M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System | INFANTRY SUPPORT
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 дек 2024
- The M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) was designed to provide direct fire support for infantry units. The MGS is one of 10 variants of the Stryker series of wheeled armored vehicles. The M1128 was specially designed for low-intensity combats and takes some of the main battle tank roles. Deliveries of first pre-production vehicles commenced in 2002 and vehicle entered service with the US Army in 2007. However only relatively small number of these vehicles were built.
The M1128 Mobile Gun System is fitted with a General Dynamics Land Systems (formerly Teledyne Vehicle Systems) Low-Profile Turret. The same turret was previously used on the Expeditionary Tank. This fire support vehicle is armed with a M68A1E4 105 mm rifled tank gun. It is a modified version of the tank gun, used on the M1 Abrams and M60 series main battle tanks. This gun is fitted with an autoloader. Original autoloader had jamming problems, so in 2005 it was redesigned. The gun is fully-stabilized, so the vehicle can fire accurately while on the move. The Mobile Gun System fires high-explosive, anti-tank and canister rounds. Despite its anti-tank capability the Stryker MGS is intended to support infantry rather than to fight tanks. Its 105 mm gun poses little threat to modern main battle tanks, unless the tank is attacked from the flanks or rear. Only 18 rounds for the main gun are carried by the vehicle. Overall there are a number of problems with this vehicle, that are mainly related to its turret.
Secondary armament consists of 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm machine guns.
Armor of the Mobile Gun System protects against small arms fire and artillery shell splinters. Interior is lined with Kevlar spall liner. Vehicle can be fitted with add-on composite armor, which provides protection against 14.5 mm rounds, and add-on slat armor which protects against RPG rockets. The MGS is fitted with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems.
This fire support vehicle has a crew of three, including commander, gunner and driver.
The M1128 MGS uses a Stryker 8x8 armored personnel carrier chassis. Vehicle is powered by Caterpillar 3126 diesel engine, developing 350 horsepower. Engine and transmission of the MGS can be removed and reinstalled in less than an hour. Vehicle is not amphibious. The M1128 can be airlifted by C-130 Hercules and larger transport aircraft. The MGS disembarks from the C-130 in combat-ready status.
Hope you enjoy!!
💰 Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.co...
👕 Check out my Merch: teespring.com/...
My PO Box: Matthew James 210A - 12A Street N Suite #135 Lethbridge Alberta Canada T1H2J
DISCORD: / discord
📘 Facebook: www.facebook.c...
🐦Twitter: / matsimusgaming
(DISCLAIMER: This video is for entertainment purposes only. The views and opinion come from personal experience or information from public accessible sources.)
I was a mechanic for these vehicles, and you showed footage of my old unit in this video(2nd Calvary Regiment)
Now you seem to absolutely love this vehicle, but I can tell you that you give it to much credit. You said that it’s main problem is that it’s having an identity problem, sorry but that’s not true.
It’s main problem has to deal with maintenance issues. You see the Stryker doesn’t have a normal suspension system with springs and shocks. It has 8 pneumatic struts, that needs constant calibration. For the normal ICV the suspension is fantastic, you’ll never have a smoother ride in a military vehicle. But for the MGS this is a liability, the struts cannot withstand that firepower.
One or two shots from the cannon and you will bust a nitrogen line. Now I could bore you with how this is bad for the truck, but I’m not. Just know that if it leaks all of its nitrogen the chassis will sink down to the tires, negating it’s agility advantage.
The MGS is the most unreliable variant of the Stryker. Sorry if I ruined this vehicle for you.
But do a video on the 30mm Stryker “Dragoon”. I’d love to see that because I got out before I got a chance play with one of them.
Thanks for sharing! Now that I think about it, it would have made more sense to mount something like the Bradley turret on this. Have a 25mm or 30mm autocannon and a few decent anti-tank missiles deal with enemy tanks.
I was at the unit too it's good to see another survivor of vilseck hell
Would be even cooler with an anti air platform on top of that chassis
@@Y.M... really there is no need cause the stryker came about 2002 so there where no air threats in the middle east plus the army has a bunch of aa assets to use from manpads to to the avenger system to hell i bet the c-ram could even knock out a helo if they wanted it too
Sorry some of your comments are not true. I was one of the first 9 platoon sergeants to take it to Iraq in 2007 and the second by 24 minutes to put rounds down range on a sniper position
you can always find who was in Artillery.
just ask is a crowd, "who was in artillery ?
they guy that shouts "what did you say ?" That's him !
Very funny! Lol
We call it “gunnerear”
I didn’t realize my dad was artillery.
51 now and your not Wrong , I said 51 now and your not Wrong Ffs I said 51 now and oh fuck it! Wish I joined the royal core of transport now instead of the royal artillery!!! 😉 🇬🇧
@@marklloyd4087 still can't 'ear you mate
I was in the first combat unit to deploy the Stryker MGS into a combat zone. We were in Kuwait when President Bush announced that all Army units were to complete 18 month tours during the surge of 2007. Spent 18 months in Iraq. Started out at FOB Taji. Our patrol base was in Taramiyah. Then we went up to the Tikrit area and played around in FOB Marez. 4/9 Inf. out of Ft Lewis, WA. Keep up the fire!!! I was a gunner and never had a single issue with getting black eyes, bloody nose, teeth knocked out, or anything like that. A very manageable recoil when behind the sights. But yeah, it was hot as hell inside those things. It was a true blessing to get those cooling vests. The major issue we were constantly fighting was the nitrogen based suspension. Sometimes the ass end didn't want to support the vehicle, so you would have to do a system reset while the vehicle was moving. Being in a small motor pool inside a walled compound with limited travel area made that a challenge. Not to mention that you were constantly under mortar and sniper threat. Ahh, fun times. LOL
I was army 1978 to 1986. Started in a Patton Starship. 152mm. Then M60 and M1 (Chrysler) ,both 105mm. I noticed the Stryker rapid fire was 10 seconds between rounds. I was a gunner for CATC 1983. I won't say anything about 10 seconds between rounds because of vehicle recoil and re laying the target but... damn. 10 seconds?
@@2williamII Yeah. The autoloader has about a 9 second cycle rate. It's horrible. I was first in the army from 1986 to1989. I served on a M-60A3 TTS. I was a loader and slinging rounds into the breach at about 3 seconds. I preferred slinging them from the honey comb over the ready rack. It was just so much easier to flip them around in a smooth motion. God, I really miss doing that. It was so much fun.
Can you enlist as a Stryker driver or gunner or is that something you're assigned to as part of an armored crewman?
Been on strykers 5 years, not once have I ever seen us have all MGS vehicles operational at once
Yes, there is a reason the US is replacing this vehicle with something completely different.
So, give it all to Ukraine 🇺🇦?
Many of you will have no idea how much of a maintenance nightmare this damn thing is been on it for about 3 years now. Jesus Christ you breathe on it wrong and it falls apart
I was on the first production run to be deployed overseas and didn't have but a few major issues and that was including the bugs and design flaws.
American tech right there
All for a less effective centauro that the us could have just bought from italy. They even used it to test things for this stryker variants.
@Chad Thaddeus oooooor just buy centauro and centauro 2 from italy. Out the box a better vehicle. The freccia ifv version even has the same turret and cannon of the ifv dardo.
You got that right. I think Mat is slightly underestimating these monsters.
I wanna see this thing with a GAU-8 Avenger. I dont care how.. I just wanna see a wheeled BRRT
Taliban: That A-10 was flying so low I sounded like the fire came from between those trees over there.
Atmixx There was a M48 modified to hold a GAU-8 Avenger. Basically a tank A-10
@@ArendSchuurman *grounded tank
They had an Abhrams with a GAU-8
That'd be awesome!
Oh wow, actual videos of them firing.... In the 4 years they were with my unit, out of 35 in the entire regiment, only 3 ever worked at one time.
This thing COULD pretty easily fight against enemy tanks, provided they’re not the latest and greatest Russia has to offer.
With over 510mm penetration, the M1128’s M900 DU APFSDS shell could smack through a T-72M’s turret up to around 2,500m, and the hull up to at least 1,500m. Any model of T-55, even the most heavily upgraded variants from the late 2000’s, and obviously anything older than that. Not even the T-90S could withstand a side shot from one of these at 2,000m!
theScottishKoala yeah I was surprised by the rejection of the idea. I understand you must train and fight for the war of tomorrow but no one wants to get hit with a 105.
in ur dreams
theScottishKoala Plus if this thing gets added into WT...just imagine the speedy boi memes.
Its better to have A cannon vehicle then none. You cant expect this thing to go head to head with a modern tank. But no tank's side armor is gonna withstand that amazing 105mm M68 gun, child of the most succesful L7 cannon. And when you fight an enemy that doesnt have tanks, and you have this highly mobile beauty. its gonna a much better day.
F4Wildcat actually this gun could comfortably go head to head with a lot of modern mbt’s
I was on the M1127 Recon variant from 2002 through 2005...it is an excellent vehicle....I've had one up to 95mph on a long flat stretch. We used to chase cars in Iraq through narrow alleys at 60mph.
Striker commander: why is my vehicle so dusty?
Gunner: hold my MRE.
You ain't lying...... dust...dust everywhere
Mats; I was a medic with 101st in VN. 105s shot most of our support fire from miles away. It amazes me that it was done so well. Maps, etc.
fine gun for breaking contact.
I never saw any tanks.
I have had the pleasure of working on its development as a contractor in Muskegon Michigan. On a good day during the summer you can see the Stryker gun system on the test track just off I31 North bound . As for the 105mm gun that everyone downplays its great!!!!!
Ive watched targets at 2000meters melt!!! The Targets were M47 and M48 hulks but FRESH to the range and being fired on. You mentioned why a gun system in the Stryker Brigade? The Brigade usually doesn't deploy with MBTs so the gun system fills that need.
The concept of the Brigade is the whole group must be air transportable together.
Great video!!!! Thanks for sharing!!! Ohhhh also seen with my own eyes m60 rise ERA equipped tanks destroy T72 s( Kuwait City Air Port ) . Dont under estimate the m68 ( L7 ) 105mm gun.
4:35 i love how the .50 is shooting at an old bmp
I was a 19K and trained on M1A1s with the PA Army National Guard (in the active Army I was 12F...Combat Engineer Tracked Vehicle Crewman...I don't think they even have that MOS anymore) . Then I got moved to a Stryker Infantry company and got to train as a gunner on the MGS before deploying to Iraq in 2009. By the time we got there, things had ramped down to the point that we were not allowed to use for them for combat missions so I ended up in another role and didn't get to use my training in combat...but I do have to say, they were pretty cool...the autoloader was fast and easy to use and seemed reliable at least in training. The thermal sight, gun stabilization and ballistics computer were very accurate...they worked pretty much like the M1A1 but better in many respects. But I wouldn't want to have to fight modern threat country tanks like T-72Cs or T-14. AFVs, APCs and the like, sure. Even older tanks. But don't get shot at by any AT weapons...they just aren't that well armored. We did have bird cages for HEAT rounds and RPGs...but I still wouldn't want to get shot at with those kind of weapons.
Well when you ask why the MGS is there at all when you have tanks and Bradleys, it helps to remember that Strykers (including the MGS) are always attached to infantry. They're specifically meant to support infantry, so infantry can call upon them no matter what the overall strategic picture is. I'm sure an Abrams is always preferable to a MGS, but armor might have some other important objective that prevents it from being tasked to support, and Bradleys are specifically attached to support armor, so they and their mechanized infantry go wherever the armor is. If the armored units aren't around for some reason, Strykers are a platform that infantry have dedicated to supporting them.
When you look at the bigger picture of how the US Army deploys its vehicles, the MGS is basically them doing their best to fit infantry needs for a fire support vehicle onto the existing Stryker frames that they have available for infantry support. We can also see that with the newer Dragoon model being deployed to Eastern Europe, with its 30mm autocannon meant to give infantry better parity with the BMP-3.
When will the 2019 army recruitment start please
Then make more Abrams so you can spam them everywhere.
@@I-02 Yeah do so, would be a funny waste of ressources for many slow outdated tanks...
eddie money That’s just a fat Russian wank and you know it.
The Stryker MGS is superior in every way to the BMP-1, BMP-2, and BMP-3. They don’t get used because there isn’t a need for mechanized anti-armor vehicles right now.
I served almost 8 years in Stryker brigades. I will tell you that our mission compared to the armored brigade combat teams is different. We’re still a light infantry brigade we just use the Stryker to get there faster and hit harder with our MGS.
The US Army went for a mix of "Heavy" Brigades and "Stryker" Brigades. Sure if there already are tanks and Bradleys in theatre its mismatched - however the original idea (flawed or not) was that the air transportable Stryker Brigades could deploy to most locations far quicker than the heavy ones (needing heavy air lift or sea lift). A lot more airstrips can take C-130 (with say Styker on board) than C-17 or C-5A needed to deploy suitable quantities of M1s. :)
The problem was that the Stryker ended up not actually being deployable by C-130. It will barely fit into a C-130 and the C-130 can take off with it in the bay, but both of those statements are only true if you leave behind the add-on armor. And even if you do just operate without the slat armor and accept the vulnerability to RPGs and such, the fact that (in both height and weight) the Stryker is at the very limit of C-130 capacity means it's typically going to ride in a C-17 anyway.
seeing a Stryker eject that enormous shell casing is so badass
As a student I worked at MOWAG (Praktikum) for some few months. The Piranha was essentially an adoption of the ideas of the Russian BMP. At my time the owner made the Piranha very versatile, but they intentionally did not develop any guns although they made a version to place a huge mortar in the crew compartment.
Patrick Daxboeck did you get the job tho?
Dear Annelise ! This was only necessary for the studies of Electrical Engineering. So I did not want to work there after the Trainee program. However it was an interesting time there. We were a good group of students.
I would not be a bit surprised if someone said "Hey we have a couple of warehouses full of 105mm rounds and we need a fire support vehicle. Lets build a 105mm fire support system and put it on a cheap, lightweight chassis". 105mm round is still cheaper than a ATGM round.
Surprised at the amount of recoil. IMHO that will limit vehicle service life due to stress.
IMHO I would have rather seen a system with a HE round big enough to blow a man sized hole in a wall for easy ingress of troops. My complaint with ATGM is minimum range and high cost of rounds. A cannon shell is still cheaper.
IMHO replace Bradley and Stryker with CV90, one variant already developed is the CV90-120 which gives you equivalent of a light tank with the applique armor panels and fires standard NATO 120mm rounds.
Why would you replace wheeled afv by tracked one? They fill different roles in the battlefield. Wheeled vechiles are superior on roads and hard terrain and tracked ones on soft terrain. One is bad substitude to other. That is why for example Sweden bought Patria AMV's even they already had cv-90's and produce them domestically.
@@ninaakari5181 IMHO tracked vehicle has its achilles heel mainly blow a track and vehicle is immobilized where a Stryker can lose 4 wheels and still move. That said I think a tracked vehicle offers superior mobility and is not as limited by terrain like wheeled vehicles are.
I dont know about the MGS but there are videos of the LAV's running with four wheels flat, still off roading on the other four.
BINGO .
We brought one of these with us on patrol and used them on booby trapped houses / complexes.
JT McGee in reading some of the comments, it seems like they would very frequently suffer maintenance problems during combat. Was that your experience with them? Were they effective over more than a short period? Thanks for any info, and for your service!
Yeeting a booby trpped house with one of these seems like a proper respinse imo :D lmao
I kinda understand why Chieftain said in his Abrams chat that he quite fancy the idea of auto-loaders on tanks. And boiiii look at the way the damn thing work. Fascinating piece of technology.
Great Presintation on the Stryker & Bradley, learned alot! I am US. Army Retired & I really liked the other comment from soldiers who served on them! Thanks!
Honestly I don't think this design is up to scratch these days. The gun isn't really necessary at all. It's just a poor fit for the chassis, replace the gun with an auto-canon for targeting soft targets and lightly armoured targets and fit an ATGM to it for the rare engagements against tanks. It would lighten the vehicle a lot and make it far more effective against everything.
I get what they where trying to do, they wanted to make a highly mobile anti-tank platform but your just going to get killed driving around in this going up against far more capable platforms.
Kuddlesworth NA if you did that wouldn’t you just get a wheeled Bradley?
Bepis Boi yes. Bradley’s are too slow compared to the Stryker. You can only go as fast as slowest vic
It's not really an AT platform, since that role was filled by the M1134 TOW carrier.
Fortunately, the Army had come to a similar conclusion as you have, and the Stryker Dragoon is basically your proposal, minus the ATGMs. The 30mm autocannon don't have nearly the same punch as a 105mm cannon, but it's got plenty of suppression capability. And if you are desperate enough, the 30mm cannon with APDS ammo could punch through anywhere but the frontal arc of a T-72 tank at close range.
However, as these machines are expected to fight as a unit, the M1134 TOW carriers intended for the anti-tank role would be exactly where you didn't need them because lol Murphy's law.
I heard the issues with atgm is its cost
I would replace the gun with a 120mm advanced mortar system (AMOS). Perhaps the single barreled variant with more mortar rounds and a coaxial machine gun added instead of the twin barreled variant to keep the weight down enough to use the newer double V hull Stryker chassis. A twin barreled version could be used on a tracked chassis for use in armored units.
When you think about it's mission, providing direct fire support to the troops and freeing up tanks, it's really a lightly armoured wheeled assault gun.
I need this for my 10.0 American lineup in war thunder lol
look at the bush campers
We all need it first saw this beauty in BF3
Waffenträger E-100 armored kill days in bf3 were the best
I would need a new crew slot because my light tank crew has the Bradley and my secondary tank crew has the mbt (I like to keep it in my top tier lineup for anti helo use and the mobility)
Seriously wtf I really need this in my lineup now lol War Thunders meta is on its a$$ right now😠
Of all the AFVs of recent times the M1128 Striker has got to be the most strange of the modern AFVs. Depending on who you talk to, this is either an amazing vehicle or a big hunk of junk.
so ever military vehicle barring the Osprey?
@@theob.8458 yup, everyone loves the Osprey
@Tim Krigers same gun killed T72s and T80s in US Marine and Israeli hands both. Its plenty capable of killing modern tanks.
Well, t72s and T72 hulls are the backbone of every armor force we may face and will be for the next two decades, so yeah, modern. Whats your version of modern? Vaporware like the armata? ...and the L7 will penetrate them, proven in combat.
@Tim Krigers you mean the tank every nation other than the Russians would be using? It's still a modern variant and still would die to the L7, given Russian armor.performance in Syria even the top of the line T72bs are suspect- and they cancelled the Armata, it's a failed design.
When I first heard about the Stryker family of vehicles I thought "ah, the army's new Mini-van" great job Matsimus keep these coming.
13:48 military grade Taticool Pringle’s are always key at the firing range
Spent so far 6 years in a SBCT. I appreciate the speed and versatility of the Stryker. But fuck do I hate them. Much rather be light infantry or Air Assault.
Y do ya hate them?
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s because they break all the damn time.
"has a problem with recoil"
So did the M551 Sheridan! LOL
The vehicle dose not need a 105, replace it with something like a low velocity 90mm. You still maintain most of the benifits of explsove and canister, and maybe throw a HEAT mution in there as HEAT dose not depend on speed for armor penatration, and use ATGMs for heavier targets instead of APDSFS. Easier to resupply as ammo is lighter and smaller, and less of an issue with recoil.
selvacin this looks to be a building and bunker killer
*laughs in b2 centauro
A low velocity 90mm gun would make this machine completely worthless against tanks. Why would the US completely defeat the purpose of this machine? It's meant to support infantry against enemy heavy armor.
@@I-02 it is not, its an assault gun, not a tank destroyer, the tank destroyer stryker is armed with TOW-2B (ironically it's wireless)
better put AMOS/NEMO 120mm mortar-cannon (one barrel version). Much less recoil, much more HE power, existing 120mm HEAT homing top attack mortar rounds + ability to use Israeli LAHAT barrel launched AT missile. www.military-today.com/artillery/nemo_mortar_system.htm
06:57 Spot on Mat. These sort of things can be useful so long as they are used the way they were meant to be; and that is most certainly not as a stand-in for an MBT. I was relieved back when I saw the Canadians were dropping the idea of replacing the Leo C1 with this and picked up second hand Leo2s instead.
12:35 Getting to what you were saying about how hot these things get inside - that rectangular attachment on the side looks for all the world like an airconditioning unit.
If you look at 12:52 or so I think it's a ladder or something of the sort.
@@TristanHayes I meant the thing toward the front. Rectangle with six disks (fans?).
Sometime I expect to see an M1128 fall onto its side when its 105 is fired.
That is much less likely when GDLS mounts a side bracket.
There are absolutely no pics of this on the interwebs btw...
It happened in the first round of testing because they used a basic Stryker hull for it. They took it back to the drawing board and found that shaving a few inches off the top resulted in these things being about to fire at a 90degree offset and maintain relative stability. I'd never do it at a high rate of speed or on super uneven ground though. Park one of these next to an M1126 ICV and they look like sports cars. Like parking a Viper next to a minivan. We used to make jokes to the infantry guys about it.
Mats could you talk about the chinook helicopter?
It's my favorite helicopter:)
CH 47 aka Chinook has a 50 year-old airframe design with a counterrotating tandem rotor system. It is a medium airlift aircraft that can fly high and in hot environments like mountainous areas of Afghanistan. Todays Chinook cockpit and avionics are digital. Depending on what you put in the aircraft (special op. Chinook costs a lot more) the cost can be between $25-$50 mils per copy. Many allied countries operate the Chinook. Oh, it is made by Boeing.
I love the chinook and even have had the opportunity to fly in one :)
Sea Knights more sexy
super codbras are mines bro
@Jim Morrison Yeah it's a great helicopter, although the noise is something to get used too 😂
Is this the same 105mm gun that used to be on the Abrams?
Edit: I got my answer in the video!
@Andy the Malevolent yeah I was about to edit my comment to ask if it's the same gun, besides the auto loader of course. Thank you for the reply though.
A British tank gun that America bought.
Stryker mgs is for sure good weapon system. And it's not a tank hunter, this role is better fitted with tow launcher crews. But it can kill any tank with a side hit and most of them with good hit on front. It's main feature is mobility and speed. Its literally a tank firepower, delivered by air and capable of 70 miles/hour. And at last, a nato cannon autoloader! Russia learned that such atmored cars are viable and developed a Sprut gun system for marines and VDV. Sprut is basically the same, but tracked and carrying T-72 cannon. Also, wheeled versions are in pre-production tests.
@keith moore Germany & America bought the 105mm British Ordnance *"L7"* rifled tank gun before because it was very accurate.
@keith moore The M1A1's 120mm smooth bore gun is a German design. That's the one you're thinking of.
Mobility was the key to the Stryker concept. The USAF has the airlift capacity to move these quickly into a theater. They can roll off the plane and into the fight.
As far as this variant, it reminds me of a modern version of a STUG III on a wheeled platform. The Germans learned from WW I that while they could break through the trenches and into the rear of enemy areas, their infantry quickly became separated from artillery support and the attack would bog down due to enemy artillery. Hence, the STUGs were created as infantry artillery support vehicles. They were supposed to be able to press forward to support the advance. Of course the Germans ended up pressing the STUGs into any possible roll. It appears the army took the same concept, but rather than focusing on artillery support in the traditional sense, they mounted the cannon in a more anti-vehicle roll. But again, the main advantage is the mobility of such brigades over heavy armored units.
I've heard to many nightmarish experiences of the Stryker. It's big and lightly armored. They were RPG magnets in Iraq. When they were given grate armor to halt RPGs, it made them heavy and unwieldy and the enemy simply fired their rockets to the rear of the vehicle.
When going from the lav 3 design to the stryker the us decided to strip off almost all the armor(not that the lav3 could stop an rpg)
@@somedude3448 LAV 3 isn't well protected either.
@@jonny2954 still alot better than the stryker. It cam at least stop alot of autocannon from getting through the front
@@somedude3448 Both have base protection according to STANAG 4569 level 3 sides/rear and level 4 frontally. Addon armor can bring sides/rear to level 4 too.
The LAV 6.0 offered to Australia in LAND 400 had all around protection at level 4. It was rejected before the trials even started because of this.
Level 4 is 14.5 mm HMG, not autocannon.
@@vemundr9263 Where does it say that? Lazar base protection is rated at level 3 all around. Addon armor can bring it up to level 4 sides/rear and 5 frontally.
Level 5 is 25 mm, not 30 mm.
Also Stryker is based on a 1970s design, Lazar is new. That might make a difference.
Stryker is based on the LAV 3, which is based on the piranha. The us modified the General Dynamics Land Systems Canada design. Pretty sure the turret and autoloader are essentially resurected from the "expeditionary tank" program
They are quite and fast on roads with some off road cappability, but can't keep up with tracked vehicles off road wise. Uparmoured packages do work against some small arms, but these make it slow and bulky and hard to move in urban areas.
The M1128 with its 105mm and .50 cal is essentially a "self-propelled" 105mm howitzer. Thus, it can be transferred to the artillery regiments. All the vehicles need are supported mobile supply.
I recently rewatched “The Pentagon Wars” and now I can’t see the Stryker without an epic eye roll. It resembles so much the Bradley prototype drawing featured in the film.
@@TristanHayes true enough, the prototype was designed around one mission. Then mission creep happened. Stryker is a good base platform that a lot can be built on. Except it has one flaw, its easier to poke and prod and squeeze and glue kit onto a Bradley than purchase one Stryker perfectly suited to each mission.
Stryker is the opposite of bradley. The base model is a cheap taxi, and any additional equipment is mounted on dedicated mods of it, rather than cramming all of it in one vehicle.
@@Defenestrationflight The Stryker is a cheap taxi full stop. Anything else you put on it let people just use it in roles it is not made for.
I used to be a part of a Stryker brigade combat team and I got to say that when I finally got to be on tanks, I missed the Stryker MGS. Mainly because of the maintenance and leaniance around our platoons. It's easy to start up, easy to maintain, and easy to redcon 1 in a minutes notice. Sure JCR and coms are an issue when it comes to all US vehicles but the thing that I miss about the MGS I'd just that, mantenance. As a tank crew, you carry more armor, weapons, and munitions but the MGS. Boy, you can carry a lot more snacks and still have room for PLL in the back or bustle racks. Sure, it sucks that you need to mount your rucksacks on the side but I learned to not care much about that. When your stryker blows a tire, it sucks to change a tire, but better than changing a road wheel or track. Less tools and less time wasted when compared to an abrams. The one decision I hate that the army made is that Cavarly Scouts are on the platform now instead of tankers. We as tanker knowingly are more comfortable with larger weapon systems. But the load plan and the BII for the MGS needs to change. Like you get over 100 items that you only use 40 of, so it's really unnecessary to have all that stuff. Also, if we had full functional 100% combat ready MGS strykers. Then it would be better to use than tanks because our MGS strykers usually broke after the first shot. Ie, the screens shut off, autoloader malfunctioned, or vehicle shuts off. If they manage to fix these, then by all means, keep the stryker MGS.
@Brandon _37 honestly, we have so many 105mm cannons from M48s, M60s, and M1s that it kinda doesn't really matter. The MGS is always going to be a top heavy vehicle regardless if you slap a 90mm on it. Not sure if it'll fix the electrical related issues with the JCR and autoloader. Could be the amount of force and recoil coming out of the main gun that shuts off some systems and causes malfunctions, but that's above my pay grade.
Overall, yes and no.
You'd be able to save weight and possibly carry more munitions but there will always be issues in dealing with military vehicles because they're literally beaten black and blue and expected to work regardless of any situation. Reason a majority of platoon sergeants and lieutenants lie on paper saying their shit is 90% combat ready when it'll break down 1/3 the way to the field.
Take with it what you will.
4:25 105mm shotgun.....That Is Beautiful.
my experience with these vehicles: I saw one in a motorpool on Camp Liberty once in 2009.
I've heard mixed reviews of the Stryker platform.
From what I've heard, it's made of paper. Calling it an AFV is odd since it barely has armor. It's high profile is an issue as well.
I think a lower profile and better armored AFV/IFV needs to replace it.
I would love to hear opinions of those who have served with the Stryker.
I think they've sorted those armour issues with things like slatted armour. But then again, this thing's is probably at the upper limit of what can be expected of the chassis to support.
Good for small arms fire, and shrapnel unless it has the bird cage installed which offers slightly higher protection against rpg's, and other shape charge rounds from rockets or missles. But for serious sabot rounds, or even a well designed ied it will be kiss your ass goodbye. One of the problems is doctrine that the army employs though. I was rear air guard for my Stryker. Thus I has to expose myself out of the back hatch to keep my saw at the ready to engage helicopters, ect. Which totally negates armor protection. Although it has great nbc protection but again will be negated while exposing a crew member to the open back hatch. But great maneuverability. Also a bitch to work on.
I was a combat engineer with the 28th infantry division as part of the 856 engineer battalion Stryker brigade.
@@johnloughner6572 so... yay or nay?
@Brandon _37 exactly right - it was a constant battle with the army when we were designing these things. They wanted the moon for features without adding weight.
As a Army veteran who served in Afghanistan 2010-2011 I was there in Helmand province. Also during the time Bin Ladan was killed. As a 19k table crewman there’s is no vehicle beside and Abrams I would feel more confident in than the MGS. It is more than capable of taking out a tank. Also when you said that it can sub come to small arms that’s inaccurate I’ve taken fire and even IED strikes in them and we were able to keep fighting. Also you didn’t mention the slate armor. They also in 2009 cam out with a Air Condition unit for the MGS.
A well trained loader can load the main gun in 3 seconds. When an autoloader can at least match that I'll be impressed
The type 90 can match that with 2 seconds reload and around 4 seconds practical reload and fire
That's not true at all. You're lap loading obviously. No loader correctly loads in 3 seconds
Try loading 15 rounds in 3 seconds each
@@battleoid2411 it taked the ammo door approx 3 seconds to open so noone is liading correctly in 3 sec. If someone can load 15 3 second rounds i would pay to see that lol
@@tankcommander33 that's what I'm saying, people shit on auto loaders cause "hur dur jimbo did it once in 3 seconds" but forget that it's basically impossible to do more than once or twice
My states national guard (I live in PA) has it's own strykers and is the only national guard with it's own Stryker brigade. There is the 81st Stryker brigade combat team out of Washington but this also includes sub units from the California and Oregon national guards.
Dug up an old gun system that was developed for a tracked chassis that was never that reliable and stuck it in a Striker. Making a high vehicle top heavy. The magazines is an unarmoured revolving barrel in the crew compartment in a thinly armoured vehicle. Not fit for purpose
well to be honest, it is a glass cannon that even when you add extra protection for the ammunition, the crews would be toast by anything bigger than 50cal anyway.
It is fit for purpose of a fairly cheap, available infantry gun. And if some crew die, well, military is a resource to be expended by the Nation,. cost to effect ratio is all that matters.
This isn't designed for a heavily armoured thrust, that's what Bradleys and Abrams are for, this is designed to more easily put a gun with your faster moving troops.
So, it's kind of interesting that ATGM's looked like a bit of a wonder weapon that would spell the doom of tanks, but as time wears on, Chemical Energy rounds are proving easier to protect against than Kinetic for a variety of reasons. With more hard kill systems coming online and newer armor packages offering borderline obscene protection against HEAT rounds, but far less against kinetic penetrators, the concept of the Stryker MGS (if not the execution) might actually be ahead of the game somewhat. Also, ATGMs do take longer to fire than a stabilized gun mount and, unlike some missile systems, a gun doesn't require terminal guidance, so there is at least that. It's also noteworthy that, from the front, it's probably not going through the best tanks, but that also doesn't feel like the role a platform like this is meant to fill either i.e. going toe to toe with tanks.
-
TL:DR it's a flawed vehicle, but the current trend with MBT passive and active armor systems does give some pretty compelling reasons why you would want a cannon firing KE rounds rather than an ATGM system.
The glass cannon.
Paper dragon.
The comment about 350 horsepower being "weak".
Torque is much more important than horsepower and a caterpillar presumably turbo diesel will make well over 900ft lbs of torque. That thing moves
Matsimus we need a video on The IS 7 heavy tank
Edit: I’m pretty sure The IS 7 was the first Russian tank to use an autoloader and had the best Armor for a Russian tank at the time, only seven were built, 1 burnt down, 1 survives at Kubinka tank museum.
It hadn't an autoloader, but a loader ram to help the human loader in its work
Alberto Amoruso the conveyor belt was used to help reload, which makes it a autoloader but not 100% a autoloader
Assisted loading is not an auto-loader. @@farmerman7947
The Stryker will turn over if you shoot the main gun while traversed to the side. - every private at 19 series OSUT. I loved this thing. It's engines are so quite it should be a war crime.
love when youtube recomend me after the showup of the stryker in warthunder next update xd
To clear up Myths about the MGS. The prototype used the 120mm smoothbore and while firing from the side, gave it an unacceptable axis tilt that would rolled the vehicle over in anywhere but flat ground. The 105mm rifle cannon does not have this issue. The 105mm is the only variant the Army adopted in large to the SBCTs.
Haha I’ve always been fascinated by this afv and the b1 Centauro
Kool. Every time the shoot the big cannon, it spits out empty shells on the ground. They need to install Javelin missiles and short range surface to air missiles.
I feel these might be more effective if they switch out the 105mm gun with a 120mm recoilless rifle(a new autoloading one).
It seems the best use these systems get is as field guns against fixed reinforced positions.
The 120mm recoilless rifle might lose speed and range, but would gain better gain better high explosive performance.
Not to mention a recoilless rifle wouldn't shake the vehicle so violently.
They could build a modern version of the Ontos. :)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos
@@phred.phlintstone why not a hybrid? Just half recoil-less 120mm, it lets half the gasses out. Or variable bi-pass might be cool.
@@phred.phlintstone it doesn't need the velocity for launching he at building and emplacements
Congrats, you get some interesting 'feelings'. Good you will never have to pay for them and nobodys life will ever rely on your 'feel'.
I love seeing and hearing (hint to where i am and what i do) the new Stryker 30mm.
18 rounds is not enough. It was clearly designed as a tank destroyer for Swiss use.
this has nothing to do with switzerland
Two of our admins spent a few years on the M1128 and the M1126 in Hawaii. Both performed well, and were phenomenal for night attack, secondary, and tertiary targets. The Stryker common platform affords superior logistical capabilities for maintenance, as well as a decrease in operating costs. The 105mm M68 is able to attack tanks, but should only do so when in defilade, as the armor cannot withstand an incoming round over 14.5mm, even with additional armor. The autoloader on the MGS is rather finicky, but when maintained, functions well enough. Again, this is a direct-fire infantry support weapon that is employed often in an overwatch position, not in a decisive effort in an armored column. It is a capable, and useful platform for what it is, when it works.
We used it both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its future is not promising though.
I think it's important to remember when these vehicles were conceived to enter service was in the onset of "transformation" where we were anticipating shorter, more mobile engagements where tracked armor (and all the support and maintenance that goes along with it) was simply not practical and we were expecting asymmetric warfare in more urban environments -- a 105 firing HE makes sense against civil structures that infantry would be facing. I think in this role, it is more practical and effective than its more heavily armored substitutes (especially when you consider the costs involved in logistics and maintenance).
I think , I think ; I think its important to know that this is an expensive FNG POS , & that those pimping for it ? are probably academic industry REMFS
I was in the initial unit who first field tested all of the Stryker armor production units. Being in an Armored division Cav unit we tested just about every variant through the proving grounds. Being lucky enough to have used, trained and operated every armored vehicle from 1990 to 2000. I can say this much, the Stryker has severe limitations compared to tracked vehicles. I have easily traversed hard mountain terrain, snow, ice and swamp in both vehicle types and the wheeled vehicles have extreme issues with those terrain types. Now granted the Stryker has its terrain pros on soft and hard roads. The strykers were designed to keep up with the M1 tank in the field, with a universal chassis that be easily transformed. Kind of the same theory with the F35, where easy modular systems can be removed or added to the same vehicle to change its role. I strongly believe the Strkyer was created and designed with a small amount in service, such as a brigade or two, maybe a Cav division. But they were definately not designed to be in the field without immediate CAS or MBT brigades. As such I believe the US Army or Marine Corp would be in grave danger without MBT armorment and armor. I think what we have presently is a good balance of power and speed, that maintains a viable threat to any force. Nice informative video.
money that's a tough call with the Stryker, when we first field tested them they had some shifty looking active protection system. Basically they took reactive armor from the M1 and just stuck in cruscial soft spots. Problem was it began to slow down the vehicle due to the extra weight, and began to mute the benefits of the Stryker, ie., mobility and speed. They eventually just went with some passive defensive systems. Now I know there are some pretty bad ass active protection systems out there, unfortunately I haven't had experience with them. I have seen testing footage, but I wouldnt put my crews life in the hands of active systems, as there are a few weapon platforms that have enough velocity to defeat active systems. I mean even the CWIZ misses every now and then. I would say truthfully it depends on the theater geography ie., open desert armor warfare I would say reactive armor or a active system, but in urban environment a defensive system would be far better.
This platform fills the role of air transportable assault gun that can keep up with the troop carrying Strykers. The 105 is plenty powerful, as theScottishKoala states for us. It will perform well against a peer competitor.
eddie money- General dynamics land systems just sold 3 more MGS to the army last September. Plus a full retrofitted 13 Strykers to 3-2 they are not rusting away. Far from it. Just because you had a bad experience does not mean that every MGS is messed up. It sounds like you have poor unit leadership and terrible mechanics.
@eddie money they are still in service. You are misinformed.
eddie money- yea they do. I work closely with the MGS and can for 100% tell you they still use them. Now will they ever deploy them again probably not. But as of 2-20-19 they are still in service and they are still being operated by 19D in every SBCT in the army.
eddie money- that I can agree with. But the new 30mm and a potential 50mm should replace all MGS. The MGS can’t be sustained by your average army mechanics. It takes a crew of GDLS guys to keep them going for a gunnery. The army mechanics are not sufficiently trained in the Strykers to be able to keep them going. It’s a good concept poor execution kind of thing
40 years ago today I graduated from Jump School! - the Army Was talking about a light tank to replace the Sheridan - looks like they finally got something to sorta fit the bill.
Basically this thing was the bastard child of an AMX 13 series and BMP series and a cousin of the AMX-10RC Not as good as either of them in their specific role and not in large enough numbers or with enough ammo to matter in a real major conventional war. Still a cool vehicle to look at.
And I have to admit, I got a semi by the footage at 05:22
Thank you for the video Matsimus.
No. But thanks for the reply.
problem with ATGMs, they use a high explosive warhead which can be easily defeated by ERA and composite armor not to mention the newer self defense systems that destroy the missile before it hits the vehicle. its the reason we still use kinetic penetrators and not just HEAT rounds because they are more difficult to counter not to mention the additional cost of a missile compared to a shell.
If I was a commander of one of these trying to motivate my crew at the beginning of a battle I'd yell, "Get ready to poop out some shells boys!!"
i have always loved the stryker and the gun in the turret of the stryker, but never thought it was right to merge those two. i mean maybe in a section there could be 2 of these, and maybe 3 more armed with ATGMs, and the rest being troop transports. thats my personal view for how these should be organized
Sorry, this videonis way too late. My SBCT retired the MGS over a year ago. Great concept but it had WAY too many mechnical issues, motorpool queen. The biggest issue was the autoloader always breaking down.
Thanks again for another cool video Maximus
Peter Provenzano in reading some of the comments, it seems like they would very frequently suffer maintenance problems during combat. Was that your experience with them? Were they effective over more than a short period? Or were they just always in the motor pool? Thanks for any info, and for your service!
Main gun size has gone up SO MUCH since 1930's that a 105mm gun is the teeny tiny "infantry support" weapon now.
Hey man good video. You did cut out the fact that not only do the Strykers and LAV 3 share the same chassis, the Stryker is directly derived from the LAV 3 and is produced by General Dynamics Land System (GDLS) Canada. Have a little Canadian pride brother :P.
derived... lets be honest. its a lav 3 with a nice fancy aggressive american name lol
@@sharpy3453 Haha true that.
These things look freaking awesome and just the idea of a mbt cannon on an apc is somewhat outlandish and unexpected.
Though it was an "okay" system, it had major flaws, which is why they are now looking to replace it with either BAe systems M8 AGS updated with modern tech and a 120mm gun or GMs abrams turret mounted on an ASCOD/AJAX hull.
Something I've been wondering about for a while is why there aren't any Stryker/Bradley/etc variants with a medium-sized gun such as a 75mm. There are some bunkers that a 20-40mm cannon simply won't bust, but the 105mm has a ton of recoil and is very limited on ammo. A 75mm would still have more punch than something lighter, and that punch would come with less recoil and more capacity for things like armor and ammo storage. Against any vehicle the MGS could actually engage, a 75mm would be just as effective as the 105mm. The only benefits I can think of for the 105mm would be the ability to one-shot more heavily defended positions(admittedly a big plus for such a lightly armored vehicle), and the fact that we probably have a bunch of old ones sitting around from the old M-60 and M-1 tanks.
I'm sorry man but your view on this is completely off. it's a terrible weapon system. a maintenance nightmare and has accuracy problem. US can't get rid of this fast enough.
this has a place in my heart from the battlefield 3 days
It go boom boom
11:56 Answer: mountain warfare. it can be air dropped into the area where it's needed. and gun systems are needed coz active protection systems can counter ATGMs.
Doesn't seems very stable and looks it's gonna roll everytime it fire sideway or make sharp turn
Thats exactly the problem with the recoil
Unlike other country that made a a dedicated chassis for the gun it was going to use since it a TD the us decided to use the same chassis for troop transport, medic, tank destroyer role, etc...
To be fair. Any sensible driver. Or one with common sense wont turn fast enough to actually tip the thing over. But going go fast on a Turn, yeah.
@@USSAnimeNCC- I mean the Stryker is exceptionally survivable several have driven over ied's and nobody died because it tipped over and after a short refit the stryker was able to return to service
@@komradearti9935 The one i saw that survived an IED was a flat bottom
I was in Yakistan as an OC/T when they were testing these. It was effing hilarious when they had a runaway gun. If you were on the old M-60 MG you know what I'm talkin about.
#yakima
I can just imagine a dude behind one of these when it fires and getting YEETED by a shell casing out the back
There is video of that exact thing out there somewhere. It was filmed either at an urban MOUT training site or in Iraq. Dude got leveled by the shell casing.
the recoil on that thing moves the whole tank
As an Abrams Tank crew member, these things are nowhere as near as effective as our own units. The abrams as a whole is just as mobile as a stryker, the only difference primarily is maintenance costs and time. Breaking down the track for a platoon is a weekend event depending on numbers and its not all the drivers and loaders doing it. Problem is some units want to be seen as armored units which they are not. Cav scouts i'm looking at you guys, while it can move troops and i'd prefer it over the HMMV as most said it had a better shot for IED's but most of ours weren't the whole armored kit 50% of the time so I can't say with certainty.
But you want close support remove that 105 put a 40mm Vulcan on it from an A-10 or a quad .50 cal. Make it a mobile gun platform designed to suppress and engage light armored vehicles. That 105 only cripples its lifespan because it is not advised to fire that gun off the to the side primarily from the front or you do have a risk of warping the turret ring or causing unneeded stress to the axles.
Gimme an Abrams it'll do the job better than this.
Kerghun the a10 has a 30mm avenger and the m61 vulcan is a 20mm cannon
The amount of ignorance makes it VERY hard to believe you're a actual Abrams crewmen...but I guess you dont gotta have brains to be one? "40mm cannon from the A10" and its Role isnt to suppress enemies...your suggestion would defeat the whome purpose of this already obsolete vehicle even more...
@@lesaustion Obsolete doesn't mean we won't use it. Secondly most vehicles utilize their other armaments, .50cals, the mk19, or the 240Bravo, not like I expect it to happen, we already use the 25mm on the bradley and and the LAV so why no't put a fun gun system on it? the 105 works(ish)
Secondly what's your MoS and humor me a little more cause i'm assuming you might've gotten offended because I called out the cav scouts.
These kind of videos are only ones that are watchable on your channel.
"Low intensity combat"? Is that what our brilliant generals and politicians have come up with
Ive worked on the swiss piranhas for several months in the army.
Also: Because the Bradley is, same as the Piranha, a "troop carrier".
Outperformed by the Rooikat in every single category. (The Rooikat is from South Africa)
jan jan jan die bielie van die bosveld
You’re the only guy on RUclips who seems to have anything positive to say about this god forsaken thing
Ive seen combat footage of this weapon system malfunctioning in Iraq...
The MGS was upgraded with A/C around 2009. The Commander and Gunner still ride in a turret basket below the man gun, so it's technically not a remote weapon system. Love your Videos! Keep up the good work brother
You can see the condenser and electric fans for the A/C, on the right side of the hull at the 12:40 min mark
I doubt they will convert them all to AGTM's, the TOW missle is quite expensive in terms of infantry support... there is a large surplus of 105mm rounds still in the Army inventory and they are more suited to bunker busting and area denial
Well god damn, I accidentally drew this vehicle in my sketchbook without knowing there was already something like that (is 16)
The main advantage of the Stryker is its phenomonal speed on road and huge range - especially on road.
This leads to the heavy tanks will - to a large extend - be prepositioned where the real role of heavy armour is required:
1) To act as plugs where the russians will start something. Not much gets past a Challenger 2 in a bad mood - not to mention a squadron.
2) To punch holes in the hostile front at points of your choice.
Actually the Germans were quite smart in the disarmament days - they sold off their stockpile of weapons at favourable price (or donated them outright) and send them - mainly eastwards.
The major disadvantage of the Stryker is: It is not cheap. No Swiss weapons are cheap, but they are generally worth the price.
Considering the huge investment in training competent crews and officers one should not be penny-pinching.
Yea God Bless America. What can we say we rule ;o)
remfboi
hi J J...
yeaa GOD love the world and his son jesus christ
We used to mow down trees at fort Indian town happen in Pennsylvania. Great mobility for sure.
Under every video featuring the T-14 Armata unmanned turrets are bashed as unreliable pieces of shit, but here it is suddenly praised as an excellent idea. Gotta love murica fanboys.
Even more ironic considering Russia has a half century experience designing autoloaders.
Where do you see it being praised? The comments? If yes, then no.
This thing is a piece of shit. They're always broken and they can't fire a full charge sideways on uneven ground because they would topple over. The crew for these I knew fucking HATED them.
Its fire support not you main battle tank dawg
@@bruhbruh13968 I would rather take this as fire support if i was a dictator with money to spend www.military-today.com/artillery/2s23_nona_svk.htm
I like how the main gun poops the shell casing out the back of the turret.
Took 20% vehicle casualties in one month when first deployed to Iraq
I did two tours in the 2ID "X" SBCT in Iraq and the thing was Damn near invincible against buried IEDs. It used a double V hull(DVH) The only big weakness it had was it's top armor. But that was addressed with SLAT armor. I, along with my squad actually *flew in this thing* when a fridge filled with explosives detonated under us. *So get the fuck outta here Ron.*
I think AMOS on a Stryker would be more useful in more situations than MGS. An advanced mortar system would provide more firepower for less weight even in the single barrel variant. The trade off being that while it is more capable against unarmored and lightly armored targets it would be somewhat less capable against heavily armored vehicles but MGS is not intended to engage those anyways.
Another issue I have with the M1128 is that it does not have and will not get the enhanced under body armor because of weight and budget considerations. The newer double V hull chassis Strykers are incompatible with MGS because of the weight of the system. Upgrading the chassis to take the weight of the 105mm MGS while keeping better protection would mean you are essentially building a wheeled light tank and then perhaps going with more main battle tanks instead would be a better investment.
MGS might have a role in a new large attack aircraft design but again AMOS would probably be a better choice for most missions. Perhaps a modular system where you could swap out AMOS for MGS when needed would be feasible. A modular belly mounted turret could allow multiple attack profiles and weapons configurations. A B-52 could potentially serve as a test bed for such a system until a new dedicated aircraft design could be built to replace both the A-10 and AC-130. B-52s are not ideal in low level operations but should be adequate for an experimental proof of concept test bed.
NEMO is much more practical than AMOS. Same tech, much smaller and lighter. You don't need two barrels for anything except volume of fire.