Lol MGS

[Coyote]

The thing to bear in mind, was that the Stryker program as a whole was part of the light & fast deployability concept that came after the 1991 Gulf War.

We found ourselves in Somalia, where we faced a number of problems (operationally, not just politically. The political problems would be so legion that to list them all would crash this board!)

Operationally we had a need to get there quickly. Tanks don't go anywhere "quickly", even M1s of any stripe. So we had a deployability issue.

However,we also had an obvious need for some sort of armored support. The Somali warlords and their bandit followers had 'technicals' and in some cases elderly tanks. We needed something but we had nothing to fill the gaps between Infantryman-to-Abrams/Bradley. In other words, it was "100% Heavy or nothing at all".

Part of the political problem bled into the operation problem: no one wanted to deploy tanks for various public perception reasons (tanks were expensive & difficult to transport; tanks implied a long-term prescence; no one wanted to pay the political price for the public backlash of siccing huge, powerful monster tanks on skinny, underfed civilians that hid among the populace). So there was a "public perception" problem.

A medium vehicle that could do the job against technicals and old tanks was needed, but we had none after years of preparing to stop the Soviet Horde at the Fulda Gap. Wheeled vehicles, armored cars, were pooh-poohed by the military because they were seen as too weak to survive the expected World War 3 battlefield. But they were perfect for what we faced in the typical Third World Crapholes we were actually going into.

The Styker APC was supposed to be a partner vehicle to other Stryker systems, the TOW and MGS among them, that would deploy in groups and take down the typical trashcan army that warlords frequently cobbled together. So, no, the MGS isn't supposed to be a Tank or Tank Destroyer... except in the most abstract sense in that it is expected to take out the weak, elderly tanks or "pseudo-tanks" it was expected to face in places like Africa.

In that sense, it is almost more like the long-awaited "light tank" that we've been promised for years but never came. It really is its own new beast-- a little bit assault gun when needed, infantry carrier, anti-tank gun to an extent, and I'm sure at some point it'll be used as light artillery when "terrain dictates". Because it fills many roles and yet none, traditional commanders are still trying to find a context to fit it in.

PS-- that's not a chain at the back. That's the trailer hitch. The trailer hitches of US military vehicles are basically big rings that split open, you put the trailer tow pintle into the ring (it, itself, is another ring at a 90-degree angle) and then close the hitch-ring down on it.

[[R_H]]

Most shaped charge warheads require contact with the armour to penetrate it, by detonating it even just 10-20cm of the armour, all you have is a scorchmark and some slightly startled crew, rather than a written of vehicle and several awkward letters to write.

Doesn't it work by short-circuiting the fuze? I can remember reading a thread on TankNet about it...I'll post the relevant info from the thread if I can find it.

Didn't the M8 AGS have a hybrid powertrain?

[Beowulf]

The thing about the Stryker MGS compared with the XM8 Buford is that the M8 would have carried a comparable gun, with greater storage capacity, and a higher rate of fire. It would also be able to fire it's gun at right angles to it's line of motion. It would still have a comparable weight to the Stryker, but would actually be C-130 transportable. However, it was canceled to pay for the Stryker MGS.

[Stuart]

However, it was canceled to pay for the Stryker MGS.

Not so; the XM8 (the reporting name Buford was widely reported and in common usage but never actually confirmed) was cancelled as a result of Clinton budget cuts; the Stryker program and MGS came quite a bit later. It's hard to identify what the AGS cut paid for, the only official comment is "other modernization efforts".

[That NOS Guy]

Not so; the XM8 (the reporting name Buford was widely reported and in common usage but never actually confirmed) was cancelled as a result of Clinton budget cuts; the Stryker program and MGS came quite a bit later. It's hard to identify what the AGS cut paid for, the only official comment is "other modernization efforts".

Didn't it also have to do with the Army having to pay for deployment into the former Yugoslavia out of pocket?

[Ma Deuce]

Doesn't it work by short-circuiting the fuze? I can remember reading a thread on TankNet about it...I'll post the relevant info from the thread if I can find it.

You must be thinking of BAe's electric reactive armour concept, which employs two metal plates (once charged, and the other not) insulated from each other, except when penetrated by a heat round, at which point the HEAT round's own penetrating jet will compete a circuit between the two plates, creating an electric discharge that should disperse the HEAT jet. Naturally, this is a totally different concept from slat armour.

[brianeyci]

Part of the political problem bled into the operation problem: no one wanted to deploy tanks for various public perception reasons (tanks were expensive & difficult to transport; tanks implied a long-term prescence; no one wanted to pay the political price for the public backlash of siccing huge, powerful monster tanks on skinny, underfed civilians that hid among the populace). So there was a "public perception" problem.

The thing is, why didn't they go the whole way? I'm not saying this idea is good but if you're willing to throw away tanks...

If they said tanks are unnecessary... then maybe even vehicles are unnecessary entirely. Have hordes of air deployable light infantry parachuted from the air with mortars and air deployable artillery (god I loved that shit in People's General on the Chinese side, they had an air deployable artillery) and seize territory immediately. Use satellites and air power to obliterate enemy targets. If they need to be picked up, infantry clears the area for helicopters. That kind of shit could be deployable anywhere in the world in hours, some kind of universal minutemen. And 100% not long term, a rapid response force.

I'm sure they could've rationalized a way for infanteers to destroy technicals and light tanks with advanced anti-tank weapons. The grenadier could become a rocketeer.

[18-Till-I-Die]

The thing is, why didn't they go the whole way? I'm not saying this idea is good but if you're willing to throw away tanks...

If they said tanks are unnecessary... then maybe even vehicles are unnecessary entirely. Have hordes of air deployable light infantry parachuted from the air with mortars and air deployable artillery (god I loved that shit in People's General on the Chinese side, they had an air deployable artillery) and seize territory immediately. Use satellites and air power to obliterate enemy targets. If they need to be picked up, infantry clears the area for helicopters. That kind of shit could be deployable anywhere in the world in hours, some kind of universal minutemen. And 100% not long term, a rapid response force.

I'm sure they could've rationalized a way for infanteers to destroy technicals and light tanks with advanced anti-tank weapons. The grenadier could become a rocketeer.

I'm not exactly a military guy but that sounds rediculously cool. Also, i'd imagine, quite effective (again, i'm not a military guy) as it could be quite versatile. If you have different kinds of these units, some heavier than others, it seems like it'd work pretty well, IMO.

[[R_H]]

Doesn't it work by short-circuiting the fuze? I can remember reading a thread on TankNet about it...I'll post the relevant info from the thread if I can find it.

You must be thinking of BAe's electric reactive armour concept, which employs two metal plates (once charged, and the other not) insulated from each other, except when penetrated by a heat round, at which point the HEAT round's own penetrating jet will compete a circuit between the two plates, creating an electric discharge that should disperse the HEAT jet. Naturally, this is a totally different concept from slat armour.

Found what I was babbling about

R. M. Ogorkiewicz article in the August issue of Jane's International Defence Review, page 25:

"A recent US Arrmy report prepared by the Center for Army Lessons has concluded that the slat add-on armour fitted to the Stryker 8x8 armoured vehicles operating in Iraq has proved effective against only about one half of the rocket-propelled grenades fired against the Strykers by the insurgents."

And...

"...it is not altogether surprising that the slat armour is not always effective given its nature, which is widely misunderstood.

The most common misconception about slat armour is that it is a kind of space armour that sets off RPG-7 grenades away from the hulls of the Strykers, greatly reducing their armour penetration. This view ignores the fact that, in order to reduce the penetration capability of RPG-7 grenades to the level at which they could not perforate Strykers' hulls, they would have to be detonated more than 1 m from the vehicle.

But even at a standoff of 900 mm, RPG-7 grenades can still penetrate 80 mm to 90 mm of rolled homogeneous steel armour (and average 320 mm of penetration at optimum standoff), whereas the standoff built into slat armour is only 10 in (254 mm). Slat armour cannot therefore detonate the grenades sufficiently far from Strykers' hull armour to prevent it being perforated, in spite of it being augmented by IBD's MEXAS ceramic add-on armour - although it might reduce the cone of spall fragments."

And...

"...In fact the opposite is the case: slat armour is intended to prevent the detonation of the grenades.

What slat armour is designed to do is based on a particular feature of RPG-7 grenades, which is that their nose consists of two concentric cones that form part of the electrical circuit between the impact sensor at the tip of the nose and the fuze located behind the shaped charge. If a grenade impacts a target so that the sides of the nose hit it before its tip, the fuze is shortcircuited by the concentric cones being crushed and contacting each other, as a result of which the shaped charge is not detonated."

And...

"...However, instead of flying straight into the gaps between slats, some grenades are bound to first hit the edges of the slats, detonating their shaped charges, with serious consequenses for the vehicles that the slat armour is intended to protect."

And...

"...What is more, some of the RPG-7 grenades that are not of Russian origin are reported not to use concentric cones at part of their fuze system so that crushing of the sides does not necessarily disable them."

Source quoted the contents of post #20

and a few of posts (contents of post #14) previously from the author of "Modern Israeli Tanks and Infantry Carriers 1985 - 2004", who mentionned that article about slat armour

Hi,
It is a misnomer that the function of slat armour is to detonate RPGs. If it does so, it has failed. The slats are not stand-off armour in the sense that it is meant to initiate the RPG prematurely. Given the penetrative power of an RPG, the slats would have to be 1m away from the Stryker's side before the HEAT jet was sufficiently attenuated to prevent the vehicle being penetrated with catastrophic effect. The slats are intended to short-circuit the fuse mechanism of the RPG and prevent its detonation.

There is an excellent article by Richard Ogorkiewicz in the August edition of Jane's International Defence Review where he carefully explains exactly how slat armour functions and punctures a few mistaken ideas as to how it works. Ogorkiewicz also includes some fascinating material as to how slat armour can be more easily defeated.

Cheers
Marsh

[[R_H]]

Part of the political problem bled into the operation problem: no one wanted to deploy tanks for various public perception reasons (tanks were expensive & difficult to transport; tanks implied a long-term prescence; no one wanted to pay the political price for the public backlash of siccing huge, powerful monster tanks on skinny, underfed civilians that hid among the populace). So there was a "public perception" problem.

The thing is, why didn't they go the whole way? I'm not saying this idea is good but if you're willing to throw away tanks...

If they said tanks are unnecessary... then maybe even vehicles are unnecessary entirely. Have hordes of air deployable light infantry parachuted from the air with mortars and air deployable artillery (god I loved that shit in People's General on the Chinese side, they had an air deployable artillery) and seize territory immediately. Use satellites and air power to obliterate enemy targets. If they need to be picked up, infantry clears the area for helicopters. That kind of shit could be deployable anywhere in the world in hours, some kind of universal minutemen. And 100% not long term, a rapid response force.

I'm sure they could've rationalized a way for infanteers to destroy technicals and light tanks with advanced anti-tank weapons. The grenadier could become a rocketeer.

They'd be light infantry then. How are they going to move the mortars, artillery and most importantly ammuntion and other supplies around?

[Sea Skimmer]

[quote="brianeyci"
If they said tanks are unnecessary... then maybe even vehicles are unnecessary entirely.[/quote]

Sure, if you don’t mind taking 90% casualties on every single attack and taking multiple months to walk to the objective, then you can get away without vehicles. The Chinese did pretty well with that strategy in Korea. It helped that Korea had lots of mountains.

Have hordes of air deployable light infantry parachuted from the air with mortars and air deployable artillery (god I loved that shit in People's General on the Chinese side, they had an air deployable artillery) and seize territory immediately.

Good job describing the 82nd Airborne, except they still have quite large numbers of vehicles, because you sure a shit aren’t going to drag a modern artillery piece or all the support equipment helicopters need around with manpower. Air attacks BTW, are incapable of performing many vital fire support missions. We also have the 101st airborne, which has enough helicopters to move an entire brigade in one lift.

[Sidewinder]

If they said tanks are unnecessary... then maybe even vehicles are unnecessary entirely.

Sure, if you don’t mind taking 90% casualties on every single attack and taking multiple months to walk to the objective, then you can get away without vehicles. The Chinese did pretty well with that strategy in Korea. It helped that Korea had lots of mountains.

Do you have links to sites with info on Chinese casualties in the Korean War?

[Starglider]

Air attacks BTW, are incapable of performing many vital fire support missions.

I think I know what you mean, but if you have time could you please elaborate? I'd like to see this spelled out.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think I know what you mean, but if you have time could you please elaborate? I'd like to see this spelled out.

Quite simply, aircraft only make raids. Even a helicopter gunship is going to have to return to base to rearm and refuel after a relatively short stint over the front lines, and its limited loiter ability comes at the cost of limited firepower compared to fixed wing aircraft. Mortars, artillery and armored vehicles meanwhile provide persistent all weather fire support, with the added bonus of being immune to electronic interference. If you need a constant barrage of firepower to shield your advance, or hold off an enemy ground attack you just can’t get it from aircraft, while artillery barrages have lasted as much as two weeks straight.

The proliferation of guided aircraft weapons has reduced the need for massed ground based fire support (but then look at all the investments being made in guided artillery shells and rockets too) but it has not and never will eliminate it.

It also doesn’t help that most of the time the aircraft that might support you are owned by someone else and may or may not be available when you need them. Even Army attack helicopters are still going to be a division level asset (with most of them being held at the corps or even army level) which some measly battalion commander can’t count on being able to call them in every time he wants. He can count on his own mortar and tank crews, or else he can drive over and kick them in the ass to start getting rounds downrange.

[Starglider]

Quite simply, aircraft only make raids ... He can count on his own mortar and tank crews, or else he can drive over and kick them in the ass to start getting rounds downrange.

I imagine the transformational-kool-aid answer to that is 'some combination of circling AC-130Us (or similar) and the Omnipresent UAV Swarm (tm)' will provide all the low-level sustained firepower needed. As for the 'don't control the assets issue', obviously pervasive networking will allow command to micromanage fire support assets with better efficiency than any piecemeal approach could hope to achieve.

[Sea Skimmer]

I imagine the transformational-kool-aid answer to that is 'some combination of circling AC-130Us (or similar) and the Omnipresent UAV Swarm (tm)' will provide all the low-level sustained firepower needed. As for the 'don't control the assets issue', obviously pervasive networking will allow command to micromanage fire support assets with better efficiency than any piecemeal approach could hope to achieve.

That’s the problem with all this transformational bullshit, for the most part it tries to reduce combat to being nothing more then putting fires (of all types) on targets. Things are never going to be that simple.