it's retirement on the first page if not the first or second result.
The 105mm does nothing that a 30mm or CROWS-Javelin isn't better suited for and more economical. The autoloader on the MGS has a huge overhead that they don't think is worth it anymore.
Are you sure you wanted to respond to my post or his?
Because you address literally none of what we wrote and it seems it was directed at this guy
No I replied to the correct people. The 105 clearly has a place in the Army, just not on Stryker's.
because 30mm is more than enough for light vehicles. We've all seen the footage of those BTR-4's wrecking T-72's with it's 30mm so it's more than adequate.
>No I replied to the correct people. The 105 clearly has a place in the Army, just not on Stryker's.
Ah, I think the confusion occured because I (we?) responded to
>because 105mm is not enough for anything.
More than the Stryker specifically
Understandable mistake, I probably should have been clearer about it being specifically for the Stryker mounting it. Even the fact that the Griffin II with the 105mm being selected for the MPF program shows the Army does want the capabilities offered by a 105mm
Fair enough, sounds like the 30mm the germans put on the Puma plus a launcher for loitering AT suicide drones could be the future then.
I'm not actually sure if the new Stryker turrets from Oshkosh have the option for adding missile launchers and the like, but I believe they're intended to work in mixed platoons of cannon and javelin anyway.
nah 30mm is the new 20mm.
I cant imagine it would be that difficult to integrate a Switchblade 600 launcher into a turret. aren't they man portable?
>major situational awareness multiplier
>dump on any non western MBT from extreme range behind terrain or concealment
just seems like the obvious move if you want a Tank Destroyer.
Very likely they will. Unless they want to forgo having it mounted on the turret and instead have it stored internally and launched by a dismount or something.
Is 30mm the .50BMG of the future?
Yeah, but ICBTs are now getting the 40 ton light tank/MPF, which has a 105.
>Daily reminder that the Stryker MGS is being phased out because 105mm is not enough for anything.
which militaries outside of NATO are 105mm guns not enough?
why not keep the 105 for attacking light vehicles and equip these with a mess of ATGMs?
Type 16 is considered a light tank doctrinally.
The Stryker MGS is being phased out because it's an unreliable POS with it's wonky autoloader. 105mm is still enough which is why MPF is a thing.
Spoken like someone who has no idea why Stryker BCTs exist. The MGS is there to give SBCTs organic cannon fire support at a brigade level without having to rely on outside mechanized forces. It was never designed to fight tanks because that was the M1134s job with it's TOWs. The MGS is there to destroy fortifications and provide fire support to infantry.
The AMX-10RC was pure ciné.
I really like the Stryker MGS. It has Metal Gear Solid in the name and honestly it makes a lot of sense as a ccomplement to a column of bradleys and APCs who need at least a few big cannons to go with all their other medium to long range shit.
When you want something that can quickly move over any terrain to intercept infantry or light vehicles, encircle or overrun enemies, or exploit a gap in defense to destroy infrastructure, you don't want it getting stuck in mud or immobilized by blown tires because it had to traverse a bombed out road with jagged shrapnel and rebar everywhere.
I really like wheelietanks