ground vehicles M1128 Mobile Gun System - A modern-day Tank Destroyer

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

 

      M1128 Mobile Gun System     





In the early seventies, the Swiss company MOWAG developed a new armored personnel carrier and multipurpose wheeled chassis. The designers carefully considered every detail and nuance when deciding where to place the armor, what shape the body should be, as well as the ergonomics and the chassis. This new armored vehicle was called the Piranha and it became a benchmark for all future wheeled armored vehicles. It inspired the Canadian BMP LAV III, which then served as a basis for American military vehicle research. The Stryker, a modified and improved Piranha, underwent serious competition to get into the U.S. army. The Stryker was adopted as a universal platform for a whole range of vehicles, including the M1128 MGS AFV, with heavy armament mounted on the remote-controlled turret. The Stryker is often criticized because of its high cost and excessive weight. But its high speed, which is excellent for a wheeled armored vehicle, its large load capacity, its ability to mount different weapons and its additional armor justify its weight and price.

The size of the 105mm ordnance compared to the base vehicle provides an impressive sight. The smoke grenade launchers can be seen at the front of the turret, and the square aperture for the coaxial machine gun is visible behind and above the smoke grenade launchers on this side of the turret. Note the rectangular coaxial machine gun access hatch with an opening for expended casing ejection. The gunner sat to the left of the main gun, and his primary sight housing and hatch hinge are positioned at the base of the turret. Stowage racks are mounted on each of the rear sides of the hull. The hatch in the hull side between the second and third wheels is a crew escape hatch, and the hatch to the rear of this is for access to a pneumatic coupling and power slave receptacle. Behind and outboard of the driver's hatch is the ballistic cover for one of the two fans in the vehicle's ventilation system.

The automatic loader can stow 18 rounds of 105mm ammunition. There is an 8-round ready carousel below the turret, and this larger 10-round replenishment magazine occupies the rear of the hull. On the right of the image, the green embedded training module (ETM) is mounted on the rack on the hull side. The ETM allows for crew training by generating images on the crews' displays as well as making realistic battlefield sounds. To the rear of the ETM, a curved, white pipe of the M13A1 gas particulate filter unit can be seen. This device is part of the vehicle's NBC protection system.


The MGS' 105 mm cannon can fire four types of ammunition: the M900 kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; the M456A2 high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; the M493A3 high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and M1040 canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open.

The armor protection creates a contradiction for the MGS Stryker. Currently, the MGS is fielded with armor protection capable of .50 cal munitions. The add-on scaleable armor in development promises protection against 14.5mm and hand-held HEAT up to and including RPG-7 penetration. The obvious rationale for the developmental armor is the precise evaluation of MG and ATGM threat during support to infantry assault operations. Emerging technology finds itself between a rock and a hard place when faced with the MGS platform. Armor already in use on tanks can stop ATGM, but is too heavy for the air-mobile MGS. Developmental reactive armor must meet the cost, weight, size, and soldier-proof requirements established for the MGS Stryker. Caught in-between the weight restrictions and the desire to protect against ATGM threats on the future battlefield, the MGS is suffering an identity crisis. The stryker makes no attempt to perform in ways it is not capable of; it embraces it's light-skinned composition, and uses it's reduced weight and speed to fight as a faster, more agile force on the battlefield. The MGS, with it's tank-like 105mm top, wants the best of both worlds with the speed of the Stryker, and armor resistance of a Bradley

Sources:
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/stryker_mgs.htm
http://www.deagel.com/Armored-Vehicles/M1128-Stryker-MGS_a000514003.aspx
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m1128mgs.html
TM 43-0001-28 Army Ammunition Data Sheets
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2583.html
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-mgs.htm

Edited April 12, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[leroyonly 4,311]

Open for discussion. 

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

30 minutes ago, leroyonly said:

Open for discussion. 

cheers m8

[___OverLord___ 60]

+1

[ManyMilesAway 366]

+1

[swpixy 1,220]

+1

 

[SharkShogun 6]

+1

[Hippy259 2]

+1

[WulfPack 1,693]

M1128 v 2S25(1989) when

[Laviduce 1,779]

+1

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

27 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

M1128 v 2S25(1989) when

wasnt 2S25 passed to dev

[WulfPack 1,693]

10 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

wasnt 2S25 passed to dev

yup

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Oh, yes PLEASE. Can't wait for a high tier wheeled vehicle.

[scavenjer 1,892]

GIB, Modern TDs are needed!

(Especially with guns and M900  )

[FrostBitesAce 7]

+1 I'm on board.

 

Personally, I think it would be most appropriate for it to be placed after the M551 due to it being essentially a successor/replacement for it due to the M8 AGS program being cancelled. Thus giving reason for the M1128 MGS to take it's place after the Sheridan. However, giving that it's largely recognized/classified by the community as a tank destroyer, it would also fit into the line nicely, but my favor stands for it's implementation into the light tank line.

[CK_16 791]

I would rather see this top off an LAV-25 line.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

Just now, CK_16 said:

I would rather see this top off an LAV-25 line.

go suggest them then 

Edited March 29, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[Laviduce 1,779]

Talking about LAVs:

 

 

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

6 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Talking about LAVs:

 

-snip-

 

would they be that much different in playstyle compaired to the M1128?


edit: also if you guys have info's on the Expeditionary tank, pls PM them to me. thx

Edited March 29, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[MiseryIndex556@psn 13,154]

+1

 

I was considering suggesting this so thanks for saving me the work. 

[BigC_81 511]

+1 Yes Please!

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

12 minutes ago, *MiseryIndex556 said:

+1

 

I was considering suggesting this so thanks for saving me the work. 

[Laviduce 1,779]

52 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

would they be that much different in playstyle compaired to the M1128?


edit: also if you guys have info's on the Expeditionary tank, pls PM them to me. thx

 
-snip-

 

I would expect the basic operational characteristics to be fairly similar but not necessarily identical.    Changes seem to have been made in those years that could give the M1128 stryker an edge.

[Godman_82 9,389]

+1

M103 is better anyway

[CoMurey2 131]

+1