The Mobile Gun System is, in essence, a medium tank—albeit with wheels instead of tracks. (ERROR)
The Stryker MGS, like the whole Stryker concept, is a compromise between competing demands. All the Stryker vehicles—there are many variants—have their critics. The Israeli army evaluated the Stryker and declared it a
“piece of junk.” But the MGS is easily the most controversial … and least-loved
(except by the people being supported?)
The first gun-Strykers deployed to Iraq in 2008. Soldiers loved the vehicles’ ability to fire shotgun-like canister rounds, “shredding a path 75 meters wide out to 300 meters,”
according to Army Times.
But the MGS design crams a lot of equipment into a small space, and as a result
it’s crowded for its three-person crew. (reduce the crew to two, or even one - it is not a fighting vehicle) The hatches are too small for crew members to quickly escape in the event of a fire. And the overstuffed MGS lacks air conditioning. In Iraq, the 150-degree heat forced the Army to quickly outfit gun-Stryker operators with special cooling vests.
Moreover, the main gun fits inside a pod that rests atop the Stryker’s hull. To save weight, the pod is unarmored. “The gun pod can be easily disabled,” the military’s testing agency
reported.
No MGS can expect to last long in a sustained firefight against a determined foe (as silly as saying no Javelin gunner, or machine gunner, can last long in sustained firefight against a determined foe - unless they are well dug in or turret-down)
The Stryker MGS was never meant to be a tank like the M-1 (trudat)—but it could find itself doing battle with
enemy tanks (
so could a guy with a C7 ) . “The primary weapon systems are designed to be effective against a range of threats up to T-62 tanks,” (
Trudat - but its primary advantages for the supported infantry were its ability to launch canister (as noted above), HESH/HEP for punching holes in walls (including some stationary tin-plated ones) the test agency claimed. The Russian T-62 dates to the 1960s (
Great. So it has some residual capacity against some geriatric AFVs Here's hoping it doesn't have to run up against some new Russian toy. On the other hand there are a whole bunch of ancient T57s and 62s out there and the 64s and 72s weren't much less susceptible to the L7 - and every MTLB/BMD/BMP/BTR and 30mm Stryker are still vulnerable).
Going up against more modern tanks—T-72s and later—the MGS would probably lose. (
Modern T72s, 84s and 90s - agreed - so keep them away from those tanks and protect them just like you would protect a Javelin gunner) Like the Marine Corps’ failed
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the gun-Stryker occupies a middle ground between contradictory requirements—basically, weight versus firepower. (
every system every where is a compromise between competing requirements). As a consequence,
it’s not particularly good at anything. (
Error - it is good at some things and should be used for those things (clearing streets and busting strong-points). Stop trying to hammer nails with a screwdriver)