Am I opening a can of worms here? I think I am...M113...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Some Googling has shown me I should probably "hide" this: there's some guy whose rantings, to the best of my recollection, go back to my earliest days on the internet (1990!). The focus of those rantings is the name of the M113 (he insists that it is, in fact, named after a famous airborne general with a last name that begins with "G" - and ends with an "a" followed by a v, i and an n), but even moreso on his bizarre obsession with the thing's capabilities.

To wit, anything <#VEHICLE> can do, an M113 should be assigned to do because it can do it better and it is criminal to allocate anything but M113s to the job. Abrams? No no, a low pressure 120mm main gun on a faster, lighter M113 should have been used - after all the M113 can carry a 155mm gun with no problem! (because the SP part of the M109 shares some powertrain and drive mechanisms in common with the 113). Stryker AGS? That gun turret should be on the -113! M2 Bradley? Too expensive and fiddly! The TOW turret should be on the 113! ad nauseam.

It's to the point (and I should mention it's never happened to me...) that the dude gets all weird and internet stalky on people who disagree with him, or who point out things like the M113 hasn't had an amphibious variant in years and years (he loves pointing out that this track or that track can't go where the 113 can because the 113 is amphibious, but those crooks, liars and criminals in the Pentagon deliberately sabotaged the M113 by removing amphibious capabilities from it, you see), has never ever except unloaded and unfueled and by LAPES been "air droppable" or "air transportable", etc.

Anyone bump in to this dude?

Oh he also lies about his military service; depending on what mood you catch him in he's been an armored platoon commander, part of the Selection Committee for armor projects, a DAT who "saw the light" and learned to love the 113, etc. but in actuality he's a supply clerk or something.

It's borderline neurotic - no, it IS neurotic and quite a hoot to watch from a distance...

[Legbreaker]

Found his rants online as well in the past. The one "variant" he proposed which really sums him up is his "airborne" - add wings and let it glide into action from the back of a C130....

As crazy as he is, and to the infuriation of all who know better, his "G" name has gained a tiny bit of traction with naive civilians. :(

Here's one man who justifies immediate discharge from anything even resembling a military organisation (right down to and including boy scouts) and wrapping tightly in a strait jacket.

[HorseSoldier]

Never met Sparks, but know people who have interfaced with him directly (reference his airborne assault bicycle idea, rather than his "Gavin" idolatry). From what I've been told he's every bit loony in person as his various websites would suggest.

[natehale1971]

Actually... his idea of issuing montague collapsable mountain bicycles has a little bit of crediblity. it's lightweight and would allow troops a little more flexibility on moving around on a battlefield. Hell, in T2k i think all my characters have a mountain bike stashed somewhere that they can call back on if their vehicles get fragged. montague collapsable mountain bicycles actaually have 'side cars' and 'trailers' that are just as all terrain as the bike is. I had heard that there was feasablity studies for using them on a wide scale, but they're mostly used by REALLY light speciality units (special ops) on a case by case basis AS NEEDED. I don't know if that's true or not, but it kind of makes sense... special ops troops are known for a widely ecclectic array of weapons, equipment and vehicles that they choose from.

In fact my friend in the army had said that he was going to help me get a set of montague collapsable mountain bikes with the all terrain trailers and 'sidecars' for me, the so-called wife and the boys. But after emma abanonded me after the wreck, and the fact that i'm just phyiscally not able to ride a bike (right knee just doesn't bend enough)... he and I felt that it would just be a waste of money.

Hell, one of my favorite stores when i was in the navy made speciality webgear for the SEAL Teams and Marine Force Recon based out of the Norfolk, VA area. One of the SEALs i knew and hung out with bought me my first equipment vest (it was in exchange for some artwork i did for him and his family) that he had them make for me. And I swear i wore that thing at every convention because it had been made to carry my markers, colored pencils and a couple sketchbooks. and they made it with a smile saying that it wasn't the oddest request the special forces guys had ever asked them to make...

Though I also really do like the idea of the Ridgeway sled that light infantry could use to carry their gear and ammo. I've got friends who are still in the army to this day who loves the idea of the Ridgeway and the bicycles. Though he doesn't much like the Strykers, he has some major problems the M113 (namely the thin armor) and slowly started to accept the Stryker after experiencing how they held out against IEDs. But he said that he actually prefers the Coguar HE 6x6 mine ambush protected vehicle when it comes to wheeled armored vehicles.

I love the G-name for the M113, namely because it sounds better than just calling it a "tincan" or a "track"... but I have felt that way since i had first heard about the M113 APC from my dad and maternal uncle. They had a real love hate relationship with the M113. they liked it's versitality, but hated the fact that all it was, was a glorified "Battle Taxi" as they called it (and for YEARS i thought that was the M113's actual official nickname).

[Panther Al]

I always felt that the guy was a loonie - but thats just person point of view.


As to the naming of the 113, I always called the things half-tracks. Dunno why I do, just one of those things. Didn't take long though for the moniker to stick in my troop.

(Then agian, I always refered to the 60/240 as a thirty or thirty cal.)

[pmulcahy11b]

I always felt that the guy was a loonie - but thats just person point of view.


As to the naming of the 113, I always called the things half-tracks. Dunno why I do, just one of those things. Didn't take long though for the moniker to stick in my troop.

(Then agian, I always refered to the 60/240 as a thirty or thirty cal.)

Don't worry, you're probably like me -- old as dirt. (And BTW, did you know that your avatar shows up in the box where you can pick an emoticon for your post? And Targan's avatar is still replacing my "edit" button. It's getting weird in here...)

[Legbreaker]

As to the naming of the 113, I always called the things half-tracks.

Possibly because they're only half as good as a real track? ;)
*ducks and looks over shoulder expecting to see a raving Sparks with a machette*
And Targan's avatar is still replacing my "edit" button. It's getting weird in here...)

It's all just in your head Paul. Blame the meds, I'm sure Targan had something to do with their manufacture.... :D

[ArmySGT.]

Oh yeah,

He is every where there is the M113.

He will spazz on museum sites, Youtube, scribed, military history sites, scribd.com etc.

Some much so that at the first utterance of the "#avin" name that poster gets banned.

The M113 is just the M113 it has never had a name.

His other crap is just crap. The M113 is lightly armored to make it air transportable or lifted by a heavy lift helo. This means the armor is good enough for small arms and shell splinters.

There's a reason you see Troops riding on top.

[bobcat]

i accidentally found his website just trying to find the troll. if he weren't wo stupid i'd be laughing.


15 minutes of reading his site later. ok i need brain bleach this "spark" has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Oh yeah,

He is every where there is the M113.

He will spazz on museum sites, Youtube, scribed, military history sites, scribd.com etc.

Some much so that at the first utterance of the "#avin" name that poster gets banned.

The M113 is just the M113 it has never had a name.

His other crap is just crap. The M113 is lightly armored to make it air transportable or lifted by a heavy lift helo. This means the armor is good enough for small arms and shell splinters.

There's a reason you see Troops riding on top.

What sickens me about the guy is that I've seen reposts on YT - by him - of Jihadi videos showing Abrams, Bradleys, Strykers, Humvees and other vehicles/tracks being destroyed by IED usually with some bullshit in the description of ANOTHER POINTLESS LOSS BECAUSE THE ARMY REFUSED TO USE THE PROPER VEHICLE HERE. He got particularly vile about some early losses of AAV-7s early in the Iraq invasion. A pair got hit by RPGs and were total losses (as were the crews and troops inside) and he leapt on it making some kind of connection about how that somehow wouldn't have happened to an M113...

[ArmySGT.]

What sickens me about the guy is that I've seen reposts on YT - by him - of Jihadi videos showing Abrams, Bradleys, Strykers, Humvees and other vehicles/tracks being destroyed by IED usually with some bullshit in the description of ANOTHER POINTLESS LOSS BECAUSE THE ARMY REFUSED TO USE THE PROPER VEHICLE HERE. He got particularly vile about some early losses of AAV-7s early in the Iraq invasion. A pair got hit by RPGs and were total losses (as were the crews and troops inside) and he leapt on it making some kind of connection about how that somehow wouldn't have happened to an M113...

Yep, that's him. There some /k/ommandos from 4chan that google "G####n" because this whale poo can't help himself and cites it like it was fact and not his fantasy. So they go and egg him a bit and he goes coo coo for cocoa puffs with a quickness.

I misplaced my photo of a M113 used as a gunnery target. The .50 cal rounds penetrate one side, yaw hard, and embed themselves in the other side. It would still be lethal to anyone inside.

M113s aluminum armor was terrible at spalling. Any HEAT round would go right through and with aluminum's lower melting point more hot spall was splashed about versus steel.

The M113 was also notoriously deadly to passengers inside if it struck a AT mine. Enough armor to contain the blast inside.

We are on the M113A3 now and following the Israelis mods.

Personally I think the future for the M113 remains as a specialist vehicle.

Would be cool to see one with a Ripsaw suspension. Oh yeah.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

He gets trolled by 4Chan? Good, he deserves it.

[pmulcahy11b]

Yeah, but in training, the M113 is a really fun vehicle to tool around the countryside with! I have fond memories of driving them. And the tillers will really build up your upper body strength!

[natehale1971]

One thing about the stock M113 that gets me... is that it's armor is so damn light that a .50cal heavy machinegun punches throught it, but other nations have been doing variants of the M113 that are better armored and more flexible. I've thought about what happens with the M113 in my extended version of the 1st Edition timeline of Twilight 2000.

Namely being used by the Police, the State Guards and the border patrol (ie, United States Territorial Guard that in my setting was created by the US Congress in the years before the Twilight War). Jobs that were originally seen as needing lightly armored vehicles that would protect against small arms, and most would have felt wouldn't ever run up against heavy weapons.

I looked at what the Isrealis have done the many variants of the M113 and saw an extremely wide-range of specialty vehicles that would work in the kinds of roles that a paramilitary force like the US Territorial Guard (a land based version of the Coast Guard that focused on Boarder Defense and the security of National Forests and airports, basically they are the Border Patrol and less intrusive TSA in my setting).

I just can't decide if ALL those surplus M113's would be more valuable like that, or being used for scrap metal. Because after the nuclear exchanges i can see those M113's being federalized and brought back into the use by the military... because a lightly armored APC is better than none.

So I'm asking everyone here what they think. Would the M113 be better used by the US Army passing them on to Police, State Guards and the Territorial Guard? OR just sending them to be Scrapped?

Sending them to be Scrapped would result in money going back to the US Army... i just don't know how much.

But passing them on to Police Departments, State Guards and the US Territorial Guard would 'save money' by those agencies would not have to spend said funds on purpose built lightly armored vehicles (like we are seeing happen today).

So what do you think?

(sorry for hijacking the thread... but it 'sparked' this thought process, and bringing the thread into a discussion about T2k just seemed like a good idea)

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I just can't decide if ALL those surplus M113's would be more valuable like that, or being used for scrap metal. Because after the nuclear exchanges i can see those M113's being federalized and brought back into the use by the military... because a lightly armored APC is better than none.

So I'm asking everyone here what they think. Would the M113 be better used by the US Army passing them on to Police, State Guards and the Territorial Guard? OR just sending them to be Scrapped?

Sending them to be Scrapped would result in money going back to the US Army... i just don't know how much.

So what do you think?



<snippity>

In my "Orlando Joint Military Command" thing I wrote up last year (!) I've got the JMC with five APCs (an ex-Israeli MICV, an LAV-100, an LAV150 and two M113A2s (ex NASA)) and that gives them incredible tactical flexibility against NA forces from Southwest FL as well as Seminole insurgents (that and most of Central Florida's remaining population has "snuggled up" around downtown Orlando but there are still communities that need the cavalry periodically).

I think local MilGov (and probably civgov) Kampfgruppes would absolutely buy/beg/borrow/steal any armor they could get their hands on, with the Mexicans pushing through to Nevada in the Southwest, Division Cuba running around in central TX and marauders everywhere, I can't imagine them not using every available armor asset they have. Including functional museum pieces owned by collectors, to wit:

"Wellsir, that's a fine lookin' M48 you got there. Served on one in Vietnam with the 24th. You too? Small world, ain't it? Lissen, we got an offer to make you and your family. How'd you like three squares a day, a bunch of grease monkeys to help you keep that and that halftrack running, and a bandit-free perimeter to live in?" Then suddenly Joe the slightly odd guy who owns his own tank is now Joe the military contractor for MilGov's 11th Provisional Armored Cavalry Company in Valdosta, GA...

[copeab]

"Wellsir, that's a fine lookin' M48 you got there. Served on one in Vietnam with the 24th. You too? Small world, ain't it? Lissen, we got an offer to make you and your family. How'd you like three squares a day, a bunch of grease monkeys to help you keep that and that halftrack running, and a bandit-free perimeter to live in?" Then suddenly Joe the slightly odd guy who owns his own tank is now Joe the military contractor for MilGov's 11th Provisional Armored Cavalry Company in Valdosta, GA...

You have a higher view of MilGov than I do. I picture it more like:

"That M48's operational? Got an offer to make you. You give it to us and we don't kill you and your sons and rape your womenfolk and then take them with us as comfort girls. Sound like a deal?"

Not that CivGov would give a better offer.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

You have a higher view of MilGov than I do. I picture it more like:

"That M48's operational? Got an offer to make you. You give it to us and we don't kill you and your sons and rape your womenfolk and then take them with us as comfort girls. Sound like a deal?"

Not that CivGov would give a better offer.

Well it's the "Gov" part that I thi...wait, let me start over.

After the war, I think both sides are going to be so needful of the people's support for whatever comes after things settle down that they're going to try more carrot and less stick. Yeah, an answer of "Get off my lawn, you gub'mint folks!" would probably be met with your response, though...

[Targan]

MilGov would take possession of any armor they could locate, no doubt. If a private owner had papers proving ownership my guess is that MilGov would at the very least give the owner a receipt and some sort of promise of recompense at a later date (and maybe even some sort of consideration at the time such as food, medicine, a promise of protection etc). If the private owner couldn't prove legitimate ownership of the item and/or was beligerant the seizure of the vehicle would be on less friendly terms I suspect.

[natehale1971]

You have a higher view of MilGov than I do. I picture it more like:

"That M48's operational? Got an offer to make you. You give it to us and we don't kill you and your sons and rape your womenfolk and then take them with us as comfort girls. Sound like a deal?"

Not that CivGov would give a better offer.

In your world maybe... I don't see something like that happening. New America yes. MilGov... Not so much, they'd see the person who has it as either knowing how to operate or use it. And a resource they would want to use. While CivGov would just come in and take it and anything else they found they wanted with the statement of "You shouldn't have these weapons, and for the welfare and betterment of everyone we are confiscating this" and there are all those FEMA regs support me on that feeling.

[ArmySGT.]

One thing about the stock M113 that gets me... is that it's armor is so damn light that a .50cal heavy machinegun punches throught it, but other nations have been doing variants of the M113 that are better armored and more flexible. I've thought about what happens with the M113 in my extended version of the 1st Edition timeline of Twilight 2000.

Namely being used by the Police, the State Guards and the border patrol (ie, United States Territorial Guard that in my setting was created by the US Congress in the years before the Twilight War). Jobs that were originally seen as needing lightly armored vehicles that would protect against small arms, and most would have felt wouldn't ever run up against heavy weapons.



Jobs better suited to lightly armored WHEELED vehicles. Tracks are maintenance intensive and burn through to much fuel for security patrols.

I could see the Border patrol using M113 is the roughest terrain or the most dangerous areas.

The .gov could contract from Loomis (makes their own armored cars) to build security vehicles.

[Ronin]

Jobs better suited to lightly armored WHEELED vehicles. Tracks are maintenance intensive and burn through to much fuel for security patrols.

I could see the Border patrol using M113 is the roughest terrain or the most dangerous areas.

The .gov could contract from Loomis (makes their own armored cars) to build security vehicles.

Seems like the M1117 (Successor to the Cadillac Gage Commando) might be a good fit for what you are suggesting.

[ArmySGT.]

Seems like the M1117 (Successor to the Cadillac Gage Commando) might be a good fit for what you are suggesting.

It is a V-150. Hasn't changed all that much since the XM706.

Ironically, during my time in Iraq the MP Companies with these worked in Baghdad protecting convoys to and from BIAP to the Green Zone.

While we escorted convoys from Talil AB to BIAP or the fuel depot (civilian) in Mahmudiyah. Using M114s and M1025s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/asv.htm

I am thinking that by this late in Twilight, the factory is nuked or running full tilt to supply U.S. Allies like Portugal and Spain with replacement parts and vehicles. So a civilian source making armored cars on civilian chassis would be available and provide what is adequate for the task.

[Legbreaker]

Used properly, the M113 is adequate on most battlefields. With a proper crew using the terrain, and NOT acting like a tank (ie rolling over the top of heavily armed opponents) the '13 performs quite well.
Basically, if an enemy is known to possess anything heavier than 7.62, the '13s should stay well back and let the infantry destroy the heavy weapons. Hull down and providing fire support once they've dropped the infantry off is the best way to use them in that situation.
Should an enemy be armed with nothing more than rifles and medium machineguns, then the '13 can roll in and crush the enemy (litterally!)

Just because a vehicle has light armour, doesn't make it useless on the battlefield. The tactics have to be adjusted of course, and the commanders need to be aware of the limitations of their vehicles.

[natehale1971]

I'm looking for something that would be cost effective and that new construction wouldn't be necessary for the units being sent to Police, State Guard, Territorial Guard units.

It's the reason i was asking if the decommissioned M113s would be cost effective and useful for those kinds of units, or bring more return by just having them scrapped.

[ArmySGT.]

I'm looking for something that would be cost effective and that new construction wouldn't be necessary for the units being sent to Police, State Guard, Territorial Guard units.

It's the reason i was asking if the decommissioned M113s would be cost effective and useful for those kinds of units, or bring more return by just having them scrapped.

Worth far, far more as hulls than as scrap metal. Even if it was political capital doing a lend lease deal with an Ally.

[natehale1971]

Thank you SGT...

That gives me some ideas... in a highened threat level world, older hulls (armored vehicles and naval vessels) being sold or given to allies would be a good idea. how hard is it to turn an already existing M113 hull into one of the variants? is the mod of say a stock M113 into a variant something that can be done quickly and economically?

[ArmySGT.]

M113 into an M113A3? Stripped to the hull and introduced into the assembly line. Whatever time it takes to assemble an M113A3, a week, two weeks, or just a few hours? I have no idea.

If it is not a fundamental change to the hull like a large turret, would not say much more.

A lot of things are done, then the equipment is shipped to the Ally so the Ally completes the Mod to their specs. Like radio mounts, weapons mounts, fording gear, night vision, etc.

The Ally fits it to meet their supply chain.

The Leopard and the M113 are similar, NATO standard but, National specific models.

[natehale1971]

i see... the bad thing is, the biggest allies i see getting the M113s that were not sold/given to the police, state guard and territorial guard during the years before the Euro-Soviet War would have been the PRC and Mexico in my altered timeline.

[Legbreaker]

Turning one into a mortar carrier or that level of alteration is possible, given the right tools and materials. Not sure how easy that would be in T2K when every last existing hull is likely to be refurbished rather than altered. Replacing old parts is much simpler than cutting and shutting...

[Fusilier]

Replacing old parts is much simpler than cutting and shutting...

I'll wager the M113 parts are very easy to produce. When I was in Vietnam I saw countless old war era M113s still being used by the military and they wouldn't have been ordering replacement parts from the USA over these last few decades.

[natehale1971]

In my setting the M113 was phased out by the Armed forces due to the light armor issues. In the light infantry role, the US Army was able to get the German designed Wesiel 2 AWC (the APC version is like a mini-bradley). I have been considering the possibility of a lisence built version being produced for use by the US Armed Forces at factories in the United States.

[ArmySGT.]

i see... the bad thing is, the biggest allies i see getting the M113s that were not sold/given to the police, state guard and territorial guard during the years before the Euro-Soviet War would have been the PRC and Mexico in my altered timeline.

You mean the ROC aka Taiwan right? Do they use the M113? Mexico likely does, however their is no Political capital to make foisting them off onto unstable Allies or to woo one away from the other side. Their is a point to refurbishing your own stuff in Depot too. All that Armor out there is usually on loan if it is a display, the DoD still owns it. Unless it was designated surplus / scrapped because these are not being fielded any more.

So I can see them going to South Africa to woo them away from the Soviet sphere and keep the Cape open to NATO see traffic. To the Phillipines our old Friends and Allies in the South Pacific, to Portugal for the Azores Airfields, to Israel to counter the Soviets in Syria, to bolster Turkey as it shares borders with the USSR. To Norway for the same reason. To the FRG to bolster their second echelon units, and the same with Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Luxembourg.


Turning one into a mortar carrier or that level of alteration is possible, given the right tools and materials. Not sure how easy that would be in T2K when every last existing hull is likely to be refurbished rather than altered. Replacing old parts is much simpler than cutting and shutting...

Exactly, faster to remove and replace, then to cut and fabricate. May or May not be improved to a new model, parts and compatibility being an issue.

[ArmySGT.]

In my setting the M113 was phased out by the Armed forces due to the light armor issues. In the light infantry role, the US Army was able to get the German designed Wesiel 2 AWC (the APC version is like a mini-bradley). I have been considering the possibility of a lisence built version being produced for use by the US Armed Forces at factories in the United States.

No more armor than the M113 and less dismounts. The Wiesel is for Airborne / Airmobile forces.

Light Infantry walks to work. Mechanized rides.

[ArmySGT.]

I'll wager the M113 parts are very easy to produce. When I was in Vietnam I saw countless old war era M113s still being used by the military and they wouldn't have been ordering replacement parts from the USA over these last few decades.

One of our NATO allies could well be selling them parts, or even Israel with the US giving it a blind eye. We are wooing the Viets now for business, and as Allies against Red China.

[Fusilier]

One of our NATO allies could well be selling them parts, or even Israel with the US giving it a blind eye. We are wooing the Viets now for business, and as Allies against Red China.

Very possible.

[natehale1971]

You mean the ROC aka Taiwan right? Do they use the M113? Mexico likely does, however their is no Political capital to make foisting them off onto unstable Allies or to woo one away from the other side. Their is a point to refurbishing your own stuff in Depot too. All that Armor out there is usually on loan if it is a display, the DoD still owns it. Unless it was designated surplus / scrapped because these are not being fielded any more.

I mean the Peoples Republic of China... with all the arms sales they described in the rulebooks after the start of the Sino-Soviet War, the decommissioned M113's could easily have been part of that lend-lease to the People's Republic to fight the Soviets.

In my setting the South African's were ending apartheid and thus being brought into the NATO allies category to stand against the ever growing Congo Pact.

I hadn't thought about the Phillipines and the Republic of China (Taiwan) getting them... thanks!


So I can see them going to South Africa to woo them away from the Soviet sphere and keep the Cape open to NATO see traffic. To the Phillipines our old Friends and Allies in the South Pacific, to Portugal for the Azores Airfields, to Israel to counter the Soviets in Syria, to bolster Turkey as it shares borders with the USSR. To Norway for the same reason. To the FRG to bolster their second echelon units, and the same with Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Luxembourg.

I can see that a well... i was thinking of other locally produced designs being produced for the moderization wave that was adopted after the lessons of Desert Storm that saw improvements and inovations that were adopted a decade ealier than we saw IRL.

Such as the mini-articles on body armor and afew other things that i've been working on.

[ArmySGT.]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm

[natehale1971]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm

this is the first thing i saw on that page...

The M113A1, informally known as the Gavin, is a lightly armoured full tracked air transportable personnel carrier designed to carry personnel and certain types of cargo. The M113-family was developed from M59 and M75 by Ford and Kaiser Aluminium and Chemical Co. in the late 1950�s. The vehicle is capable of: amphibious operations in streams and lakes; extended cross country travel over rough terrain; and high speed operation on improved roads and highways.

[Legbreaker]

They obviously need to be slapped around until they remove that damn phrase!
It's clear they simply haven't done proper research to note it's a name that's come from the worlds greatest nutjob!

Edit: I've just emailed fas.org to do just that!

[copeab]

In your world maybe... I don't see something like that happening. New America yes. MilGov... Not so much, they'd see the person who has it as either knowing how to operate or use it. And a resource they would want to use.

And not let the other side have a chance to use him.

The steps for MilGov and CivGov would likely be:

1) Nice offer
2) Threatening offer
3) Bullet to the head

It's a pragmatic matter of survival and neither side can let a valuable resource fall into the other's hands.

I see CivGov and MilGov as both evil, just in slightly different ways.

[natehale1971]

And not let the other side have a chance to use him.

The steps for MilGov and CivGov would likely be:

1) Nice offer
2) Threatening offer
3) Bullet to the head

It's a pragmatic matter of survival and neither side can let a valuable resource fall into the other's hands.

I see CivGov and MilGov as both evil, just in slightly different ways.

Like i said... in your world maybe.

[Legbreaker]

Well, that was a wasted effort, the email address for the fas.org admin is bogus.
I wonder if Sparks is behind fas as well...? :mad:

[natehale1971]

Well, that was a wasted effort, the email address for the fas.org admin is bogus.
I wonder if Sparks is behind fas as well...? :mad:

I don't think so...

[Legbreaker]

The amount of places that nut shows up, it wouldn't be a big suprise though... :(

[natehale1971]

The amount of places that nut shows up, it wouldn't be a big suprise though... :(

True.. but FAS has been around for a long time. and has alot of things that doesn't really seem like something he'd write.

[ArmySGT.]

Hmm didn't read through as I was skimming for end users.

Informally known as.............. well it is ........ sort of true. Theres a whackjob and a few cultists, as well as some that don't know better that call it that.

[natehale1971]

Hmm didn't read through as I was skimming for end users.

Informally known as.............. well it is ........ sort of true. Theres a whackjob and a few cultists, as well as some that don't know better that call it that.

I was using it as well... namely because of articles like the one i had originally found on FAS and another site that is like it, but i lost the url address when my old computer died. It had official TOE of the various army units from Corps to company, but i couldn't understand what i was reading and why i came up with the way i write things up.

[ArmySGT.]

You want the MTOE for units to write them up as canon?

Every sort of Combat Arms unit has a company level FM, and Battalion level FM, Regimental (Cav), and Brigade.

Service Units have Company, Battalion level, and Brigade.

So in the appropriate FMs you can find out manpower, major end items and number, authorized weapons, and slice elements.

Example Fm 7-8 Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad.

[ArmySGT.]

FM 100 The Army

[natehale1971]

FM 100 The Army

That's just it... I don't have a means to gain access to the FM anymore. :(

[Legbreaker]

Try here to start with....
http://www.enlisted.info/field-manuals/

[natehale1971]

Try here to start with....
http://www.enlisted.info/field-manuals/

Thank you! Thank You! Thank You! :)

[Legbreaker]

Google is your friend for US field manuals.
Try finding an Australian military PAM online though...

[natehale1971]

Google is your friend for US field manuals.
Try finding an Australian military PAM online though...

are there any british field manuals for infantry platoon and company operations?

[natehale1971]

I know this is going to be Off-Topic, but I've got a question about the Mobile Command Post armored vehicle... Just what are they? how are they used?

I've seen in movies where the Army has a tractor trailer truck turned into a mobile command vehicle, and I've seen Police departments use the same kind of setup for their field command posts during massive manhunts and the search and resuce operations. Are these the same thing as the specially built tracked command posts? I'm aving a problem seeing this because the commandpost looks so small.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

You know if I remember correctly during WW2 the M4 was not officially known as the Sherman. I think it was the Brits that gave it that moniker. Actually they may have started the naming of Tanks. Silly Brits.;)

[copeab]

You know if I remember correctly during WW2 the M4 was not officially known as the Sherman. I think it was the Brits that gave it that moniker. Actually they may have started the naming of Tanks. Silly Brits.;)

Yep, the Brits named our tanks -- and aircraft* -- early on the war. I think the only US tanks named by the Americans in WWII were the M-24 Chaffee and M-26 Pershing. Not sure about the M-22 Locust.

*Some aircraft were named (and trademarked!) by the companies that built them before the war, for marketing purposes

[Sanjuro]

Actually they may have started the naming of Tanks. Silly Brits.
To be fair, we were also the ones who named them Tanks in the first place! :)

[Panther Al]

Bah... Tank. Panzer is sooooo much better. ;)

[perardua]

are there any british field manuals for infantry platoon and company operations?

Yes, PAMs (the British equivalent of a field manual) exist. However, they are not generally available to the public, being as they are Restricted.

[dragoon500ly]

Used properly, the M113 is adequate on most battlefields. With a proper crew using the terrain, and NOT acting like a tank (ie rolling over the top of heavily armed opponents) the '13 performs quite well.
Basically, if an enemy is known to possess anything heavier than 7.62, the '13s should stay well back and let the infantry destroy the heavy weapons. Hull down and providing fire support once they've dropped the infantry off is the best way to use them in that situation.
Should an enemy be armed with nothing more than rifles and medium machineguns, then the '13 can roll in and crush the enemy (litterally!)

Just because a vehicle has light armour, doesn't make it useless on the battlefield. The tactics have to be adjusted of course, and the commanders need to be aware of the limitations of their vehicles.

And therein is the rub! Too many congressmen (and way too many officers for that matter!) think that if the vehicle has tracks, armor and a weapon, then it must be a tank and is fully capable of going toe-to-toe with any other tank (of course there is that M-113 ACCV armed with a 106mm RCL....)!

[natehale1971]

Yes, PAMs (the British equivalent of a field manual) exist. However, they are not generally available to the public, being as they are Restricted.

Darn... I just wanted to get a list of what an average soldier carries. You know something like the following...

Oh well. :)

US Army Kit carried by MSG Nathaniel Hale Spaight

Personal Gear: a pair of Uvex XC protective eye wear, sun/wind/dust goggles, pocket survival tool, glass cutter, zippo cigarette lighter, 1 set of dogtags w/silencers, a stainless steel cross, tan beret (w/flash or w/o flash), sand/black Shemagh headdress, Army Battle Dress Uniform (tunic and trousers), a BDU web belt w/buckle, light brown undershirt & underwear, a pair of cushion soled socks, a pair of combat boots, a quartz military watch, a skull bean pace cord, Nomex flight gloves, a small pocket bible (WW2 US Army issue originally carried by grandfather & father), St. Christopher’s medal, an extra-long Rosary necklace w/black hematite beans & a silver crucifix

Tactical Equipment: PASGT Ballistic Helmet, D.A.P./M-Tac 300 Level IIIA Ballistic Vest, Under Armor shirt & leggings, Knee/Elbow pads.

Field Equipment: AN/PVS70 nightvision goggles & hard box w/ batteries, Spare batteries for flashlight 2 sets in plastic bag, Motorola Saber-1R two-way radio w/handmic &earphone, maglight flashlight, 1 pocket knife/Leatherman/Gerber, Trifold entrenching tool (combo shovel/saw/axe), Strobe light, 50' nylon rope, repelling harness, spare batteries, spare com wire, Spare Battery for Platoon/Squad radio, M40 Gas Mask, 2 MOPP suits, LBE (pistol belt, H-type suspenders, 2 5.56mm magazine pouch w/3 clips each, first aid dressing pouch, compass pouch, pistol holster, 2 9mm magazine pouch w/2 clips each, radio pouch), 3 2-quart canteen w/canteen cover & canteen cup, canteen cup cook stove, Folding E-tool and carrier, M9 bayonet w/scabbard (works with scabbard to serve as wire cutters, the scabbard also serves as bottle opener, screw driver, & sharpening stone), first aid dressing, lensatic compass, crookneck flashlight, 3-day pack, 6 MREs, 10 Chemlight (2 red, 2 green, 2 yellow, 2 orange, 2 blue), 2 Infrared Chemlight, MOLLE system (includes a modular rucksack w/removable compartments & components, a fighting load vest, and an on-the-move hydration system), Soft Cover, Boonie Hat, wool watch cap, wool scarf, wool sweater, black leather gloves, wool glove liners, Poncho & poncho liner, field jacket & field jacket liner, Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (parka & trousers), Polypropolyne underwear, a spare pair of Uvex XC protective eye wear, 2 spare sets of ACUs, 2 sets of undershirts & underwear, 4 pairs of cushion soled socks, 1 pair of spare boots, 1 set spare boot laces, 20 magnesium flares, sunscreen, gun cleaning kit (contains: 1 Steel barrel rod with swivel handle, 3 Steel barrel rod extenders, 1 Double-ended nylon gun brush, 1 Shotgun adaptor, 1 Slatted patch holder, 1 Bottle of gun oil, 1 Package of cotton cleaning patches, 1 Silicon gun cloth), Shelter Half (canvas sheet, 4 metal tent pins, 3 section tent pole and 1 line), personal first aid kit (2 syringes of morphine, 1 roll of sterile gauze, 1 roll elastic tape, several field dressings, antiseptic, burn cream, band-aids), camouflage GORE-Tex bivouac shelter, Waterproof bag, extreme cold weather sleeping bag, Isomat (foam sleeping pad), 5-gallon solar shower, water filter, bottle of 20 water purification tablets, magnesium firestarter, Mess kit (can opener, pan, utensils), personal commode, field washstand, 4 bungee cords, 4 210rd bandoliers of 5.56mm ammo, 2 200rd SAW drums, 2 belts 7.62mm Linked ammo, camp stove, 6 sandbags, a Montague ‘Paratrooper’ tactical folding all-terrain mountain bike.

Normal Attire: MSG Nathaniel Hale Spaight wears his US Army Combat Uniform that consists of a tan beret (w/flash and rank insignia), a sand/black Shemagh headdress, an ACU jacket, an ACU combat shirt, a pair of ACU trousers, a light tan moisture wicking tee-shirt & boxers, a pair of brown cushioned soled socks, a pair of desert tan hot weather combat boots, a quartz military watch, a pair of sage Interceptor-X gloves, a set of dogtags w/black silencers, a pair of Uvex XC protective eye wear, a pair of sun/wind/dust goggles, a pair of tactical knee & elbow pads, a PASGT ballistic helmet w/an ACU 2005 Pattern Helmet Cover, MICH 2000 Helmet attachment w/NVG Mount (Die-cut Black EVA Inner Pad), a helmet band, ACU D.A.P./M-Tac 300 Level IIIA Ballistic Vest w/groin & bicep protectors, Coyote Brown Chest Rig w/pouches holding 4 M4 magazines, crookneck flashlight, a PRC 148 Radio w/a headset, an M4 5.56mm carbine w/an M4 Butt Stock magazine pouch holding 2 spare M4 magazines.

Weapons: Colt M4A1 5.56mm Carbine w/7 magazines, Beretta M9 9mm automatic pistol w/5 magazines, M9 Bayonet, 6 M67 Fragmentation Grenades, 1 M15 WP Grenade, 1roll Det Cord (Dmg: 2d6/+1d6 to +4d6, 5ft radius, Ref DC: 12), 1kg block C4/Semtex (Dmg: 4d6/+2d6, 10ft radius/+2ft radius, Ref DC: 18), 2 M18A1 Claymore landmine (6d6, Crit: 20, 60ft cone, Ref DC: 16), 6 blasting caps, 1 section of fuse a few meters, 2 M72A3 LAW rocket launchers, 1 M136 AT4 84mm rocket launcher.

[perardua]

Could give you a list of what I carried in Afghanistan in 2009, bearing in mind I did mostly vehicle mounted patrols, and that I can't be arsed going into quite such ridiculous detail.

Worn: Desert DPM combat trousers, Desert DPM Under Body Armour Combat Shirt (UBACS), Desert socks, Lowa desert boots (can't remember the specific model, but they were whatever the issue pair is), ID discs, ID card in holder round neck, wristwatch, antimicrobial underwear, Mk6A helmet with desert DPM cover (elastic scrim loops removed to prevent catching on interiors of vehicles, and because I was hardly going to somehow stick sand under them) and night vision mount, Mockingbird IR marker, ballistic eye protection (goggles on top cover, glasses on patrol), gloves, kneepad on right knee, Osprey body armour.

Carried in pockets: Left trouser map pocket containing 2x field dressing, 2x morphine combopen, 1x CAT tourniquet, 1x IR cyalume and 1x red cyalume; right trouser map pocket containing mine kit, notebook, Operation Herrick Aide Memoire, crib cards, range card, pen, pencils, lightweight compass. Rifle combitool, oil bottle and pull through in UBACS arm pocket

Carried on Osprey: Six 30-round magazines for L85A2, six 40mm HEDP rounds for UGL, smoke grenade, mine prod, bayonet, personal role radio (PRR), Gerber multi-tool and camelbak.

Carried in daysack: Softie jacket, waterproof jacket, foot powder, soft hat, spare socks, spare underwear, spare water bottles, 24-hour ration pack, spare batteries, head-mounted night vision system, common weapon sight (night sight for rifle), remainder of weapon cleaning kit for rifle and UGL, 16 40mm HEDP rounds for UGL, bandoleer of 150 additional 5.56mm ammo on 10-round stripper clips for refilling rifle magazines, magazine speed charger, plus sleeping system, additional 7.62mm link, etc when required by the task (we rarely did long foot patrols so we cached most of our kit with the vehicles).

Carried in bergen with desert DPM cover (almost always strapped to the side of the wagon): lots of spare socks, lots of spare underwear, 2 spare T-shirts (if and when the patrol harboured up for the night simply removing the UBACS I'd worn all day, having a quick wet wipe and putting on a clean T-shirt felt awesome. Change back into the UBACS in the morning, as it was only going to get soaked in sweat again), 1 spare UBACS, 1 spare pair of trousers, entrenching tool, flip-flops, spare pair of desert boots, huge pack of wet-wipes, washing/shaving kit (not that we shaved out on the ground), spare water (emergencies only, the main supply was in the wagons), lightweight sleeping bag, bivvy bag, desert DPM shelter sheet, softie trousers, more spare batteries, inflatable sleeping mat.

Weapons: L85A2 with 40mm underslung grenade launcher (UGL), LLLM (combination IR/visible laser and IR/visible torch) and SUSAT, assigned pistol (Sig Sauer P226) issued with one 15-round magazine generally left it in the armoury as an extra embuggerance of negligible use in most situations I was going to find myself in.

That was two years ago though, and British kit has been through several upgrades since then, so much of the details will have changed (new MTP uniforms, new helmets, new Osprey version, Elcan Spectre weapon sights, new flash hiders, new rifle magazines, etc).

Also worth a look would be this post on Arrsepedia: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_Basics which is much probably better suited to T2K style warfare and is slightly outdated in terms of references to LSWs, etc.

[pmulcahy11b]

Yep, the Brits named our tanks -- and aircraft* -- early on the war. I think the only US tanks named by the Americans in WWII were the M-24 Chaffee and M-26 Pershing. Not sure about the M-22 Locust.

*Some aircraft were named (and trademarked!) by the companies that built them before the war, for marketing purposes

Yes, the Sherman name, IIRC, was actually a suggestion from the British. We did name the M-3, though -- the Grant for the American version and the Lee for the British version. (The Lee had a bigger turret because the British wanted to stuff more radios into some of their M-3s.)

[pmulcahy11b]

And therein is the rub! Too many congressmen (and way too many officers for that matter!) think that if the vehicle has tracks, armor and a weapon, then it must be a tank

The press is WAY guilty of that one -- some reporters even refer to light wheeled armored cars with no mounted weapons as tanks!

[pmulcahy11b]

I know this is going to be Off-Topic, but I've got a question about the Mobile Command Post armored vehicle... Just what are they? how are they used?

I've seen in movies where the Army has a tractor trailer truck turned into a mobile command vehicle, and I've seen Police departments use the same kind of setup for their field command posts during massive manhunts and the search and resuce operations. Are these the same thing as the specially built tracked command posts? I'm aving a problem seeing this because the commandpost looks so small.

I worked at G-3 at 2ID in Korea, and I've seen and worked in a lot of these setups. They are cramped inside, and I can't go into detail of what their crammed full of, but it varies depending on their job. Some are expandable -- one or both sides can be cranked out when their not moving, and the sides resting on retractable wheels, stands, or even jacks like on an 18-wheeler's trailer. This can potentially triple the working space inside, and it's easy enough to crank out the sides that it can be done by one person in short order. 8th Army HQ had a few 18-wheelers with expandable sides -- you just push a button, and small motors push out the sides, with jacks extending as they push out. (Unfortunately, I didn't have the clearance to even look inside one of those.)

[pmulcahy11b]

Try here to start with....
http://www.enlisted.info/field-manuals/

Jeez I get a lot of good links here!

[dragoon500ly]

Yes, the Sherman name, IIRC, was actually a suggestion from the British. We did name the M-3, though -- the Grant for the American version and the Lee for the British version. (The Lee had a bigger turret because the British wanted to stuff more radios into some of their M-3s.)

LOL...the Brits named the Grant and Lee, as well as the Stuart, Sherman, Locust, Staghound and Greyhound. Pershing is the only one that was named by the Yanks.

The Lee is the US version and has a turret the same diameter as the turret ring, and is fitted with a coupla on top. It also mounts two .30-cal mgs fixed alongside the driver.

The Grant deletes the coupla and has turret fitted with a turret bustle holding a Brit radio set (moved up from alongside the driver); it also deletes the two fixed machine guns.

Both vehicles started out with the short-barreled M-2 75mm (this is the one with the large counterweight bolted to the muzzle end). This was replaced with the M-3 long-barreled 75mm (same one as fitted to the Sherman).

[pmulcahy11b]

I see CivGov and MilGov as both evil, just in slightly different ways.

It could be funny if one side was primarily Democratic while the other side was primarily Republican...

[copeab]

It could be funny if one side was primarily Democratic while the other side was primarily Republican...

And the PCs are Libertarians? ;)

[copeab]

Yes, the Sherman name, IIRC, was actually a suggestion from the British. We did name the M-3, though -- the Grant for the American version and the Lee for the British version. (The Lee had a bigger turret because the British wanted to stuff more radios into some of their M-3s.)

Actually, I thought this was because the American practice was to put radios in the hulls and the British put them in the turret.

[pmulcahy11b]

And the PCs are Libertarians? ;)

I call myself an Enlightened Democrat.;)

[copeab]

LOL...the Brits named the Grant and Lee, as well as the Stuart, Sherman, Locust, Staghound and Greyhound. Pershing is the only one that was named by the Yanks.

The Russians referred to the M-3 Lee/Grants they received as "a coffin for six brothers".

Both vehicles started out with the short-barreled M-2 75mm (this is the one with the large counterweight bolted to the muzzle end). This was replaced with the M-3 long-barreled 75mm (same one as fitted to the Sherman).

Although the sponson mount of the 75mm gun gave it very limited traverse and it was low-velocity, at the time it was the only allied tank to mount a 75mm gun (some British tanks replaced their 2-pdrs with 3" howitzers for close support work, but these had an even lower velocity than the M-3's 75mm gun and were not very useful for AT work).

[natehale1971]

THank you! Thank you! Thank You! perardua i need you to get in touch with me so i can draw the T2k character of your Choice so i can thank you properly!

Could give you a list of what I carried in Afghanistan in 2009, bearing in mind I did mostly vehicle mounted patrols, and that I can't be arsed going into quite such ridiculous detail.

Worn: Desert DPM combat trousers, Desert DPM Under Body Armour Combat Shirt (UBACS), Desert socks, Lowa desert boots (can't remember the specific model, but they were whatever the issue pair is), ID discs, ID card in holder round neck, wristwatch, antimicrobial underwear, Mk6A helmet with desert DPM cover (elastic scrim loops removed to prevent catching on interiors of vehicles, and because I was hardly going to somehow stick sand under them) and night vision mount, Mockingbird IR marker, ballistic eye protection (goggles on top cover, glasses on patrol), gloves, kneepad on right knee, Osprey body armour.

Carried in pockets: Left trouser map pocket containing 2x field dressing, 2x morphine combopen, 1x CAT tourniquet, 1x IR cyalume and 1x red cyalume; right trouser map pocket containing mine kit, notebook, Operation Herrick Aide Memoire, crib cards, range card, pen, pencils, lightweight compass. Rifle combitool, oil bottle and pull through in UBACS arm pocket

Carried on Osprey: Six 30-round magazines for L85A2, six 40mm HEDP rounds for UGL, smoke grenade, mine prod, bayonet, personal role radio (PRR), Gerber multi-tool and camelbak.

Carried in daysack: Softie jacket, waterproof jacket, foot powder, soft hat, spare socks, spare underwear, spare water bottles, 24-hour ration pack, spare batteries, head-mounted night vision system, common weapon sight (night sight for rifle), remainder of weapon cleaning kit for rifle and UGL, 16 40mm HEDP rounds for UGL, bandoleer of 150 additional 5.56mm ammo on 10-round stripper clips for refilling rifle magazines, magazine speed charger, plus sleeping system, additional 7.62mm link, etc when required by the task (we rarely did long foot patrols so we cached most of our kit with the vehicles).

Carried in bergen with desert DPM cover (almost always strapped to the side of the wagon): lots of spare socks, lots of spare underwear, 2 spare T-shirts (if and when the patrol harboured up for the night simply removing the UBACS I'd worn all day, having a quick wet wipe and putting on a clean T-shirt felt awesome. Change back into the UBACS in the morning, as it was only going to get soaked in sweat again), 1 spare UBACS, 1 spare pair of trousers, entrenching tool, flip-flops, spare pair of desert boots, huge pack of wet-wipes, washing/shaving kit (not that we shaved out on the ground), spare water (emergencies only, the main supply was in the wagons), lightweight sleeping bag, bivvy bag, desert DPM shelter sheet, softie trousers, more spare batteries, inflatable sleeping mat.

Weapons: L85A2 with 40mm underslung grenade launcher (UGL), LLLM (combination IR/visible laser and IR/visible torch) and SUSAT, assigned pistol (Sig Sauer P226) issued with one 15-round magazine generally left it in the armoury as an extra embuggerance of negligible use in most situations I was going to find myself in.

That was two years ago though, and British kit has been through several upgrades since then, so much of the details will have changed (new MTP uniforms, new helmets, new Osprey version, Elcan Spectre weapon sights, new flash hiders, new rifle magazines, etc).

Also worth a look would be this post on Arrsepedia: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_Basics which is much probably better suited to T2K style warfare and is slightly outdated in terms of references to LSWs, etc.

[Schone23666]

The press is WAY guilty of that one -- some reporters even refer to light wheeled armored cars with no mounted weapons as tanks!

Col. David Hackworth during Desert Shield/Desert Storm joked one time that he thought he should host a conference with all the reporters out there and teach them how to properly ID vehicles. "See this? It's big and heavy, it has tracks, it has a turret, and in the turret is a really big cannon...we call THIS vehicle a tank." ROFLMAO!!!


Of course.....cough....that doesn't mean the men in uniform also isn't guilty of stupidity from time to time. I remember a Colonel at a previous base I was at was giving us young airmen a pep talk, and showed us a static display of what I think was an F105 (been a while) and pointed out the big cylindrical device under the hull. "See that? That's a good sized bomb it's got there!"

Of course, as airmen we were all a little too embarrassed and intimidated at the time to mention it wasn't a bomb, it was a fuel tank.

:rolleyes:

[copeab]

Col. David Hackworth during Desert Shield/Desert Storm joked one time that he thought he should host a conference with all the reporters out there and teach them how to properly ID vehicles. "See this? It's big and heavy, it has tracks, it has a turret, and in the turret is a really big cannon...we call THIS vehicle a tank." ROFLMAO!!!


Y'know, I'd make the argument that calling a Bradley or BMP a 'tank' is not completely wrong -- MICVs are oversized light tanks with undersized rifle squads crammed inside.

[B.T.]

During my time in the Bundeswehr, we usually called the M113 "Panzer", like in phrases as: "No smoking in the Panzer!"

But "Panzer" is not clear as definition: The Tank (= Main Battle Tank) in German is: "Kampfpanzer".
The IFV/CAV and even the APC are called "Schützenpanzer" in German.
"Panzer" is used as a word for all kinds of tracked vecicles in German.

Therefore it was not completely false, but on the other hand: Everybody knew, that the M113 was not a "Panzer" like the Marder (and the Marder is a true "Schützenpanzer"). It was used as a kind of mocking phrase.
When we were introduced to our workhorse, the NCO explaining the M113 mentioned, that the trim vane would serve as a kind of additional armor. I've never read something like that afterwards, but in a way he was not for from reality. That special NCO even added that you could saw a M113 into pieces with MGs in 7,62 NATO, given time and a lot of ammo. Still don't know, if this is true.

[dragoon500ly]

The Russians referred to the M-3 Lee/Grants they received as "a coffin for six brothers".



Although the sponson mount of the 75mm gun gave it very limited traverse and it was low-velocity, at the time it was the only allied tank to mount a 75mm gun (some British tanks replaced their 2-pdrs with 3" howitzers for close support work, but these had an even lower velocity than the M-3's 75mm gun and were not very useful for AT work).

Not to mention that there was a complete lack of 75mm AP ammo in the Western Desert. So 8th Army Ordnance took captured German 75mm APHE ammo, ground down one of the rifling bands so that it would work in the US gun, mixed the old propellent and remeasured it (for more even ballistic performance) and then reissued it to the Grants.

The Brits also pulled the fuzes from the US HE ammo and replaced it with old French fuzes, these were fitted with a drift element that allowed a 0.3 second delay, a feature that the US fuzes lacked. This allowed the Grants to fire HE rounds just short of German antitank guns and "ricochet" and explode over the crew's heads.

Hmmmm, German projectiles on US shells....US projectiles with French fuzes.....almost sounds like a T2K game?

[dragoon500ly]

Y'know, I'd make the argument that calling a Bradley or BMP a 'tank' is not completely wrong -- MICVs are oversized light tanks with undersized rifle squads crammed inside.

Ouch! I can see your point, but even a light tank carries more armor than a MICV!

[Raellus]

It could be funny if one side was primarily Democratic while the other side was primarily Republican...

Great thought, Paul. I'm really surprised that I've never thought about this before. It makes sense. MilGov, including most of the U.S.'s remaining military forces, would likely be more Republican because of that party's pro-military stance. CivGov, attempting to be more "democratic" and appealing to "the people", seems more like the Democrats.

I'm probably never come back to this again but it is an interesting idea. I think I prefer to think of MilGov and CivGov to be two new political entities, replacing the old two-party system. I'm sure each group spans the political spectrum on its own.

[Raellus]

I know that the M113 is lightly armored and lightly armed but I've always thought of it as one of the better tracked vehicle options for a group of T2K PCs.

Spare parts wouldn't be too hard to find as several NATO armies would have been using large numbers of them during the war.

It's got a relatively roomy interior (compared to a Bradley or Marder).

Side-mounted racks can carry a lot of gear and serve as stand-off armor against HMG and RPG rounds (same with the trim vane, as B.T. mentioned). There are also a few stand-off armor packages that users might have added by the Exchange.

The roof hatches over the troop compartment allow passengers decent all-around vision. Multiple MGs can be mounted there as well, giving it decent all-around firepower. With a Mk-19 or M2HB in the gunner's turret, it can tackle threats up to heavy IFVs and MBTs. Fuel tanks can be mounted on the back for extended range (although this increases its vulnerability somewhat).

The Israelis have been doing all of these things for years. They'll be the first to admit the vulnerabilities of the M113 on the modern battlefield, but they're still using them all these years later.

Also, I like calling it the Gavin, mostly because it irritates the piss out of Legbreaker.:D

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I used to be in a unit that used the M113 in the recce role. Having seen a door that was once part of the rear ramp used as a target, I would say that yes, given enough time anybody with a 7.62mm NATO machinegun will cut an M113 in half (excepting the drivetrain etc.) - because aluminium does not stop 7.62mmN, it'll stop small calibre projectiles and slow speed fragments but that's about all.

As for the Gavin name, it pisses me off as well - there's a whole bunch of dumbfuck media and civilians who are now calling it that and just adding to the confusion of identification. These same people are swallowing the crap that the M113 is the panacea to all the military's ills. The Gavin name has not been officially recognized, let alone adopted, by any military that operates the M113.

The person who gave it that name believes that the M113 should be called the Gavin because it is his notion of the perfect airborne combat vehicle (and as such should be named after a general deeply involved in airborne forces). Never mind the hard reality that all the modifications he wants to put on it will make it less and less capable as an airborne combat vehicle - try to make a single vehicle do everything and you end up with a vehicle that does none of them well.

[natehale1971]

I'm actually thinking of using the Gavin name in my campaign for the replacemet of the M113... the American lisence built version of the Weisel AWC. :)

I just can't figure out wht the 'M' number would be.

[pmulcahy11b]

I'm actually thinking of using the Gavin name in my campaign for the replacemet of the M113... the American lisence built version of the Weisel AWC. :)

I just can't figure out wht the 'M' number would be.

Think of a random "M" number off the top of your head, and then run it through Google and see if it actually existed in the T2K timeline. Then you can decide whether to throw it out or use it.

[natehale1971]

Think of a random "M" number off the top of your head, and then run it through Google and see if it actually existed in the T2K timeline. Then you can decide whether to throw it out or use it.

That's what i've been thinking of doing. :)

I have to admit that i like the Strykers.... especially what some of the guys using them in Iraq said about them, namely that they were fro the most part quiet while running when compaired to the Bradley's.

[Schone23666]

That's what i've been thinking of doing. :)

I have to admit that i like the Strykers.... especially what some of the guys using them in Iraq said about them, namely that they were fro the most part quiet while running when compaired to the Bradley's.

Well, how about "M-69"?

As far as vehicle numbers go, I don't see one anywhere...and I can see all the snickering going around with that number designation. :p
Just imagine if the vehicle complement was a 50/50 mix of say, female Project Athena members and male GI Joe members...okay, better drag my brain out of the gutter....

Would this be pretty much the Weisel "as is" or would there be any modifications done by the Americans? I was considering having Weisels appear in a few of my fics in use by my fictitious American military task force as well.

[Panther Al]

*twitch-twitch* ... must not get started on ... *twitch*



Ok, I will admit that the Stryker is a hell of lot quiter than any tracked vehicle - even the M1. which means I have found one good thing about it as a combat vehicle- kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day.... ;)

[ArmySGT.]

*twitch-twitch* ... must not get started on ... *twitch*



Ok, I will admit that the Stryker is a hell of lot quiter than any tracked vehicle - even the M1. which means I have found one good thing about it as a combat vehicle- kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day.... ;)

ROWS with 2 Axis stabilization is kind sweet. Blue Force Tracker. FBCB2.

8x8 morning commute goodness.

[cavtroop]

*twitch-twitch* ... must not get started on ... *twitch*



Ok, I will admit that the Stryker is a hell of lot quiter than any tracked vehicle - even the M1. which means I have found one good thing about it as a combat vehicle- kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day.... ;)

Coming from a former Bradley crewman, I like the Stryker. I think it fits the counterinsurgency role much better than the Bradley does. However, in a shooting war, give me heavy armor over the Stryker any day :)

Right tool for the right job, and all that :)

[Graebarde]

Try here to start with....
http://www.enlisted.info/field-manuals/

Thank you.. I FINALLY found the FM in there I've looked for a LONG time. FM 5-488 Forestry and Logging..

[dragoon500ly]

*twitch-twitch* ... must not get started on ... *twitch*



Ok, I will admit that the Stryker is a hell of lot quiter than any tracked vehicle - even the M1. which means I have found one good thing about it as a combat vehicle- kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day.... ;)

LOL!

There is another good thing about a Stryker...on a modern battlefield it will absorb rounds meant for Abrams and Bradleys!

[Panther Al]

ROWS with 2 Axis stabilization is kind sweet. Blue Force Tracker. FBCB2.

8x8 morning commute goodness.

Stab's, got that.
Blufer, got that.
FBCB2, got that too.

But yeah, those wheels do have to make the ride easier.

I am still not a fan of the Stryker as a vehicle. The concept I have nothing against at all, I just think we are going overboard in how many units we are converting over to that force structure. Strikers have a place on the battlefield: as battalion sized rapid reaction force, I think the concept is spot on. I just think the vehicle itself has it's issues.

[Webstral]

The idea that the Stryker is better-suited for one type of operation than another goes to the heart of one of the US Army’s biggest problems: we try to do a one-size-fits-all force instead of dividing the force into specialty units that can be retrained for other missions in a pinch. I’ve pitched the idea of greater specialization before, but I’ll keep doing it for the practice.

There need to be several US Army variants. There needs to be an Old Guard that looks great in parades and worries about whether the general is getting enough fiber. This job has been filled the US Army. There needs to be an Army that kills folks and breaks things and does nothing else. Killing folks and breaking things are skills. As the destructive potential of conventional weapons continues to rise, the need for skilled and motivated small unit leaders grows ever greater. Moreover, the men who volunteer for the combat arms signed up to kill folks and break things. Using them for other things like peacekeeping is downright wasteful of their motivation and the time they need to continue to grow their ability to kill folks and break things efficiently and effectively. The initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 demonstrates that a small effective force can move the required distance and get the conventional job done. When we’re talking about fuel hogs like the M1 Abrams, numbers don’t always equal security or rapid mission accomplishment. High quality tankers, artillery crews, combat engineers, and light infantry need a lot of practice executing a relative handful of battle drills.

Then there needs to be an Army that does the bulk of the peacekeeping. These guys do things like man the checkpoints and generally police the place after the steely-eyed killers have done their bit. The peacekeepers have at least as much in common with police as they do with the throat slashers. The peacekeepers need a whole different set of skills than the war fighters. More importantly, the peacekeepers need a whole different mindset and set of expectations of their role than the war fighters. Tank crews and light infantry sign on to be in combat. Peacekeepers sign on to keep the peace. There is some common ground, but the common ground is less than the ground that is not in common.

The majority of the peacekeepers should be reservists. Reservists tend to be older than their Regular Army counterparts. My experience in Iraq indicates that older men are less eager to press the trigger. Older men are married and have children at higher rates. Perhaps those of us with wives and children have an easier time imagining what happens when undisciplined fire goes through the walls of residential areas. In any event, older reservists (who generally are less physically fit for the demands of combat) have more of the mindset needed for peacekeeping. Perhaps most importantly, peacekeeping is more forgiving than combat.

[Panther Al]

The idea that the Stryker is better-suited for one type of operation than another goes to the heart of one of the US Army’s biggest problems: we try to do a one-size-fits-all force instead of dividing the force into specialty units that can be retrained for other missions in a pinch. I’ve pitched the idea of greater specialization before, but I’ll keep doing it for the practice.

There need to be several US Army variants. There needs to be an Old Guard that looks great in parades and worries about whether the general is getting enough fiber. This job has been filled the US Army. There needs to be an Army that kills folks and breaks things and does nothing else. Killing folks and breaking things are skills. As the destructive potential of conventional weapons continues to rise, the need for skilled and motivated small unit leaders grows ever greater. Moreover, the men who volunteer for the combat arms signed up to kill folks and break things. Using them for other things like peacekeeping is downright wasteful of their motivation and the time they need to continue to grow their ability to kill folks and break things efficiently and effectively. The initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 demonstrates that a small effective force can move the required distance and get the conventional job done. When we’re talking about fuel hogs like the M1 Abrams, numbers don’t always equal security or rapid mission accomplishment. High quality tankers, artillery crews, combat engineers, and light infantry need a lot of practice executing a relative handful of battle drills.

Then there needs to be an Army that does the bulk of the peacekeeping. These guys do things like man the checkpoints and generally police the place after the steely-eyed killers have done their bit. The peacekeepers have at least as much in common with police as they do with the throat slashers. The peacekeepers need a whole different set of skills than the war fighters. More importantly, the peacekeepers need a whole different mindset and set of expectations of their role than the war fighters. Tank crews and light infantry sign on to be in combat. Peacekeepers sign on to keep the peace. There is some common ground, but the common ground is less than the ground that is not in common.

The majority of the peacekeepers should be reservists. Reservists tend to be older than their Regular Army counterparts. My experience in Iraq indicates that older men are less eager to press the trigger. Older men are married and have children at higher rates. Perhaps those of us with wives and children have an easier time imagining what happens when undisciplined fire goes through the walls of residential areas. In any event, older reservists (who generally are less physically fit for the demands of combat) have more of the mindset needed for peacekeeping. Perhaps most importantly, peacekeeping is more forgiving than combat.

Heh... was gonna post a reply to this, but figured its best to move it to Fiddle's Green so as not to drive this thread any further off topic than it already is! ;)

[ArmySGT.]

Heh... was gonna post a reply to this, but figured its best to move it to Fiddle's Green so as not to drive this thread any further off topic than it already is! ;)

Should be split off and make a Stryker thread.

[Panther Al]

I think half of Fiddle's Green is about the Stryker to be fair... so I've been using it as the semi-official Stryker thread.

[ArmySGT.]

Should I post the photo from the Stryker manual of the one being railloaded with Cav markings?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60779562/Osprey-New-Vanguard-121-Stryker-Combat-Vehicles

[Panther Al]

*laughs*


Only if you want to hear wailing and crying from us Cavalrymen who hate the things!



But, yes... please. I'll take any and all imagery of Military equipment.

[bobcat]

*laughs*


Only if you want to hear wailing and crying from us Cavalrymen who hate the things!



But, yes... please. I'll take any and all imagery of Military equipment.

what about us cavalrymen that actually like the damned things?

[ArmySGT.]

Should I post the photo from the Stryker manual of the one being railloaded with Cav markings?

*laughs*


Only if you want to hear wailing and crying from us Cavalrymen who hate the things!



But, yes... please. I'll take any and all imagery of Military equipment.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/CavMortarStrykerFront.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/CavMortarStrykerBack.jpg

[Panther Al]

Thank you!


As much as I bash the thing, I have to admit it looks damned good.

[Adm.Lee]

I'm actually thinking of using the Gavin name in my campaign for the replacemet of the M113... the American lisence built version of the Weisel AWC. :)

I just can't figure out wht the 'M' number would be.

Go low, like under 20. The numbers seemed to be reset during/after the Vietnam War. Or the MacNamara reign at DoD, much the same thing.

[natehale1971]

Go low, like under 20. The numbers seemed to be reset during/after the Vietnam War. Or the MacNamara reign at DoD, much the same thing.

I'll use the number M13 then :)

[Ronin]

All the love and bashing of the M113, and Stryker. Make me think about one thing. At least theirs not someone talking up the values of the M551 Sheridan.:p

[raketenjagdpanzer]

All the love and bashing of the M113, and Stryker. Make me think about one thing. At least theirs not someone talking up the values of the M551 Sheridan.:p

Oh come on it was a great little ta-

NOT IN THE FACE! NOT IN THE FACE!!!

[ArmySGT.]

Stab's, got that.
Blufer, got that.
FBCB2, got that too.

But yeah, those wheels do have to make the ride easier.

I am still not a fan of the Stryker as a vehicle. The concept I have nothing against at all, I just think we are going overboard in how many units we are converting over to that force structure. Strikers have a place on the battlefield: as battalion sized rapid reaction force, I think the concept is spot on. I just think the vehicle itself has it's issues.

8x8 Goodness. Lose one, even two wheels on one side to an AT Mine you still moving at reduced speed.Lose one track link in a M113. Mobility kill. Not going anywhere for a bit. If the M113 is moving then there is the potential for a fatal roll over.

Maintenance. Far less Man hours with the machine laid up for what is routine.

Speed. The M113 has the Stryker in broken shell pocked terrain. Packed soil, sand, grass land, a road net work. The Stryker will be there faster.

Fuel consumption. Stryker will consume less fuel per mission mile. A logistics plus.

Dismounts. A full Squad. The M113 can't do that anymore. The personal gear that is worn now is substantially greater than the 1960's design specifications.

Armor. The Stryker can defeat .50cal now without add ons. The Stryker team will survive an AT mine or IED without add ons. The M113 can't..... maybe the A3.

Then their is the ROWS, Blue Force, FBCB2, Spall liners, crew area fire suppression kits. All this could be retro fitted into an M113, however it will still take more internal volume.

What to do with the M113? Sell them all to Allies, and make the Bradley chassis fill all those M113 roles including Battle Taxi. The Brad is an IFV, Cargo, and Medevac. It can take all those other roles too.

[Panther Al]

8x8 Goodness. Lose one, even two wheels on one side to an AT Mine you still moving at reduced speed.Lose one track link in a M113. Mobility kill. Not going anywhere for a bit. If the M113 is moving then there is the potential for a fatal roll over.

Maintenance. Far less Man hours with the machine laid up for what is routine.

Speed. The M113 has the Stryker in broken shell pocked terrain. Packed soil, sand, grass land, a road net work. The Stryker will be there faster.

Fuel consumption. Stryker will consume less fuel per mission mile. A logistics plus.

Dismounts. A full Squad. The M113 can't do that anymore. The personal gear that is worn now is substantially greater than the 1960's design specifications.

Armor. The Stryker can defeat .50cal now without add ons. The Stryker team will survive an AT mine or IED without add ons. The M113 can't..... maybe the A3.

Then their is the ROWS, Blue Force, FBCB2, Spall liners, crew area fire suppression kits. All this could be retro fitted into an M113, however it will still take more internal volume.

What to do with the M113? Sell them all to Allies, and make the Bradley chassis fill all those M113 roles including Battle Taxi. The Brad is an IFV, Cargo, and Medevac. It can take all those other roles too.

Agreed here: The Stryker does make for a good replacement for the 113. It can keep up with the M1 which the 113 can't, and as you said, use Brads for the roles 113's had in armoured formations. Strip the Turrets off, and you can easily make Mort carriers, armoured ambulances, etc... Not a bad idea at all.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

As the instigator of this thread, I like the Stryker and the M113, but I'm not that crazy Sparks dude about either! :D

[natehale1971]

Who was it that used the Bradley Chasis for their Main Battle Tank? I swear i read something along those lines. But i can't remember where i had read it.

Though I have been thinking about modifiations that would make alot more Fuel effeicent vehicles... It's something that our gaming group in the Navy talked about alot around the game table when we'd play T2k and were doing the math to make sure our characters could make enough fuel to keep our vehicles on the road.

And we talked about how the Nazi Regime during the closing days of WW2 were coming up with fuel alternatives using potatoes and coal dust. Trying to come up with the things that would fuel all of the various types of vehicles and aircraft.

[ArmySGT.]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/M1128StrykerMGSpatrolling.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/M1128StrykerMGSinaction.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/M1126StrykerICV.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/M1134StrykerAAV.jpg

[pmulcahy11b]

As the instigator of this thread, I like the Stryker and the M113, but I'm not that crazy Sparks dude about either! :D

How about a Stryker towing an M-113 with more troops and extra ammo and gear?:D

[Ronin]

Who was it that used the Bradley Chasis for their Main Battle Tank? I swear i read something along those lines. But i can't remember where i had read it.

Are you thinking of the Black Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(vehicle))?
The Black Knight prototype unmanned ground combat vehicle being developed by BAE resembles a tank and makes extensive use of components from the Bradley Combat Systems program to reduce costs and simplify maintenance. It is also designed to be remotely operated from a BFV commander's station while riding mounted, as well as being controllable by dismounted infantry

[Graebarde]

All the love and bashing of the M113, and Stryker. Make me think about one thing. At least theirs not someone talking up the values of the M551 Sheridan.:p

Where the hell is Chalkie??? Sheridan's were/are his pride and joy.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

How about a Stryker towing an M-113 with more troops and extra ammo and gear?:D

Are you kidding? You do that and the next thing you know, you-know-who will create a fanpage full of US ARMY CROOKS AND LIARS ADMIT STRYKER *CANNOT* CARRY REQUIRED GEAR - ONLY M113 *CAN*!

:D

[dragoon500ly]

All the love and bashing of the M113, and Stryker. Make me think about one thing. At least theirs not someone talking up the values of the M551 Sheridan.:p

One of the good things about the Sheridan was stuffing the barrel with about 20lbs of potatoes and using the air scavanger system to "fire"....saw a crew from 1-1 Cav pull that one during a REFORGER in 1978.

[Ronin]

I have no practical experience with the Sheridan. Only what I've read. But my friends father used to work on them. He hates that machine with a passion, let me tell you.

[Graebarde]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/CavMortarStrykerFront.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/CavMortarStrykerBack.jpg

It might be optical illusion, but that vehicle looks to be listing to starboard. Which means somebody screwed the tied down tasks and you have an unsafe load. FB

[Graebarde]

One of the good things about the Sheridan was stuffing the barrel with about 20lbs of potatoes and using the air scavanger system to "fire"....saw a crew from 1-1 Cav pull that one during a REFORGER in 1978.

ROTFLMAO.. let me guess, they used Herman's spuds from his field??? Raw mashed potatoes.. hummmmmmmmmmmmm..

What I've heard of the Sheridan it was an arm breaker.. literally.

[copeab]

All the love and bashing of the M113, and Stryker. Make me think about one thing. At least theirs not someone talking up the values of the M551 Sheridan.:p

The M551 was better than the M56 Scorpion ;)

And, for airborne forces, a crappy tank is marginally better than no tank.

[Ronin]

The M551 was better than the M56 Scorpion ;)

And, for airborne forces, a crappy tank is marginally better than no tank.

True, enough. But what about this forgotten step child, the M50 Ontos?

Oh, and you want antitank airborne capability? How about the Vespa 150 TAP?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Vespamilitare.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Vespa_img_2351.jpg/800px-Vespa_img_2351.jpg

[copeab]

Oh, and you want antitank airborne capability? How about the Vespa 150 TAP?


Reminds me of the 20mm Nimbus (http://www.armyvehicles.dk/nimbusmc_20mmmg.htm). This Danish motorcycle had a two-man crew with a sidecar which carried a 20mm cannon. The gun couldn't be fired while on the move, but it could be fired while attached to the sidecar. It could also be removed and placed on a tripod. 60 rounds were carried. An ammunition bike carried a further 1080 rounds of ammo and two small wheels to attached to the 20mm gun to allow it to be moved short distances easily. It had some success against armored cars and light tanks during the German invasion if Denmark in 1940.

[bobcat]

True, enough. But what about this forgotten step child, the M50 Ontos?

Oh, and you want antitank airborne capability? How about the Vespa 150 TAP?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Vespamilitare.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Vespa_img_2351.jpg/800px-Vespa_img_2351.jpg

i still say whoever designed that had revenge as a primary motive.

[Rockwolf66]

True, enough. But what about this forgotten step child, the M50 Ontos?

Oh, and you want antitank airborne capability? How about the Vespa 150 TAP?

Why am I seeing that Vespa painted pink and being ridden sidesaddle by a Japanese Scoolgirl waving a Samurai Sword?

Maybe it's because I'm working graveyard and my brain is warping.



As far as the M113 goes Imagine an ACAV model with M134 insted of M60s. I did that for one game and With the scirmish rules of that game until an RPG got the thing it was mopping the floor with ever communist revolutionary it encountered. Yes it was abusing a rule about useing Miniguns as you chose two point and drew a line between them. Anything on that like not under cover died instantly.

[Legbreaker]

As far as the M113 goes Imagine an ACAV model with M134 insted of M60s.

It's been done IRL.
Australians in Vietnam played around with various weapons fittouts for their M113s and found the M134 to be total overkill on ground mounts. It was akin to firing 10 M60 machineguns all at the same point - effective yes, but a complete waste of firepower and ammunition.

[Ronin]

It's been done IRL.
Australians in Vietnam played around with various weapons fittouts for their M113s and found the M134 to be total overkill on ground mounts. It was akin to firing 10 M60 machineguns all at the same point - effective yes, but a complete waste of firepower and ammunition.

This is bad because?:p:)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

This is bad because?:p:)

We're talking about the Australian government here, they would never allow us to spend that much money on ammunition let alone authorise us to actually use that much ammo in one engagement! :p

[Legbreaker]

One Australian foot mobile infantry company went into the greatest battle in Vietnam with "first line" ammunition. That is, 60 rounds per SLR and 600 per M60 (9 total in the company).

They were attacked during a thunder storm (ruling out air support) in a rubber plantation towards the end of a several day long patrol by 2,000-3,000 NVA...

...and won. :cool:

[pmulcahy11b]

Why am I seeing that Vespa painted pink and being ridden sidesaddle by a Japanese Scoolgirl waving a Samurai Sword?


I'll trade your Japanese Schoolgirl for a 21-year-old college cheerleader...

[Ronin]

One Australian foot mobile infantry company went into the greatest battle in Vietnam with "first line" ammunition. That is, 60 rounds per SLR and 600 per M60 (9 total in the company).

They were attacked during a thunder storm (ruling out air support) in a rubber plantation towards the end of a several day long patrol by 2,000-3,000 NVA...

...and won. :cool:

60 rds per SLR? So, three 20 rd mags? Fuck your gov is a bunch of stingy bastards!:eek:

[StainlessSteelCynic]

60 rds per SLR? So, three 20 rd mags? Fuck your gov is a bunch of stingy bastards!:eek:

Yeah that was at a time when the army higher-ups and the government thought that 60-80 rounds of .303 per SMLE was sufficient for WW2 so 60-80 rounds of 7.62mmN per L1A1 SLR would surely be sufficient.

That wasn't the biggest problem though, at that time magazines were considered to be part of the weapon and their issue was tightly controlled. Most infantry soldiers would be issued 5 mags for their L1A1 SLR but damage could mean they had only 4 or 3 to use (you'd be held accountable for the mags and expected to pay for the repair/re-issue if the damage or loss was considered to be caused by negligence).

The Battle of Long Tan to which Legbreaker is referring started out as a light patrol so most soldiers had between 3 to 5 mags for the SLR. The canny few who were able to acquire more mags were always very careful about when and where they used them because ammo was also strictly controlled and you'd be hauled over the coals to explain why you had more than your allocation.

As a result of the shitfight that Long Tan became, the army looked at the issuing of mags and ammo for wartime use and drastically changed the scale of issue. I recall that during the 1980s, infantry soldiers would likely be issued with 7 SLR mags during peacetime training but during wartime it could be as many as 11 plus they would be expected to carry extra rounds in their packs to refill their mags.

[JHart]

Yeah that was at a time when the army higher-ups and the government thought that 60-80 rounds of .303 per SMLE was sufficient for WW2 so 60-80 rounds of 7.62mmN per L1A1 SLR would surely be sufficient. Yeah that was at a time when the army higher-ups and the government thought that 60-80 rounds of .303 per SMLE was sufficient for WW2 so 60-80 rounds of 7.62mmN per L1A1 SLR would surely be sufficient.

It might have been, if the VC and NVA weren't armed with Ak-47s

[Legbreaker]

Some of the weapons recovered from the field the next day included carriage mounted DShKs, RPGs, grenades, numerous types of rifles, and I think if memory serves, a light mortar. This is AFTER the NVA did their usual night time cleanup.

I know one of the men who was on the ground that day (became my Battalion Padre), as well as a number of other Vietnam vets. A brave/crazy RAAF Huey pilot flew out in the storm (nearly crashed a couple of times) to drop ammo through the trees. If it hadn't been for the noise on the ground, the lightning, and thunder they'd probably have been noticed by a lot more enemy and shot down. As it was that pilot helped save the men on the ground just as they were running out of ammo.

According to the Padre, the machineguns were firing so much after resupply you could see the bullets through the barrel. All but three of the guns seized up from the heat.

A relief force of another infantry company mounted in M113s arrived around dusk after loosing several vehicles in a flooded stream. None of the vehicles at that time had an intercom system so the TC communicated with the driver through strings attached to the drivers lapels - pull on the left string to go left, etc just like a set of reigns.

When the '13s arrived the NVA were thick on the ground. The TCs were in some cases fighting hand to hand (while mounted!) and often didn't even have time to clear stoppages in their machineguns (having to switch to the coax or F1 SMG when the coax went down, or die). The vehicles themselves were used as weapons, driving over and crushing the enemy.

A nod must be given to the New Zealand MFC attached to CHQ. He walked rounds from the 105s right onto the perimeter but not one Australian was hit. He attracted accusations after the battle (from those who weren't there) that some of the Australian casualties were from artillery, however this was disproven.

The artillerymen did a damn fine job too, rapidly exhausting the ready supply of rounds. Cooks, clerks, drivers, and everyone else available lent a hand haulling additional ammo up and unpacking it for the firing line. From memory, about a thousand rounds were fired from 6(?) guns during the battle.

Due to the weather, air support was impossible. Two American jets were loitering in the area at the time and available, but could not be used on the battlefield itself. They unloaded on an area a few miles away which was later found to have been a staging area for the NVA reserve force (not included in the 2-3,000 actually on the field).

It was later found the attacking force were intending to strike at the Australian base and were strong enough to seriously threaten the entire task force of a battalion plus artillery, APCs and supporting units.

After that battle and the ammo restrictions were lifted, some soldiers had to have their packs inspected before leaving the wire to ensure they weren't just full of ammo and actually had enough food to sustain them. It wasn't uncommon for an SLR armed rifleman to be carrying several hundred rounds and each section (nine men) carrying several thousand rounds of link for the M60.

[Schone23666]

Some of the weapons recovered from the field the next day included carriage mounted DShKs, RPGs, grenades, numerous types of rifles, and I think if memory serves, a light mortar. This is AFTER the NVA did their usual night time cleanup.

I know one of the men who was on the ground that day (became my Battalion Padre), as well as a number of other Vietnam vets. A brave/crazy RAAF Huey pilot flew out in the storm (nearly crashed a couple of times) to drop ammo through the trees. If it hadn't been for the noise on the ground, the lightning, and thunder they'd probably have been noticed by a lot more enemy and shot down. As it was that pilot helped save the men on the ground just as they were running out of ammo.

According to the Padre, the machineguns were firing so much after resupply you could see the bullets through the barrel. All but three of the guns seized up from the heat.

A relief force of another infantry company mounted in M113s arrived around dusk after loosing several vehicles in a flooded stream. None of the vehicles at that time had an intercom system so the TC communicated with the driver through strings attached to the drivers lapels - pull on the left string to go left, etc just like a set of reigns.

When the '13s arrived the NVA were thick on the ground. The TCs were in some cases fighting hand to hand (while mounted!) and often didn't even have time to clear stoppages in their machineguns (having to switch to the coax or F1 SMG when the coax went down, or die). The vehicles themselves were used as weapons, driving over and crushing the enemy.

A nod must be given to the New Zealand MFC attached to CHQ. He walked rounds from the 105s right onto the perimeter but not one Australian was hit. He attracted accusations after the battle (from those who weren't there) that some of the Australian casualties were from artillery, however this was disproven.

The artillerymen did a damn fine job too, rapidly exhausting the ready supply of rounds. Cooks, clerks, drivers, and everyone else available lent a hand haulling additional ammo up and unpacking it for the firing line. From memory, about a thousand rounds were fired from 6(?) guns during the battle.

Due to the weather, air support was impossible. Two American jets were loitering in the area at the time and available, but could not be used on the battlefield itself. They unloaded on an area a few miles away which was later found to have been a staging area for the NVA reserve force (not included in the 2-3,000 actually on the field).

It was later found the attacking force were intending to strike at the Australian base and were strong enough to seriously threaten the entire task force of a battalion plus artillery, APCs and supporting units.

After that battle and the ammo restrictions were lifted, some soldiers had to have their packs inspected before leaving the wire to ensure they weren't just full of ammo and actually had enough food to sustain them. It wasn't uncommon for an SLR armed rifleman to be carrying several hundred rounds and each section (nine men) carrying several thousand rounds of link for the M60.


Good lord, talk about a major clusterfuck and a miracle all in one. :eek:

Glad to see they carried away at least a few lessons from that.

[Schone23666]

It's been done IRL.
Australians in Vietnam played around with various weapons fittouts for their M113s and found the M134 to be total overkill on ground mounts. It was akin to firing 10 M60 machineguns all at the same point - effective yes, but a complete waste of firepower and ammunition.

Didn't Dragoon500ly or SOMEONE (I cant' remember who exactly) mention one time they had the opportunity to look over an ACAV styled M113 in Iraq that had one or two miniguns mounted? He said the firepower it could bring to bear was crazy, but paid a price with the insane amount of 7.62 ammo it had to cart around, apparently they couldn't carry very much in the way of passengers other than the gunners, just a big aluminum pillbox on tracks essentially.

[Legbreaker]

Good lord, talk about a major clusterfuck and a miracle all in one. :eek:

The only real problems were those caused by the politicians. The military managed to operate about as professionally as possible given the constraints they started the day with. Once the political cuffs were off, never again were the soldiers placed in such danger.

Of course the massive defeat the NVA suffered might have helped there. After that battle, they redirected their efforts towards the "softer" targets the Americans represented. ;)

[Webstral]

Great account, Leg. I'm sure the Australian troops were practicing good fire discipline to make the most of their available ammunition.

When on patrol, I took 15 magazines with me. I never intended to use that many; I'm not a good marksman, but for whatever reason I have the self-control to press the trigger only on a good sight picture in close quarters combat. Too many of my comrades, however, seem to view the 3-round burst as a limit to be overcome with by trigger-pulling. In the event, I wanted to have extra ammo to cross-level.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Speaking of the brave/crazy RAAF Huey pilot, he actually flew to the area not just during a monsoon, but right after the fire missions were sent in, flying in as rounds were impacting the target area on one or two occasions
Then he flew down to tree-top level so that they could drop ammo crates into what he hoped was the centre of the Australian position.

[Schone23666]

Speaking of the brave/crazy RAAF Huey pilot, he actually flew to the area not just during a monsoon, but right after the fire missions were sent in, flying in as rounds were impacting the target area on one or two occasions
Then he flew down to tree-top level so that they could drop ammo crates into what he hoped was the centre of the Australian position.


I would hope they at least awarded him with SOMETHING for willing to be such a lunatic.:cool:

[Legbreaker]

He wasn't alone. The RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major - outranks GOD!) was in the back, kicking out the ammo.
Another point about that particular pilot is his aircraft wasn't armed. It was only there because he'd flown in a couple of entertainers who were supposed to be putting on a show that night. Apparently the men on the ground could hear the music during brief breaks in the firefight - at least in the early stages before it became a full blown fight for survival and the show was called off.

[Targan]

One Australian foot mobile infantry company went into the greatest battle in Vietnam with "first line" ammunition. That is, 60 rounds per SLR and 600 per M60 (9 total in the company).

They were attacked during a thunder storm (ruling out air support) in a rubber plantation towards the end of a several day long patrol by 2,000-3,000 NVA...

...and won. :cool:

I went on a huge rant on this forum about the Battle of Long Tan a year or two ago. Still has to be one of the best kill ratios of any ground battle in history.

[Legbreaker]

To me, accounts of the Battle of Long Tan should be required reading for anyone who even dreams about leading more than two men in battle. What they achieved against such overwhelming odds, and how the entire task force pulled together to do exactly what was needed of them is just inspiring.
And to have lost only 18 dead, all of which were recovered in the morning with most still in their firing positions looking over their rifles is just mind boggling considering the numbers ranged against them.

It is impossible to express the admiration and respect I have for those men, many of which were only 21 year old conscripts at the time.

[dragoon500ly]

To me, accounts of the Battle of Long Tan should be required reading for anyone who even dreams about leading more than two men in battle. What they achieved against such overwhelming odds, and how the entire task force pulled together to do exactly what was needed of them is just inspiring.
And to have lost only 18 dead, all of which were recovered in the morning with most still in their firing positions looking over their rifles is just mind boggling considering the numbers ranged against them.

It is impossible to express the admiration and respect I have for those men, many of which were only 21 year old conscripts at the time.

Long Tan is included in the Vietnam series of monographs available through the Army's Center of Military History.

And a well earned salute to some damned tough Aussie bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HorseSoldier]

As we've sidetracked into Australian military history, was wondering if anyone has read Kokoda by Peter FitzSimmons? Next military title in my two read list.

[Targan]

As we've sidetracked into Australian military history, was wondering if anyone has read Kokoda by Peter FitzSimmons? Next military title in my two read list.

Haven't read it yet but I intend to buy a copy. I have another of his books, Tobruk (my father's father was one of the Rats of Tobruk, a New Zealand Army infantry captain). The ISBN of Tobruk, if you're interested, is 978 0 7322 8954 6 (hbk.).

[bobcat]

since we've wander into the aussy military history i might as well post this little ditty i found:D

We are the Anzac army,
The A.N.Z.A.C.,
We cannot shoot, we don't salute,
what :censored: good are we?
And when we go to ber-lin
The Kaiser he will say,
"Hoch, Hoch! Mein Gott; what a :censored: odd lot
To get six bob a day.

yes it was censored when i found it please don't send a kangaroo assassin after me (though one would make an awesome pet:rolleyes:)

[Legbreaker]

Besides the fact it's very offensive and somewhat insulting, it's also inaccurate.
Most of the soldiers I've served with were damn fine shots (you've only got to look at Long Tan for combat evidence of that), and even the support troops know how to hit the target consistently.

I'm guessing that was WWI era German propaganda?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I've always thought that ditty was amusing rather than insulting.
By the accounts I've read it was composed by some Aussie or Kiwi wag during the early years of WW1 and it was sung to the tune of "The Church's One Foundation", a Christian hymn from the late 1800s.

It seems to have originated in the Dardanelles campaign although I've also seen articles that state it was during the Middle East campaign and another that claims it was from the Western Front.
In particular, the reference to "six bob a day" is peculiarly Brit/Aussi/Kiwi and is unlikely to have been understood by the Germans at the time.
Variations include "We are the ragtime army"

This piece is a typical Aussie/Kiwi case of self-mockery to mock the British attitude that the ANZACs were not good soldiers because they had little respect for military formality (and particularly the rigid British attitudes towards class/social standing). The British changed their attitudes towards the "damned colonials" by the end of that war.
As for the censoring, the removed words are that great Australian adjective 'bloody' (and no it doesn't refer to that red liquid sloshing around in your veins!)

[Targan]

SSC is right. It's a song about ANZACs, by ANZACs. Nothing to get upset about. And the censorship is a waste of time. Very mild profanity there, not even all that offensive at the time (unless you were in the presence of ladies :)).

[B.T.]

In particular, the reference to "six bob a day" is peculiarly Brit/Aussi/Kiwi and is unlikely to have been understood by the Germans at the time.
Variations include "We are the ragtime army"


Nice to mention that fact. To be honest: I have no clue what this means. Maybe it's just me, or we Germans don't understand it after all these years.

So, anybody can help me out?

[simonmark6]

A bob is a shilling which equals twelve old pence. There were twenty shillings to the pound. Old money hasn't been used in the UK since, I think 1972 when we went decimal.

Another WW1 ditty that I particularly enjoy was:

I don't want to join the army,
I don't want to go to war.
Oh, I'd rather stay at home,
And from there no longer roam.
Living off the earnings of a high class whore.

Sentiments I'm sure that many of us can empathise with.

More of the old songs can be found here, some use the F-bomb.

http://faculty.buffalostate.edu/fishlm/folksongs/les01.htm

[pmulcahy11b]

For that matter, what's a quid? I've never been able to figure it out.

[simonmark6]

A quid is one pound sterling, be it Imperial or decimal. Hence the phrase "unwell cetacean" for the sum of six pounds: sick squid.

It seems to have originated in the 1600s and there are several possible roots: the Latin "quid" as in "quid pro quo" meaning the wherewithal to pay, the fact that the Quidhampton Paper Mill made the paper for early banknotes or some sort of relation to "quid" as a measure of tobacco.

Interestingly, the term quid is usually not used with a plural so it's:
Lend us a quid.
I made fifteen quid on it.
I blew a hundred and fifty quid on the scabby nag.

The only difference is "quids in" suggesting that you've made a serious profit.

Now excuse me whilst I cross the frog and go into the rubadubdub to beat seven bells out of the Berk in the corner, happy days, sorted.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just goes to show, even amongst people who all speak the same language, we're not always speaking the same language! :D:p

[Webstral]

My Irish housemates once said they saw the Irish accent as neutral and proceded to describe the ways in which English, American, Canadian, Scottish, Australian, and New Zealand accents mangle the (ahem!) Queen's English. No measurable sense of irony.

[ArmySGT.]

Pssssssst remember me?

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/M113.gif


http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/M113.html

[Legbreaker]

Pssssssst remember me?

Urhk!
What IS that ugly thing!

:D

[ArmySGT.]

Urhk!
What IS that ugly thing!

:D

Oprahs Lunchbox.

[Legbreaker]

I thought that was the entire Kansas wheat belt? :D

[Panther Al]

Now excuse me whilst I cross the frog and go into the rubadubdub to beat seven bells out of the Berk in the corner, happy days, sorted.


Sad thing is, I actually understood that...

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Urhk!
What IS that ugly thing!

:D

I think its kinda cute.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Okay, to get back on track...
Get it?
On track? Hahahaha... okay, where's my medication?

This is a good example of why Mr "I want everyone to call the M113 light tank the Gavin" cannot have everything he wants.

http://www.army.gov.au/AWMA_Mus/images/thmb/M113_recon_rhfweb_imgw512.jpg
M113 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle -- M113A1 with Scorpion CVR(T) turret

Those panels on the side and the front that look like extra armour, they're actually floatation panels to help the beast stay above the water when it tries to be amphibious. By putting a turret on the M113, it became seriously unstable when it tried to swim. That won't be a problem if you can get across a river with a bridge/ferry etc. but if you can't you might just be leaving your fire support behind or worse... sitting at the bottom because an errant wave caused it to capsize.

Basically what I'm saying is that no matter how good the M113 might be, it simply cannot do everything the guy on the website believes it can unless it loses some other ability.

[pmulcahy11b]

My Irish housemates once said they saw the Irish accent as neutral and proceded to describe the ways in which English, American, Canadian, Scottish, Australian, and New Zealand accents mangle the (ahem!) Queen's English. No measurable sense of irony.

That sounds like when I moved with my family from Hawaii to Texarkana TX (not my idea, I was a dependent and my stepmonster was taking over as the active duty First Sgt of a reserve unit) and everyone told me I had an accent! No, you all have an accent!

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

I have pretty much lived all my life in Nebraska, when I joined the USMC and spent about 3 of those years in North Carolina. When I came home my family (sisters in particular) giggled allot as I had picked up a somewhat of a southern accent. Its mostly gone now, though occasionally use a word or inflection once in a while.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Okay, to get back on track...
Get it?
On track? Hahahaha... okay, where's my medication?

This is a good example of why Mr "I want everyone to call the M113 light tank the Gavin" cannot have everything he wants.

http://www.army.gov.au/AWMA_Mus/images/thmb/M113_recon_rhfweb_imgw512.jpg
M113 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle -- M113A1 with Scorpion CVR(T) turret

Those panels on the side and the front that look like extra armour, they're actually floatation panels to help the beast stay above the water when it tries to be amphibious. By putting a turret on the M113, it became seriously unstable when it tried to swim. That won't be a problem if you can get across a river with a bridge/ferry etc. but if you can't you might just be leaving your fire support behind or worse... sitting at the bottom because an errant wave caused it to capsize.

Basically what I'm saying is that no matter how good the M113 might be, it simply cannot do everything the guy on the website believes it can unless it loses some other ability.

Thats one of my favorite versions of the m113. Though putting a 90mm in that turret would even make it cooler. Would make a nice little support light tank.

[dragoon500ly]

Urhk!
What IS that ugly thing!

:D

Its the latest thing from DOD! Not only is it a mobile gas chamber....it also tests the internal fortitude of its passengers, especially when all of the hatches are closed!!!

This the M-113 Gavin Vomit Comet!

;)

[cavtroop]

*sigh* all this M113/variant bashing hurts me to my core :) I spent roughly 8 years on different M113 variants - M577, M113, M113A3, TC'd a M901. I have a soft spot for them.

They're not nearly as bad as the rap they're getting - they just can't be used as a direct replacement for a M2 or any other IFV - an IFV they're not.

I still think that we'd get 80% of the mission capability of the Stryker for 25% of the cost with the M113. But the added loss of life (getting to that in a sec) wouldn't be worth it - the biggest issue with them nowadays is the IED. There's no way to retrofit a V-shaped hull on the M113 (like they're doing rather successfully with the Stryker), so in a counterinsurgency, they'd be a death box.

Regardless, I love them even if they are flawed, so please take it easy on my memories :-D

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Despite my attack against the guy who wants everybody to call the M113 the Gavin (and believes that it's a light tank), I actually do like the boxy little bastard. For me it's one of the iconic vehicles of the Cold War era just as much as the Chieftain, M60 & T-62 MBTs, the BMP-1 & Marder and the BTR-60 and so on.
I have fond memories of standing in the rear hatch with an SLR in one hand and hanging on for dear life with the other as we ploughed through the scrub at a great rate of knots.


And just for the hell of it, how's this for an interesting M113 variant - be a real bitch to reload the .50 cals under fire!
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5910/m113a2t2qv3.jpg

[Targan]

I have fond memories of standing in the rear hatch with an SLR in one hand and hanging on for dear life with the other as we ploughed through the scrub at a great rate of knots.

10th Light Horse? Or the Regs?

[Graebarde]

That sounds like when I moved with my family from Hawaii to Texarkana TX (not my idea, I was a dependent and my stepmonster was taking over as the active duty First Sgt of a reserve unit) and everyone told me I had an accent! No, you all have an accent!

LOL... I've lived in Texas for about the last 25 years... I went back to NoDak a while back and everyone laughed at my accent... but to the natives here in Texas I still have an Northern Accent.. esp with a Norsk influence... uffda ya'll..

FB

[StainlessSteelCynic]

10th Light Horse? Or the Regs?

Originally with 1/15 RNSWL and 2 Cav (back when 2 Cav had tracks and not wheels) and then later with 10 Little Ponies.

[Targan]

Originally with 1/15 RNSWL and 2 Cav (back when 2 Cav had tracks and not wheels) and then later with 10 Little Ponies.

I never got to go bush in a 113, in 11/28th we would get trucked someplace and then do a lot of walking. One of the players in my long-running Gunmaster T2K campaign was with 2 Cav about the time they were first getting their ASLAVs. Had you left 2 Cav by then?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Well, the question isn't liking; the question is being goddamn insane about it and thinking it's the omni-vehicle that it in fact is not. In the roles it has to serve, it does pretty well. I would just rather have an M1 where an M1 was needed, not some unstable internet creep's whacked out sci-fi idea that a tracked aluminum box is the solution to all problems.

[ArmySGT.]

And just for the hell of it, how's this for an interesting M113 variant - be a real bitch to reload the .50 cals under fire!
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5910/m113a2t2qv3.jpg

I just discovered what love is.................

That would make the living greatest Infantry support vehicle. Can you imagine the African Plains. Sitting up high where you can see.

Can you put a FLIR on it. .................................

*drools*

[HorseSoldier]

You can put a FLIR on most anything these days. If nothing else, I'm sure something with a PAS-13 could be sorted out.

[dragoon500ly]

I just discovered what love is.................

That would make the living greatest Infantry support vehicle. Can you imagine the African Plains. Sitting up high where you can see.

Can you put a FLIR on it. .................................

*drools*

One can almost see Burt (from the Tremors trilogy) having one in his garage....

I can also see the Mississippi Highway Patrol having one of these set up at there next license inspection checkpoint!

[pmulcahy11b]

Whose 113 is that? What's the designation? It's definitely stat-worthy!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

@ Targan - I didn't actually serve with 2 Cav, just rode in their battle taxis once in a while and I was back in W.A. for some time when they got the AUSLAVs.

@ ArmySGT and Paul - I did some more searching because the site I pilfered the "Quad 50 M113" from didn't mention anything about its ownership. I found this forum states that it's a Turkish modification http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=18699.105
And they have a far better copy of the pic I posted as well.
I've since found that "apparently" it's called the M113A2T2 ZPT (still not certain though) and it's made on the Turkish base model M113 (the M113A2T2) and here's some more pics of it: -
http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/500/331265_2.jpg
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/M113A2T2%20ZPT-1.jpg
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/M113A2T2%20ZPT-3.jpg

For some more images (with better detail) although of a model kit, try this link http://m113.blog.cz/1004/m113-a2t2-ztp

And here's another interesting M113 from the What If modelling site I posted above - apparently was an experiment with the turret from the M24 Chaffee by Taiwan. Although they linked to a Taiwanese forum for the pic, they didn't add the second pic
http://taiwanbbs.org/main/uploads/a2ry4_7421.jpg
http://taiwanbbs.org/main/uploads/a3rj1_3685.jpg

And because I seem to have the Google-fu today, here's another Quad 50 M113 variant - the M548 (apparently it was a field mod and had some sort of armour as well).
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5296/m548weaponcarrieray6.jpg

Also, if you can ever find a copy of "Vietnam Tracks - Armor In Battle 1945-75" there's a few M113 mods to be found between its covers. Unfortunately some of the photos don't show a lot of detail but you can find one pic with a mostly obscured M113 mounting the turret from the M8 Greyhound (page 42). The M113 is behind a Ford scout car so you can't see a whole lot of the body but you can see enough to see that it is an M113.

Vietnam Tracks
Armor In Battle 1945-75
Simon Dunston
Osprey Publishing Ltd
ISBN 0 85045 472 7
Published 1982
Reprinted 1984

An Israeli urban combat mod for the M113
http://defense-update.com/images_new/urban_fighter.jpg

To finish off, how about an IFV based on the M113 sporting a BMP3 turret - the Turkish ACV-SW. I believe the manufacturer is FNSS Savunma Sistemleri
http://www.armyrecognition.com/moyen_orient/Emirats_arabe/IDEX_2003_Pictures_Gallery/IDEX_2005/pictures_2/FNSS_BMP-3_turret_armyecognition_IDEX_2005_01.jpg

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And I found another one and boy is it ugly!
Image: A Bahraini Army M548 APC guards the main entrance to Budaiya, west of Manama, March 25, 2011. (REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed)
http://milinme.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/bafa-0471.jpg

Found it on this blog 'Military In the Middle East'
http://milinme.wordpress.com/

[cavtroop]

I...I...my eyes, they are burning:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e178/fikays/5ton113-2.jpg

I dont know if this...abomination...belongs here or in the 'gun trucks' thread...

Found that gem in this old thread on militaryphotos.net: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?86922-M113-and-variants

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I...I...my eyes, they are burning:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e178/fikays/5ton113-2.jpg


Holy crap a T2k original there.

I wonder if that's doable with like an M2 (complete with turret) as a "cab-over"?

[cavtroop]

Holy crap a T2k original there.

I wonder if that's doable with like an M2 (complete with turret) as a "cab-over"?

Probably not - big tonnage difference between an empty 113 hull, and an M2 hull with the turret. The M2A2 weighs 36 tons if memory serves me correctly - though a lot of that will go away (engine, tracks, etc), it'll still be north of 30 tons. The 113 weighs about 13ish tons I think - so figure 10 empty or so. I think the weight of the M2 would crush the 5ton suspension :)

[Schone23666]

Here's some pics if anyone's curious of Israeli-modified M113's.

It's called the Kasman. I believe that's Hebrew for "The Magic of Music" (if not someone correct me).

[Webstral]

I dont know if this...abomination...belongs here or in the 'gun trucks' thread...

Bite your tongue, sir. I find that truck to be a lady of rare beauty.

[Targan]

Bite your tongue, sir. I find that truck to be a lady of rare beauty.

LOL. Ok, from now on we're sending you the ugly ones, Web. :D

[dragoon500ly]

Well, I think one can certainly say that never has a single chassis been so modified into so many variants!

You can say what you want about that there little aluminium box...but the darn thing is going to be around for another hundred years or so!!!!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Well, I think one can certainly say that never has a single chassis been so modified into so many variants!

You can say what you want about that there little aluminium box...but the darn thing is going to be around for another hundred years or so!!!!

...and for the next hundred years, nobody will call it the "Gavin" :D

[Sanjuro]

You can say what you want about that there little aluminium box...but the darn thing is going to be around for another hundred years or so!!!!

Possibly much longer- I was in a games shop the other day (for the first time in 10 years or so) and there were some models of Warhammer 40000 vehicles that seemed to share that familiar silhouette!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Possibly much longer- I was in a games shop the other day (for the first time in 10 years or so) and there were some models of Warhammer 40000 vehicles that seemed to share that familiar silhouette!

Early WH40k relied a great, great deal on scratchbuild so I wouldn't be surprised if - given the lineage - Forgeworld and Citadel Miniatures hadn't unwittingly incorporated M113 lines into their designs as the kitbashing that went on from '86 onward probably included a lot of M113 kits.

[Schone23666]

Despite my attack against the guy who wants everybody to call the M113 the Gavin (and believes that it's a light tank), I actually do like the boxy little bastard. For me it's one of the iconic vehicles of the Cold War era just as much as the Chieftain, M60 & T-62 MBTs, the BMP-1 & Marder and the BTR-60 and so on.
I have fond memories of standing in the rear hatch with an SLR in one hand and hanging on for dear life with the other as we ploughed through the scrub at a great rate of knots.


And just for the hell of it, how's this for an interesting M113 variant - be a real bitch to reload the .50 cals under fire!
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5910/m113a2t2qv3.jpg


I had a rather evil thought (or two). How feasible would it be to remove either the top two, or bottom two .50 cal's and replace them with Mk19 40mm grenade machine guns? And have the paired guns set for synchronized fire, with a selector switch to allow use of either the twin .50 cal's, the twin 40mm launchers, or both? Oh, and throw in a FLIR/night vision/image magnification device with a target reticle and laser rangefinder.

Just think, it would be perfect as a multipurpose tool, for clearing everything from zombies and ghouls, to marauders, to vampires, cannibals, mutants, werewolves, etc. etc. :D

[Panther Al]

Shouldn't be too hard, since most mountings these days are set up to take either a fifty or a 19, so those could be modified I am sure... question is, can you swap the feed to the other direction? If you can, nothing stopping you from mounting four.


After all, the Israeli's pulled the four fifties off and swapped them with a pair of 20mm cannons, so it can be modified easy enough.

[Legbreaker]

The big problem is the different ballistics of the two weapons. The 40mm flies much slower than the .50 cal so needs a greater elevation for the same range. Unless firing at very close range (a hundred metres or so) chances are you'll end up with either the .50 hitting the clouds, or 40mm dropping on your toes (so to speak).
The easiest "fix" is to simply fire one or the other and not both simultaneously.

[Panther Al]

Unless you swap all four, which would be just outright cool. :)

[ArmySGT.]

40mm would be a disappointment.

The standard ammo can went from 48 to 32 rounds.

2212 meters max effective range for the 40mm that could be done better in 25mm if you going with a vehicle mount.

[bobcat]

i wonder if you could mount an abrahm turret on a 113 without crushing the old reliable beer can?

[pmulcahy11b]

Forget the Abrams Turret. Put a gun turret from the Missouri with the 16" guns on the 113!

[Targan]

Paul, Paul, Paul. You gotta think bigger man! One of Bull's super guns mounted on an 8x8 grid of 113s. That's the way to go.

[bobcat]

Paul, Paul, Paul. You gotta think bigger man! One of Bull's super guns mounted on an 8x8 grid of 113s. That's the way to go.

and an 8x16 grid of 113's as caissons for the nuclear ammo:D

what go big or go home.

[Targan]

and an 8x16 grid of 113's as caissons for the nuclear ammo:D

Exactly! I like the cut of your jib, BC!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well I can't offer an M113 mounting a battleship turret or even an M113 mounting a tank turret but what about the M113 as a 105mm assault gun/howitzer? Known as the FSCV (Fire Support Combat Vehicle), it was a proposed German M113 variant and that's about all the info I have.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q14/rafaelgonzalez65/M-113%20Howitzer/m113assaulthowitzerfscv_003.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q14/rafaelgonzalez65/M-113%20Howitzer/m113assaulthowitzerfscv_001.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q14/rafaelgonzalez65/M-113%20Howitzer/m113assaulthowitzerfscv_005.jpg

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Awesome, an M113 STG-III

:D

(seriously if we don't stop Sparks is gonna show up)

[ArmySGT.]

Wow the M113 Sturmgeschutz.

I really like it. In fact I think it seriously could play a role today as an assault gun.

I feel on a Brad Chassis would be better with a ROWS for self defense, target spotting, and directing artillery support.

[Webstral]

Well I can't offer an M113 mounting a battleship turret or even an M113 mounting a tank turret but what about the M113 as a 105mm assault gun/howitzer? Known as the FSCV (Fire Support Combat Vehicle), it was a proposed German M113 variant and that's about all the info I have.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q14/rafaelgonzalez65/M-113%20Howitzer/m113assaulthowitzerfscv_003.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q14/rafaelgonzalez65/M-113%20Howitzer/m113assaulthowitzerfscv_001.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q14/rafaelgonzalez65/M-113%20Howitzer/m113assaulthowitzerfscv_005.jpg

Me likee!

[HorseSoldier]

Looks like a pretty low cost way to punch up an infantry formation with some additional firepower. Was it supposed to be a 105mm high velocity gun or a 105mm howitzer? I wouldn't fancy doing anti-tank work in a 113 that couldn't engage from a hull down position, but for HE blasting power to smash strong points and bunkers it'd be a nice rig.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

M113 FSCV was armed with a 105mm gun. I haven't found anything specifically stating it was a howitzer or not but this image shows the tube at various stages of elevation, so it's certainly possible.

http://www.combatreform.org/FSCV_002.jpg

As for being hull down, the 'trench' where the gun lays also allows it to be depressed so it can make use of hull down positions to some extent. Not as good as a turreted SPG but not too shabby never-the-less.

http://www.combatreform.org/fscv_004.jpg

Some data sourced from various sites - reliability is unknown: -
Proposal from 1977 by Krauss Maffei and Rheinmetall
Length with tube: 6.04m
Width: 2.91m
Height, hull: 1.76m
Height, commander's cupola: 1.92m
I think it had a crew of three; Commander, Loader and Driver/Gunner
Ammunition: 42 rounds
Loaded weight: approx 14,000kg

It could also carry 4 troops if necessary although some sites stated that the 4 troops were part of the crew (but I suspect if this was a permanent arrangement you would have to lose some ammo capacity just to make room - for example, some of the turreted M113 FSVs carry less than 35 rounds for smaller calibre guns and they have a full height hull for storage)

The 105mm was from Rheinmetall and could fire single and multi-part ammunition. NBC protected and amphibious.
Protection from 14.5mm on frontal armour and 7.62mm NATO on side armour.

[Raellus]

Wow, I thought I'd seen them all (M113 variants).

That's an interesting vehicle. A couple of years ago, Chalkline posted schematics of a German vehicle he'd dreamt up- an assault gun based on the Jagdpanzer Kanone upgunned with former E. German D30 123mm howitzer in place of the 90mm AT gun.

I could see the Germans mounting D30 123mm guns in a few M113s to create a similar vehicle

[Panther Al]

Now this is something I would love to stats for: a StuH-113. I agree that it's a howitzer of some sort (hence StuH and not StuG) and a earlier poster was right, these are excellent ways to Punch up the fire power cheaply for infantry units. Was the original reasoning for the design concept, though it morphed into an anti-tank role soon enough. It even followed the original rule that was applied hard and fast to all the WW2 StuG/StuH designs: no taller than a man.

[Webstral]

I love this idea so much I'm thinking about ways to include it in my Twilight: 2000 work. Surely this isn't an especially new idea. Surely once the need for a dedicated assault gun became clear, somebody with brains would have done this. I'm fine with the Germans being the ones to have the good sense. Of course, getting one or more of these into the hands of a cantonment defense force in CONUS will take a bit more explaining...

[Panther Al]

bear in mind; there is a reason for the concept to go the way of the dodo. Its not terribly effective in a fluid environment. Attacking fixed positions, or defending same from prepared locations. Once the battle becomes a battle of maneuver, StuG's and StuH's are toast. The reason the Germans bought into them at first was because there was no other way to deliver precision HE firepower at the company and platoon level to take out gun positions (MG, Cannon, Etc) that leg infantry would have a hard time dealing with before the introduction of the handheld rocket launcher coupled with the armour protection to survive those positions defenses (where as infantry could at least hide).

They got big in the midwar because they was the only chassis available to mount the larger more effective guns needed to take on the T34, and as the situation worsened, it was a lot cheaper to rebuild old Pz3's into StuG's than it was to build more Pz4's.

[Webstral]

I agree that there are reasons why assault guns aren’t generally included in the lineup of the major powers’ AFV park, just as there are reasons why the assault gun joined the lineups of the Wehrmacht and Red Army. Cost is a factor for the emergence of the assault gun; without a gun turret, the fighting vehicle is cheaper and less complex. Also, a heavier gun can be mounted for the same weight of vehicle. Cheapness and ease of maintenance are important factors, after all.

Another reason for the emergence of the assault gun is the tendency for the tanks to fight each other instead of supporting the infantry. The British (and perhaps the French—I can’t remember anymore) distinguished between cavalry and infantry tanks. The former were light, fast machines meant to exploit breakthroughs and beat up rear-area units. The M4 Sherman with its 75mm gun is a splendid example of such a tank. Infantry tanks were slower and heavier with better armor and (sometimes) better guns than their cavalry counterparts. The infantry tank was intended to fight in direct support of the infantry, although obviously a big heavy mike foxtrot is going to get drawn into tank-on-tank combat as the opportunity arises. The assault gun is a natural evolutionary development of the infantry tank concept. In my opinion, the assault gun is a good marriage of economy and specialization. (Take my opinion on such things with a grain of salt—I’m no tanker.)

There are some arguments against assault guns, and many of these arguments have merit. On a fast-moving battlefield, the assault gun with its limited traverse is at a distinct disadvantage against MBT that can shoot on the move. If the Soviets are to be believed, and if Operation Desert Storm is any indicator, meeting engagements are sufficiently common to be as normal as deliberate attacks and defenses. The jury’s still out on what a really large-scale mechanized war between comparable armies would look like. A howitzer on an assault gun, which will have a fairly limited direct fire range (1,500 meters?) is at a very distinct disadvantage against a wide variety of ATGM. Although the frontal armor of an assault gun can be thickened vis-à-vis the frontal armor of a tank with the same chassis, it may or may not be practical to provide sufficient protection against all or most ATGM. A tank certainly can provide direct fire support to the infantry. IFV can provide direct fire support, though I don’t know how a 25mm autocannon stacks up against a 105mm piece in terms of servicing hardened targets. How many rounds of 25mm does one have to fire at a hardened target to achieve a knockout blow that could be achieved with a single round of 105mm HE or HESH?

The Soviets included HE in the basic load for their MBT. When I was Regular Army in the 1990’s, the question was being asked whether the combat load for the M1 wasn’t a bit too specialized. At the time, the M1 carried sabot rounds and HEAT. There were three machine guns for AP, but there were no rounds specifically for infantry support. I know that in the interim more attention has been paid to providing the infantry with direct support that extends beyond beating up the enemy’s AFV (the value of which is never to be underestimated). However, the US would have entered the Twilight War with an MBT incapable of providing exactly the kind of fire for which the assault gun is intended.

One of the problems with the fast-moving modern battlefield is that it leaves behind pockets of enemy resistance. If all goes well, the next echelon or the echelon after that deals with the problem. This is an ideal circumstance under which to use an assault gun. Behind the front, the assault gun shouldn’t have to deal with enemy tanks—at least not in the same numbers one would expect to find them at the front. AT guns and ATGM probably will be present in bypassed enemy units, although obviously the size and composition of bypassed enemy units will vary considerably. Still, mopping up pockets of resistance is a job for the infantry and fire support vehicles. There’s no need for a high-performance fighting vehicle like the M1 to operate in direct support of dismounted infantry. I’d argue that detailing an M1 for this job is wasteful, though the US Army certainly has done enough of it over the past decade. By the same token, detailing an SP gun for this job is wasteful. A 155mm cannon certainly can deliver effective fire against enemy strong points, but the field artillery has plenty of other work to do during an offensive. Man portable weapons lack the range to go after targets that an assault gun with a 105mm howitzer can tackle. Also, man portable weapons like the AT-4 tend to be specialized for the anti-armor role. HEAT warheads are less effective in the bunker busting role than an HE or HESH round of equal diameter because much of the round’s energy goes into creating a plasma bolt. A plasma bolt has lesser effects inside a bunker than inside an MBT for a couple of reasons. The first is that there is lot less combustible material (fuel and ammunition) inside a hardened infantry fighting position than inside an AFV. The second is that while the plasma bolt will create spalling on the interior of a concrete or wooden bunker, the overall impact is lesser. When one is tackling a small cinder block structure, this doesn’t matter so much. But the Israelis have noted that a HEAT round from an MBT doesn’t always do the job against enemy combatants inside ordinary civilian dwellings, although the plasma bolt may penetrate multiple walls. HE or HESH in 105mm, on the other hand, is well-suited for tackling hardened structures and killing or disabling the troops inside. This is a good job for an assault gun.

[Panther Al]

All very good points, though the M4 was meant as an infantry support tank: as originally planned, under no circumstances was it to get into a gun fight with another tank.

I think that yes, Assualt guns would come back into play: But not as factory made machines prior to the war: I think what would happen is as vehicles are beat up, and damaged beyond repair into the original shape and form, they would be cannibalized into AG's to be given to second echelon units to free up better machines for the first line units.

The remote weapons turret (Such as the MPGS's and others as experimented with over the past decade) mounting a large calibre weapon mounted on a light vehicle (Be a brad version or something else) though is something worth looking at.

[pmulcahy11b]

That 113-howitzer looks like it maybe has an L/25 gun barrel -- better suited as an assault gun than a howitzer.

[Panther Al]

True, shorter tube, but looking at the elevation it can get, and comparing it to the earlier StuG and StuH, I think StuH is the proper designation here. So, it can get some indirect fire (Perhaps not out to the range that a 105 should get, but more than direct fire).

[Webstral]

…under no circumstances was it [the M4] to get into a gun fight with another tank.

It makes one smile quietly to oneself, doesn’t it?

… Assault guns would come back into play: But not as factory made machines prior to the war: I think what would happen is as vehicles are beat up, and damaged beyond repair into the original shape and form, they would be cannibalized into AG's to be given to second echelon units to free up better machines for the first line units.

I concur. I do think there’s some chance that the fighting in China might inspire a few of the more enterprising types to construct prototype assault guns. The West Germans, who have a history with the type and who probably are inclined to take the lessons coming out of China to heart more than the other NATO partners, seem like good candidates for the construction of prototypes. Either way, though, I agree that there will not be a type standardized assault gun for the US Army. I can’t promise that the USMC won’t see the value of a light, compact large caliber gun platform for direct support of the infantry. Of course, in 1996 they might still be using the M60 A3/4.

[Panther Al]

It makes one smile quietly to oneself, doesn’t it?



I concur. I do think there’s some chance that the fighting in China might inspire a few of the more enterprising types to construct prototype assault guns. The West Germans, who have a history with the type and who probably are inclined to take the lessons coming out of China to heart more than the other NATO partners, seem like good candidates for the construction of prototypes. Either way, though, I agree that there will not be a type standardized assault gun for the US Army. I can’t promise that the USMC won’t see the value of a light, compact large caliber gun platform for direct support of the infantry. Of course, in 1996 they might still be using the M60 A3/4.


*laughs* Exactly, the M3 75mm gun was designed not to deliver a round capable of armour penetration, but direct fire HE - in fact the M3 is the ultimate French 75 of fame and legend, since it is a direct descendant of it.

As to the Germans, it totally agree. Seeing the shape of things on China, I could see them placing plans in the files for how to convert equipment to assault guns, maybe even stockpiling certain parts that would be needed for such. I could very much see them building prototypes based on the Leo 1, as well as the M113 - as well as rearming or upgrading the Jaguar itself (Already in service as a missile armed upgrade of the original post war StuG)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As to the Germans, it totally agree. Seeing the shape of things on China, I could see them placing plans in the files for how to convert equipment to assault guns, maybe even stockpiling certain parts that would be needed for such. I could very much see them building prototypes based on the Leo 1...
Something like this?

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_3_vt_2_augustdorf-1316.jpg

More images here but the text is all in German
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_3_gvt-a.htm

And another development on the same theme can be found here but it's from the same website so again the text is in German
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_3_gvt-b.htm

[Legbreaker]

I can't imagine it would be much fun being the driver if both barrels fired at once!
Looks very wide. Bridges and tunnels would have been a bitch to deal with, although strangely, finding a parking spot at the supermarket not so much...

[pmulcahy11b]

Something like this?


I think Antenna has that one statted out on his site.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think Antenna has that one statted out on his site.
I vaguely recalled that he did after reading your post so I went looking. He has a related vehicle that I think was part of the project that spawned the vehicle that I posted. The vehicle he's statted suffers some self-esteem problems though - from having only one main gun! :p :D

Here's his page: -
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~antenna/m2k/veh/nato-td/koningsjaguar.htm

[HorseSoldier]

On the M113 based Sturmhaubitzer, I wonder if it wouldn't find a niche in the T2K world that it obviously didn't find in real life -- namely, a fairly cheap fire support vehicle specifically for West German reserve formations. Those guys had a pretty significant rear-area security mission against Soviet/WP airborne and airmobile units, and a 105mm howitzer would be ideal for anti-infantry work in that capacity and capable of anti-armor work against the BMDs and other light armor the Soviet desant units could bring to the fight.

(Any unit equipped with them would have to rely on someone else to do anti-tank work if they ended up face to face with a frontline breakthrough and T-72s or similar, but maybe units equipped with the 113 howitzer also had a 113 based version of the Jaguar 1/2 vehicles, or just limited German adoption of the M901 ITV as a complement to the gun armed vehicle.)

[Webstral]

On the M113 based Sturmhaubitzer, I wonder if it wouldn't find a niche in the T2K world that it obviously didn't find in real life -- namely, a fairly cheap fire support vehicle specifically for West German reserve formations. Those guys had a pretty significant rear-area security mission against Soviet/WP airborne and airmobile units, and a 105mm howitzer would be ideal for anti-infantry work in that capacity and capable of anti-armor work against the BMDs and other light armor the Soviet desant units could bring to the fight.

An exceptionally fine idea.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

You do not need the 105 for close support the 90 would be sufficient for that.

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/kilomuse/Tanks/M11390mm.jpg

M113 with Cockerill Mk III 90-mm gun I would think would be an excellent option. Heck even the Australian MRV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Puckapunyal-M113-MRV-1-1.jpg would also work.

[Legbreaker]

Heck even the Australian MRV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Puckapunyal-M113-MRV-1-1.jpg would also work.
It does, and has. The Australian M113 with Saladin turrets were used to good effect in Vietnam.

[HorseSoldier]

Would definitely get the job done as well, though without the war-fuzzy Teutonic feel of a turretless assault gun :) (Though a short barrel 105mm howitzer might provide indirect fire options other systems did not.)

[Panther Al]

Would definitely get the job done as well, though without the war-fuzzy Teutonic feel of a turretless assault gun :) (Though a short barrel 105mm howitzer might provide indirect fire options other systems did not.)

But I like StuG's! Nothing says loving like a tank shorter than you, with a shell larger than a script kiddies ego!


Though, the idea of using a D30 instead of a 105 does make one go hrmm... After all, the D30 is a proven performer that does have a much heavier throw weight for not much more cost in size and weight over a 105. There is a reason why the Germans was talking about switching to a 12.8cm howitzer from the 10.5cm/15cm combo during WW2: The increase in terminal performance vastly outweighed the penalties of a slightly larger (or smaller in the case of the 15cm) gun.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

The only problem I see with that particular Stug113 is that the gun looks like it has no traverse what so ever. It would suck as an anti vehicle stug. having to make even minor adjustments by having the driver twist left and right would be down right daunting.

[Webstral]

The infantry being supported probably won't care whether the fire is coming from a 105mm gun/howitzer or a 90mm low-pressure gun. They'll be glad to be getting some direct fire support where tanks might be scarce.

[Legbreaker]

It's worth pointing out that 75mm guns were deemed sufficient in at least the earlier stages of WWII for infantry support. By comparison, 90mm and 105mm are overkill.
However, Maxim No 37 comes into play here: There is no overkill. "Only open fire" and "time to reload."

:schuss:

[StainlessSteelCynic]

More M113 variants, this one is an air defence vehicle from Singapore.
Like the M113 that mounted a ZSU-23-2, this is a US vehicle carrying a Soviet/Russian weapon system - the 9K38 Igla IR-homing missile.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0GQUt16TOQE/TF-ZMStnWpI/AAAAAAAAApI/3pYrQ3bqmks/s1600/37815_452133858528_89175368528_6048779_491479_n.jp g


Damn! If I keep this up I'll be the M113 fanboy of the forum but at least I won't be as bad as "you-know-who-who-wants-all-M113s-called-Gavin" hahaha!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And I found another image - M113 with Hellfire missile pods

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4880/m113octuplehellfire001lv3.jpg

[Schone23666]

More M113 variants, this one is an air defence vehicle from Singapore.
Like the M113 that mounted a ZSU-23-2, this is a US vehicle carrying a Soviet/Russian weapon system - the 9K38 Igla IR-homing missile.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0GQUt16TOQE/TF-ZMStnWpI/AAAAAAAAApI/3pYrQ3bqmks/s1600/37815_452133858528_89175368528_6048779_491479_n.jp g


Damn! If I keep this up I'll be the M113 fanboy of the forum but at least I won't be as bad as "you-know-who-who-wants-all-M113s-called-Gavin" hahaha!

LOL, that's an interesting combination. I'd expect you'd see modifications like that popping up in countries that have decent, if not large quantities of both Western/American/NATO and Russian/former Soviet Union/former Warsaw Pact equipment. Southeast Asia and most areas of Africa are two regions that come to mind...

As for Mr. Gavin Fanboy whathisname, dont' worry, likely you already gave him an erection (likely his first). :p

[Webstral]

I do like that Hellfire variant. A couple of these could provide anti-tank defenses for an assault gun formation.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I do like that Hellfire variant. A couple of these could provide anti-tank defenses for an assault gun formation.

I'd just like to see the gunner ripple-fire the whole octuplet and assplant the '113 :D

[Legbreaker]

Rockets and missiles don't exactly have a lot of recoil do they...?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Rockets and missiles don't exactly have a lot of recoil do they...?

No, but it's still a funny image.

:)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As for Mr. Gavin Fanboy whathisname, dont' worry, likely you already gave him an erection (likely his first). :p

I LOLed - in fact I snorted with laughter and scared the cat!
Sadly, Mr M113 Fanboy likely has most of the M113 variants we've posted here, already listed on his "M113 idolatry" page.

And just to keep things moving, to quote a series of television ads "but wait, there's more..."

A museum site with a Hellfire M113 prototype http://www.heartlandmuseum.com/album/album1/Museum_Photos/museum_photos_7.html giving some basic information.
More pics of the vehicle itself
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/img_1815.jpg
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/img_1834.jpg


Turkish air defence vehicle - M113 with Stinger launcher, named ATILGAN
(very large image) http://defenceproducts.ssm.gov.tr/ProductImages/PedestalMountedAirDefenceMissileSystemPMADSATILGAN/ATILGAN.jpg


Danish M113G3 DK Ambulance Extended - image from http://www.armyvehicles.dk
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/m113g3dk_ext_amb_2.jpg

Another Danish M113, fitted with a dozer blade. http://www.armyvehicles.dk/m113dozer.htm has some additional information
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/m113a1dozer.jpg

And more Danish M113s, a Close Protection M113, used to screen the Danish tank platoon in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Notice the rubber "band track" fitted in place of the regular metal link track. Benefits are said to be less vibration, less noise, less maintenance, increased passenger comfort and increased track life. It's been stated on MilitaryPhotos.Net that Denmark is fitting this track to all it's M113s after service trials in Iraq & Afghanistan proved the benefits. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?94770-M113-Forever/page5
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z86/danskpanserbilleder/5.jpg


And finally to finish up, the ARISGATOR, an M113 made into a mini LVTP-7/AAVP-7A1
http://www.aris-spa.it/pgg/prodotti/arisgator_/img/DSCN4578m.jpg
Plenty info and more images at the following sites: -
http://www.arisspa.it/inglese/arisgator.htm
http://www.aris-spa.it/prodotto.php?lang=en&prod=arisgator&sez=img
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1007.html


While I don't worship the M113 like "you-know-who" somebody must have done something right for it to be so well represented around the world for near on 50 years now - it's practically the Model T Ford of armoured vehicles.

[Legbreaker]

...to quote a series of television ads "but wait, there's more..."

I soooo better be getting self sharpening steak knives with that! ;)

Given the US pumped out tens of thousands of them and spread them around the place, and given replacement vehicles don't usually come cheap, it's no real surprise they've been adapted, then adapted some more by whoever's had them in service.
I'd imagine if the Soviets hadn't kept such a tight rein on their own client states, we may have seen the same thing happen with the BTR and BMP lines.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I soooo better be getting self sharpening steak knives with that! ;)

Given the US pumped out tens of thousands of them and spread them around the place, and given replacement vehicles don't usually come cheap, it's no real surprise they've been adapted, then adapted some more by whoever's had them in service.
I'd imagine if the Soviets hadn't kept such a tight rein on their own client states, we may have seen the same thing happen with the BTR and BMP lines.

Have you seen the wikipedia page on just the BTR-60? Stepping away from the f/USSR there are a ton of home-grown variants just of that.

[Legbreaker]

Of course, however there appears to be way more of the M113.
Most of the BTR variants appear to incorporate relatively minor alterations while the M113 in many cases is barely recognisable as the same vehicle.

[Fusilier]

Of course the ADATS system is also mounted on the Gavin, as seen here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/ADATS_2008.JPG

[ArmySGT.]

Gavin

Stop that.

It is like picking your nose in public.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

What's a "Gavin"? Cos that looked like an M113 to me.



:p
:D

[Fusilier]

Stop that.

It is like picking your nose in public.

LOL

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Stop that.

It is like picking your nose in public.

Yeah, cos women don't mind getting their gear off and they don't mind a bit of perversity but they DO draw the line at nose picking

(the above is a misquote from the movie "The Odd Angry Shot")

[ArmySGT.]

A fine example of two people nominally speaking the same language, and still having no idea at all what was said.

:p

[Targan]

"The Odd Angry Shot". Classic Australian film. It comes across as a bit dated now, as a whole, but this scene remains timeless, I think:

xsVJ8J1lLBk

[ArmySGT.]

Was this seen off of your island? ;)

[Targan]

Was this seen off of your island? ;)

I very much doubt it :D

[ArmySGT.]

The odd angry shot. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079652/)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You have to remember that "The Odd Angry Shot" was filmed in the mid-1970s. It was shown outside Australia but you're talking about 30 years ago so it's no surprise that people haven't heard of it - back in the days of the drive-in theatre and beer cans made from steel!

[ArmySGT.]

You have to remember that "The Odd Angry Shot" was filmed in the mid-1970s. It was shown outside Australia but you're talking about 30 years ago so it's no surprise that people haven't heard of it - back in the days of the drive-in theatre and beer cans made from steel!

I am 40 and somehow missed this....... well I will have to check Amazon.