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
longrifle    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/3/2006 4:17:20 AM
Alrighty then! You'd think a former 11B2P would know better than to offer an opinion on armored vehicles, but I reckon I learn the hard way. Anyway, can we agree that it is sensible, and doable, to mechanize every parachute battalion's Delta Company with an airdropable light armored vehicle? Even if there is not a clear consensus on what the best option is? Surely even some of the thinner skinned light armored vehicles would be more survivable than an "up armored" hummer. Woops! There I go again. Making another statement about armored vehicles. Anybody wanna talk boots?
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/3/2006 8:15:20 AM
Remember logistics. If you bring in light armored vehicles, then you have to dedicate airflow to fly in parts and gas as well as make the FSBs bulkier. That doesn't mean it isn't doable, it just means that there is a tradeoff and what you can and have to bring in. Also, you have to look at where the airborne assault is. It's much more efficient to airland than to airdrop, so usually your assault will involve seizing an airfield or some type of flight landing strip. If that's the case, then why not just bring in Strykers, Bradleys, or Abrams once the airfield/FLS is secure?
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Uparmored M113s for Iraq on the cheap - Yimmy    2/3/2006 8:42:38 AM
1. Israel used them because they had nothing else. They repalced them with M113s as soon as they could. 2. I know vey well what military trucks can and can not do off road.....and they do lousy in the mud when they are loaded....not to mention they don't do real well when they are trying to move mecahnbics and medics under fire to reach a battle damamged IFV or tank. On many occasions, I pulled 2.5 ton and 5 ton cargo trucks out of the mud with M113s. 3. Yes we have a bunch of trucks....which carry cargo. But they make really lousy armored personnel carriers.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Sparky and air dropping M-113s   2/3/2006 8:47:10 AM
You can air drop any vehicle.....once. The M113 won't survive very well in an airdrop. You'd get better results putting a TOW on an ASV and dropping that.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/3/2006 9:47:04 AM
>>Also, you have to look at where the airborne assault is. It's much more efficient to airland than to airdrop, so usually your assault will involve seizing an airfield or some type of flight landing strip.<< I think that's true after you've built up a certain level of combat power, say a brigade. But how fast can you airdrop a brigade v. airland? Point Salinas was a cluster. Panama, while it did have problems, went quite a bit smoother. The entire 75th Ranger Regiment jumped as well as a brigade combat team from the 82nd. I think the lesson from Point Salinas was don't start trying to land planes too fast. Get some combat power, at least a brigade, built up first. The fastest way to do that is to jump. I'd say take your 10% jump related injuries in order to get 90% of a brigade combat team on the ground fast. And it sure would be nice if they had some light armor.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/3/2006 10:30:56 AM
Longrifle, I agree - you need to parachute a large enough assault force to secure the airhead. However, depending on the DZ, it only takes a few hours to clear the DZ to allow airlands, and so by the time you would gas up and load up your light armored vehicles, you wouldn't have saved much time over just airlanding a follow-on force that can seize ojectives beyond the airhead lodgement.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/3/2006 1:01:26 PM
(longrifle) "Anybody wanna talk boots?" OK. Out of curiosity, what's the typical anti-armor package carried by (para or foot) infantry who don't have access to vehicles for their heavy gear? Having been a TOW/Dragon mech for ages, I know that the components of the TOW ground mount was not as man-portable as some where led to believe: in addition to all the personal and battle gear a grunt wears/carries, hoofing an additional 50+ pounds of TOW stuff is asking too much, hence the reason ground mounts (tripods and traversing units) are only stowed in vehicles for emergency use anymore if the vehicle launcher is disabled (by the book, Bradleys were designed with this provision in mind, but I don't know if it's the norm today). I know now the favorite is Javelin, replacing the Dragon (which in the end was only good at blasting trucks and holes in building walls). But still, for a no-vehicles para team, I would think an excess number of Javelins wouldn't be as easily foot-carried for days on end. Any LAWs still carried? With renewed interest from Iraq, I remember hearing new-build LAWs were being considered: modern-tech 66mm HEAT warheads can carry much better penetration of earlier models (500mm RHA can be achieved with the right liner materials, such as tantalum and molybdenum), and a new thermobaric would be great for bunkers. Or does infantry prefer to carry more AT4s (reloadable) & AT8s (disposable)? I think this whole Sparks & Co airborne vehicle idealism was based off Cold War mentalities, looking at just how many air-mobile, para-droppable vehicles the Russians and all their client states could muster. But all of them, even their "big" airborne ASU-85, didn't even have more than 50mm of armor (I believe the ASU-85 maxed out at 40mm on the hull, 50mm on the gun mantlet), so even the lightest of shaped-charge warheads would thrash them. From your experience, longrifle, what's the best kit for infantry to carry? I don't mean what does doctrine dictate, as paper-pushers and bean-counters aren't the ones carrying all the extra gear. What's the most comfortable loads for grunts to carry for any lengthy duration? My personal opinion on the Soldier of the 21st Century ideas is that their robotic (remote controlled) cargo-&-gear-toting MULES will be easy pickings for RPGs and MGs, and troops will stll have to carry much of their heavy stuff after the MULE is out of action.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/3/2006 11:46:49 PM
>>From your experience, longrifle, what's the best kit for infantry to carry?<< I ETS'd in 1988. I've never had my hands on an AT-4, much less a Javelin. In my unit (3/325 AIR, 1984-1988, Ft. Bragg and Vicenza) it was LAWs and the Dragon at rifle company level. The Dragon was not as man portable as it was cracked up to be either; it was a pain to jump as well. Light Infantry.....one hundred pounds of "light weight" equipment. I think the most reliable way for a light infantryman or paratrooper to kill tanks is with a radio. With an Apache pilot on the other end! I'm not qualified to comment on today's rocket systems. But I hope they've gotten better for the "light" rifleman.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/4/2006 10:24:39 AM
>>Any LAWs still carried? With renewed interest from Iraq, I remember hearing new-build LAWs were being considered: modern-tech 66mm HEAT warheads can carry much better penetration of earlier models (500mm RHA can be achieved with the right liner materials, such as tantalum and molybdenum), and a new thermobaric would be great for bunkers.<< I think they are working on all of the above. >>Or does infantry prefer to carry more AT4s (reloadable) & AT8s (disposable)?<< ??? AT4 is a single shot disposable, and the AT8 was a bunker-buster version of the AT4 fitted, if I'm not mistaken, with a HEP warhead. A reusable AT4 is, essentially, the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. USASOC employs them as either the Ranger Anti-Armor Weapon System (RAAWS) or, outside of the Rangers, as the MAAWS. I don't know if the Big Army has them yet, but it is preferable to a disposable weapon in some contexts (just about any context in Afghanistan, for instance, coming to mind readily).
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/4/2006 8:13:16 PM
->"AT4 is a single shot disposable, and the AT8 was a bunker-buster version of the AT4 fitted, if I'm not mistaken, with a HEP warhead. A reusable AT4 is, essentially, the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. " --- yes, I'm well aware that the AT4 was actually a decendant of the Gustav. I did Army BT @ Ft Leonard Wood, MO, in 1990, and at US Weapons, we familiarized with LAWs and AT4s (designated M136 then). While the LAW fired the 35mm training rocket and a lucky few got to shoot the 66mm round, the AT4 I was trained on fired 9mm tracer ammo for practice, and I was one of 3 guys that got to pop off the actual HE round from a standard launcher. But after reading more, you are correct in that it is not reloadable: I only assumed so because I've only ever fired it once (almost 16 years ago, so naturally I've forgotten quite a bit about it), and they (range control crew) took the launchers after we fired. I just (incorrectly) assumed that, since the LAW could be reloaded, the AT4/M136 could also, as the Swedes can do with their Gustavs. My bad. (And here all these years I thought it was roughly equivalent to the USMC SMAW. Unguided stuff ain't my thing: I was always a guided missile mechanic.)
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/4/2006 8:18:43 PM
"I just (incorrectly) assumed that, since the LAW could be reloaded" The LAW 66mm was a one-shot disposable rocket though?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/5/2006 3:32:45 PM
->"The LAW 66mm was a one-shot disposable rocket though?" Well damn! My bad again. Guess that's one more thing I forgot (haven't fired a LAW since BT, either!) Guess I figured they could reload training rockets, so that meant they could reload live rockets. So then, it isn't a more modern Bazooka equivalent. TOW and Dragon I know. This "primitive" unguided stuff is too much for my brain to handle!
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/5/2006 4:16:49 PM
"So then, it isn't a more modern Bazooka equivalent." Everyone needs an M20 Super Bazooka.... link
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/5/2006 9:25:37 PM
Hey, my failing attempt to post pictures now doesn't even show the incorrect text! It vanishes! You don't mind if I give it another go now do you? link link
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:air-droppable AFVs   2/5/2006 9:26:12 PM
I'm now even more confused, and give up.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4



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