IFV v APC

[swerve]

One of the reasons for not using the M113 is the miles driven. Tracked vehicles need more maintenance per mile, more fuel, are slower, & much noisier than wheeled vehicles. Remember that the scenes of action are either towns (patrolling), or roads between towns (patrolling, & escorting convoys). M113s would slow down convoys, making them more vulnerable, & for urban patrolling, the poor situational awareness from inside an M113 would be a severe handicap compared to a vehicle designed for such scenarios. Note that it's much more vulnerable to mines than a Stryker or any of the MRAP vehicles. One small mine under a track & it's immobilised, while you can blow a wheel or two off a Stryker without stopping it getting home under its own power. The M113 is also a deathtrap if a mine goes off under it: the floor of the hull provides very little protection, & the hull will enclose the explosion. Anyone inside is in very serious trouble. Compare the VBL, the Turkish Kobra, the RG-31 Nyala - oooh, so many, many better vehicles for the job. Faster, quieter, immensely more reliable, vastly safer for the occupants if you hit a mine, much better SA - etc., etc..

Note that I didn't think of any of this myself. It's from people who've been there & done it. I haven't, so I treat their opinions with respect.

I think the purchase of well-protected (particularly from mines & IEDs) wheeled vehicles in significant numbers should have been done earlier, but they are the answer, not a 1950s-designed tracked vehicle which would be a logistical nightmare.

BTW, I suspect the ammo for the 106mm RCL is mostly time-expired, & no longer fit to use. There are plenty of other weapons - many of them lighter & more portable - for blowing holes in buildings, which don't have backblast, & for which ammunition is still in production.

BTW, I'm beginning to have doubts about your identity again. Your choice of language is oddly familiar, as well as your opinions, e.g. calling the Humvee an "SUV".

 

[grndpndr]

frankly cleo i give a f who you think i am.for the record though my name is mitch meyer from edgemont Sd privacy be damned and im at 49 and holding.
That s not to allay your pathetic suspicions s I said earlier i could give a rats ass WHO you think i am including Chavez hiself if you ecide thats who you ant me to be.I as under the impression this was a defence forum not a episode of 'guess my line".Shame on your ass.You just don6t feakin get it do you nor have you read of the automotive capabilitys of the improvd a3/4 models.Nothing in inventorys going to leave the Zipo in the dust as a member here called it.Same as the Sherman ronson as automotively excellent
but lit at every hit.situational awareness.How much can you see out of a vehicle esigned as an oversized SUV and armored everywher posible versus a metal box with the crewchief surveying the stuation along with his driver? No better no wore than a tank /Bradley or stryker.F-ing point is cleo that the
Aluminum box was available in virtually unlimited #s when it was needed and afforded far better protection than the best uparmored SUV.Ther I go again im certainly the dreadd MIKE? is it.I was under the impresion this was a serious place for discussion,with folks like yourself contributing Ive come to a far different conclusion its noy about equipment or lives it who I am.Pathetic man.

Get a new boogeyman Paranoid, i am not he.And maybe next time your at it pay attention to the post not play amateur sleuth.

 

[swerve]

I think it's time you calmed down, & read the rules.

http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

This is a serious place for discussion, but I've not noticed much serious discussion from you. I laid out several substantive arguments against reviving the M113, to which you've responded with incoherent abuse. You've not actually addressed a single one of my arguments. Would you care to?

BTW, what aspect of the Stryker, RG-31, or any of the other vehicles I named makes you describe them as SUVs? Personally, I can't see the resemblance.

 

[grndpndr]

were it not for your obnoxios inistence on believeing Im someon Im not, is it so unbelievable some folk have similar opinions i have alot of agrement with your first sentence and assertion tracked vehicles require more of all youve mentioned they or rather the one im afraid to mention which was ready in sufficient #s for feployment almost immediately given a few months for uparmoring and automotive improvement the rest of your argument fails miserably.these same failings you claim apply to all the tracked vehicles in theatre.Again and again i seem to be talking to a wall the stryker and bradley wieght 2x what the m113a3/4 do and are similarly as large preventing thier monement where neded far more than a "zippo" and by the way with the relocated fuel tanks and diesel engines the main bith which seems to be its a firetrap are addressed with auto fire suppresion just like the lillion dollar babys that werent available in numbers needed.As far as mine strikes in enclosed armored compartments forgive me but i suspct the ame overpressure is in a M1a given the same penetration.And to my knowledge the majority of IEDs are off route Mines either veryb large simple IeDs to EFPs thats a platter charge to you and if that doesnt rng a bell go and do a search.Lets see what else is on your bitch list? meanwhile I se no fault mentuined in connction with humvees or any other vehicle in theatre.Remarkable!!??
You 'sspect servicable 106 mm rr ammo isnt srvicable,fact is ther are very sizable quantitys still in inventory.Logistical nightmare? In the sense the F4 is a logistical nightmare? No spares etc/ no your just being stpid .

As to the very many more capable vehicles,yes there are a multitude.But where in hell were they or are they?If as it seems the army is /was content wih the humvee then thats why there were no suprior vehicls to it but to not find a superior vehicle to the Jeep is almost unimaginable unless it must be a US designed vehicle which s you know would be 10 years in the making or a copy of a better vehicle which I understand was ordered, but from a factory that would hav etaken it 20 years to provide adequate vehicles.I find YOUR levels of knowledge singularly lacking and far more single mindd than i ever considered s i aid my interest as with providing vehicles NOW that were effective. not the what if and should have and logistics tha typical procurement stuff.Rekember its ben how many years since this carnage began and theres still nothing in the pipeline Im aware of.You in your infinite wisdom?

Shown me wher i described anthing but the Humvee as a SUV! And ive just addressed yourc arguments.Abuot my pissy attitude i do not appreciate being told who i am,thats abusive sir.And the fact is YOU are the one who should be doing the retractions not i.I didnt say you were liberace now did i? Nor have I accuse you of being some nutcase by the name of Mike.Which by the way is your opinion if its the likes of yourself I can see why he was upset.as for another osters snide remarks about battleships which im relatively sure where addressed trowards me by someon obviosly w/o the cajones to say it TO ME.You all seem to act as generals yet ive not sen anything approaching that sort of xpertise from any of you.Forgive my justifiable rant im not used to being clled a liar to my face.Fact is If you were to attemt to do so within my reach we would have a serious issue to deal with personally not with the manly art of discussion.

 

[eckherl]

were it not for your obnoxios inistence on believeing Im someon Im not, is it so unbelievable some folk have similar opinions i have alot of agrement with your first sentence and assertion tracked vehicles require more of all youve mentioned they or rather the one im afraid to mention which was ready in sufficient #s for feployment almost immediately given a few months for uparmoring and automotive improvement the rest of your argument fails miserably.these same failings you claim apply to all the tracked vehicles in theatre.Again and again i seem to be talking to a wall the stryker and bradley wieght 2x what the m113a3/4 do and are similarly as large preventing thier monement where neded far more than a "zippo" and by the way with the relocated fuel tanks and diesel engines the main bith which seems to be its a firetrap are addressed with auto fire suppresion just like the lillion dollar babys that werent available in numbers needed.As far as mine strikes in enclosed armored compartments forgive me but i suspct the ame overpressure is in a M1a given the same penetration.And to my knowledge the majority of IEDs are off route Mines either veryb large simple IeDs to EFPs thats a platter charge to you and if that doesnt rng a bell go and do a search.Lets see what else is on your bitch list? meanwhile I se no fault mentuined in connction with humvees or any other vehicle in theatre.Remarkable!!??
You 'sspect servicable 106 mm rr ammo isnt srvicable,fact is ther are very sizable quantitys still in inventory.Logistical nightmare? In the sense the F4 is a logistical nightmare? No spares etc/ no your just being stpid .

As to the very many more capable vehicles,yes there are a multitude.But where in hell were they or are they?If as it seems the army is /was content wih the humvee then thats why there were no suprior vehicls to it but to not find a superior vehicle to the Jeep is almost unimaginable unless it must be a US designed vehicle which s you know would be 10 years in the making or a copy of a better vehicle which I understand was ordered, but from a factory that would hav etaken it 20 years to provide adequate vehicles.I find YOUR levels of knowledge singularly lacking and far more single mindd than i ever considered s i aid my interest as with providing vehicles NOW that were effective. not the what if and should have and logistics tha typical procurement stuff.Rekember its ben how many years since this carnage began and theres still nothing in the pipeline Im aware of.You in your infinite wisdom?

Shown me wher i described anthing but the Humvee as a SUV! And ive just addressed yourc arguments.Abuot my pissy attitude i do not appreciate being told who i am,thats abusive sir.And the fact is YOU are the one who should be doing the retractions not i.I didnt say you were liberace now did i? Nor have I accuse you of being some nutcase by the name of Mike.Which by the way is your opinion if its the likes of yourself I can see why he was upset.as for another osters snide remarks about battleships which im relatively sure where addressed trowards me by someon obviosly w/o the cajones to say it TO ME.You all seem to act as generals yet ive not sen anything approaching that sort of xpertise from any of you.Forgive my justifiable rant im not used to being clled a liar to my face.Fact is If you were to attemt to do so within my reach we would have a serious issue to deal with personally not with the manly art of discussion.

For one, there is no such thing as a M113A4 that is currently being used by any military, we have used models up to M113A3, giving us modifications for external fuel cells, spall liners and bolt on armor plates that would not stop much of anything that is current in ammunition sizes API 12.7 and above, the upgrades that are offered for the M113A4 would be so expensive ( and you would still have a out dated vehicle ) that you would be better off sticking to modern current vehicles like the Bradley and Strykers. I do not understand what you have against the Humvee, it is not designed to take hits from IEDs or RPG-7s, show me one vehicle in its size classification that is before we went to Iraq, for what the Russians went through in urban areas like Grozny and what the U.S is going thru in Iraq the rest of the world has taken notice and are scrambling to take the Urbanized factor into account for vehicle designs. Stryker combat vehicles are doing a good job in Iraq and you need to stop listening to the nay sayers who don`t have a clue on what they are saying, my facts and observations are based from soldiers who are actually using Strykers for security purposes, if they felt that the Stryker was junk they would state so. Lets keep the M113A3 as a secondary vehicle where it rightfully belongs due to design technology and move on.

 

[grndpndr]

Duplicate post,i would have peferred leaving itfor those whose reading
skills could use some help via repetition I neverthe less have learened repeating a point isnt a guarante of compehension.Thanks gents.

 

[grndpndr]

I cannot argue the assertion theres not an army currently using the a4.I fully agree the m113 is at best obsolescent but still not obsolete in iraq particularly when compared with other vehicles that wer never intended to act as armored vehicle and particularly when used in an improved IFV type configuration,Note i said IFV Type vehicle not a true ground up IFV such as the Bradley for instance or the BMP series.

Therin lies my problem with the powers that be who have for whatever reason attempted to convert an excellent unarmored transport into what i think weve decided is best described as an APC,do we agree the humvee is being used in a capacity it was never intended to fill?That of an ersatz armored vehicle mimicking an apc which it most definetly is not! A previously designed soft skinned vehicle now expected to accomplish the dutys of an apc/IFVvehicle that at best hasnt been succesful as an armored vehicle and at worst has been a widowmaker?

The only good case for the m113a3 is that in 'o3' when it became apparent the humvee was going to be expected to be a substitute APC why wasnt some sort of armored vehicle either an upgrade of an existing model or a newly designed vehicle with the wieght and size requirements for urban combat NOT aquired?Why would responsible experts expect to make an APC from the Humvee a glorified SUV inmo?

Had the experts said at the time we will need a vehicle capable of substantial protection against IEDs but obviously all IEDs cannot be defeated particularly sophisticated platter charges or EFPs; AKA explosively formed projectiles a particularly lethal off route mine whose platter can be quite difficult to manufacture w/o machine tools.Should we have begun manufacture of a proven anti mine -IED vehicle why in gods name wasnt it given some priority aside from asmall plant incapable of making anywhere the needed vehicle#s and as a result many have died.This is my point for the umpteenth time.

While far from perfect the A3 is a vehicle that offers substantially more protection and firepower than any armored humvee.Louder,less manuverable more maintenance all true.obsolecent but in actual fact as proved by many armies upgrading thier inventorys of M113s not obsolete.IN fact the m113 platform capable of impressive improvements as similarly winessed by recent upgrades to another obsolescent armord vehicle and companion to the M113
the M60.

My contention hasnt ever been the m13a3 was THE vehicle for Iraq but that it could have been available in a few months versus a few years assuming a decision had EVER been made which it still hasnt and troopers continue to die
becuase of this indecison.Why? Why was no decision made to give the troops at least a modicum of armor protection? your main complaints against the M113 are its noise,maintinence issues, situational awareness,(that one really flies in the face of reality)the meaning implicit in that staement is the bradley and the stryker have far more situational awareness? What prompted that asertion? all are armored vehicles that are loud,heavy and difficult to manuever into side streets that are passable to an M113.And yet the M113 suffers from vastly reduced situational awareness?Why is that? seriously. Compared to a bycicle yes, compared to a groundponder,yes,a bradley,stryker?
Again why these armred vehicles have a superior understanding of the surroundin situaton must be due to the strykr and bradleys psychic commanders,right?otherwise howis that achieved/

Now seriously as I also said i would have been ecstaic had the military aquired some armor capability for general use for the average infantry troopers no matter the supplier even russia herself as long as it had happened in a timely manner yet from the start of this piss poorly planned operation No realistic attempt has ever been made to supply US with even moderately protective armor for the grunt.

That gentlemen is My argument for the M113, t as apparently the only vehicle in the running and since we obviosly havent bought it OR ANy other APC/IFV my feeling that armor protection for all us soldiers was a poor idea and the soldier best left to the tender mercies of the taliban in afghanistan and al quaeda and the Iraqi insurgency.Mu mistake gentlemen i though a modicum of armor for infantry a basic tactic on the modern battlefield.Obviosly my tactical theory in that arena is flawed which is why in somalia the withdrawl of US forces required the use of supporting countries
armor,APCs and light tanks a few of which I believe were M113s but of course that wasnt a dress rehearsal but an aberatiomn and in fact armor itself must be obsolete.

Finally if anyone cares to respond to me i would greatly appreciate if you were
decent enough to use my given name and not that of your terrible nemesis who obviosly crosed the line with his dissentng opinions,very much like the sevice where discussion is a leadership activity and this site very realistic its belief in lockstep and alternate pinions ridiculous and bordereing on heretical.

Call me Mitch or asshole or whatever but my name is not Mike,Not even my middle name so when expecting a civil reply please do not accuse me of being a lyer by impling i am Mike in spite of my word my name is otherwise and by association with this mike a nut as well,thats also considered rude. gentlemen. you folks appear to pride yourselves on your 'impeccable'LOL manners
at least what you percieve as impeccable but rest asured thats not the case.at least from my perspective when my first and subsquent posts were littered with accusations of my being a lyer by virtue of masquerading as myself when in factv im a mike whatever that may be.

 

[Chino]

Thank you for your response, do they have a time frame that all AMX - 13s will be phased out.

The official statement from Defense Minister (early 2007):

"The Leopard 2A4 tanks will replace some of the current SAF SM1 tanks, as part of the SAF's transformation into the third-generation fighting force."

The key word in the statement being "some".

Along with this statement there were 2 rusty scrap-looking AMX-13 (SM1 in Singapore) being paraded for the media before being melted down into some dumb sculpture. This was intended to give the impression that we are getting rid of our alleged 350 AMX-13 tanks.

But actually, what's happened is we've replaced 2 scrapyard AMX-13 with 96 Leopard 2A4.

That leaves us with 348 AMX-13 and there's no further statement of their fate.

...

The AMX-13 SM1 retains the old 75mm gun but with a range of modern ammo developed by STK including one that looked like APFSDS, HE and beehive.

 

[Chino]

Is this one of "Mike Sparks" sites? Is G2mil also Mike Sparks?

Damn, I've never heard about this guy before. Though now that you all mentioned it, I might have read some of his sites. Is his agenda mainly about the Stryker?

If we are not supposed to talk about it that's fine, too.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1044

"Israel Military Industries, Ltd. (IMI) recently introduced it's "Urban Fighter", which is an upgraded, up-armored and modified M113 Gavin APC/IFV[/url] (Armored Personnel Carrier/Infantry Fighting Vehicle)."

The author used the word "Gavin"

 

[kato]

Is this one of "Mike Sparks" sites? Is G2mil also Mike Sparks?

"dynmicpara", who uploaded that youtube video, is Mike Sparks. G2mil is Carlton Meyer, who is "affiliated" with Mike Sparks and writes in the same "style".
David Crane, the owner/editor-in-chief/main-author of the Defensereview site, is one of Mike Sparks' hapless followers sorta, at least as far as using the name Gavin.

 

[Simon9]

Is this one of "Mike Sparks" sites? Is G2mil also Mike Sparks?

Damn, I've never heard about this guy before. Though now that you all mentioned it, I might have read some of his sites. Is his agenda mainly about the Stryker?

If we are not supposed to talk about it that's fine, too.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1044

"Israel Military Industries, Ltd. (IMI) recently introduced it's "Urban Fighter", which is an upgraded, up-armored and modified M113 Gavin APC/IFV[/url] (Armored Personnel Carrier/Infantry Fighting Vehicle)."

The author used the word "Gavin"

No G2Mil is Carlton Meyer, a lot more coherent and erudite than Sparks. But he does put forward some of the same arguments, not so much pro-M113 as anti-Stryker.

And even David Hackworth was on roughly the same page. They're a group of ex-military officers who are fighting more what they see as for the military bureaucracy putting troops in danger.

Or at least Hackworth was. RIP, a real hero of mine.

 

[eckherl]

I cannot argue the assertion theres not an army currently using the a4.I fully agree the m113 is at best obsolescent but still not obsolete in iraq particularly when compared with other vehicles that wer never intended to act as armored vehicle and particularly when used in an improved IFV type configuration,Note i said IFV Type vehicle not a true ground up IFV such as the Bradley for instance or the BMP series.

Therin lies my problem with the powers that be who have for whatever reason attempted to convert an excellent unarmored transport into what i think weve decided is best described as an APC,do we agree the humvee is being used in a capacity it was never intended to fill?That of an ersatz armored vehicle mimicking an apc which it most definetly is not! A previously designed soft skinned vehicle now expected to accomplish the dutys of an apc/IFVvehicle that at best hasnt been succesful as an armored vehicle and at worst has been a widowmaker?

The only good case for the m113a3 is that in 'o3' when it became apparent the humvee was going to be expected to be a substitute APC why wasnt some sort of armored vehicle either an upgrade of an existing model or a newly designed vehicle with the wieght and size requirements for urban combat NOT aquired?Why would responsible experts expect to make an APC from the Humvee a glorified SUV inmo?

Had the experts said at the time we will need a vehicle capable of substantial protection against IEDs but obviously all IEDs cannot be defeated particularly sophisticated platter charges or EFPs; AKA explosively formed projectiles a particularly lethal off route mine whose platter can be quite difficult to manufacture w/o machine tools.Should we have begun manufacture of a proven anti mine -IED vehicle why in gods name wasnt it given some priority aside from asmall plant incapable of making anywhere the needed vehicle#s and as a result many have died.This is my point for the umpteenth time.

While far from perfect the A3 is a vehicle that offers substantially more protection and firepower than any armored humvee.Louder,less manuverable more maintenance all true.obsolecent but in actual fact as proved by many armies upgrading thier inventorys of M113s not obsolete.IN fact the m113 platform capable of impressive improvements as similarly winessed by recent upgrades to another obsolescent armord vehicle and companion to the M113
the M60.

My contention hasnt ever been the m13a3 was THE vehicle for Iraq but that it could have been available in a few months versus a few years assuming a decision had EVER been made which it still hasnt and troopers continue to die
becuase of this indecison.Why? Why was no decision made to give the troops at least a modicum of armor protection? your main complaints against the M113 are its noise,maintinence issues, situational awareness,(that one really flies in the face of reality)the meaning implicit in that staement is the bradley and the stryker have far more situational awareness? What prompted that asertion? all are armored vehicles that are loud,heavy and difficult to manuever into side streets that are passable to an M113.And yet the M113 suffers from vastly reduced situational awareness?Why is that? seriously. Compared to a bycicle yes, compared to a groundponder,yes,a bradley,stryker?
Again why these armred vehicles have a superior understanding of the surroundin situaton must be due to the strykr and bradleys psychic commanders,right?otherwise howis that achieved/

Now seriously as I also said i would have been ecstaic had the military aquired some armor capability for general use for the average infantry troopers no matter the supplier even russia herself as long as it had happened in a timely manner yet from the start of this piss poorly planned operation No realistic attempt has ever been made to supply US with even moderately protective armor for the grunt.

That gentlemen is My argument for the M113, t as apparently the only vehicle in the running and since we obviosly havent bought it OR ANy other APC/IFV my feeling that armor protection for all us soldiers was a poor idea and the soldier best left to the tender mercies of the taliban in afghanistan and al quaeda and the Iraqi insurgency.Mu mistake gentlemen i though a modicum of armor for infantry a basic tactic on the modern battlefield.Obviosly my tactical theory in that arena is flawed which is why in somalia the withdrawl of US forces required the use of supporting countries
armor,APCs and light tanks a few of which I believe were M113s but of course that wasnt a dress rehearsal but an aberatiomn and in fact armor itself must be obsolete.

Finally if anyone cares to respond to me i would greatly appreciate if you were
decent enough to use my given name and not that of your terrible nemesis who obviosly crosed the line with his dissentng opinions,very much like the sevice where discussion is a leadership activity and this site very realistic its belief in lockstep and alternate pinions ridiculous and bordereing on heretical.

Call me Mitch or asshole or whatever but my name is not Mike,Not even my middle name so when expecting a civil reply please do not accuse me of being a lyer by impling i am Mike in spite of my word my name is otherwise and by association with this mike a nut as well,thats also considered rude. gentlemen. you folks appear to pride yourselves on your 'impeccable'LOL manners
at least what you percieve as impeccable but rest asured thats not the case.at least from my perspective when my first and subsquent posts were littered with accusations of my being a lyer by virtue of masquerading as myself when in factv im a mike whatever that may be.

Please stop with the abusive language, @Swerve asked you a simple question that doesn`t warrant this type of response. You stated that you served in the U.S Army so you should have a full understanding on doctrine and tactics that we trained to fight the Cold war with, we are geared for offensive type mounted warfare with vehicles in our inventory that are designed to take the fight to our opponents not sit in large populated areas at street intersections and hope that someone isn`t lining up a RPG-7 for a rear shot. Do you realize that the majority of our vehicle losses are coming from MP units and logistical support units that are required to cover many miles on road ways, is the M113 series vehicle going to be able to do that on a constant basis and still provide good protection, the answer is no. We are scrambling to come out with better protected vehicles for support units and MP units, they are making it to the soldiers and losses are coming down, tactics have played a part in this also, we cannot expect a large offensive doctrined ground force to fight in this type of setting without being retrained. This is my last response to you inregards to the M113, if you cannot back up your claim then do not respond.

 

[eckherl]

The official statement from Defense Minister (early 2007):

"The Leopard 2A4 tanks will replace some of the current SAF SM1 tanks, as part of the SAF's transformation into the third-generation fighting force."

The key word in the statement being "some".

Along with this statement there were 2 rusty scrap-looking AMX-13 (SM1 in Singapore) being paraded for the media before being melted down into some dumb sculpture. This was intended to give the impression that we are getting rid of our alleged 350 AMX-13 tanks.

But actually, what's happened is we've replaced 2 scrapyard AMX-13 with 96 Leopard 2A4.

That leaves us with 348 AMX-13 and there's no further statement of their fate.

...

The AMX-13 SM1 retains the old 75mm gun but with a range of modern ammo developed by STK including one that looked like APFSDS, HE and beehive.

Interesting - they could upgrade them to 90mm guns quite easily for more of a punch, for the terrian over there it would make a good ambush vehicle.

 

[Chino]

Interesting - they could upgrade them to 90mm guns quite easily for more of a punch, for the terrian over there it would make a good ambush vehicle.

I don't see any more future upgrades for the 50-year old AMX-13. Furthermore, the funny turret design means the gun cannot be stabilised to fire on the move and there's little room for up-armouring its thin armour.

For gun tanks, we now operate AMX-13 (75mm), AMX-10P (90mm) and allegedly, possess about 100 upgraded Centurions with 105mm. Leopard 2A4s will be operational within one to 2 years.

Now on consideration is a wheeled platform with one possible contender being the locally developed Terrex which Turkey is already license-building, I think.

 

[grndpndr]

apparently the mike Sparks? Drama was lost on me as im a late comer .Perhaps i overreacted when connected with or actully accused of being this person whom ive never heard of nor have i ever knowingly read any of his stuff. but i still feel my reaction was/ is somewhat understandable .in that context.If were not on the same page with regards the M113 fine Im not stuck on the subject in and of itself ,as i stated my only concern was for an armored vehicle that could be fielded post haste rather than years down the line improving troop survivability(in Iraq,NOW) which I find tragic that this country hasnt as of yet found a solution to this problem meanwhile causing severe wounding and death that could posibly be reduced given a better vehicle.This was the entire thrust of my argument with the exception of also [roviding airbornr with a viable armored offensive capability.
And as an answer to whether the M113 a3/4 was still lapes capable and also traditionally air dropped yest it can.in fact 2 can be loaded and droppd either as the low altitude parachute extractiojn system or a higher altitude traditiona;l drop.That was another reason i was enamored of the a3/4 models was the fact 2 could be delivered with crews from a single c130.Whle the strykers great wieght and size alowd but a single vehicle that needed partial disasembly to load and had to have a secured airport.. incapable of being air delivered.Also as far as tactics recall i was an infantryman, light infantryman and other than as part of a hunter /killer team on a tow with the battalons combat support company.And by the way our mobility armor consisted of an old m151 style Jeep.And with that combination our job was as a quick reaction force to be tasked with stopping oncoming mechanisd forces or acting as an anvil again against mechanized (most likely) armor so amything that had a ppossibility of adding some capability was a dream of ours back in the day.

fact is a team lucky enough to have an m113a1/2 was indeed a lucky team in our view with mobility the extra firepower of the integral APCs M2 and assorted pigs was indeed hot stuff to us.IFV or APC they wre never intended to go toe to toe with any tnk.The intention asthe APC/IFV be in defilade until the anti-armor ambush began at which point our integral anti-armor weapons be they 106s our TOW and Dragon Anti armor wpns and small arms for accompanying inf as well as the apcs HMGs/LMGs began firing.Recall this as over 30 years distant. I also question the Idea of an optimized vehicle for this situation ie protecting long range convoys with IFVs etc and the needs of a future war n which light vehicls will be first on scene and expected to hold ground as well s manuever while offereing a credible threat to heavy armored vehicles like the reassigned M8? was intended to do.

My hope is those who felt offended by me can realize it was also bad form to accuse me of being someone I am not and also accuse me of lying about it as well.

At any rate I apologize for any misundersanding on my part which resulted in controversy as to suitabile discusion which in fact it was not acceptable at all.

perhaps a more suitable role for the hundreds or thousands in mithballs would be as a mount for the new self loading 120mm mortar?Can you tell im something of a packrat?And why not/ The military is now scrambling to field as
many M14s as can found SNCE OUR FORMER PESIDENT HAD SOME SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DESTROYED BY PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

ps; SINCE COLONEL HACKWORTH HAD SIMILAR ATITUDES TOWARDS AN UPGRADED M113 ANTHING I AD WOULD BE REDUNDANT GIVEN HIS NILITARY STATURE VERSUS YOURS, MINE,OR ANY OTHER SITE CONTRIBUTOR.And as has been said"thats all I got to say on that matter" MITCH, spelled M ,I ,T, C ,H

 

[Grand Danois]

Hi grndpndr (or Mitch, if you so desire),

It would be appreciated if you took the following ad notam:

Don't use caps characters in your posts. It gives the impression that you're shouting and is considered rude.

If you wish to discuss the virtues of the M-14 over other rifles issued in the US Army, please open a new thread on the subject.

Lastly, a less antagonistic attitude will make ours & yours experience on DT a more pleasant one.

We do have suspensions and permanent bans as tools, and we use them if we have to.

Thank you
/GD

 

[grndpndr]

After rereading Simon 9s post#151 in response to chinos post regarding Mike
Sparks as well as other contributors including Col Hackworth also a hero of mine who i felt had the nads to speak up for what he felt was most effective both in terms of weaponry and tactics.

Have i misudged whats really going on here /That in effect this is really an argument about wheeled vs tracked vehicles and the trend for the future of US weaponry> will the light/med armor be tracked or wheeled which is why
this Mike is so reviled as is these other guys among them milt sparks ,Carlton meyer and apparently no less a personage than Col David Hackworth Who aparently advocates tracked vs wheeled lighty armor?

This is a site diametricaly opposed to tracked light armor instead believing
wheeled vehicles superior am I on the right TRACK here?Which is why in spite of my initaial attempst to have a friendly discussion was called Mike?I get it!

By the way i am indeed a tracked vehicle diehard for the following reasons.
Mobility and survivability.I wont get stuck and immobile and easy target for the enemy.If my wheels on a wheeled vehicle are shot to pieces as they will be by even LMGs. With a tracked vehicle,particularly the modernizd tracks of the M113 solid rubber tarcks with interior stel cables which are as close to permenent as is posible and very resistant to kinetic energy weapons as well as explosives which wheeled vehicles arent no matter how sophisticated you clsim they are against damage the still cannot afford the same traction mobility

s much s i know this forum despis the m113 i will repeat wht the israelis have done with thier m113s while we and to a lesser extent the Canadians have ignored at the peril of our troops.

All over the internet just google a site for yourself if you must have referencs
As your aware the israelis encounter a very similar situation to own nevery day as we do in irag/Iran.So as a result
IMI developed a nw passive hybrd armor designd to counter common iEDs and the sophisticated EFPs allegedly supplied by Iran.The Hybryd pasive armor is supllied in modular form for add on M113 armor w/replaceble modules if damaged.The passive armor dssipats cemicl energy weapon and kinetic energ weapons such as gnfie and efps incliding multiple hits providing 45-60mm equivalent homogenous rolled armour plate.

At a cost of $100,000 including automotive upgrades the armor i in kit form and can be applied in the field in a few days.IMI is calling thir upgraded M113 theUrban fighter.Retaining the cross country mobility tracked vehicles are known for as well as deep water fording capability in an APC/IFV w/superior ant-ied/efp/RPG protecton s well as MRAP (Mine resistant ambush protection)
in a 60mph mobile platform unlike a wheeled platform offroad.And with 360degree visibility for the commander and crewman/gunner.The US and canadian Military are slowly relearning old lesons.

I think this should quiet most of the vociferous criticism of the M113 s an effective upgradable lethal /survivable vehicle for far less $$ tha an armored humvee.I fail to understand the hostility towards the weapons system.it isnt often the Israrelis waste $$ on junk and since the palestinian insurgency virtually mimicks that of iraq xcept on intensity.

So please answer me in concrete terms why the m113 is such an inferor vehicle for its size an d cost and what IS the answer at these prices or similar.
i know a reply will be $$ isnt important live s are but Im afraid there isnt enough $$ or armor to ensure zip csualties or prove me right that this site is simply an anti tracked vehicle site when it comes to IFVs /APCs light armor as I know suspect. I wasa asked for concrete answres ive given them now return the favor on the economy and suitability of the stryker and Humvee
paticularly the survivability of the humvee and the moblity/ amhib of the stryker.

Also Ive ben infomd that all the negativs ive encountered on the net are somehow almost completely under the control of This Mike and retired group of Mil officers etc.

 

[kato]

To recap this thread:

This thread was originally about what defines a IFV vs an APC. It then evolved into a debate on whether today APCs are at all still "viable", and in which doctrine they are used in which way.
(page 1)

Then there was a short debate on whether specific vehicles fall in the IFV category.
(page 2)

Then there was a short discussion on various medium gun calibers (.50cal vs 20mm).
(page 3)

Around the middle of page 4, the discussion on whether specific systems are IFVs or APCs started up again with questions about specific vehicles in certain doctrines, in particular with the M113. Followed by a more generalized discussion about how APCs are used in combat.
(pages 4-6)

On Page 6, the name Mike Sparks was first mentioned (by me). Page 7 was when you first posted.

So - no, this thread is not about tracked vs wheeled. Or about people "despising" the M113, because most people here don't. The M113 has its places, but it's not on the virtual "frontline" under fire - and was never designed for that.

 

[Chino]

Kato

I would like add to your list that on Page 6, you brought up this person's name in an attempt to belittle my opinions and influence other people's opinions against me. And you also said that I brought down this thread's standards by quoting him.

Such "us & them" tactics are childish and cowardly. Like what you keep saying about "retreating to periheral cover" and "opportunity fire".

If you want to debate with me you stick to the points and please refrain from petty remarks and references to other people regarding me.

...

By mentioning this person's name, you have completely taken this thread off track.

So grow up, and like I said, if you have nothing to contribute, shut up and don't spoil any other threads.

 

[eckherl]

I don't see any more future upgrades for the 50-year old AMX-13. Furthermore, the funny turret design means the gun cannot be stabilised to fire on the move and there's little room for up-armouring its thin armour.

For gun tanks, we now operate AMX-13 (75mm), AMX-10P (90mm) and allegedly, possess about 100 upgraded Centurions with 105mm. Leopard 2A4s will be operational within one to 2 years.

Now on consideration is a wheeled platform with one possible contender being the locally developed Terrex which Turkey is already license-building, I think.

Agreed - AMX - 13 is getting up there in age and with the Oscilating turret you are minimized on what you could accomplish, France also made this model with a 90mm gun though. I have heard this before that you guys have Centurions warehoused but I did not realize that it was that many, they would not happen to be for your IDF friends would they.