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

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...

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.

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.

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).

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...)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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)

<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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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/milita...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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.