It's hard out there for a crew working the Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS). In addition to battling insurgents in the cities of Iraq, the soldiers assigned to the armored support vehicle have had to fend off attacks from critics back home, including some in the military itself. The 2008 Pentagon Authorization bill included language to limit funds for MGS until the Army drafts a report detailing fixes to the vehicle. In an annual report that the Army disputed, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation described the MGS as “not operationally effective.” Media reports quoting crews unhappy with some design elements also surfaced this year, further diminishing the Stryker’s combat reputation.
The MGS has the same body as nine other Stryker variants, so it shares design flaws common to them all, including vulnerable wheels, inadequate armor and cramped operating conditions. Other complaints specific to the MGS variant revolve around computer system freezes, and instability caused by its large, tanklike main gun. “The Army decided to try and put an M68A1 105mm gun on a Stryker chassis, and the results have been disastrous,” anti-terrorism expert Victor O’Reilly wrote in an oft-quoted 2003 report he prepared for Rep. Jim Saxton.
But try telling some of the Stryker MGS crews that their battle-tested vehicles are not effective, and you get a more nuanced appraisal. In a new round of on-the-ground reviews from U.S. troops (a master gunner also offered his defense of and suggestions for improved Abrams tanks), next-gen armored vehicles appear to be improving safety in Iraq. |