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

[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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by 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.

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....)!

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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!

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

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]

Originally Posted by copeab

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!