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.

Me likee!

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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)

Something like this?

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/b...tdorf-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

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...

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...ingsjaguar.htm

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.)

An exceptionally fine idea.

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

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/u...s/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:Pu...13-MRV-1-1.jpg would also work.

It does, and has. The Australian M113 with Saladin turrets were used to good effect in Vietnam.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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/_0GQUt16TOQ...9_491479_n.jpg


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!

And I found another image - M113 with Hellfire missile pods

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4...fire001lv3.jpg

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

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

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

No, but it's still a funny image.

:)

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..._photos_7.html giving some basic information.
More pics of the vehicle itself
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/u...8/img_1815.jpg
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/u...8/img_1834.jpg


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


Danish M113G3 DK Ambulance Extended - image from http://www.armyvehicles.dk
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/m1..._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...-Forever/page5
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...billeder/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/.../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?...sgator&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.

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.

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.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ADATS_2008.JPG

Stop that.

It is like picking your nose in public.