Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

B.Smitty RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help 12/10/2004 10:06:06 AM

I see you've found Sparky's site.

Quote Reply

Kadyet RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help 12/10/2004 12:23:39 PM

The M113 is an APC, equivalent to the M2 Bradley (which is far superior). Of course it has better protection than a Humvee. The Humvee is the successor the Jeep, they're two completely different classes of vehicle. You might as well complain that the M1A2 has more protection..

Quote Reply

5/68 AR RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help 12/10/2004 12:24:48 PM

"I have discovered that 80,000 M113s have been manufactured"... Reading your post, my impression is that you are intelligent and well-meaning, but likely a non-veteran, and unacustomed to the "institutional inertia" of the federal government generally, and the military specifically. Some of that inertia would be avoidable, granted; but some of it would be by design. Of those 80,000 M-113's manufactured (since the early 1960's, mind you; that is a world-wide total) the USA simply does not have them sitting in a depot somewhere, ready to be driven onto the RO/RO ship. Our Allies have a great many of them, either through purchase, or grants of military aid. A great many of them have gone to the scrap heap, used up, coded out, destroyed in Viet Nam, range targets, you name it. I would wager that 10,000 or less are currently in the US inventory. Many would already be in Iraq, as FIST-V's, Mortar tracks, Support tracks (medics, mechanics, commo, in mechanized/armor units). Many others are in the TO&E's of units in FORSCOM, Europe, and National Guard/Reserves. Others would be in POMCUS sets, pre-deployed at Diego Garcia, etc. The military as a whole is already overstretched in Iraq....would you plunder other units, potentially needed in a conflict that could erupt elsewhere in the world, to put the relatively few M-113's in the inventory with these troops, however deserving they might be? Also, as cheap as the chain link screen fix would be, the AIF priority target would still be soft-skin vehicles. Tracked vehicles simply could not do all the work of the HMMWV's, deuce and a half's, 5-ton's, HEMMT's, HET's (low boy tractors), and all the other specialized wreckers, tankers, etc. out there. I'm sure your good thoughts are appreciated, but the logistics and force planner guys in the Pentagon have in all likelihood looked at the options you discuss, and moved on to other solutions, like more up-armored HMMWV's. Best wishes, John (19E10 and 19K10, 1985-1989, FRG and Ft Knox, KY)

Quote Reply

solidpoint RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help 12/10/2004 12:46:34 PM

John, Those are all good points. However, early this year entire Batallions were training in Mojave and were told at the last minute that they would be leaving their M113s and some other armor behind because "You can't win hearts and minds from behind armor". In response to Kaydet's post. The top level HUMVEE is indeed armored to the level of the M113, and beyond. They are also as slow as snails and the tires, brakes, bearings and transmissions are just not up to the task. They in fact also have mine protection from underneath, which the M113s don?t have. The problem is the HUMVEE is being armored with ceramic armor and it is costing billions. Both CRDN and AH are getting $100 million contracts every month or two, most of those contracts are now just backlogged work - despite what their marketing guys are saying on the evening news. We are buying ceramic armor from the Germans - which turned out to be faulty and Bradleys scheduled to be deployed to Iraq were forced to use much heavier steel armor. We have also been buying armor from the Israelis. All of this tends to indicate that we have M113s sitting around in mothballs while manufacturing limits on ceramic armor and total system capabilities to produce heavily armored HUMVEEs is failing to produce adequate supplies. I seriously doubt with 8,000 M1A1s produced over 25 years, all of it with layered armor that can be cannibalized, that there are not tanks sitting around that we couldn't rob the armor plating out of. I know this sounds like a lot of hassle, until it?s your brother/son /father/daughter that comes home in a bag. I see a lot of pet project and theory testing going on - most of it at the expense of the safety of the troops. That has to end. Thank you for a thoughtful response. I hope you are right in your assumptions, I just see too much information arguing in the other direction.

Quote Reply

Kadyet RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help 12/10/2004 1:10:26 PM

>>In response to Kaydet's post. The top level HUMVEE is indeed armored to the level of the M113, and beyond. They are also as slow as snails and the tires, brakes, bearings and transmissions are just not up to the task. They in fact also have mine protection from underneath, which the M113s don?t have.<< The uparmored Humvees might be slower than normal, but they don't travel at a snail's pace. The purpose built uparmored Humvees also have the reinforced gear and suspension that they need. >>The problem is the HUMVEE is being armored with ceramic armor and it is costing billions. Both CRDN and AH are getting $100 million contracts every month or two, most of those contracts are now just backlogged work - despite what their marketing guys are saying on the evening news. << As I recall, it is the Stryker that has ceramic armor, not the uparmored Humvee. >>I seriously doubt with 8,000 M1A1s produced over 25 years, all of it with layered armor that can be cannibalized, that there are not tanks sitting around that we couldn't rob the armor plating out of.<< Dude, that makes about as much sense as ripping Class A armor off of the Iowa and putting it on tanks. In other words, absolutely none. Besides, you completely ignored my main point: The M113 is a compeltely different class of vehicle designed for a completely different mission. Otherwise the M113 would have replaced the Jeep a long time ago, instead of the Humvee replacing the Jeep..

Quote Reply

5/68 AR RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help 12/10/2004 1:24:46 PM

Elsewhere on StrategyPage....paste this into your browser: link INFORMATION WARFARE: Mom, Apple Pie and Truck Armor December 10, 2004: American Secretary of Defense was holding one of his frequent ?town hall? meetings with troops this week. This meeting was in Iraq, and one of the soldiers, at the urging of an imbedded reporter, asked why there wasn?t more armor and bulletproof glass for trucks. Rumsfeld said, in effect, that the stuff is being produced as fast as possible. The subject of unarmored trucks in Iraq is an old one, as is the massive effort the army has made to armor its vehicles and protect the troops from ambush and roadside bombs. But for whatever reason, the media jumped on this old story and turned it into a politicians nightmare. You cannot be ?against? providing the maximum possible protection for American troops in combat. For the soldiers themselves, protection is a ?too much ain?t enough? issue. It?s literally a life and death matter. ....It looks like this will be in the news for a while. This is obviously a very contentious matter...armor, whether on your body, your HMMWV, or your M-1A2, is not infinitely protective or infinitely upgradeable. A dedicated enemy will either find a way to defeat it, or hit you somewhere else. Thank God for the UAV's and Apaches that find as many IED's as they do. IMHO, in addition to upgrading armor on wheeled vehicles, our MI and S-5 needs to accomplish more (at the risk of oversimplifying) to get "Joe Iraqi" to dime out the bad guys. Money talks. Reward programs, for everything from AK bullets to RPG rockets to 122mm rounds. Some kind of Witness Protection Program. More HUMINT agents on the ground. But I digress. You are right, hardpoint...to a certain degree DOD and other agencies have been slacking in their obligation to the average GI. Let's hope that the programs that they choose to implement will penetrate the "Fog of War" in Iraq, and save American lives.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles Solidpoint 12/10/2004 1:50:01 PM

Folks were told to leave their armored vehicles behind because either a) they would fall in on the prepositioned equipment managed by the Army Materiel Coomand or b) they were units which would perform security missions (this happened to a lot of engineer & field artillery units) and did not need their heavy equipment (not too many deliberate obstacle breaches under fire or heavy duty fire missions lately). Thge deployed units which are mech or armor are the 81 Armored Brigade (WAARNG), 30 Mech Brigade (NCARNG), 1st INF DIV (-), 1st Cavalry division, and the 256 Mech Brigade.....all of these units fell in on prepo equipment. Also, when you are running road security, the M113 is too slow to keep up with wheeled traffic (ever been on the autobahn in an M113....talk about SLOW!!!) A armored HMMWV can keep up. As for the M1s....where do you think the M1A2s come from? They reuse M1s!

Quote Reply

B.Smitty RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help 12/10/2004 2:02:50 PM

I see you've found Sparky's website.

Quote Reply

solidpoint RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help 12/10/2004 10:18:06 PM

Looking around I found a helpful table on Ceradyne's site and found my answer. The ?answer? to my query here seems to be some mix of, "somebody smarter is handling that", and "its not a problem if we're not fixing it" - and the world wonders why the military can't fix things in a timely fashion? I think I?ve figured that one out too now. I'd like to thank you for your useful contributions, but I didn't find anything here useful. I guess we will all just stick to the "wow, that one sure has big guns" stuff and leave the real-world problem solving for those politically unmotivated, all-knowing and wise "military planners" ? those would be the same ones that planned this dinner party in Iraq to celebrate the liberation of the country to cheering crowds. It's clear to me that weapons systems are seen here as a fashion statement. Systems are either "sexy" or "cool" or obsolete, old and funky and the attributes of the system are largely ignored. Why confuse yourself with the facts once your mind is made up? In reality weapons systems are a collection of features and capabilities that are just as malleable as any other system from the COT world most of them were spawned from. What the guys in Iraq with surface grinders and blow torches are proving is while the DOD calls its debating society to order (not unlike this site) the troops find ways to make "mission specific" vehicles and systems adapt. Unless I missed something, in response to a specific request on a very specific issue no one here offered anything useful or helpful. In contrast I was able to find the answer myself in an hour just by using Google and thinking the problem through. I guess that makes me every bit the equal to one of those brilliant problem solvers high up in the ranks? The notion that no system, no matter how redundant, obsolete or little used cannot be cannibalized to satisfy an urgent need not only flys in the face of logic, it is in fact done all the time, sometimes in the field. Not everything welded together needs to be dumped in the ocean or fed into a blast furnace intact, its sacred mission never violated. These are machines, not people. This mentality that no old, obsolete, poorly maintained or mothballed system can be tampered with, right up until the moment it is finally destroyed, cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and is stupid, arrogant and a blatant fleecing of the America they were created to protect. If their destruction is the final or only act to that protected America then at least they served some purpose well. Kadyet, an M113 can do most of the missions a HUMVEE can, especially patrol, recon and troop transport. In steep terrain, mud, sand, snow or open ground it is far superior. A HUMVEE, especially heavily armored ones, are sitting duck road queens whereas an M113 can get off the road, flank the column and get infantry safely into the fight. You?re not going to outrun an IED anyway, so just slow down if you need armored protection ? that gas transport you?re guarding isn?t going to set any speed records either. Let?s hope our troops aren?t trying to outrun a firefight either, as finding and destroying the enemy is the reason they are there. The idea that these two systems are apples and oranges and never the two shall meet flys in the face of the blizzard of variations created as modifications to both types. Man dude, do you ever live in a black and white world. I withdraw my request for help or ideas, and thanks again for nothing.

Quote Reply

Kadyet RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help 12/11/2004 12:14:03 AM

>>Kadyet, an M113 can do most of the missions a HUMVEE can, especially patrol, recon and troop transport. In steep terrain, mud, sand, snow or open ground it is far superior.<< Yes, and so is the M2 Bradley. They're both APCs. The Humvee, like the Jeep, is not. Furthermore, the M113 is too slow to take over a roving convoy security patrol from a Humvee (it takes half a minute to go from 0-35!) and is completely useless if one of its tracks is damaged. Furthermore, what is the relevance of its performance in mud, sand, snow, and open ground? Mud and snow aren't exactly what you'd call common in Iraq, and the security element does not go hunting after the insurgents who launch ambushes. Their job is to stick with the convoy and protect it, not hunt people down. That's why we've got Strykers (which are actually capable of keeping up with the convoy) and helicopters. >>You?re not going to outrun an IED anyway, so just slow down if you need armored protection ? that gas transport you?re guarding isn?t going to set any speed records either.<< Slower=better target. Slower=more chances for ambush Slower=logistics get more strained. >>Let?s hope our troops aren?t trying to outrun a firefight either, as finding and destroying the enemy is the reason they are there.<< The Humvees are escorting convoys. Strykers, Bradleys, and Abrahms are seeking out and destroying the enemy. You might as well complain that the RN didn't send DE's after the Bismark. >>The idea that these two systems are apples and oranges and never the two shall meet flys in the face of the blizzard of variations created as modifications to both types.<< Ok, let me explain this to you very quickly. M113=APC. Humvee!=APC. They have very specific roles, and the modifications are to help them acheive objectives that are within their roles, but which they were not designed for or were not adequately designed for. >>Man dude, do you ever live in a black and white world. << Thank you. >>I withdraw my request for help or ideas, and thanks again for nothing.<< You merely wanted validation of prior ideas, not any actual response..

Quote Reply

Eagle601 RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - solidpoint 12/11/2004 12:23:43 AM

"Kadyet, an M113 can do most of the missions a HUMVEE can, especially patrol, recon and troop transport." M113's top speed is about 45 mph, a Humvee can manage 60-70 mph. This makes them much better suited for patrols and recons. "In steep terrain, mud, sand, snow or open ground it is far superior. A HUMVEE, especially heavily armored ones, are sitting duck road queens whereas an M113 can get off the road, flank the column and get infantry safely into the fight." Have you ever seen a Hummvee go off road? I assure yo it is not road bound. The only place it really has troubles is deep mucd, not a whole lot of that in Iraq. Besides escorts are trained that wneh an ambush begins, lay down suppressive fire and accelerate clear of the area. YOu don't manuevar against the enemy with supply trucks in tow, and you don't leave them unescorted to go chase bad guys. The M113 would certainly have some uses, particularly in places like Falluja or other raids, but everyday fighting and patrolling what you really need is something like a South African wheeled APC that has ballistic protection and antimine design features, but the Hummvees work are good enough. The problem isn't that the armored vehicles aren't good enough, it's that there are too many unarmored ones driving about. "Man dude, do you ever live in a black and white world. I withdraw my request for help or ideas, and thanks again for nothing." If your opinions don't agree with the facts than the fault lies with you, not everyone else.

Quote Reply

Eagle601 RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - solidpoint 12/11/2004 12:23:45 AM

Quote Reply

Desertmole RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - solidpoint 12/12/2004 2:11:01 AM

Depending on the area, tracks tend to have better cross-country mobility. Played with LAVs and V-150s in the desert, and I'd rather have the mobility of a track in any areas where there is soft sand. BTW, the Stryker is all aluminum alloy armor. No ceramics. I saw them being built at the GDLS plant in London, Ontario. amazing watching the plasma cutters at work.

Quote Reply

Eagle601 RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - Desertmole 12/12/2004 2:59:47 AM

Tracks are better in soft sand, but most patrolling and convoy duty occurs on roads where wheeled vehicles have the advantage. A balanced force is the key to such operations. Send wheels where they should be and tracks where they excel. You'll never build one vehicle that does everything perfectly, you just need a feww of both. I thought the Strykers base armor was steel, while the applique kits where ceramic based. Some of ther Strykers in Iraq had defective ceramic tiles (made by some German company) that had to be augmented with thin layers of steel.

Quote Reply

Desertmole RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - Desertmole 12/12/2004 12:16:27 PM

I was told it was an aluminum alloy. I saw the plates being cut in the plasma cutters at the plant. There was talk of extra armor kits to uparmor the vehicle, similar to what was proposed for the M-8 Buford, but I have never seen anything that said these kits were deployed. As I understand it the vehicles in Iraq only received the RPG shielding, and that was locally manufactured in Iraq. I could be wrong.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

	News As History - May 16, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us