I’m looking forward to AFV’s upcoming release of this vehicle but I want to learn a little about it before then.

What mission or role is it tasked with? Is it designed to provide an anti-armor function, or is it intended as high explosive field artillery – or both?

I’m a little surprised by its development as I though the move was toward missiles especially for “lighter” wheeled vehicles.

Can anyone shed some light as to the advantages of a gun vs. missiles for this type of vehicle?

Thanks,
Noah

Some Info Here: Global Security page

The ATGM has proved impracticle in urban environments. The TOW has a minimum distance to travel before being armed. Also, wires and other numerous obstacles in the urban environment make the wire guided system impractible. The MGS will in many ways replace the ATGM in THIS role. Of course there is no armor vs armor to worry about in Iraq, so I am guessing its ammo load is mostly HE/MPAT, etc to deal with infantry targets. I think too that the MGS can get off more rounds per minute than an ATGM, so with the potential of being in a firefight with many targets spread around an urban battlefield I would suppose the MGS would fare better than the ATGM.

So far I have not read anything on the MGS' exploits in Iraq. It has been about 3 months, maybe just 2.

Bob

A couple other things to consider:
While a missile has its own impact, there are two other things need to be considered. One is cost. A TOW round costs tens of thousands of dollars, and its use must be considered warranted. Granted a guy with an RPG bunkered in a house can be considered warranted, but if I can kill a guy with an expensive missile, or a cannon, I'm gonna pick the cannon. Logistically I'd bet the ammo is easier to replace.

Also, there is something still to be said for the psychological impact of a huge cannon rolling up on you in a vehicle that can top 60mph. This is a major reason mechanization and armor and big punch is still a valid concept in today's battlefield of light, fast, and high tech.

Jeff

Jeff is correct. I believe the military likes to use the term "Shock Effect."

I hear "Show of Force" thrown around a bit too

Jeff

The MGS is designed for direct fire support....to be able to engage hardened targets quickly and with protection from fire. It can obviously move much faster than a soldier lugging around a shoulder launched weapon. It is not artillery. It carries ammunition for anti-armour, soft skin vehicles, and re-inforced targets like bunkers and buildings.

Possible issues?....it only carries 18 rounds in the auto-loader. The key is for the MGS Platoon to work together to maximize the effects....this may result is over exposing the MGS during engagements....especially in an urban environment where streets are narrow, the enemy can have high ground positions, and there are concerns of collateral damage.

This is not an AFV that is designed to roll at 60 mph across the battlefield or streets of Baghdad. It is not designed to go hunting on its own. The pure nature of the MGS turret does not allow that to happen....it needs to have Infantry support to stay protected while it engaged. That's why it has slat armour in Iraq too....getting in close will expose the MGS to RPG attacks.

Only time will tell if it is effective in combat.

The MGS and the entire Stryker Brigade were developed as a response to the Russians' BTRs rolling to Prinstina Airport during the 1996 Balkan War and somewhat of a feedback to the 1993 Somalia Conflict. The US Army found that heavy M1s and M2s cannot get anywhere fast enough and seemed overkill in "conflicts of low intensity."

The concept was that landed by C-130s, the Stryker Brigade can establish an airhead for future follow-on forces, or rather a combo of Strykers and GIs can outmaneuver and overwhelm an opponent similar to a swarm of Shermans. The Stryker Brigades weren't meant for the patrolling missions as OIF.

In brief, the Stryker ICV, TOW, MGS, mortar, etc. would be considered "heavy armor" in many Third World countries. where the enemy is known and the fields are open.

However, OIF occurred and the Army, tasked with a stretched force, deployed the Stryker Brigades because it needed soldiers on the ground. This isn't to say that the Strykers were designed for the mission, just that the Army had Strykers and why not use them? This is why "slat armor" isn't often seen in the Stryker kits because "slat armor" is a development off of OIF, not the Stryker Brigade concept.

The twin-drum autoloader (think of cassette tape wheels) is now a single-drum autoloader due to mechanical problems, which means it'll be harder to switch ammo and separate different types of ammo compared to the twin-drum magazines...or so they say.

There are many issues to the MGS, which is why it lost to the M8 AGS back in the 1996 competition or so to replace the M551 Sheridans. One is that the MGS's 105mm is exposed to the elements...the Army never liked that idea. Another is that the overhead gun position isn't as effective because the cover in Iraq doesn't present many "hull down" positions. Still, an under 20-ton gun is needed sometimes when it's too heavy to bring a 68-ton M1.

Does anyone have a release date yet for the kit?

Late 07 but nothing more specific.

Jeff

AHH, the Army's propaganda mill is working overtime selling the MGS. Not wanting to bust anyone's bubble but what greater shock effect is their than an M1 Series, or Challenger Tank knocking at your door. Now, the insurgents aren't afraid at taking on tanks, what makes anyone think that they will fear the MGS??? Now, consider the ammo load of the MGS, not as much as a tank, ok, it can go places a tank can't, but than again a Tank can go places an MGS can't. Lets talk about armor and survivability. Can't really talk about that since they've shown the capability of destroying tanks, strykers, lav's, hummers, 7-ton trucks the MGS on the battlefield is just a vulnerable, so what real capability does it bring to the battlefield that doesn't already exist?? Just food for thought.

Tanks
Andy

I agree with you mostly.

The MGS is what one can consider a "quick build and buy." The General Dynamics gun is just the basket and gun itself, being capable of dropping into an M113, MTVL, LAV, and other light vehicles to upgun them. This in itself negates having to design a turret and all that hoopla, etc.

The MGS is kind of a LEGO toy in that it took this and that part and cobbled them together to make the 105mm MGS. That was the whole point of the General Dynamic gun system...to upgrade a LAV or APC chassis with maximum firepower.

There are off-the-shelf turreted MGSs like the Rooikat, Centauro, LAV 10X10 105mm, and others the US Army could've bought. Instead, the Army decided to buy one with the gun fully exposed to weather, shrapnel, and gunfire, and the TC's .50 cal limited to a right firing arc.

The Army is well aware of the limitations of the MGS. Several top Army officers criticized the Army of going ahead with a "loser entrant" as if all the tests meant nothing when there are other 105mm contenders out there.

What's ironic is that with OIF, seems like the US Army likes and needs a regular LAV 3! The soldiers criticize the Stryker ICVs for many things that the LAV 3 25mm with dual thermals and stablized turret has. Furthermore, there hasn't been a US military intervention yet that called for C-130 rapid deployment, meaning the point of the Stryker Brigade has yet to be proven. Ooooh, the irony...

Personally, I think the darn things will wear out sooner enough that no one would really care anyway. OIF kind of proves that the Army doesn't need a new concept like the Stryker Brigades or FCS...just new and more AFVs, period.

What capability it bought to the battlefield is that the Army finally got a major program through after 20 years of stalls, cancellations, and stops. I'm serious....politics.

Anyway, if AFV Club makes a MGS kit, and it's awesome, I'm going to buy one because the design looks pretty cool...even if functionality is a compromise.

Hi,

Did they ever resolve the fire-control issues they were having with the MGS? I was at Ft. Lewis when they were first being issued last summer, and the crews weren't too impressed when they were told they weren't allowed to shoot the main gun. Apparently there were some serious issues with CEP and dispersion that Boeing (I think?) was having a lot of trouble running down. (When I say serious, they were talking 5-10 degrees in random directions from boresight,) I never did hear if that was resolved or not.

Chuck

I totally agree but it defeats the point of trying to go with a standarized hull and compenents if they would have chosen the Rooikat or Centauro.

I guess it partially comes down to trying to standardize equipment...just like the Abrams. It seems a bit better now but the US forces used to have to deal with the M60 series, Sheridan, and Abrams all at the same time...logistic and training heavy requirements.

I am so glad for once in Canadian military history that someone saw the light to cancel the Canadian MGS and go with tanks. The decision also to go with the 25 mm turret on the LAV III was also well thought out....although the 25 mm is having difficulties in Afghanistan penetrating the thick mud walls of buildings....bring on the Leopards.

I had one of these behind me one time at Aberdeen Proving Grounds right at the front gate. It's an impressive vehicle up close, but I think the platform would be better suited to something like the Gavin M113 A3s. From what I have gathered it is unstable of axis.

Chris

The Stryker concept is something GEN Shenseki was trying to do when he was the commander of the 1st Cav Div (94-95). He was trying to get a rapid deployment armored force that could have a tank company/team(+/-) on the ground anywhere in the world in 24 hours. Long pole in the tent with this plan was the availability of heavy lift aircraft to move an entire tank company plus support vehicles (M88, fuel, ammo, medical, infantry) at a moment's notice. For some reason, the USAF did not want to dedicate a dozen or more C-17s at the Army's beck and call.

He envisioned the 1st Cav Div to be a highly mobile armored force. I remember him pontificating about his ideas during QTBs when I was a company commander. He really liked the LAV concept but knew that creating an Army medium weight armored force would be creeping into the Marine Corps' lane (Old doctrine was to get airborne there now, hold ground until the Marines could arrive from sea and buy time for US Army heavy forces to deploy from stateside or OCONUS).

Hmmm,,, M113 with a 105mm gun on the roof. That would look pretty cool. The M8 probably would have done a better job though.