"Stryker MGS Reduction?" Topic

This is probably old news to most of you, but I just read somewhere that the number of MGS's per US Army Stryker Brigade was being reduced from 27 to 10. Any idea how they will be distributed? I though they were 3 per company in a weapons platoon.

Also, looks lie they are looking at replacing the M2 .50 cal on the remote weapons station with a 30mm gun on half of the Strykers and a Javalin on the other half. I wonder what that will do to vehicle weight.

So why did MGS not meet it's promise? Did they make it too complicated or try to mak eit a tank killer? I though a heavy caliber direct fire weapon would be a great asset to the company commander for hitting strongpoints, etc.Thoughts?

I believe they are consolidated into a brigade level company. With the amount of fire support available to a US company in the Middle-East, they were thought to be underused.

Number of problems that had been identified by critics a long time ago, but ignored by the Army and the program office: MGS nearly couldn't fire to the side because it rocked so severely, so time between shots was very long, or it even endangered the vehicle on e lateral slope; high center of gravity making the vehicle unsafe to drive in some conditions; poor anti-armor performance, way too powerful for lighter threats, but not nearly enough against even older MBTs, poor transportability; etc., etc.

And, of course, very poor survivability due to the extreme height of the vehicle (ignoring the height of the weapons mount) and the minimal armor. The remote mount is great for firing from defilade, but a vehicle that tall just have fewer things to shelter behind.

The MGS has been nothing but trouble, even after ARES Engineering rebuilt the turret. Still can't stay working in the field, with a whole company of GDLS engineers to keep it working.

My guess is that the MGS are going from 3 trucks per company to a company of 10 at the Brigade level.

The 30mm is going on the Stryker Dragoon version, in an entire turret. Unmanned turret, but not that you could tell from looking at it. NOT putting a 30mm gun on the existing RWS.

I get the feeling that the 30mm might also be more versatile for the types of fighting it's likely to be doing in built-up areas and so forth.

Seems to me they should given them Bradley turrets, or something similar, with the 30mm gun upgrade, and twin ATGM launchers for self-protection.

Maybe the Bradley turret is too heavy?

Very heavy, standard Stryker would need structural upgrades to support them, haven't checked the turret in diameter to see if it would fit, makes the Stryker even more top heavy, quite well armored turret on a barely-armored body, turret basket intrudes into the body of the vehicle and eats up the already limited capacity …

I suspect they could make it a much lower profile, lighter turret, unmanned of course, and controlled remotely from inside the main vehicle hull.

Only give them a couple of ATGMs, with perhaps a pair of reloads, so the commanders aren't tempted to go tank-hunting, but do have the missiles for self-protection against tanks, should they encounter them.

Maybe an LAV-25 turret with 30mm gun would fit?

I had heard there were a lot of design problems with MGS. Thanks for all the feedback, I like the analysis of too much for light threats, too little for heavy.

IIRC the company has 120mm mortars, perhaps precision mortar rounds can fill the role of taking out strongpoints. Les temptation to use it for tank work. The Stryker Brigade should depend on it's TOW's and plethora of Javalins (and maybe attached M-1 Company)

See latest issue of Armor magazine: PDF link

Not an SBCT, but Lessons learned from a M-1 Company attached to an IBCT for a JRTC rotation. Interesting reading.

I suspect they could make it a much lower profile, lighter turret, unmanned of course, and controlled remotely from inside the main vehicle hull.

That's what they did, it's a big Kongsberg RWS on the Stryker Dragoon, does not penetrate into the hull except for maybe an electrical connection.