XM360 120mm gun on Stryker MGS?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Jeff_F_F 10/15/2009 9:27:03 AM

My initial reaction was no way, but I see that the recoil from the XM360 is about 25% less than the M256 before the muzzle brake, with an additional 25% reduction from the brake. (www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/tuesday/smith.pdf)

Not sure what the figures are for the L5 but that sounds like it might be doable. However the muzzle blast from the Stryker MGS is already considered excessive by many and the XM360 would probably be worse. The above PPT shows exact figures but I don't know what they mean in the real world when it comes to armored vehicles operating in coordination with dismounted infantry.

OTOH I assume by indirect fire you mean the MRM. The MRM technology is intended to be compatible with 105mm applications as well as 120mm. (www.deagel.com/Projectiles/XM1111-Mid-Range-Munition_a001136001.aspx)

I'd be interested in the prospect of applying the improved recoil compensator technology from the XM360 to the L5 gun to reduce the need for a muzzle brake and hence reduce the muzzle blast of the Stryker MGS to make it more compatible with direct infantry support.

Quote Reply

ambush 10/15/2009 9:44:42 AM

The thing can barely handle the 105s recoil .

You would have reduced ammo capacity

Would you really want to get in a shooting match again an MBT with the MGS? Let the ATGMs in the brigade deal with any MBT threat If a major heavy armor threat existed you should maybe have rethought sending in a Stryker Brigade in the first place.

Quote Reply

Jeff_F_F 10/15/2009 3:26:01 PM

With MRM--whether 105 or 120mm--the Stryker MGS would present a significantly AT capability that would be quite useful for a light unit. Experiments with light units suggest that they work best by relying on indirect fire and the coordination of air support rather than directly confronting heavy units, and the MRM would be perfect in that role.

Quote Reply

Jeff_F_F 10/15/2009 3:30:10 PM

Recoil would be a huge issue with the XM360 though. I don't know the exact figures but the M256 generates somewhere between 50% and 100% more recoil than the L5, so the 25% reduction in recoil for the XM360 compared to the M256 wouldn't even come close to handling it.

Quote Reply

doggtag why the M360 won't work for the Stryker MGS 10/15/2009 4:06:18 PM

Yeah,

I've liked this idea myself, but I kept getting reminded by the Stryker proponents here that "the Stryker MGS isn't an anti tank vehicle. That's not its purpose."

So then, why upgun to the smoothbore 120mm gun, when a rifled 105mm gun has a wider, established series of more types of ammunition to do all kinds of support work?

We're not talking just those KE APFSDS anti tank rounds here.

There aren't a lot of designs out there in 120mm smoothbore for general purpose work (a problem the US initially had during the opening months/year of Iraqi Freedom),

where we have the 105mm L7/M68 gun family has HE, HESH/HEP, HEDP, HEAT, various fragment pattern ammo...

And it has been mentioned in some circles that a principal reason why the British kept a rifled 120mm thru the Challenger family MBTs was because HESH/HEP and smoothbore weren't the best partners (I'm not the ballistics expert and haven't a clue as to why: one would think the the spin of rifling might interfere with a good "squash" againt the target, same as how it's been debated that smoothbore is actually better for shaped charges (HEAT types), something about rifling's rotation somehow diminishes the shaped charge performce (don't quote me the science of that, either...)).

The MRM's a no-go now: with the demise of the FCS program, the lightweight/thin-skinned MGV Manned Ground Vehicle (the "tank" FCS), there is no longer any perceived need in the US Army for the MRM munition, even though it seems it could augment an Abram's firepower (for argument's sake, we have mortars and artillery for all that beyond line of sight stuff that the MGV would've used the MRM for).

So for the time being, the MRM program has slipped to a backburner, so don't count on any vehicles in American inventory with a 120mm smoothbore to get it anytime soon.

And again, since the vehicle isn't a dedicated AT platform, there's no justifiable need to upgun to a 120mm tube and ammo family, as (as the Stryker proponents often "corrected" me on) there's no doctrinal need for that kind of kinetic energy to be thrown 'round by the Stryker MGS.

Besides, for the foes the US expects to fight against with Strykers, nobody has any threat armor that a 105mm DU sabot round can't defeat.

And it would be absolute suicide to expect a Stryker MGS group to be sent in against well-trained newer generation MBTs that can fire sabot rounds that aren't the least bit deterred by bird cage slat armor, so really there's no need for 120mm MBT-defeating firepower (no MBT threat, no expensive MRM in production).

Can a wheeled hull of that weight support such a gun?

Apparently so, because, the Italian Centauro can, under a recent test/eval/demo program.

But there again, Italian doctrine IS a tank destroyer, so a large variety of general support HE types isn't necessary (although at initial production, Centauros were 105mm-equipped).

The chinese have announced they have one or two 6-wheel AFV types that can mount similar guns, but like many chinese military issues, it becomes difficult to separate the actual military-production fact from parade bluff.

Quote Reply

mabie 10/15/2009 9:44:01 PM

Thanks everyone for your responses..

Quote Reply

Jeff_F_F 10/16/2009 9:12:48 AM

Granted it is a cold-war mission, but I can't help but think about the scenario of what to do if the Soviets tried to launch an attack from Afganistan toward the Gulf. The only option we had then was sending the airborne divisions as speedbumps. Realistically, there probably isn't anyplace we might have to use the capability to repulse or delay such an attack--at least where we realistically *would* use the capability.

But this is ultimately an intellectual exercise, and intellectually it seems worthwhile to contemplate developing the capability.

As to the future of MRM, the Army is now picking up the pieces from FCS, and it sounded like MRM was fairly far along so I'm optimistic the technology will become available in some form. It would definitely enhance the anti-armor capabilities of the M1.

link

Quote Reply

WarNerd 10/17/2009 10:29:46 AM

Granted it is a cold-war mission, but I can't help but think about the scenario of what to do if the Soviets tried to launch an attack from Afghanistan toward the Gulf. The only option we had then was sending the airborne divisions as speedbumps. Realistically, there probably isn't anyplace we might have to use the capability to repulse or delay such an attack--at least where we realistically *would* use the capability.

I doubt the Russians would ever be masochistic enough as plan an invasion route through Afghanistan, again.

Quote Reply

Privateer 10/18/2009 9:53:25 AM

Can a wheeled hull of that weight support such a gun?

Apparently so, because, the Italian Centauro can, under a recent test/eval/demo program.

But there again, Italian doctrine IS a tank destroyer, so a large variety of general support HE types isn't necessary (although at initial production, Centauros were 105mm-equipped).

Even the original Centauro with the 105mm gun is some 5 tons (metric) heavier than the Stryker MGS.

The new lightweight low-recoil 120mm smoothbore guns like the French Nexter 120 FER, the German Rheinmetall L/47 SB LLR or the Italian OTO Melara L/45 are all designed for wheeled vehicles in the 25 ton (metric) class.

Quote Reply

doggtag 10/18/2009 4:33:07 PM

Can a wheeled hull of that weight support such a gun?

Apparently so, because, the Italian Centauro can, under a recent test/eval/demo program.

But there again, Italian doctrine IS a tank destroyer, so a large variety of general support HE types isn't necessary (although at initial production, Centauros were 105mm-equipped).

Even the original Centauro with the 105mm gun is some 5 tons (metric) heavier than the Stryker MGS.

Although I do see the merit of the 120mm if and only if MBT killing is a principal requirement,
the current US Stryker, based on the Piranha III chassis, isn't the ideal design to carry it, even if in a modification to the MGS' overhead gun pod currently equipped with a 105mm M68 variant gun.

On the contrary, considering all the latest enhancements that GDLS has marketted as upgrades to the US Army (and any others interested) at AUSA 2009/October, they might as well just have been better off marketting to them the Piranha V baseline vehicle, an evolutionary improvement to the line, two generations beyond where the Stryker came from.

There are a lot of issues the US Army became aware of needed fixing from the original Stryker design, based on combat experience in Iraq.

The need to improve the suspension and powertrain to handle increased weights because of extra armor is basically now creating a hybrid that will no longer be a Piranha III per se, yet not quite a Piranha IV or V, either.

But when all is said and done and the US Army has beffed up its original Strykers, one might be in position to ask if they'd just as well have switched production over to the P-V model anyway...

Might as well push it (Piranha V) to the Army under the guise of M1126-M1135 "A", "B", or whatever models...

(See the different variants of the Stryker just under halfway down on the Wiki entry here.)

I also notice that further suggestion/refinement (perhaps it was various October 2009 AUSA articles?) has GDLS offering a turret/RWS equipped with an autocannon, something arguments on this very subject a few years' back had some here suggesting, "the Stryker's role/ mission/doctrine doesn't need autocannon", while a few others of us suggested they should've included it.

And troops in the field who've used them have even suggested, "more firepower".

Apparently, there have been numerous cases of where more than a 50-cal or Mk19 would've been preferred.

In the latest offerings, GDLS seems to have heard what the troops were saying.

Question is, seeing as the US Army is buying more than 350 more Strykers, did the folks in procurement and policy-making see that the soldiers have expressed a desire for more firepower, also?

Seems they've done the route of purchasing armor upgrades.

Firepower upgrades should be a logical next step (in addition to the necessary powertrain and suspension improvements).

Quote Reply

doggtag 10/18/2009 5:05:37 PM

The thing can barely handle the 105s recoil .

You would have reduced ammo capacity

Yeah, I know we've addressed this one a hundred times easily,
but we (some of us here) have already recognized a more favorable solution to this problem.

CMI CT-CV

LAV III LEO 105

105mm V2C2

All these guns feature the capability to use high-velocity KE ammunition (OK, I'm not totally sure about the V2C2, but a high-presure 62-cal tube should allow for it).

Plus, Israel's LAHAT is already compatible with 105mm caliber, so a precision engagement capability for defense against heavier armor threats is available in the here and now.

I would think it would only be minimal effort to create a general purpose fire support variant of the LAHAT, substituting an HE warhead in place of the shaped charge.

(Wiki suggests a 4.5kg/10pound HEAT warhead...)

If we have a few infantry Strykers farther forward and some of the dismounts have portable laser designators, another 105-equipped Stryker back a few km could lob these LAHATs in at a high angle (out of direct line of sight for any enemy RPG/ATGM gunners), and a 10pound warhead isn't total overkill in areas where we're concerned with collateral damage.

Quote Reply

	News As History - November 25, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us