Adding slat armor to the M113 is A OK in my book. Cheap and effective and quick and defeats RPG's.
Posted on 01/05/2005 9:03:09 PM PST by Former Military Chick
WASHINGTON — The Army, beset with complaints that its troops are going into combat in inadequately armored Humvees, will send an older and less used class of armored personnel carriers to Iraq after spending $84 million to add armor to them.
These vehicles, both veteran warhorses, are the M113/A3 armored personnel carrier and the M577 command post carrier. Both will be tougher and safer than newly armored Humvees.
Army officials who pushed hard over the last two years for getting the M113 into duty in Iraq said it was more useful, cheaper and easier to transport than the Army's new wheeled Stryker armored vehicle, which also is in use in Iraq.
The Army and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld found themselves at the center of a firestorm last month over the pace of adding armor to the Humvee, a small transport vehicle that's been pressed into service in Iraq as a combat vehicle. Critics have charged that even with armor the Humvee is too easily destroyed by rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices.
An Army representative, who didn't want to be identified, said Monday that $84 million was being spent to add armor to 734 M113/A3s and M577s.
For the M113s, that includes hardened steel side armor, a "slat armor" cage that bolts to the side armor and protects against RPGs, anti-mine armor on the bottom and a new transparent, bulletproof gun shield on the top that vastly improves gunners' vision.
The M577, nicknamed the "high-top shoe" for its tall, ungainly silhouette, will get only slat armor and anti-mine armor. Its high sides can't take the steel armor without making the vehicle unstable and even more liable to roll over.
The slat-type armor essentially is a metal cage designed to detonate RPGs before they breach the steel armor and the light aluminum wall. Similar slat armor has been added to the Stryker vehicle.
The armor kits will be produced in the United States, the Army representative said, and installed in Kuwait.
The representative said the M113 upgrade was requested by Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the ground commander in Iraq, and approved by Gen. George Casey, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq.
The M113 typically carries a driver, a commander and 11 infantry soldiers. It can be fitted with a .50-caliber machine gun or a MK19 40 mm grenade launcher. The M113/A3 version, introduced in 1987, has a bigger turbo-charged diesel engine, an improved transmission, steering and braking package, and inside liners to suppress spall, the superheated molten metal produced by RPG and tank-round hits. It has a range of 300 miles and a road speed of more than 40 mph. It also can swim.
More than 80,000 M113s in 28 configurations have been manufactured since they were introduced in 1960, and they still do yeoman duty in many of the world's armies.
At around 13 tons, the M113 is much easier to transport than the behemoth M1A2 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle or even the wheeled Stryker.
The Army has spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying armored Humvees at $150,000 each and buying and making special tempered-steel and bulletproof-glass kits to add armor protection to the thin-skinned variety. The demand for armor on the Humvees grew as insurgents began pouring RPGs onto American patrols and convoys, and detonating deadly homemade bombs in the late summer of 2003.
The current demand in Iraq is for more than 22,000 armor-protected Humvees, a goal the Army says it will meet sometime between now and March. Its prime focus has turned now to armoring the five models of trucks that travel Iraq's dangerous roads to supply American forces.
Rumsfeld recently told a Tennessee National Guard soldier, who asked why his outfit had to scavenge dumps in Kuwait for scraps of armor for their Humvees, that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might like to have."
One serving officer, who asked not to be identified, said Rumsfeld "didn't even let us go to war with the Army we had; he made us leave half our armored vehicles at home in pursuit of lighter, faster and cheaper."
Adding slat armor to the M113 is A OK in my book. Cheap and effective and quick and defeats RPG's.
I'll forgive him a little...he saw a little in the Iadrang
I crewed on several versions of the M113 during my days in the 2nd ACR. It's a maintenance friendly vehicle that is easy do operate, not to mention durable. It's only shortcoming is the fact that it is noisy when compared to the Stryker. It is easily up-armored and can mount a multitude of offensive weapons systems.
There's something positive to be said about a vehicle design that is still in service after 40 years!
So does this mean the Stryker is a bust?
no it means strykers are 2million a pop. with the budget the army has it can refit more of these 113's protecting more soldiers. Good move, the humvee is the wrong vehicle for this job. I have seen all 5 soldiers killed in an uparmored humvee with and ied blast. I just wonder what the cost is of a M1117 gaurdian, i think those would do well too.
If the Army uses the M-113 as a Support Gun Platform. Carrying guns outside and ammo inside, instead of troops. Covoy ambushes should not be a serious problem, sarajevo. The Army should have kept the Pigs the Sandbox in the first place. Most were bought and paid for. Nearly deemed Obsolete in the late 1960s. Yet, they filled a niche very well and have stayed in use. For more than thirty years.
Jack.
I agree, I think you replied to the wrong person...
Those tracks could be a mother****** to work on, especially if you we're unlucky enough to throw both of them to the inside(Hohenfels '86).
A simple vehicle is more soldier friendly than one packed with technology, plus the logistical tail is much shorter.
Keep the track tension right and avoid the stumps! Few things worse than tossing both tracks in the German mud.
'Cept for having to short track!
These things will be excellent for a lot of uses, but still not good for supply convoy escorts.
I wish they'd just buy some of the South African armored cars. We see them around and the Army has a few, but not enough.
Your list of uses for M113 does not include "medical vehicle." Has the M113 been de-listed as such? During 3rd ID march on Baghdad I observed (from safety of my Lazy Boy) several M113s (marked) being used as medical support/evac vehicles. One I saw was an actual ER/OR.
I found that graphic using yahoo picture search function...
I had a bit of a love hate relationship with these things, loved driving them, hated working on them.I don't think anyone realized how important they could be in a modern counter insurgency except possibly the Isrealis.If momma would let me I'd gladly volunteer to go back and drive them again.
No, i think it just means they need more armored personnel carriers. That is all.
Did that once on a steep rocky upgrade in a FIST-V. Sucked.
Actually, there are many variants of the M113 for different uses, each with different model numbers. Don't recall the nomenclature for the armored ambulance, but it isn't M113.
One serving officer, who asked not to be identified, said Rumsfeld "didn't even let us go to war with the Army we had; he made us leave half our armored vehicles at home in pursuit of lighter, faster and cheaper."
The press just can't let it go without once more quoting Rumsfeld out of context, can they?
Even if half their audience already knows it's a misrepresentation, they're going to repeat it so as to misinform the other half.
Actually, the M113 Medical Evacuation Vehicle has been in service for many years. Was just curious if it had been discontinued as it was not listed in post #6. It had after all, been "re-newed" in 1996 as M113A4 Medical Evacuation Vehicle. And used as recently as Spring, 2003, to my knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.