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
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
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