Posted on 01/28/2005 11:13:47 AM PST by veracious
Spell checker can really mess you up.
GOOGLE not Goggler.
The 3rd Infantry Division is already reveiving rebuilt M-113A3s for its deployment to Iraq this coming spring. They will use them inplace of Humvees.
The following is from Stratfor.com http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM
January 14, 2005: The U.S. Army is upgrading the armor on 734 M113/A3s and M577s armored vehicles, at a cost of $115,000 each, and sending the vehicles into Iraq. The 16 foot long and 8.75 foot wide M113 is a 1960s vintage armored personnel carrier that was replaced, in the 1980s, by the larger and heavier M-2 Bradley. The army still has over 10,000 M113s, but they are used in secondary roles, or kept in storage. The M577 is a M113 modified (with a higher rear compartment) to serve as a command vehicle. The M113 served effectively during the Vietnam war, and was the main American APC (armored personnel carrier) throughout most of the Cold War. About 80,000 M113s were manufactured. At 13 tons (probably closer to 15 tons with the added armor), the M113 is lighter than the M-2 and Stryker. For many chores in Iraq, especially convoy protection, the M113 could be effective (despite its max speed of only 65 kilometers an hour, about a third less than what many convoys make). However, the M113 will be expensive to use in Iraq, because it is a tracked vehicle, and those tracks wear out quickly and have to be replaced at great expense (over $10,000) every 6,000 kilometers (or less, as traveling on roads wears out the tracks faster). However, the M113 has proved to be a very flexible platform, lending itself to modifications by many of the dozens of armed forces that still use it. Some countries have added turrets, mounting 25mm cannon. It’s likely that some M113s would be equipped with the new remote control .50 caliber machine-gun turret (as is used in some Strykers). One advantage the Stryker has is its wheels, which make it quieter in action. This has proved to be a major advantage in Iraq. But on the convoy routes, it's armor and firepower that count most.
Who would shoot at one with an M-16? I'd want to be protected against an AK-47.
ok, the Hummer is a small diesel powered truck. That means wheels. It is narrower, faster, and smaller than the 113. Its armor can stop rifle rounds, but not RPGs. The Hummer can go through narrow streets where the Bradley and M113 can not go.
The M113 is tracked, diesel powered, and amphibious if everything works right. Its armor will also deflect bullets, but will not stop the RPG. It will narrow the RPG round to a thin stream, saving most people inside it, but not saving the unlucky guys that sit between the entrance point and the exit point.
The Bradley is large, turreted, and heavily armed. It's armor is pretty much proof against the RPG. It is tracked, and very loud. Now don't get me wrong, all diesel engines are pretty loud, but different vehicles have different size mufflers, and different size engines. The current versions of the Bradley are mostly not amphibious.
They have different characteristics, and different uses. If you use a Hummer in a stand up fight: it is a big mistake. If you use a Bradley in an attempt to chase down your foe in a city, shame on you, it is a big mistake. In a lot of ways the M113 sits between two stools. If you want to dash quickly and quietly to gain information, you can't. If you want to engage in a stand up, the bradley that provides overhead cover and all round armor is much better. If you want to get close enough to see, but use something else to do the killing, the M-113 is a good option, but you will have to open up the hatches, and take enemy fire to shoot back.
Yes, I have insight on this. During one of my lunches with Don Rumsfeld, I told him it would not be a good idea to send the M-113s and he concurred with my opinion. Wish I could tell you the reason but it's classified.
It was a political decision from the “math professor” warriors in OSD. It had to do with image they wanted to project, not safety.
A M113 A3, of which 700+ are already in Kuwait; would have been much better than an unarmed Humvee, and no it’s not slow; an A3 can keep up with an M1, pop the top you have 360 security. With the Cav kit, and the additional armor, especially the Stryker RPG “slat stand off armor”, you have a much more survivable platform than a factory up armored Humvee. A Stryker may be quieter, but they have a huge turning radius, 113’s can neutral steer, a great advantage in urban terrain.
Qatar-6, your thoughts?
I meant 5.56mm rounds. A fifty-caliber machine gun will chew up an M-113. Plus they're slow. One that runs good will go 35 mph down hill with a good tailwind.
I think you meant to say 'pivot steer' or 'pivot turn'.
Nope, When I went to Armor officer basic (CAV tract) AOB 81-1; it was called neutral steer. The old A1/A2’s would run about 40MPH flat & level. The A3, model has a bigger engine, tranny, to allow it to keep up with the M1’s and Bradley’s.; not to mention out side fuel tanks and Kevlar spall lining. They are good sound vehicles; the basic aluminum armor will defeat up to most 7.62. See post below; he said it all.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1265981/posts
M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
The original M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) helped to revolutionize mobile military operations. The vehicles were able to carry 11 soldiers plus a driver and track commander under armor protection across hostile battlefield environments. More importantly, the new vehicles were air transportable, air-droppable, and swimmable, allowing planners to incorporate APCs in a much wider range of combat situations, including many "rapid deployment" scenarios. The M113s were so successful that they were quickly identified as the foundation for a family of vehicles. Early derivatives included both command post (M577) and mortar carrier (M106) configurations.
Originally, the M113 APC was intended merely as a troop carrier-a means of transport. Doctrine stated that the infantry were to dismount and engage the enemy. It soon became apparent that the firepower of the .50-caliber machine gun, coupled with the vehicle's armor protection and mobility, produced a shock effect on the enemy. Some advisers and commanders realized that since the Viet Cong had no effective weapons to fight armor the M113 could be used as a mounted armored fighting vehicle.
Perhaps the best way to judge the success of the M113 is to examine the enemy reaction to it. The Viet Cong were not prepared for M113's when the South Vietnamese first used them in mid-1962. The Viet Cong doctrine stressed occupation of dug-in positions in the face of APC assaults, and enemy soldiers were soon learning crude methods of destroying the M113. Holes the size of an APC, nicknamed tiger traps by advisers, were soon found in delta roads. Observing the difficulties that APC units had in crossing canals, the Viet Cong used canals as obstacles in their positions, and frequently they mined possible crossing sites.
In 1965 the Viet Cong published a comprehensive and fairly accurate training document entitled Attack on M113 APC. This document listed characteristics of the APC; organization, equipment, and strength of mechanized units; tactics used by APC units; methods of attacking an APC; and some training techniques. Included were instructions for using the new antitank weapons. In the spring of 1963 the Viet Cong had begun to use recoilless rifles with 57-mm. high explosive, antitank rounds, and the number of hits on M113's had increased dramatically by the fall of 1963. Although the rounds often penetrated, they did not usually destroy the M113. Late in that year, armor-piercing .30-caliber ammunition along with a large number of automatic weapons was found in a Viet Cong cache in the delta. The extent of the Viet Cong antiarmor equipment became apparent when, in August 1963, an armor-piercing grenade was discovered. The first 75-mm. recoilless rifle was captured in September, and in December the first M113 was damaged by a 75-mm. round. This arms buildup continued into 1964, when a variety of mines, both pressure and electrically detonated, accounted for the majority of damaged and destroyed vehicles.
By 1965 the Viet Cong was using armor-defeating weapons as low as company level among regular and provincial units. Newly organized weapons platoons, companies, and battalions armed with 57-mm. and 75-mm. recoilless rifles and .50-caliber machine guns were issued the rocket propelled antitank grenade, RPG2. For several years this weapon with its B40 warhead was the principal enemy weapon against armor. Eventually, the RPG2 was replaced by the RPG7, an improved antitank grenade with a more lethal warhead, greater range, and a better sight.
The Vietnam-era M113 ACAV (Armored Cavalry Assault Vehicle) version is a very important chapter in the long and proud history of the M113. Following lessons learned, in particular the loss of 14 ARVN .50 cal gunners at the Battle of Ap Bac in January 1963, the standard M113 was upgraded both in armament and armour protection to the M-113.
Two M60 GPMG's were mounted, one either side of the rear hatch, and fitted with protective gun shields. An FMC-designed armoured gun shield/turret combination was also added to the commanders cupola to afford him protection when manning the .50 cal machine gun. This vehicle was designated the M-113 Armored Cavalry vehicle (ACAV).
As a result of lessons learned, when the 11th ACR shipped to RVN their M-113's were fitted with the ew FMC gun shields and had additional M-60's mounted either side of the rear top hatch. The 11th ACR coined the term ACAV which soon became the 'official' designation of this modified M-113.
M113A1 Armored Personnel Carrier
The first major upgrade came in 1964 with the introduction of the M113A1 package which replaced the original gasoline engine with a 212 horsepower diesel package. The new power train was soon incorporated into the existing vehicle family as the M113A1, M577A1, and M106A1, as well as several new derivative systems. Some of these new derivatives were based on the armored M113 chassis (the M125A1 mortar carrier and M741 "Vulcan" air defense vehicle) while others were based on an unarmored version of the chassis (including the M548 cargo carrier, M667 "Lance" missile carrier, and M730 "Chaparral" missile carrier).
M113A2 Armored Personnel Carrier
Continuing modernization efforts led to the introduction of the A2 package of suspension and cooling enhancements in 1979. As with previous enhancements, these upgrades resulted in further proliferation of the FOV.
M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier
Most of the M113 family that saw service during Desert Storm were underpowered A2 level vehicles. M113A3 that were in the conflict kept pace with the Abrams equipped maneuver forces. Since 1987 the PM office has been modernizing the M113 fleet to the A3. This block modification should be completed for FP1 by 2001 with current funding.
Today's M113 fleet includes about four thousand M113A3 vehicles equipped with the most recent recent A3 RISE (Reliability Improvements for Selected Equipment) package. The standard RISE package includes an upgraded propulsion system (turbocharged engine and new transmission), greatly improved driver controls (new power brakes and conventional steering controls), external fuel tanks, and 200 AMP alternator with 4 batteries. Additional A3 improvements, include incorporation of spall liners and provisions for mounting external armor.
The M113A3, a full-tracked armored personnel carrier provides protected transportation and cross country mobility for personnel and cargo. A light armored vehicle weighing 27,200 pounds, it carries 11 infantry personnel in addition to the vehicle driver and track commander. It is capable of sustained speeds of 41 mph on level roads and accelerates from 0 to 35 mph in 27 seconds (this compares to 69 seconds for the M113A2).
The M113A3 is a product improved version of the M113A2 with improved transmission and engine. The U.S. Army first identified the need to up-power the M113A2 carrier in the mid-1970s. This need was driven by increases in vehicle weight and a requirement to increase the mobility and survivability of the system. As a result, the "RISE" powertrain was developed and tested at Yuma and Aberdeen Proving Grounds. However, application of the new powertrain was deferred due to a lack of funds.
In 1984 a decision was made to incorporate the RISE package, improved driver controls, spall liners, external fuel tanks and provisions for installation of an external armor kit on an M113 chassis. Additionally, a bolt-on armor kit providing 14.5 mm ballistic protection was developed and tested. Except for the mounting provisions the external armor appliquÈ was not incorporated for production.
The new X200-4/4A hydrostatic steer transmission permits use of a more powerful engine, the 275 HP turbocharged Detroit Diesel 6V53T, and eliminates the transfer case and controlled differential. The RISE powerpack increases fuel economy, acceleration, hill climbing speed and braking capabilities and allows the vehicle to maintain speed through corners by accelerating the outer track rather than braking the inner track as on the A2. The increase in horsepower also allows installation of an external armor kit (which increases the gross vehicle weight to 31,000 pounds) and provides mobility comparable to currently fielded vehicles such as the M1 tank and M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
Steering is improved with an automotive-type steering yoke and foot brake arrangement which improves driver control, lessens fatigue and simplifies driver training from that of the A1/A2 steering/braking laterals. Due to load matching ability and increased steering capability, cross country performance is also improved.
Crew survivability is increased by the addition of spall suppression liners and locating the fuel tanks externally, on the rear of the vehicle. The inside of the vehicle (sides, roof and rear) are covered with spall suppression liners which limit troop injuries from the effect of overmatching weapons by restricting the spread of spall when a round penetrates the hull. External fuel tanks free up 16 cubic feet of usable space inside the vehicle and reduce the fire hazard inside the crew compartment. Two tanks and independent valving provide redundancy in the fuel system allowing continued operation when one tank is damaged.
External differences between M113A2 and M113A3 include external fuel tanks and provisions for the installation of an add-on-armor kit.
The M113A3 was type classified Standard. All new APC vehicles produced since 1987 and all converted vehicles since 1989 are the A3 variant. Vehicles have been fielded both in the U.S. and in foreign countries. The M113A3 was initially fielded in 1987 and U.S. production of new M113A3s was completed in 1992. M113A3s are currently being produced for Thailand as a direct sale. Conversion of M113A2 vehicles to M113A3 vehicles has been underway at United Defense, L.P. since 1994. Previously, conversions of M113A2 vehicles to M113A3 vehicles were completed at Red River and Mainz Army Depots, as well as in Korea.
The future M113A3 fleet will include a number of vehicles that will have high speed digitial networks and data transfer systems. The M113A3 digitization program supports the Army's Modernization Plan by applying applique hardware, software, and installation kits and hosting them in the M113A3 FOV. Current plans call for these systems to be integrated into the M113A3 FOV by the year 2006.
M113A3+/M113A4 Infantry Fighting Vehicle Light (IFVL)
The Infantry Fighting Vehicle Light (IFVL) is a light infantry fighting vehicle based on the proven MTVL chassis and featuring a one-man stabilized turret is convertible from existing assets or available as new production. It offers the exceptional automotive performance of the MTVL chassis combined with the substantial firepower of the stabilized 25mm chaingun and 7.62mm machinegun. The vehicle is powered by a 400hp 6V53TIA electronically controlled engine driving through the latest X200-4B cross drive transmission. The IFVL uses many common M113/MTVL components that help insure high reliability, availability, and maintainability, plus a proven design, common maintenance techniques and an established logistics infrastructure. Applique armor provides the flexibility to alter the armor package as the threat level changes or technology advances. The vehicle carries a crew of two or three and up to 10 dismount soldiers. As with all M113 variants,it is roll-on/roll-off transportable on a C130.
Sorry, I will learn how to post the pictures, next time.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. All US tracked vehicles already use rubber tracks to the best of my knowledge. They're as loud as they are *with* rubber tracks already.
I've done 60 mph in an uparmored humvee on a flat, level road (just outside of Eagle Base in Bosnia.) The only thing that can keep up with that is an Abrams.
Humvee is not an APC but a utility vehicle. Different purpose.
All your points are correct, except the maintenance. As tracked vehicles go, M113s are pretty easy to work on.
Interesting...I was mech infantry my whole career, and I never saw any variety of M113 that could keep up with an Abrams... hell, sometimes it was even hard for the Bradleys to keep up with 'em. Not flaming or arguing, just personal observation.
Many have been modified similarly to Vietnam ACAVs, in that they have the shield and bathtub armor for the TC behind the 50 cal and mounts for 7.62 weapons to fire off the side.
They would not be as effective as habitual convoy escorts for the same reason they were'nt used as habitual convoy escorts in Vietnam. Specifically, tracked vehicles require more maintenance. With the miles we put on our convoy escort units, maintaining an M-113 vice armored hummer fleet would be a bitch.
I personally don't like armored hummers in that if you're not in the gunner's position you might as well be in Das Boot. You can't see a lot and can hear even less
I actually perferred the steel plate boiler armor I had on my hummer. Protect you against shrapnel from IEDs and still give you enough vision to see out. Better to see and hear from. Easier to shoot from too
That's just me though. I knew plenty of people who swore by armored hummers
One of the biggest lessons from Iraq is the effectiveness of armor in a city environment. Tanks and Bradleys combined with dismounted Infantry and supporting armored vehicles have really shown themselves to be a winning combination
The old saw "armor can't survive in cities" just isn't true. Unless you do something stupid like the Russians in Grozny
We've actually got a pretty good mix of vehicles in Iraq now
Thems my 2 Cents
all the best
Qatar-6
Isn't this just like asking why the army isn't flying "B" model Huey's?
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.