XBradTC

, , , ,

By

XBradTC

·

Stryker MGS droppin’ the hammer…

The Stryker family of vehicles has made the occasional appearance here before. I caught this quick clip on liveleak and wanted to share it with you. It shows the Stryker Mobile Gun System, or MGS firing in support of infantry troops. Just because a vehicle has a big gun, that doesn’t make it a tank.…

The Stryker family of vehicles has made the occasional appearance here before. I caught this quick clip on liveleak and wanted to share it with you. It shows the Stryker Mobile Gun System, or MGS firing in support of infantry troops.

Just because a vehicle has a big gun, that doesn’t make it a tank. The MGS has a 105mm main gun in a remotely operated turret. This gun is used to provide direct fire support to troops. Indeed, other than being really close to the target, this clip shows just what the MGS was intended for. And while the MGS is far to lightly armored to go toe to toe with enemy tanks, it can also provide anti-tank fires when properly used. See video below the fold.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Tags:

, , , , , , , ,
  1. Aaron Poeze

    Your two liveleak videos start automatically. That’s a bit of a pain actually.

    Just how tanky are actual tanks these days? I’ve read too much about things designed to pop them.

    Like

  2. xbradtc

    Aaron, while no vehicle is invulnerable, tanks are far more likely to survive an attack than any other vehicle.

    The M-1 was designed primarily to fight Soviet tanks. As such, it’s armor is concentrated on it’s front. The Chobam armor renders it almost impervious to HEAT warheads in the frontal arc. The composite layers spread the energy of the jet from the warhead. The great thickness is also extremely capable of stopping most “long-rod” kinetic penetrators as well. The sides are less heavily armored, and the rear, top, and bottom even less so. Still, they are more heavily armored than any other vehicle.

    Another factor is that while the designers knew they couldn’t make the tank invulnerable, they could take steps to make the crew more likely to survive. For instance, the panels over the ammo racks are designed to blow off if there is an explosion in the racks. The doors sealing the turret interior from the racks are not. Any explosion in the racks therefore vents harmlessly upwards, saving the crew to fight another day. Contrast this with the T-72 which has a carousel of ammo under the feet of the crew. Any explosion in the T-72 turret is likely to be catastrophic, as witnessed by the many pictures of them with their turrets blown off.

    Like

  3. Bob Gates and the future Army. « Bring the heat, Bring the Stupid

    […] armor and firepower is pretty close to what the Army had hoped for. But even supported by the Mobile Gun System, the Stryker Brigade is a little too light to go on the offense against an armored […]

    Like

  4. The Stryker | Bring the heat, Bring the Stupid

    […] written about the Stryker family of vehicles before, like here, here and […]

    Like

  5. The Challenge of Airborne Armor | Bring the heat, Bring the Stupid

    […] the advent of the Stryker brigade, we’ve seen (and written about) the Stryker MGS or Mobile Gun System. It fulfills much the same role as the M8, but has less armor capability. Nor […]

    Like

Leave a comment