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.

 

 

 

 

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.

It is extremely rare that MBT's face off, much less IFV's or Wheeled APC's.  It would indeed be a surprise to EVER have the need for a Stryker to fire at a MBT.  But perhaps they're also looking at the export market.

Given that the US has chosen a new guided mortar round, if a Stryker is going to have a 120mm weapon it should be something like the Patria NEMO auto 120mm gun/mortar system.  Now you have precision direct fire AND precision indirect fire in the same package.  Give it a cannister and a thermobaric round, and a 3P fuse for timed airburst direct fire, and boy-howdy you got some bad mojo ideally suited for Iraq and afghanistan.

Why use guns when dismounted infantrymen have Javelins?

 

Other than defensive missions, I can't see why anyone wants to deploy SBCT in offensive against enemy armored brigades. One doesn't need tanks to defeat a Stryker. WW2 German Pak. 38 can make a bad day for Stryker crew.

1. Firing a Javelin at every (perceived or foreseeable) threat/target will get very expensive, very fast.

Not everything needs that level of HEAT warhead to destroy it, either,

even though,

certainly,

there have been instances in both current theaters where troops so equipped were more than eager to scratch those itchy trigger fingers by lobbing off those expensive Javelins at every chance (chances where AT4s, LAWs, or Mk19s might have sufficed).

 

2. Fortunately for the US Army (and in part, the USMC, for their similar, but earlier generation, LAVs),

no one uses PaK38s anymore.

(For all intents and purposes, a 37mm PaK36 could just as well punch a hole in a Stryker, but no one uses those anymore, either.)

That still doesn't help the fact that Strykers are only, in the latest models, base-armored against 14.5mm HMG ammo (can't verify if that's ball or AP ammo: it DOES generate greater MV and impact energy than any 50-cal ball or AP).

The slat cage we see to prevent RPG impacts, that won't deter anyone with a well-placed ZSU-23 system hidden in ambush,

from seriously butchering the vehicle before the other Strykers' CROWS or dismounts can silence the enemy gun.

For that matter, the hull may indeed be 14.5mm proof,

but the tires aren't,

neither is the actual CROWS system and its expensive optics: let loose a burst of 14.5 at the vehicle

(especially bad if it's a twin or quad AA mount),

and you're bound to wreck something of enough importance that the vehicle is effectivel taken out of action

(the CROWS is NOT protected by the slat armor. Even a decent sniper armed with 7.62 could be smart enough to target and disable the CROWS rather than shoot any nearby dismounts...).

The Stryker was conveived and committed to before the true nature of occupational 'wars' was fully understood:  The real need is of course for MRAPs, and where the terrain is too rough or threat is too great, real IFVs. 

 

Advancement in projectiles now requires a 30+ ton vehicle to withstand 25mm+ direct fire.  Bog a stryker down with that much armor and you've lost all of its supposed advangages.

 

 

 

 

The Stryker was conveived and committed to before the true nature of occupational 'wars' was fully understood:  The real need is of course for MRAPs, and where the terrain is too rough or threat is too great, real IFVs. 

 

Advancement in projectiles now requires a 30+ ton vehicle to withstand 25mm+ direct fire.  Bog a stryker down with that much armor and you've lost all of its supposed advangages.

 

 

 

 

The MGS could well become a tank killer, maybe against T-72s and the like, there have been quite a few light, cheap poorly armoured tank killers with killer guns, the M-18 Hellcat being one.   

My Idea of a modern 120mm MGS would be:

1. A wider chassis.

2. Greater protection vs IFV weapons

3. Active Defence Systems + ERA + Defensive Jammers

4. A full EW suite including offensive jammers

5. Autoloader and crew-less turret

6. Full 360 day/night situational awareness

7. Simplicity of design and repair (fewer parts etc...)

8. The 120mm of course with a remote 50cal as well.

9. Laser designator. 

You DO realize of course that numbers 1-6, 8, & 9 pretty much negate #7, right?