(Vanity) Why use Humvees in Iraq w/ 13,000 M-113 available?

1/28/05 | self

[veracious]

Anybody have any insight into why we chose to up armour Humvees rather than just deploy M-113s?

[TXBSAFH]

I have been asking that question for the past 6 months.

[The Wizard]

photo please

[writer33]

An M113 is not practical for moving rapidly. It's armor is only thick enough to repel M-16 rounds.

[AppyPappy]

No insight at all.

[Gefreiter]

That's a fairly popular question in some circles for awhile now.

Last I heard, there was a series of pre-positioned '113s that were being upgraded.

It's just too bad that it took so long to make it happen.

[elhombrelibre]

We are going to begin using them. They are moving more and more of them to the theater. I suspect the new Iraqi army will get many of them.

[veracious]

I wonder if it is economics. Maybe the cost difference is big. I mean duh it would cost a lot to ship, prep, and a _lot_ more to operate them. Does the cost difference even show up when we're talking about total war costs of (what) $300B ? Ideas anyone?

[CBart95]

Sidewalk Superintenents and Second Guessers: No Openings at this time.
Pentagon Full.
The Mgmnt.

[elhombrelibre]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm

[Terabitten]

Let's see:

A M113 is expensive, slow, and harder to maintain. It doesn't have the range or the speed to do any real urban patrolling. Tracks in general are hell on the infrastructure, like roads and sidewalks.

M113s would just be RPG magnets. They can't accelerate out of a kill zone like a humvee can. There's lots of places in an urban environment that a wheeled vehicle can go that a track can't, or shouldn't.

Lots of good reasons not to use M113s.

[TRY ONE]

M-113 Units?

Sometimes it makes no difference. Recently, one of our tanks ran over an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and it flipped the tank, killing 6 or so soldiers.

[donozark]

Klinton dumped many of them offshore Louisiana/FL Keys as reefs to support fish.

They are tracked vehicles. Loud. Not nearly as impervious to destruction as many think. Review Vietnam stats. 27 of every 100 Armor Crewmen (MOS 11E) sent to VN were KIA...Highest loss rate of any MOS. Recall pics/news reels of VN...why do you think so many GIs rode topside on these things?

Lastly, Humvee designed to replace Jeep. Uparmor a Jeep and see how much good it does...

[Road Warrior ‘04]

M-113

[Blueflag]

I think you would be happier if we had more Bradley's in country, not more M113s.

[Blueflag]

IIRC, the M-113 holds 11 mounted infantry, the Bradley 9. Bradley has a crew of 3, versus 2 (?) for the M-113.

WRT another post about crew losses in VN -- didn't those M-113s have the big internal fuel tanks and no spall liners?

[mountainlyons]

I saw an APC that got hit by an RPG and the smoke grenades detonated and blew the APC to pieces. The 50 cal machine gun never was found. Give me the hummer or the good old m151 thanks.

[Blueflag]

Oooops -- bad math. 6 soldiers in the rear, and squeeze one more in behind the driver = 7, not 9. Plus three crew. 10 total in the Bradley.

[fireforeffect]

1. HMMWV has wheels. M113A3 has tracks.

2. Brought to you by the same guy that brought in the black berets for all. (Note: I am not a ranger)

The real question is why are we spending all this dough on up-armoring HMMWV's when we could be buying th M117 FSV? (The M117 Forward Security Vehicle is a four wheeled armored car, just like a striker)

As to the mobility comments. The M113A3 is more maneuverable than an armored HMMWV (can turn in its own length) It floats (sort of). Replace the steel tracks with rubber/Kevlar tracks and it is as quiet. As fast as an up-armored HMMWV.

Survivability. M113A3, armored vehicle. HMMWV, bigger jeep.
M113A3, 1 inch armor. HMMWV, fiberglass.
M113A3, Steel/Kevlar add-on armor plus Kevlar spaal panels inside. HMMWV, add on Kevlar.

The M113A1's in Vietnam were gasoline powered, fuel tanks on the inside. M113A3's are diesel, fuel tanks outside.

Goggler United Defense for the full specs on the M113A3.