The Stryker Cannon Version - Something NOW for Iraq




 
--
 
June 9th, 2005  
jackehammond
 

Topic: The Stryker Cannon Version - Something NOW for Iraq


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)



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)



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?
June 9th, 2005  
hicks
 
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.
June 9th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hicks
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.
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?
--
June 9th, 2005  
hicks
 
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)
June 17th, 2005  
queens_ranger
 


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
June 17th, 2005  
Pete031
 
 
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.
June 18th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
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
June 18th, 2005  
queens_ranger
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete031
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.
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
June 19th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 

Topic: Re: The Stryker Cannon Version - Something NOW for Iraq


Quote:
Originally Posted by jackehammond
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)



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)



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?
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/milita...ions/m1028.htm

Here's the rest of the 120mm munnitions the US uses: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...itions/120.htm
June 19th, 2005  
Pete031
 
 
Just the word around the Base...