US Army Mechanized Infantry AT Companies

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

You know with all this talk about the slowness of the 113 platform kinda boggles my mind. True, I accept the basic idea that the 113 can not keep up with the Abrams. OK, Got that. The last vehicle I was the TC of before I got sucked into recruiting was our 77 track (A M113). I can't count the number of times I was told over the radio to slow down so that the M1's can catch up (Especially when we was off road - in any terrain that wasn't smooth and flat, all our 113 platforms smoked our Abrams and Brads). So, while I accept the premise in general, I would tend to think that as the TW went on, the 113's that survived would be, on average, those that seem to be a might bit faster than the rest. Just something to think about...

113A3s can hang pretty well.

M901s were underpowered and pokey things even compared to pre-A3 113s, though.

I still suspect that late in the Twilight War, a lot of them would have the 901 components just scrapped or cannibalized for used elsewhere and basically be converted back to M113s, or as close as DISCOM maintenance assets could manage by 1999-2000.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

113A3s can hang pretty well.

M901s were underpowered and pokey things even compared to pre-A3 113s, though.

I still suspect that late in the Twilight War, a lot of them would have the 901 components just scrapped or cannibalized for used elsewhere and basically be converted back to M113s, or as close as DISCOM maintenance assets could manage by 1999-2000.

The M-901 is certainly underpowered for its weight class, but then hang about 1,800kg of hammerhead turret and don't change out the engine....

The biggest drawbacks of the M-901 is that it is top-heavy, even with the hammerhead in the down position; under-powered due to the above mentioned failure to up-engine the thang when the funny-looking thang was added on top. Another major failure is that the hydralic system, well SUCKS!!! I've seen hammerheads fail to extend/retract, fail to spin, fail to stop spinning and flat out say to hell with it all and blow thier lines.

To its advantage...a M-901 in a down postion with the hammerhead just barely exposed is a nightmare to spot before it fires. It has a decent thermal sight and is a vast improvement over the old M-150...

Still, given the choice of crewing a Hammerhead or crewing a M-1A1....give me the Abrams, hands down!

[HorseSoldier]

When I first got in ('93) the Cav unit I was in was still running a sort of transitional MTOE with tankers in mid-NETT for M1A1s, 4.2" mortars, and 113 based scout platoons with 3 x M113A3s and 3 x M901s. The thermals were nice but otherwise they were a PITA. For the stuff we were actually doing circa 1993 I think we would have been better off with 6 x 113s or M2 Bradleys running four man dismount teams each, but then the army never asked me about my ideas for fixing MTOE. (Though my unit did eventually do a JRTC rotation as the heavy team element for a brigade where we did go with 6 x M2s instead of M3s per platoon and our 19Ds plussed up with 11Bs to fill all the seats in the back. Since we were running mixed platoons of 2 x M1A1s and 3 x Bradleys, it meant we could also put 18 dismounts on the ground on top of the firepower. Promised to be really solid, except that the OPFOR just avoided us like the plague until the mechanized attack at the end.)

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah never understood why they would use the M3 as a scout vehicle, when the M2 offered more dismounts for the scouting. On the other hand M3 used to replacement in the AT Company would be just about right, if one was interested in keeping the Echo Company still active.

[HorseSoldier]

Agreed. The M3, with it's bigger load of ammunition, was an artifact of the "built by committee to satisfy no one" aspect of the Bradley. A Recce AFV carrying two dismounts can and should have been smaller, but we got stuck with the Bradley as the chassis. So they opted to jam extra ammo in, since the space (and large profile) was obligatory, but that wasn't the ideal solution.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

Agreed. The M3, with it's bigger load of ammunition, was an artifact of the "built by committee to satisfy no one" aspect of the Bradley. A Recce AFV carrying two dismounts can and should have been smaller, but we got stuck with the Bradley as the chassis. So they opted to jam extra ammo in, since the space (and large profile) was obligatory, but that wasn't the ideal solution.

Yeah, it wasn't ideal for means of it mission. Now for an Anti-Tank company it wouldn't be quite as ideal as the M901, but if they are used in ambush setting where they don't have dismounted spread out, they can fire, then pull back to position where they can reload. Still have 25mm auto cannon and coax MG for protection.