I have been asking that question for the past 6 months.
photo please
An M113 is not practical for moving rapidly. It's armor is only thick enough to repel M-16 rounds.
No insight at all.
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.
Sidewalk Superintenents and Second Guessers: No Openings at this time.
Pentagon Full.
The Mgmnt.
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.
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...
I think you would be happier if we had more Bradley's in country, not more M113s.
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.
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.
Humvee is not an APC but a utility vehicle. Different purpose.
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?