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

[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!