The Stryker Cannon Version - Something NOW for Iraq

J

jackehammond

Active member
Folks,

During an operation in Iraq I read about a unit with Strykers engaged some of the bad guys in an abandon village. They had triggered an ambush on one unit and the Stryker guys came to the rescue. What broke the back of the ambush was the use of the recently issued bunker version of the TOW (ie it uses a warhead based on the fusing system of the Marines SMAW and the SMAW-D that the Army has).

I am glad to see the US Army has issued a version other than the standard antitank rounds for the TOW. But a TOW missile is expensive and while you use them if you have to (eg like they used the Javelin when Saddam's sons got cornered) a cannon is a much better option -- ie higher firing rate, different types of rounds, etc).

The Stryker family has a cannon version in the works. But it is titled more towards antiarmor and uses the overhead unmanned turret. It is I think suppose to be issued in 2007-2008 time frame. (Photo of turret chosen fitted in 1980s to Rapid Deployment armored vehicle)

AGS-2.jpg


Question, there are a number of off the shelf cannon turrets for light armored vehicles that the US Army could aquire now. For example the Belgium Cockerill 90mm turret. It is wide spread use world wide. The ammo for it is plentiful from many sources. And it has 8 different types of ammo including HEP (which the Abrams does not even have -- ie interesting reason why not) and according to most sources a deadly antiambush canister round. (Photo of 90mm turret on British Scorpion)

alvis.jpg


The US Army could purchase a number of turrets and to a field fit to a number of Strykers in Iraq where they are need. At a later date the turrets could be removed and because of the demand sold to a friendly nation -- ie the Philippines, etc.

Any one agree? Disagree? Comments?

Jack E. Hammond

NOTE. As hard as it sounds a Swiss firm has developed a turret fitted with the 120mm cannon used on the Abrams for armored vehicles weighing 15 tons or more. JEEZ! I would love to know if that turret can fire at targets to the side of the vehicle?
 
The first thing they need to push to Iraq is that thing I keep hearing rumors about.

It sets off a signal to detonate remote controlled IEDs before the vehicle gets to it.
 
hicks said:
The first thing they need to push to Iraq is that thing I keep hearing rumors about.

It sets off a signal to detonate remote controlled IEDs before the vehicle gets to it.
Click to expand...

Dear Hicks,

Yes that is the #1 problem. But that does not mean that others don't need solving. And while they would even discuss it openly there was an article on the subject in which the Army R&D people stated they were targeting the number on technical weakiness of IEDs. I have a hunch it is a system to predetonate the IEDs so the bombers find that they are the ones getting blown up.

Again, thank you for your comment. Btw, have you had any dealings with the anti-bunker TOW round? As strange as it sounds the people down at RedStone had a Canadian 8X8 vehicle and crew come down to do a bunch of test firings of it. No secret it was on their public information webpage.

Jack E. Hammond

PS> Could you see the two photos ok in the message?
 
I could see the photos just fine.

I personally have not had any experience with the TOW. Now, the LOSAT.... that's a whole different story. 8)
 
stryker-MGSinSand.jpg


looks like this with a standard m68/l7 105 and canadian army bought 66 of them. delivery date, like all cdn army equipment, is set at god knows when
 
Looks like they decided not to go with it. We will keep our tanks for now. I guess that is what happens when the CDS is Armoured.
Yes they can fire from any side, and I am sure they do have a place, but more likely in an army that would have both Tanks and this. Not just the Stryker.
 
Dear Members,

The Stryker 105mm MGS has had serious problems with its auto-loader (ie it is two 5 round magazines and are now going to one 10 round magazine). It will be delayed now till late 2008 or early 2009.

To the member who posted the photo of the Canadian LAV with the overhead 105mm turret, I think Canada made a mistake in picking that turret (ie won't get into getting rid of the Leopard 1 debate). The overhead turret is more for making a light armored vehicle into a tank destroyer. The Canadian land forces are more weighted towards UN type missions and a conventional turret is far better for observation and acquiring targets like on UN type missions. The Cadillac Gage Company in Warren, MI makes a good and reliable 105mm turret for years that is aviablable now and a much lower price.

Jack E. Hammond
 
Pete031 said:
Looks like they decided not to go with it. We will keep our tanks for now. I guess that is what happens when the CDS is Armoured.
Yes they can fire from any side, and I am sure they do have a place, but more likely in an army that would have both Tanks and this. Not just the Stryker.
Click to expand...

uhh...i dont know about that, the word here is that the MGS is a go and the leopard is getting mothballed. you got a source for that?

i agree with what you're saying tho, absolutely
 
jackehammond said:
Folks,

During an operation in Iraq I read about a unit with Strykers engaged some of the bad guys in an abandon village. They had triggered an ambush on one unit and the Stryker guys came to the rescue. What broke the back of the ambush was the use of the recently issued bunker version of the TOW (ie it uses a warhead based on the fusing system of the Marines SMAW and the SMAW-D that the Army has).

I am glad to see the US Army has issued a version other than the standard antitank rounds for the TOW. But a TOW missile is expensive and while you use them if you have to (eg like they used the Javelin when Saddam's sons got cornered) a cannon is a much better option -- ie higher firing rate, different types of rounds, etc).

The Stryker family has a cannon version in the works. But it is titled more towards antiarmor and uses the overhead unmanned turret. It is I think suppose to be issued in 2007-2008 time frame. (Photo of turret chosen fitted in 1980s to Rapid Deployment armored vehicle)

AGS-2.jpg


Question, there are a number of off the shelf cannon turrets for light armored vehicles that the US Army could aquire now. For example the Belgium Cockerill 90mm turret. It is wide spread use world wide. The ammo for it is plentiful from many sources. And it has 8 different types of ammo including HEP (which the Abrams does not even have -- ie interesting reason why not) and according to most sources a deadly antiambush canister round. (Photo of 90mm turret on British Scorpion)

alvis.jpg


The US Army could purchase a number of turrets and to a field fit to a number of Strykers in Iraq where they are need. At a later date the turrets could be removed and because of the demand sold to a friendly nation -- ie the Philippines, etc.

Any one agree? Disagree? Comments?

Jack E. Hammond

NOTE. As hard as it sounds a Swiss firm has developed a turret fitted with the 120mm cannon used on the Abrams for armored vehicles weighing 15 tons or more. JEEZ! I would love to know if that turret can fire at targets to the side of the vehicle?
Click to expand...

Ok, the Stryker Cannon version (Mobile Gun System) has a 105mm Auto-load Cannon. As a matter of fact the US Army had some M113's armed with the Cockerill 90mm in the 80's, worked like a charm.

The reaosn the Abrams doesn't fire HEP (High Explosives Plastic) is because, HEP only grazes heavy armor, unlike HEAT or Sabot, as proved in the Patton Museum exhibit. Also because the Abrams has HEAT, Sabot, and now Canister. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m1028.htm

Here's the rest of the 120mm munnitions the US uses: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/120.htm
 
Cadet Seaman said:
Ok, the Stryker Cannon version (Mobile Gun System) has a 105mm Auto-load Cannon. As a matter of fact the US Army had some M113's armed with the Cockerill 90mm in the 80's, worked like a charm.

The reaosn the Abrams doesn't fire HEP (High Explosives Plastic) is because, HEP only grazes heavy armor, unlike HEAT or Sabot, as proved in the Patton Museum exhibit. Also because the Abrams has HEAT, Sabot, and now Canister.
Click to expand...

Dear Member,

The US Army never fielded the M113 with the Cockerill cannon. FMC the maker offered that version for expert. (btw, for many years the Australian Army had a fire support armored vehicle based on the M113 with the turret from the Scorpion with the 75mm cannon).

HEP does not graze anything. It effect is squash where it plasters itself to the armor and a base fuze expodes it causing spalling on the inside. Against RHA (solid armor plating) this type of round is very effective. But against the newer spaced, laminated and CHOBHAM armor used on the Abrams it does not work. Also, a HEP round was not developed for the Abrams 120mm cannon because all the 120mm rounds are stored in the rear of the turret bustle in a horizontal fashion and HEP because of the type of HE it uses has to be stored at vertical or near vertical -- ie as told me by the 1995 Abrams program manager Colonel Dodge at Ft Knox when he was asked why that round would not be available to the Abrams that were sent to Somalia.

Jack E. Hammond
 
jackehammond said:
Cadet Seaman said:
Ok, the Stryker Cannon version (Mobile Gun System) has a 105mm Auto-load Cannon. As a matter of fact the US Army had some M113's armed with the Cockerill 90mm in the 80's, worked like a charm.

The reaosn the Abrams doesn't fire HEP (High Explosives Plastic) is because, HEP only grazes heavy armor, unlike HEAT or Sabot, as proved in the Patton Museum exhibit. Also because the Abrams has HEAT, Sabot, and now Canister.
Click to expand...

Dear Member,

The US Army never fielded the M113 with the Cockerill cannon. FMC the maker offered that version for expert. (btw, for many years the Australian Army had a fire support armored vehicle based on the M113 with the turret from the Scorpion with the 75mm cannon).

HEP does not graze anything. It effect is squash where it plasters itself to the armor and a base fuze expodes it causing spalling on the inside. Against RHA (solid armor plating) this type of round is very effective. But against the newer spaced, laminated and CHOBHAM armor used on the Abrams it does not work. Also, a HEP round was not developed for the Abrams 120mm cannon because all the 120mm rounds are stored in the rear of the turret bustle in a horizontal fashion and HEP because of the type of HE it uses has to be stored at vertical or near vertical -- ie as told me by the 1995 Abrams program manager Colonel Dodge at Ft Knox when he was asked why that round would not be available to the Abrams that were sent to Somalia.

Jack E. Hammond
Click to expand...

The Us Army did field a M113 with a Cockerill gun, i.e. asked my squadron captian, whos a captain in the 16th Cav about it and yes they did. HEP will grazes rolled steel armor, I've seen it. Now steel platings a different story.
 
The Stryker MGS is not equal to XM8AGS and it has no place on the battle
field at all back in the mid 90s the XM8AGS was have entered service but cause of the USArmy desire to kill it over not losing personal they chose
to leave units like 82nd,2ACR and other light units without any real
direct support .The Stryker MGS is not good subsitute for the headache
causing M551 Sheridan and it will never a good one at best.
How many M113 are inventory and how quick and be retrofitted with
the weapons station of Stryker APC and applique armor when they need it how quick can the companys behind XM8AGS or StingRayII put them into production if asked by the US Army if they had to admit they screwed
up. in there shows back then I would have canceled the Crusader SP and
retired the OH-58s to free up money for XM8AGS and the now history
RAH-66 Comanche and kill any more new or reworked AH-64.
I am not fan of wheeled AFV or APC there only place in this world is
for peace keeping duties when the shooting is over.

wheeled AFV/APC are :cen: :cen: and have place in war!
:tank:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top