The history of a failed project - M1128 Mobile Gun System
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ย. 2024
- What happens if you take a general purpose wheeled armored fighting vehicle and slap a big gun on top of it? Exactly. A light tank which will get stuck in the mud because it has… wheels. No but seriously, what do you get? You know there have been many different combinations of many different chassis and guns from many different countries. And this doesn’t exclude The United States of America. They just went up and took a Stryker and mounted a 105mm gun on it and called it M1128 Mobile gun system. Interesting. Very interesting. So interesting that I decided to make a video about it.
So hello and welcome and enjoy this video.
![I'm DESTROYING War Thunder by Bombing EVERYTHING with OP Missiles!🔥| [STOCK] Su-25SM3 Experience!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nhk8b2-4AMo/mqdefault.jpg)
![I'm DESTROYING War Thunder by Bombing EVERYTHING with OP Missiles!🔥| [STOCK] Su-25SM3 Experience!](/img/tr.png)
Italian and French troops liked the idea of a wheeled tank-ish vehicles (B1 Centauro and AMX-30RC) since it reduced fuel consumption and maintenance costs.
The US *SERIOUSLY* needs to get over making things para-capable. It's outdated and causes unnecessary compromises on vehicles that don't need to be there. The Army's fascination with parachuting shit into a combat zone is like that dude who peaked in high school and won't stfu about how he threw the gamewinning pass at Homecoming.
@@patrickbateman312 Nahh hqhahhaah😭
Not even the basic stryker apc was never air droppable according to icv requirements since it exceeded the 19ton max c-130 payload when fully armed and fueled, and the C-130 was too narrow and low height to carry a stryker with its weapons mounted
The m10 booker looks promising.
@@rickfastly2671that cant be airdropped its just light for insane ptw
@@rowanyuh6326 I believe it’s easier to transport than an Abram’s so for QRF units it has some use.
I really wonder if it was just a stopgap that stayed in service longer than needed because congress couldn’t decide on an actual light tank
Maybe
It wasn't a 'stop gap', it filled the niche it was designed to which was SPECIFIC to the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, it wasn't nor was ever intended to get farmed out to the IBCT's or ABCT's. It got REPLACED for two reasons: 1st Design flaws with the Gun System itself that lead to perennially low operational readiness, even after there was significant modification to the gun AND a whole doctrinal restructuring which was intended to improve maintenance. 2nd It's role as light-anti armor and direct fire support was done better by the Stryker Dragoon and CROWS-J equipped Strykers working in tandem neither of which had the maintenance issues the MGS did.
Propaganda. They just throw money at it till the problem leaves, and they wonder why they're the poorest country overall.
8:00 , I don't recall MGS being ever advertised as actually protecting from ammo fires, rather the intent was to place all the ammo low in the hull where it's less likely to be hit, similar to the autoloader on soviet/russian MBTs.
Yeah that‘s true. I saw a drawing of the internals and the autoloader carousel (quite different from the Russian ones) was quite low. The autoloader mechanism brought the shells from down there all the way up to the gun.
Also the m1128 could not fire full power 105mm projectiles due to recoil being too big for the stryker chassis. meanwhile the m8 ags had no problem firing the full pressure 105mm ammo.
The turret sucked balls. More precisely the autoloader. With a Centauro or a CV40 105 turret, it would've been sufficient and not an unrelible trainwreck
That all would be true provided they would have been able to do that while fitting within the weight and size limits. MGS was required to be flown around in a C-130, which means that it had to weigh under 19 tons and B1 is 24 tons. The M1128 was under 19 tons, but paid for it by all manner of problems of it's own, including the temperamental autoloader.
@@vojtechpribyl7386 They should've built a low 8x8 platform first and then build a box on top/raised the roof. That way, you can build a proper MGS akin to Rooikat/AMX-10RC. You get a lower vehicle without having to resort to M1128 voodoo, and with the lower gun, you get better shooting performance.
Raise the roof and you can have your regular Dragoons, Medevacs, etc.
@@ABCantonese They clearly wanted the streamlined logistics from having it all on the Stryker platform. Plus I'm not sure how much space does the 105 mm need as making the thing lower could also require it to be wider and thus not fit within the C-130 cargo bay.
@@vojtechpribyl7386 Seems like they over-streamlined it😁
But true, I can't find a lower yet narrower gun system.
@@ABCantonese I think that the turret came from the earlier Expeditionary Tank project, but that thing was also over 20 tons. 105 mm is certainly possible on a lighter wheeled chassis, but I'm not sure how much does that go together with the full power NATO rounds. AMX-10RC for example has a 105 mm gun, but it was limited to lower powered french HEAT rounds.
I really hate the striker, but great vid!
Haha wow but hey thanks 😂
Another case of America not willing to adopt something better but rather build something new themselves.
@@ABCantoneseWhat exactly do you mean by adopt? What I understand you‘re saying is that they should buy other tanks and vehicles and not use/build their own?
@@bobiwt Upon checking the dates, I probably have to eat my words. I feel like the US sometimes will reinvent the wheel just so they can produce the product in house and put some pride in it. Case in point, adopting the M14 instead of the FAL or G3.
But in the case of the Stryker, I keep thinking its Western competitors were created around the same time... I'm mostly wrong. To be frank, I'm team Patria, and the AMV managed to be just 2 years younger... But still, never would've made it to trial against the Stryker. Seems like the only Western wheeled vehicles available before the Stryker are the LAVs and Piranhas... In which case, yeah, I guess, you might as well get the Stryker....
Add: but yes, what you asked is what I meant. No matter what the situation is, production will be in the US anywhere just due to the sheer demand.
PS. Was there ever an 8*8 or 6*6 M1117? Also, what happened to 6x6s? Seems like no one is using them anymore.
@@bobiwt Dang it, my response here got cut too? Dammit, TH-cam, why do you bother with comments????! Let the channel decide if a comment needs to be cut.
Nice video!
thanks
If I remember they were operated with canister and anti structural rds
I bet whoever made those clips is really good at the game :)
Nah this mf died too often
Can u do more videos abt munititons such as the ptaeb episode or talk abt weird local vehicule modifications
@@deltaflapitch3489 sure!
@@bobiwt thx man i recomend seing the modified technicals and tanks used by the moroccan army or algeria theyr pretty original
They did manage to fix all the problems with it, but by that time, it has gained a bad reputation, and now the MPF is a thing.
Failed only due to piss poor design
Cool video
@@gadielplays2419 Thank you!
It's not a tank, that's not what it's for
Just make a manual loader version
I didn't know US generals are fools with obsession of air-transportibility for their wheeled vechicels like Polish ones used to be up to recently. This and requirement for amphibious capability really made Rosomak APC much weaker than it could have been. Especially in armour, which is pathetic.
Some useless requirements made many vehicles worse than they should have been. I mean look at the BMP-3 for example. Overall a good vehicle but just for its amphibious capability they sacrificed A LOT.
@@bobiwtseriously it's like they invited a bunch of 12 year old when designing the thing: "Oh, it must have a 105mm, a 30mm auto cannon, a 12.7mm machine gun, grenade launchers, (because why not) and is light enough to be paradropped"
i fucking HATE the stryker
And I fucking hate the Gepard and yet we have to deal with it
yk but we all have that one vehicle we hate
@@bobiwt Gepard? The leopard 1 anti aircraft gun? Why? Or another Gepard?
Why?
@@patrickbateman312 WHEELS
@@ABCantonese Because it always shoots me down 😭