[SaltyJoe]

I haven't been in a M113, but I've been in an Marine AAV. If they're similar tracked armored vehicles, then the problems would be the same: slow acceleration, tears up unimproved roads (harder for the host nation infrastructure to repair the roads), gas guzzling, hard to maintain compared to other vehicles, doesn't have a better advantage in terms of fire power (Humvees can carry same or similar firepower), and there are plenty of blind spots when the occupants are buttoned up or even semi-buttoned up.

[AH-1S Pilot]

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?

[Terabitten]

I haven't been in a M113, but I've been in an Marine AAV. If they're similar tracked armored vehicles, then the problems would be the same: slow acceleration, tears up unimproved roads (harder for the host nation infrastructure to repair the roads), gas guzzling, hard to maintain compared to other vehicles, doesn't have a better advantage in terms of fire power (Humvees can carry same or similar firepower), and there are plenty of blind spots when the occupants are buttoned up or even semi-buttoned up.

All your points are correct, except the maintenance. As tracked vehicles go, M113s are pretty easy to work on.