The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
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

AlbanyRifles    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help   2/1/2006 2:53:43 PM
Its either McClellan or McClernand...not McClelland!!! :-) That said...I am not knocking the M113....great vehicle for what was designed for...which roles DO NOT include IFV or convoy security vehicle.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help   2/1/2006 2:56:32 PM
"which roles DO NOT include IFV or convoy security vehicle." So what can it do better than a M3 half-track, or 8 tonne truck for that matter?
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help   2/1/2006 3:27:39 PM
An M113 is an excellent vehicle for an armored ambulance, can carry an engineer squad while pulling a trailer cross country, allows an armored capability to carry mechanics, STINGER teams, ground surveillance radar teams. Are you seriously saying a half track or a wheeled vehicle are viable as an APC?
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help   2/1/2006 3:55:57 PM
I can't remember the source, but I recall it being bought up in debate that the only terrain where the M113 was better than a Stryker was the NWE very wet type. In every other terrain, the Stryker had superior mobilty. Cheap upgrades of M113s is also fairly laughable. AIUI, most of those languishing in reserve are not the most recent A3 type, which would have to be upgraded to that before any extra work could be done. Furthermore, all the expensive stuff on the Styker is in the form of the electronic toys. Once you've fitted RWS, blue force tracker and digital commmunications plus all the night and thermal gear to an M113, that'll be pretty expensive too. The Stryker will still be faster, more mobile and more survivable against mines and IEDs, and no less survivable against direct-fire threats. You'll also have the logistics problems of dealing with tracks as opposed to wheels.
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - flamingknives   2/1/2006 8:49:25 PM
Thank you. I've been saying everything in that post for over a year now and it still hasn't sunk in for lots of folks.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - flamingknives   2/1/2006 9:44:19 PM
Yeah, flamingknives pretty much hit the nail squarely on the head. Sparks, in his infinite lack of wisdom and understanding of how the world works, seems to be of the opinion that super Gavins or whatever he wants to call his proposed M113A4 (if he hasn't gotten lathered up to the M113A5/6/7/8/8/10 by now . . .) are essentially free, and that 30mm Hughes Chaingun turrets and up armor kits and all manner of top end electronics and sensors and such just grow on trees or something. I've never met him personally, but know some people who did meet him back when he was trying to push his Airborne Combat Mountain Bike idea to USASOC and I'm told he's every bit as off his rocker in person as he is on his website(s).
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - flamingknives   2/1/2006 9:50:11 PM
"Are you seriously saying a half track or a wheeled vehicle are viable as an APC?" Yes, they are perfectly capable of the task, assuming by APC you mean a troop carrying vehicle which does not engage the enemy. If your worried about the truck being soft skinned, there are many bolt on armour packages on the market.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - Yimmy   2/2/2006 10:43:18 AM
1. No a half track is not as good as a tracked APC....which is why eveyone got rid of them. 2. No a truck is not as maneuvarable off road as a tracked vehicle....that is why you have tracks. 3. The US Army already has a bunch of M113s..don't need to buy old technology
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - help   2/2/2006 11:14:59 AM
"1. No a half track is not as good as a tracked APC....which is why eveyone got rid of them." --Is that the reason? Israel seemed to like them a lot. "2. No a truck is not as maneuvarable off road as a tracked vehicle....that is why you have tracks." --There are very few places a good truck can not go, you would be surprised how good they can be off-road. I fail to see why a vehicle not engaging the enemy needs to be able to dart around. "3. The US Army already has a bunch of M113s..don't need to buy old technology" --I'm willing to bet you have more trucks than M113's.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    Stop the Madness, Please!    2/2/2006 12:05:59 PM
The Stryker's a done deal, seven brigades worth! Just like Doggtag said, it's time for everyone to bury the hatchet. As far as mobility, the M113 scored higher in all six soil types, although the differentials in the Middle East soil type was 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively. However, the only significant advantage was in the Germany wet category, where the differential was 16.7%. Ironically, it was the M113 and not the LAV platform that got stuck during side-by-side testing on the cross-country course. From an anecdotal perspective, my senior NCOs felt the Stryker had better cross-country mobility than the Bradley. So, in the end, the cross-country "advantage" of the M113 was overhyped IMO. As far as costs, the M113 would be cheaper, although not as much as your Mike Sparks of the world would claim. By the time you add all the bells and whistles to make the M113's performance compatible with the Stryker, you'd save the cost of one month's operations in Iraq. My thoughts are that cheaper is always better, nor is more expensive always and indication of being better. Anyway, that's my two cents on the topic. Can we get back to nominating the best General to name a vehicle for?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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