The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 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
joe6pack    RE:Stop the Madness, Please!    2/2/2006 12:21:10 PM
"Can we get back to nominating the best General to name a vehicle for?" How about the "Custer" ? A good calvary vehicle as long as you don't attack a "whole lot" of OPFOR with it. ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

Weasel    Stop the Madness, Please! (shek)    2/2/2006 12:36:57 PM
Then why this link that Aussie Digger gave me over on their board? link could write more, but have to go. cheers W
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Stop the Madness, Please! (shek)    2/2/2006 4:27:13 PM
Weasel, I'm not really sure what you're getting at? To debate the M113 vs. the Stryker in the context of the SBCT is water under the bridge. Other countries that need a medium armored vehicle need to look at the strategic role such a unit will fill and make a decision based on that when choosing a platform. Not every country will come up with the same solution. For example, Israel decided about two years back not to go forward with fielding some units with Strykers. That makes perfect sense IMO, because Israel doesn't have to worry about strategic deployments or extended lines of communication, things that favor a Stryker equipped medium brigade in the US context. I don't know what the exact Australian context is, so I really can't provide informed comments. In the end, each vehicle platform has its advantages and disadvantages, and you have to look at how you intend for it to be used to determine which would be more appropriate.
 
Quote    Reply

Weasel    RE:Stop the Madness, Please! (shek)    2/2/2006 5:07:26 PM
thats all right, I was trying to find out the reasoning behind the decision....I've stayed right out of the m113 "gavin" vs 8 wheeled LAV debate here, because it doesn't serve any purpose. But being involved in the industry, I find the upgrading of older platforms interesting... e.g turkey, australia, israel (as you mentioned), poland, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - Desertmole   2/2/2006 5:18:17 PM
Just to correct Desertmole's statement and tweak Eagle's. The Stryker has a steel hull with an integrated spall liner and uses ceramic armor to reach the 14.5mm AP protection. There were "defective" ceramic plates that were manufactured that didn't meet the 14.5mm specification. I believe it was around 8% or so of the manufactured plates for the first brigade of fielded Strykers. A very thin layer of steel was added to bring it up to the required specification three months prior to our deployment to Iraq (and not in Iraq). I can't confirm since I'm no longer in the unit, but these ceramic plates have now been replaced so that there isn't the additional weight of the thin steel layers. Next, the slat armor design actually adds the level of protection beyond 14.5mm AP. I don't know exactly what caliber, and I don't think it has a practical effect against bigger bullets (e.g. 25mm), but it does provide additional protection against IEDs/VBIEDs. Lastly, the M113A3s that are in Iraq are now armored to the same level as the Strykers now that they have been retrofitted with armor to raise the protection to 14.5mm and with slat armor as well. What they don't have is the ground clearance and tires that provide additional standoff against IEDs that go off under the vehicle.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Stop the Madness, Please! (shek)    2/2/2006 5:24:42 PM
The main driving force in my mind behind the selection of the Styker over the M113 was logistics. Less gas = less fuelers. More commonality of parts within the brigade = less mechanics and fewer parts required on-hand. Less personnel mean fewer mouths to feed and guns to supply. In the end, you have a small tail needed to conduct the necessary resupply operations, making an early entry operation both feasible and sustainable. Too many people get too fired up over the platform choice without even understanding the reasoning behind the organizational and operational concept of the SBCT, and there's also a whole host of bad websites with wrong and misleading information about the M113.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:Stop the Madness, Please! (shek)    2/2/2006 6:39:05 PM
Regarding slat armour, I think that it is a specific defence against RPG-7 projectiles. It exploits a flaw in the fuzing mechanism.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    Off his rocker   2/2/2006 8:00:06 PM
>>I'm told he's every bit as off his rocker in person as he is on his website(s).<< He does come on a little strong doesn't he! The sad thing is that his delivery and tact are so poor that when he does have a good idea nobody wants to evaluate it on it's own merits. Take mechanizing Delta Company in every Airborne Infantry Battalion for example. If you just evaluate the idea apart from Spark's rhetoric it seems doable and sensible. And of course since the M113 is airdropable that's probably the best option for that role even if the Stryker is best for others. That or the German Weisel vehicle. Sparks has ranted so long about this "wheels v. tracks" issue that nobody can take him seriously on anything else it seems. Wheels v. tracks. In an army the size of ours why not.....both.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Stop the Madness, Please! (shek) FK   2/2/2006 9:17:34 PM
Flaming Knives, The slat armor serves two purposes - if the warhead is "caught" between the slats, then the point detonating fuze can't function and the warhead is defeated. If it hits the slat, then you have created stand off from the hull and the shape charge isn't concentrated when it does reach the hull, preventing penetration. In either case, it has been overwhelmingly effective in preventing hull penetrations and protecting soldiers in the vehicle.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Stop the Madness, Please! (shek) FK   2/2/2006 9:35:51 PM
Reminds me of WWII with the Italians desperately strapping sand bags to their tanks.
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:Sparky and air dropping M-113s   2/2/2006 10:23:21 PM
The M113 is nowhere near as capable as Sparky likes to think. The max air drop weight is something like 22,000 lbs(can't say for sure because I'm at my parents and don't access to my reference books). This means an air dropped M113 will be empty with little to no ammo or fuel. PLus the crew and their gear have to drop seperately and then carry all their stuff plus a baic load of ammo and fuel bladders to get their tracks up and running. Even then the vehicle has nothing but base armor, which on a M113 is pitifully vulnerable.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Sparky and air dropping M-113s   2/2/2006 10:29:17 PM
Don't question him. Listen to the patriotic music on the site, salute and move out smartly. LOL :0
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Off his rocker   2/2/2006 11:05:36 PM
>>He does come on a little strong doesn't he! The sad thing is that his delivery and tact are so poor that when he does have a good idea nobody wants to evaluate it on it's own merits. << Putting things politely. As you note, he pretty much shoots himself in the foot and right between the eyes with his, um, rhetorical flourishes. That and the fact that I'm pretty sure his reasonable ideas are mostly his earliest ideas, before he utterly lost his mind and started pontificating about "Amphi-Gavins," strapping bullet proof gun shields to the ends of troops' weapons instead of wearing SAPI plates in your body armor, and all that.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    RE:Sparky and air dropping M-113s   2/2/2006 11:12:53 PM
Then maybe the best option would be the German Wiesel. It looks like a pretty small vehicle though. It's supposed to be capable of four dismounts but it looks to me as though they would be crammed in like sardines. Still, I think it might be a better option than a hummer. link I think the basic idea of turning Delta Company into a light armored cav troop of sorts has some merit. I don't know enough about armor to really say what the best vehicle option is.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    air-droppable AFVs   2/3/2006 1:06:10 AM
->"Then maybe the best option would be the German Wiesel. It looks like a pretty small vehicle though. It's supposed to be capable of four dismounts but it looks to me as though they would be crammed in like sardines. Still, I think it might be a better option than a hummer. " ------ Damn! The Weisel's even thinner-skinned than an M113 (5-10mm, I believe, just enough to be splinterproof and maybe keep out 5.56mm & Russian 5.45mm ball rounds)! I'd be afraid that a good swift swing with a fireman's pick would puncture a hole right through the Weisel's armor! Now the Brits had it right, with the Scorpion CVR(T) family: every one of 'em was sling-able under a Chinook (about 9 tons), combat ready with minimal prep. Plus, the little b@stards hold the Guinness title of World's fastest tracked combat vehicles (they're limited just like the M-1 Abrams, to prevent thrown tracks mostly, but one of the bandtrack test models clocked just shy of 70mph. Stock tracks get them to 60mph...unofficially). And they'll hold any autocannon, a 76mm shorty or 90mm C*ckerill Mk3 gun, even big honkin' Swingfire missiles. Pretty adaptable if you ask me, although certainly the squad model, Spartan APC, must be just as sardined with its 7 crew (3+4) as is the stretched Weisel with its 6 (2+4). Personally, I'd opt for the stretched model, Stormer (3+8... somehow), even before I'd go for the stretched M113. Something of interest: link Prince Harry chooses to join venerable cavalry regiment; Iraq a possibility 12:23:58 EST Jan 25, 2006 LONDON (AP) - Prince Harry, 21-year-old grandson of the Queen, is to join the Blues and Royals regiment of the venerable Household Cavalry, and could serve in Iraq, the Ministry of Defence said Wednesday. "It's fair to say that if his squadron goes to Iraq, he will probably go with it," said a ministry spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with ministry policy. The Household Cavalry - the army's oldest and most senior unit - has already served in Iraq, where several Blues and Royals troops were killed. News reports said Harry is hoping eventually to lead an armoured reconnaissance troop, which deploys in Scimitar vehicles and acts as the eyes and ears of the force commander. There are two divisions within the Household Cavalry - the armoured division, where Harry will train - and the mounted regiment, which performs ceremonial duties, including guarding the Queen on ceremonial and public occasions. Clarence House, the office of Harry's father, Prince Charles, said the young prince, who is third in line to the throne, will join the Blues and Royals in April after completing his training at Sandhurst military academy in southern England. ------ Wonder what his call sign will be... Crown 3? Don't think the Royal Army does much AFV para-dropping, but Chinook-slung CVR(T)s aren't uncommon, so I've heard.
 
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