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
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
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