Stryker Assault Platform

The Stryker MGS is an assault platform for direct fire, armed with a 105 mm cannon on a low-profile, fully stabilized, intended for firing on the move, a tower integrated into the chassis of the Stryker armored personnel carrier. Ammunition of the main gun is 18 shells of NATO standard caliber 105 mm, 400 cartridges caliber 12,7 mm and 3400 cartridges 7,62 mm. It can hit enemy vehicles, equipment and fortified positions, destroy bunkers and walls.

MGS LRIP machines will undergo various tests and will be evaluated by users during the fourth quarter of 2007. Stage C solution to start full-scale production of the MGS variant is also planned for the fourth quarter of 2007.

The Stryker is a family of eight-wheel drive vehicles that can reach speeds up to 62 miles / hour on the highway with a power reserve of 312 miles. It has the most modern equipment C4ISR, as well as sensors for nuclear, bacteriological and chemical weapons. In addition to MGS, Stryker is available in nuclear, bacteriological and chemical reconnaissance configurations; anti-tank guided missiles and medical evacuation vehicles; transportation of mortar, engineering units, commander groups and fire support groups. The Mobile Artillery System has more than 70 percent of the components common to 310 other Stryker vehicles, such as the Combat Team Brigade, which facilitates the preparation of units and reduces the burden of logistics.

Being significantly lighter and more convenient to transport than today's Tanks and armored vehicles, Stryker satisfies the immediate need to equip strategically deployed (C-17 / C-5) and operatively deployed (C-130) brigades capable of rapid deployment anywhere in the world in full combat readiness. Stryker Battle Group brigades have been involved in “historically important” missions in Iraq since October 2003, demonstrating the virtues of a force that can quickly be deployed as a cohesive and networked mixed-arms combat group.

Comments

[Crang]

Great car. Ours can do something similar on the BTR-80 or BTR-90 chassis, but unfortunately they don’t want to.

[Pushkin]

Unpromising

[Kars]

Quote: Pushkin

Unpromising

What is, that is, a similar Italian construction in the battles showed itself terribly.

http://warfiles.ru/show-17470-mify-i-rify-kolesnyh-kentavrov.html

Like MOS in very low intensity OH conflicts.

[opkozak]

Ours can do something similar on the BTR-80 or BTR-90 chassis, but unfortunately they don’t want to.

As far as it is clear, to put a tank gun on an armored personnel carrier, you need a significant reinforcement of the hull. Otherwise, at the perfect moment, it will simply jam the tower. Secondly, the weight of the armored personnel carrier must compensate for the recoil, otherwise it will be a game of "swing".
Thirdly, the armored personnel carrier will cease to perform landing functions, because most of the outboard volume will be filled with the bottom of the cannon tower.
In the fourth, the BTR 80 weighs only 13 tons and is equipped with an engine of 260 horsepower, equipped with bulletproof armor. Life time under fire from anti-tank weapons is short. So, is it worth it to convert an armored personnel carrier into a tank if such a tank is easy to knock out. How many shots will have time to do?

Wheel tanks have a future, but the future lies only with heavy models.

[bask]

Quote: Kars

What is, that is, a similar Italian construction in the battles showed itself terribly.

There is a similar South African armored vehicle. It showed itself beautifully in battles. In the West, where vehicles of this type are classified as reconnaissance vehicles or tank destroyers. We are talking about lightly armored combat vehicles on a wheeled chassis, armed with cannons of caliber, 90, 105 or 120 mm, and with armor that protects against small arms fire. In the latest versions with enhanced mine protection.
French heavy armored car AMX-10RC

South African heavy armored car Rooikat.

[Crang]

Especially the South African "Ruikat" is a cool car. Weighs 28 tons and accelerates to 120 km / h. Then many opponents of such vehicles began to say: the armor is bad, the maneuverability is not like that of a tank, there is no troop compartment .... What are all the little things ... Why are ordinary BTR-80s not accused of poor maneuverability or insufficient armor? The main advantage of such vehicles is that with equal firepower to a tank, they are much cheaper than them and, most importantly, more mobile. It's not even about the maximum speed, but about the resource. The tank is a tracked vehicle. Its resource is very small - ~ 10000 km somewhere. You can't ride it a lot. And such a machine has a resource like a "Freeliner" - a million, ie. 100 times more than a tank. And the speed is 120 km / h and not 60 km / h. And its dignity is in the best mine survivability. Such a car, blown up by a mine, will be able to go further, even with torn off wheels. A tank with a torn track is immobilized. Airborne squad ... And how often do soldiers on their BTR-80 and BMP ride inside them? Almost never - usually on armor. Well, on this one you can also. But the huge firepower in the face of an ultra-precise tank cannon, an FCS with computers, televisions and thermal imagers, and missiles. Yes, "Ruikat" is the dream of our OMON and SOBR troops at remote checkpoints in Chechnya.

[Avenger711]

Ours tried to do a similar thing on the BTR-80 chassis with an 85 mm cannon (Sting-S ") in ancient times, the conclusions are sad for the entire class of" wheeled tanks ", they simply do not hold such weapons. Existing successful projects like the" centaur "use cannons MGS has a cannon from a 50-ton tank, even in spite of the use of ammunition with a reduced charge, it almost overturns such a snotty platform.The MGS is absolutely not transportable on the C-130 and has a ridiculous 18 rounds of ammunition.
The lack of a tower is generally a feil.

[Akim]

Quote: Krang

Great car. Ours can do something similar on the BTR-80 or BTR-90 chassis, but unfortunately they don’t want to.

I don’t know about Russia, but once in Ukraine they made a wheeled tank with a BMP-94 turret based on the BTR-3, but without a 30 mm gun. A very small angle of fire, as in NONA-ICS.

[pinachet]

there is an option based on btr 90

[Warchief]

They did it for a long time, only in view of the wretchedness of the BTR-90 they abandoned it. This name is this crap Sprut-K, it is 2C25. Hopefully stuck on a normal boomerang.

[Akim]

Quote: Warchief

This name is this crap Sprut-K, it is 2C25. Hopefully stuck on a normal boomerang.

Amendment. Not 2C25, but 2C28. Although there was a lot of talk about her, no one has ever seen her "in metal". Or maybe there are real photos? The aft engine compartment does not allow the use of such a weapon on wheeled armored vehicles.

[Warchief]

2C28, yes, I made a mistake, 2C25 is Octopus-SD. But not the point.

[Akim]

Quote: Warchief

2C28, yes, I made a mistake, 2C25 is Octopus-SD. But not the point.

I just corrected. Indeed, this is not the point. If it was in real life, it didn’t go beyond factory tests. A real tank based on Soviet armored personnel carriers is perhaps in Cuba with a Chinese tower and a 100-mm D-10T.

[bask]

The Chinese in general have a lot of things tore, in other countries they have done their own way.
Some instances of the Chinese defense industry are respected. Tank destroyer PTL02, 19-ton mass. It has a 100 mm smoothbore gun. A wheeled tank is able to provide fire support to the infantry, with the support of firing points. As ammunition, we use sub-caliber feathered shells with a tungsten core, cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation shells, an ammunition load of 30 rounds. Of course, a 100 mm projectile is not enough high explosive. And there is no twin 30 mm gun.

[Akim]

This is a 105 mm unlicensed copy of the English cannon. A BTR-licensed.

[bask]

Quote: Akim

This is a 105 mm unlicensed copy of the English cannon. A BTR-licensed

Akim. 100 mm gun.
[media = http: //world-of-tank.com.ua/novosti/kolesnie-tanki-po-kitay]

[media = http: //www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-1557.htm]
I don’t know where they got it from. In the PTL02 modification, there is even a thermal imager.

[Akim]

Of course, I am not familiar with the "World of Tanks". I just chat with the Chinese
The Type 96 has a large family and a 100 mm gun is not there. http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/china/3157-china-military-photos-videos-169.h
tml

[bask]

Quote: Akim

I'm just chatting with the Chinese

I unfortunately do not correspond with the Chinese. In general, I am writing about .PTL02, anti-tank gun, Type-86.
[media = http: //www.military-today.com/artillery/ptl02.htm] Read in Chinese.
Main battle tank Type 96 / ZTZ 96 CHINA.
Akim, I don’t get it. Are you kidding me ... where is his wheel. Or steamed.

[Akim]

I sealed from 92 to 96. Your truth. There is such a 100 mm gun. Armed in Inner Mongolia. True gun type 86 looks like this.

[bask]

Quote: Akim

92 to 96. Your truth. There is such a 100 mm gun. Armed in the Inner

Yes, crap with them with the Chinese. Do you think our armed forces need such wheeled tanks? Russia and Ukraine.
I think for Ukraine, this is a good export patent. At the IDEX 2013, the Belgian company ,, CMI Defense ,, and ,, Ukroboronservis ,, presented a modification of the BTR-3E armored personnel carrier. It has a Cockerill CSE 90LP combat module with a 90-mm low-pressure gun.

On the Russian BTR-90, with a BMP-3 tower, a triad, even the Finns, in their own, patria, for the UAE, tried to install our tower.

[Akim]

Quote: bask

Do you think that our armed forces need such wheeled tanks? Russia and Ukraine. I think for Ukraine, this is a good export patent, to establish something similar on the BTR-4, on the Russian BTR-90

Personally, I think they are not needed. We need MOPs with a 2A80 gun (for BTR-4 and Boomerang). If you put a tank gun, then the 115 mm 2A20.

[bask]

Quote: Akim

the gun is a 115 mm 2A20.

Everything rests on the wheel platform. There are a lot of guns of various calibers, a lot to choose from, 100mm, 120mm, 122mm, 125mmmm. The BTR-4 is suitable. And in Russia only the BTR-90.

Quote: Warchief

there would be very out of place, both in economic and climatic-landscape

I agree on economic issues, but not on climatic ones. I traveled all over the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in the 80's. Dirt is black soil + clay. And the main factor is poor booking. Armored vehicles must withstand a shot from a single-block RPG-7 for war. ((( at least))) An example of Syria.
Or use only as, self-propelled guns. At ranges of not less than 3-10 cells. But not as an assault gun, to support the infantry.

[Akim]

Quote: bask

Everything rests on the wheel platform. There are a lot of guns of various calibers, a lot to choose from, 100mm, 120mm, 122mm, 125mmmm. The BTR-4 is suitable. And in Russia only the BTR-90.

Due to the muzzle energy, the caliber will have to be limited. You can also put 120/125 mm, but this causes a small angle of rotation. Or you need a tower that will make the car heavier, which will negatively affect its cross-country ability and buoyancy. BTR-3 with a Belgian turret cannot float. Kharkiv residents offered MOPs to the Iraqis with a 105-mm cannon. And the L7 has the same muzzle energy as our 115mm gun. Modern BOPSs allow hitting tanks of the third generation, and ATGMs "Konus" tanks of generation 3+.

[Warchief]

Quote: bask

Armored vehicles, for a war in the S. Caucasus, must withstand a shot from a single-block RPG-7. (((At least)))

Nothing prevents these machines from coming up with a set of additional armor. There was Soviet experience on the BMP-2 - BMP-2D. And the experience is quite good, it did not give a 100% reduction in losses, but it saved human lives.

[Warchief]

Quote: bask

Do you think our armed forces need such wheeled tanks?

Quite. There are tasks for them - in the same Caucasus, the T-62M was operated (this despite the fact that the storage bases are clogged with more modern T-72B and T-80BV) for several reasons: they are easy to maintain, they are cheap to operate, the crew is much easier to train and all that was required of them was to fuck the OFS on the homeless, which they successfully dealt with. But: this is a tank. A combat vehicle with heavy weapons (that is, the subject of the article) would be very out of place there, both for economic and climatic-landscape reasons.

[123dv]

Quote: Krang

Great car. Ours can do

Ours can make it from a new 30 mm cannon and in front and in profile, and in tail and mane.
If her wheels themselves do not fall off before, shots of commercials after 10.

[Vital 33]

The article is somewhat outdated ... can not you find it?

[Nova]

))) There is one.

[mark1]

The machine is spectacular, but where such can be used in our Russian conditions, I can't imagine. Judging by its design, it should rush through the deserts and savannahs after swift-footed aborigines, urinating them on the move from a cannon and machine guns and, if possible, not meet a tank. We will burn such a miracle very quickly. I think, in relation to our conditions, the "Sprut SD" is better, it has at least a lower height, and better cross-country ability.

[Alexey Prikazchikov]

On the European TVD. There is a serious well-developed road network there and they must be applied.

[vadson]

on the European TVD tanks are full that she can not handle

[mark1]

In the 30s, Christie's wheeled-tracked tanks (BT) were adopted by our spacecraft. The rationale was similar to yours - "... we will fight in Erop. And there are good roads everywhere ... and therefore it is necessary to put operational mobility at the forefront, even at the expense of security and maneuverability ..." stage of the Second World War is well known. The European theater of operations is too serious a platform to seriously count on it to drive freely on the autobahns in "carts" with guns

[Alexey Prikazchikov]

Europe is no longer the same and the battles in Europe will be characterized by a large number of urban battles. And the tank in the city has nothing to do, so this is it. The example was unsuccessful; there were other reasons.

[mark1]

If the tank has nothing to do in the city (with which I agree to a certain extent), then the striker is all the more the machine is not for the city. A BT example shows that the desire to achieve high operational mobility to the detriment of other qualities (mainly protection) does not lead to anything good. And in the causes of failures in the initial period of the Second World War, the erroneous concept of the use of wheeled-tracked vehicles (BT) is certainly not the main one, but it also takes its rightful place in a long series of pre-war mistakes and misconceptions.

[Avenger711]

Another one, read by Rezun. Especially for people like you, I’m reporting that the idea of ​​a wheeled-tracked tank comes from the extremely small resource of the then large-sized tracked tracks, so those who were richer in tanks on the battlefield were brought by truck. And then no one on wheels of BT already applied to war, they didn’t directly recommend doing it, while BT at that time was a good tank.

[Alexey Prikazchikov]

I would say more with BT only one significant minus was a gasoline engine, not a diesel engine. Because of what they burned like matches.

[mark1]

Alexei, the last 700 BT-7Ms were with diesels, but that didn’t stop them from burning just like gasoline counterparts, the thickness of the armor was the determining factor. And they lost the wheel drive due to the increased weight (so, of course, it was theoretically possible, but the tires from the wheels were torn off and did not want to go on arable land)

[mark1]

Thanks! I, so I suppose, you draw your knowledge from the encyclopedia of tanks TM. That's right, "the idea of ​​a wheeled-tracked tank comes from an extremely small track resource" and the need to bring horse-mechanized formations to the operational space. according to the so-called Western terminology. "pursuit tank". And the BT tank was not bad at that time. But the whole point is that he had no prospects in the wheeled-caterpillar form (limitation in weight, and, accordingly, in protection), by the beginning of the Second World War, his lot was to gallop ahead of the cavalry and scare away the riders deep in the rear of the enemy. attempts to strengthen the protection led to an increase in weight and, as a consequence, the impossibility of using a wheel drive (which the BTV leadership very much regretted). The attempt now in our time to apply the concept of a wheeled tank is the same rake. All the prospects for this kind of technology are to drive the protesting civilian population or weakly armed bandit formations (better without RPGs), or die heroically fighting a defensive battle with superior enemy forces, for example, on the outskirts of Washington.

[mark1]

For Avenger711 Thanks! I, so I suppose, you draw your knowledge from the encyclopedia of tanks TM. That's right, "the idea of ​​a wheeled-tracked tank comes from an extremely small track resource" and the need to bring horse-mechanized formations to the operational space. according to the so-called Western terminology. "pursuit tank". And the BT tank was not bad at that time. But the whole point is that he had no prospects in the wheeled-caterpillar form (limitation in weight, and, accordingly, in protection), by the beginning of the Second World War, his lot was to gallop ahead of the cavalry and scare away the riders deep in the rear of the enemy. attempts to strengthen the protection led to an increase in weight and, as a consequence, the impossibility of using a wheel drive (which the BTV leadership very much regretted). The attempt now in our time to apply the concept of a wheeled tank is the same rake. All the prospects for this kind of technology are to drive the protesting civilian population or weakly armed bandit formations (better without RPGs), or die heroically fighting a defensive battle with superior enemy forces, for example, on the outskirts of Washington.

[vadson]

article is licked from an advertising booklet, where is the analysis of application, reviews, technical specifications?

[Selevc]

A very dubious machine - either a truncated tank, or a sophisticated armored personnel carrier - is generally an obvious hybrid ... The survivability of such a technique is very doubtful as well as the accuracy of direct fire ... Such a machine is unlikely to win a duel with MBT ... And against the BTR- ov the enemy such a gun to no one ...

With such a machine, by and large, you can give only one shot at the enemy’s tank - and if you don’t hit or didn’t hit, it means that in the next few minutes the Stryker’s crew is guaranteed a collective cemetery on wheels !!! :)))

[Warchief]

Could not pass by your sofa knowledge.
This car and did not think as a means of fighting tanks, it is intended for conflicts of low intensity, such as present-day Afghanistan. In addition, in Afghanistan, MBT sucks on the landscape, somewhere other than its south it is extremely difficult to use them, and the M1128 Mobile Gun System is just right.

[Selevc]

Dear, this is your knowledge of the couch - direct-fire shooting from such a humming gun’s gun is intended solely to destroy armored vehicles or fortified firing points !!!

Quote: Warchief

In addition, in Afghanistan, MBT sucks on the landscape, somewhere other than its south it is extremely difficult to use them, and the M1128 Mobile Gun System is just right.

Tanks are not intended for military operations in the highlands at all ... But Afghanistan is not only mountains - it is also valleys. These are also cities and small settlements - which, incidentally, were cleansed of spirits with the fire support of these same MBTs !!! MBT is not only a means of attack - it is also mobile artillery, by the way, much more protected than armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles !!!

May I ask a question? And to fight with whom was this hybrid even invented? An ordinary light or medium tank as part of a unit can quite successfully cope with the same tasks as the Striker - while the tank has several times more protection - and this is a huge plus !!!

[Warchief]

Quote: Selevc

which, by the way, were cleansed of spirits during the fire support of these very MBT

Neither in the Soviet nor in the American company, the military equipment in Afghanistan was practically not used, and moreover, they are practically not there. All Afghanistan now has 14 M1A1 Abrams belonging to the Marine Corps and the same number of Danish Leopard 2A5 and all in the southeast, in the Helmand and Nimros provinces. Medium tanks - yes, T-55 and T-62, which then performed today's BMTV tasks.

[avt]

Quote: Krang

Great car. Ours can do something similar on the BTR-80 or BTR-90 chassis, but unfortunately they don’t want to.

Yes, it is a pity , here Serdyuk would not have been removed and we would have had the same "miracle" Italian truth, Centaur. How much about the Swiss Piranha, which is Stryker, it is said, but you see, the singers of the overseas miracle are not translated and they do not take any arguments. Amer is able to shoot lucky pictures, and it’s so beautiful that even when shooting this crap with a walker it seems different that it was intended that the projectile would only fly further, and the suspension, as a quality in a rocking chair, only becomes more powerful.

[Yankuz]

The striking power of a light tank + speed and maneuverability, which are necessary where rapid advancement is required, are its main advantages. We should have such a technique too. But on rough terrain, it is not effective, but why? There are tanks for this!

[mark1]

I think it is effective on the autobahn as part of the traffic police group

[avt]

Quote: mark1

I think it is effective on the autobahn as part of the traffic police group

On the highway, yes, but not in the traffic police. Count up on Kutuzovsky in Moscow who type of Zhirik will be stopped, like that on his advice in ...... they will shove

[Mr. Truth]

How old is the article? It looks like an ancient, zero years, advertisement. MGS is not air transportable C-130 and .... Ha, everything is clearly a good attempt by General Dynamix, but only angry Anglo-Saxon fanboys peck at your toy.

[Andrew]

Our BTR 90 is almost similar in armament. I don’t know how to book, but I think it’s no worse because the mass is 6 tons more. If only the exit had been done from the stern the more water cannons do not interfere now.

[Ilyukha]

Quote: andrei

Our BTR 90 is almost similar in armament. I don’t know how to book, but I think it’s no worse because the mass is 6 tons more. If only the exit had been done from the stern the more water cannons do not interfere now.

They, four-axis, are similar in all countries, and about the same mass.
The most interesting is the cannon mount. This, by the way, is the first large-scale FREAKY mount with a tank gun and automatic loader.
Well, the chassis for it, so, for an amateur))

[Avenger711]

You say that recklessness is not a sign of idiocy. One fragment, or a bullet and a gun is not present.

[Ilyukha]

If desired, the breech and mechanism can be covered with additional armor.

[Avenger711]

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL88CC18D5D3F0DEF6

Affects MGS as well.

[Rim-roev]

On stuffed stuffed armored personnel carrier, although I sympathize with the Americans a little, which they just don’t have and everything is in operation, it’s tested in practice, but if we have something similar it’s only in the drawings and fantasies of the engineers, it’s very insulting. (

[BruderV]

Quote: Rim-Roev

what they just don’t have and everything is in operation is tested in practice for combat, and if we have something similar, it’s very insulting only in the drawings and fantasies of engineers. (

Yes, damn it, that's just such self-propelled guns, on our part, I can get a little tuyeva to pick up the PT-76, BTR-70 Sting, Sprud-SD with a 125-mm gun. The latter, by the way, is also landing, unlike Stryker.

[bubble82009]

the machine is designed for warfare with a weak enemy on solid soils. with us, and even in winter it would be ineffective

[bask]

And of course Finnish Patria AMV. In the version of 120 mm mortar and 105 mm guns. Classic of the genre.

Does Russia need wheeled tanks. The question is debatable. In the Caucasus, I think it is not needed.
And if you have to fight in Middle Asia it is necessary.
It's all about the military doctrine of Russia. With whom we can fight hypothetically in the next 10-15 years.
While the war is only in the Caucasus, BTR-T and assault guns with anti-shell armor and a caliber of at least 152 mm are needed there.
BTR-T with aft entrance and enhanced mine protection.

[mark1]

Quote: bask

Does Russia need wheeled tanks. The question is debatable. In the Caucasus, I think it is not needed.
And if you have to fight in Middle Asia it is necessary.

If only in the Karakum or Kazakhstan steppe
And why did the Finns need a Patria in the form of a tank - a secret hidden by darkness. Probably in the event of a war with the Russian Federation, they plan to chase us to the Ural Mountains without stopping.

[bask]

Quote: mark1

If only in the Karakum or Kazakhstan steppe

Karakum, it is in Turkmenistan, and it is a neutral country.
In Tajikistan, it is possible where our base is located, Uzbekistan. If Wahhabis come to power in these countries.
Russia, a world power, must be prepared to fight in any climatic conditions. Example of the USSR, Afghanistan.

[mark1]

Quote: bask

Russia, a world power, must be prepared to fight in any climatic conditions. An example of the USSR, Afghanistan.

Well, if only in small quantities for the rapid reaction forces (suddenly they will be "invited" to Mali and we are not at the "parade") In Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (one hell) I think we need to drive other equipment, a wheeled tank will be burned in the mountains. They do not need wheeled tanks at all, but self-propelled guns such as "Nona" can be a 152 mm assault gun, but the platform can be wheeled.

[Warchief]

Quote: mark1

Why did Patria need a Finnish tank?

I’ll tell you a terrible secret - now 90% of military products are made for export to the oil and not very Honduras.

[mark1]

Now I rummaged through the sites. Indeed, the Finns do not plan to use wheeled tanks (well, well done, they think), they are really for any "Honduras" (in this case, Portugal). Well, I got a little excited about hot Finnish guys.