Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help
solidpoint    12/10/2004 3:00:06 AM
Googling around I have discovered that 80,000 M113s have been manufactured - enough so every-other combatant in Iraq can have one of their very own. Assuming the reason they are not being used (and we are instead spending billions to modify a HUMVVE that starts out with NO armor, suspension, drive train or dimensioning towards that end is something more than just TRANSFORMATION-al pigheadedness) but is because the "Gavin" only provides protection against 7.62 and not .50 cal level threats, what is the cheapest and most effective way to add the needed protection, and how much does it weight and cost??? This could save hundreds of lives in Iraq, so lets put our heads together and see if we can "solve" this. To start the ball rolling I want to propose protection from RPG-7 rounds, which the HUMVEE will also not defeat, but it is protection that is needed. I have heard that simple chain-link fence will detonate an RPG-7 round, and that a favorite tactic is to engage targets with multiple RPG teams to mass their fire so as to achieve multiple hits on the same area. My first proposal is to build aluminum supports to extend a double chain-link fence barrier 18-24" from the M113's outer skin. This should weight < 500lbs and cost perhaps $1,000. Please add any suggestions, or refinements or add emphasis or amplification of suggestions others make. I would like to submit this thread to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Joint Chiefs when concluded if all are agreeable. Thank you very much in advance for any help. solidpoint
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
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
"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

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

Eagle601    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - Desertmole   12/14/2004 1:40:07 AM
I'm told it's 15 mm of high strength steel, then augmented by a laminate armor composed of ceramics and steel. A thivker and light kit is under development that will protect aganist RPGs but will add much less weight to the vehicle. The slat armor is ugly and adds to the vehicle's size and weight, but it works. I've read accounts of Strykers taking as many as 7 or 8 RPGs without major damage. The M113's armor is aluminum, roughly 40 mm of it. Several add on kits are available, mostly steel or rective armor. Both vehicles could proably take the new composite/titanium kits been put on some Hmvees and trucks. Those are about 35-40% lighter, but cost nearly twice as much.
 
Quote    Reply

22672267    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help   2/1/2006 2:35:31 AM
Thank you fellow Ft. Knox tankers/scouts and others who injected some reality into this issue. The bizarre crusade to resurrect the M-113 as an escort vehicle does seem to attract those without direct experience of running convoy ops and of M-113s. Why do they insist on calling it the "Gavin" anyway? Gavin was a paratrooper. Maybe we can name a harness or something after him. In the tradition of naming cavalry vehicles after cavalry generals, I suggest, if the M-113 needs a general's name, an unused name from the Civil War -- Judson "Kill Cavalry" Kilpatrick. The trusty "Kilpatrick" still has its uses, but replacing the Humvee as a better-armored and cheaper alternative is not one of them. In addition to the limitations of the "Kilpatrick" already mentioned, let me offer several more: -- It has no windows. There is no visibility from the vehicle for passengers unless they stick their heads out the top, when the IED going off 10m away will get them in the head no matter how good the armor is. Those all the way inside have zero situational awareness at all times. -- The "Kilpatrick" was notorious in Vietnam as a deathtrap, because of its light construction, when run over a mine. Troops inside would be smashed against the roof and killed. This is why soldiers in Nam rode on top of the vehicles as one sees in photos. Our enemies are clever enough to already have figured out this glaring vulnerability, well-documented in accounts of Vietnam armor ops. -- Tracks tear up civilians' roads something awful. Very obvious in Bosnia, where IFOR ripped up the roads with Brads and M-1s, with the damage very apparent when I was there six years later. We want to be improving the Iraqi roads, not taking them apart. -- I have several friends who rode M-113 ACAVs in Vietnam and are now riding M-1114 uparmored Humvees in Iraq (yes, the old Nam grunts are fighting this war too), and they don't think going back to the M113 is a good idea -- to put it mildly.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help   2/1/2006 11:26:45 AM
Hey, don't knock the M113 by giving the name of that jerk Kill Cavalry The M113 is a very effective APC...if one remebers it is a support vehicle. It still does yeoman service as a medevac vehicle, engineer vehicle, mechanics vehicle. etc. And being half the weight of a Bradley it is a lot easier on the roads. That said, I am NOT an advocate of its repalcing the M1114 or the Stryker or any other idiocy. And if you want a Civil War general's name.....call it a Han, a Hazen, a Cleburne, a Longstreet, a Getty, heck, call it a Hooker but don't you dare name it for Kilpatrick!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help   2/1/2006 2:16:45 PM
I'm with AlbanyRifles on this one: "Kilpatrick" just doesn't role off the tongue. Needs something kewl-er. The whole (Lt, but maybe now Cpt or even Maj) Mike Sparks idea of calling the M113 the "Gavin" was because in his eyes (Sparky's and his associated crowd), Gen Gavin was the father of air mobile AFV concepts, and the M113 is pretty much the most adaptable air-transportable (as far as para forces were concerned) AFV the US military has. Sparks certainly was off his nut on a lot of things (I bought his AirMech Strike book, just to see what his b*tch was), but he does have some valid concerns over air-mobile AFVs (although he definitely has an affinity for his "Gavins", to say the least). As for the number of M113s produced over years, worldwide between the US and other countries, you would think someone would've come up with an official name for it long ago: it's the only tracked AFV in US Army service that doesn't have an official name: every tank has always had a name; the Paladin and defunct Crusader SP artillery guns, even the Sheridan and Bradley, but nothing for the M113. Hell, even the M88 recovery vehicle can be called by its technical designator, HERCULES (Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift and Evacuation System). Sparks was obviously over-inspired by Gen Gavin's contributions to the US Army's air mobility ideals to the point that he (Sparky) or someone else in the circles he traveled decided to get a petition going to name the M113 after the Lt Gen. link link link link Maybe that's the start of a whole new discussion thread: "Which Army Generals Deserve a Vehicle Named After Them, and Why?" As per any remaining arguments over M113 vs Stryker debates, my final opinion is: the M113 is by far the largest produced tracked AFV in service anywhere (through various models from different countries). The Piranha 8x8, from which the Stryker is derived, is the worldwide wheeled equivalent to the tracked M113: no other 8x8 platform has been produced in more numbers in more variants for more countries. They both have their roles where they excel more than any other vehicle in that role (most likely because nothing better has been developed & procured). If someone really wants to purchase old M113s and rebuild them for the Iraqi Army, one only needs to visit every US Army installation across the continental US and scarf up the hundreds, even thousands, of mostly-intact M113 hulls that have been wasting away in motor pools and vehicle yards doing nothing for the past 2 decades or more except providing cannibalized parts. One thing that upset Sparks the most: Army Reservist or not, he was disappointed that these idle vehicles, which were paid for and could've been more economically refurbished than buying new-build vehicles, were not drawn out and upgraded at a cost that would've been cheaper than the Stryker (and had better protection than Humvees), with several valid arguments as to why the M113 would've been a better candidate vehicle for the then-prominent IBCT Interim Brigade Combat Team concept, which evetually was re-titled as the SBCT Stryker Brigade Combat Team, with the whole idea that an entire brigade's worth could be mobilized to any point globally via USAF airlift within 96 hours, even though the USAF has time and again said it just does not have the airlift resources available to commit to move just one brigade's concerns for a 96-hour period (especially today with so many logistics runs necessary for current operations). The 96-hour mobility requirement has since been dropped, as has been the weight restriction concerns over the Stryker (and eventually the FCS) being too close to the C-130's safe operational carry capacity. Naturally, there are a thousand conspiracists crying foul over the whole thing, even me for a time, but I just learned to be content with the fact that I'm not the one going into harm's way anywhere in either vehicle.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help   2/1/2006 2:37:04 PM
"I'm with AlbanyRifles on this one: "Kilpatrick" just doesn't role off the tongue. Needs something kewl-er." How about the "McClelland" ;-) Slow, plodding, not the worst but far from the best?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy