Canada did have 5 Leo's in the former Yugo. check out this link for a report on how well they did in comparison to the Italian Centauro (MGS type) vehicle.link...

Actually the Centauro is not truly an "MGS type" vehicle because it avoided the one fatal flaw which totally doomed the MGS to failure.

Beyond the inherent compromises of the LAV-III, first there were the US requirements that make the Stryker really a very different vehicle from the LAV-III or even the US Marine Corps' LAV-25.    The LAV-III is a good enough vehicle for its purposes.  The US modifications that make the baseline Stryker introduced a lot of costs with very little return on the extra investment -- and also introduced some new problems.  Add to that the simple fact that the US ran a procurement for the Stryker based on rigged tests and has been employing its Strykers in roles that were never really appropriate for this vehicle.  The US material requirement that resulted in the Stryker was for a family of Battle Taxi vehicles.  Of all the Stryker variants, only two were ever intended to be fighting vehicles (the MGS and the ATGM) - all the other variants are either support vehicles or taxis.  In today's combat zone, the Stryker is the greatest thing since sliced bread when used in place of a HMMWV, but it really doesn't belong anywhere you wouldn't have used a HMMWV in the first place.

Given that the US had decided to use a highly modified LAV-III chassis as the basis for the entire family of vehicles, then came the next debacle.  Reminiscent of the battles between Infantry and Cavalry Branches in the early days of mechanized forces, there was another squabble within the US Army over who would be proponent for the different variants of the Stryker and how much control each proponent would have. 

 

The Chemical Corps was the obvious proponent for the NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle, but they wanted a Fox, not a LAV.  The Chief of Staff of the Army insisted they take the LAV-based Stryker chassis, so the NBCRV ended up being basically a Stryker hull with the back end chopped off and the back end of a Fox welded in place.

 

Things were worse for the MGS.  Armor branch became proponent for the MGS, the Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV), and the Commander's Vehicle (CV).  No one paid very much attention to the RV and CV, but Armor needed to flex their collective muscles about the MGS and insisted on making a wheeled mini-tank out of it instead of the Infantry Support Vehicle that the requirement had originally called for.  The choice of the M68 105mm gun effectively doomed the MGS. 

 

Yes, you can fit a NATO 105mm gun on a Stryker chassis; 

and yes you can fit a NATO 105mm gun on an armored vehicle that can fly in a C130;

BUT YOU CAN'T fit a NATO 105mm gun on a Stryker chassis AND make it fly in a C130 "combat ready"

 

ANY wheeled vehicle chassis simply loses too much interior volume to let you mount a NATO 105mm gun and autoloader and adequate ammo storage all on a vehicle that still meets the size and weight limits of the C130 aircraft. The US Army once built an Armored Gun System which did carry the M68 gun and was capable of transport on a C130 in a combat ready configuration, but that was a tracked vehicle.  For any given weight and exterior size, a tracked vehicle chassis has more interior volume than a wheeled vehicle chassis of the same weight and size.

 

The weight limit for C130 transport required stripping much of the "standard" Stryker equipment and even then the vehicle has to have vital major components removed before it is light enough for a C130 to carry it.

 

Also the size limits of the C130 combined with the interior volume limitations of the Stryker/LAV chassis and the dimensions of standard one-piece NATO 105mm ammunition required the use of a highly complex autoloader mechanism that has never quite worked right.

 

The result of the US Army insisting on the MGS being a Stryker and being C130-transportable combined with Armor Branch insisting it needed the NATO 105mm gun, resulted in a vehicle that is neither truely combat ready when stripped enough to transport in a C130 nor adequately protected when reassembled after transport.

 

So, what does all this have to do with the Itali

"Like the first Strykers sent to Iraq which were stationed up north in safe areas, the US Army will find a way to show off the MGS for photo ops and press releases without having it attempt the tactical roles it was supposedly designed to fill."

 

The first Strykers were stationed in Mosul, which has been a hotbed of insurgency.

Canada gave up on the MGS, no stomach for the unknown. The first MGSs went straight into the fray at Taji. The first engagements leveled hotbeds of insurgent snipers,,later in Date Orchards insurgents playing hide and seek were shredded by numerous canister rounds. now when an MGS pulls up to a suspected hide out the tactic is to wait out back for the cowards as they flee the building...thus puting the fear into the enemy without firing a shot. Kinda like we did on the East West Border in Germany. Limitations? only in the imagination of the Infantry Plt Ldr on the ground. New Vids of the devestating effect of the 105 and it's numerous munitions are becomming available,,,nay sayers prepare to shift to something else...MRAPS? too big and bulky to transport? Semi Trucks on steroids? pick an easy target...no one will blame you.

I've been fielding Strykers for 6 years, not a week goes by that I don't get a thank you from a soldier that lived thru a 500 lb bomb blast and drove away to tell about it.

I went "over there" to see the first Platoons of MGSs off on their way North. They did so with great confidence in their equipment. But this does not make for good controversial rhetoric. It is as many great things our Army does,,lost in the left spun stories generated to sell commercial spot between the news spots. The truth is never convient for some.