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

[pmulcahy11b]

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

[Panther Al]

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).

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

…under no circumstances was it [the M4] to get into a gun fight with another tank.

It makes one smile quietly to oneself, doesn’t it?

Originally Posted by Panther Al

… Assault 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.

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.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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...

Something like this?



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

[Legbreaker]

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...

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Something like this?

I think Antenna has that one statted out on his site.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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!

Here's his page: -
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~antenna/m2k...ingsjaguar.htm

[HorseSoldier]

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.)

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

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.

An exceptionally fine idea.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

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



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.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Cpl. Kalkwarf

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.

[HorseSoldier]

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.)

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

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.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

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.

[Webstral]

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.

[Legbreaker]

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."

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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.




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!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And I found another image - M113 with Hellfire missile pods

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.




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!

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).

[Webstral]

I do like that Hellfire variant. A couple of these could provide anti-tank defenses for an assault gun formation.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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

[Legbreaker]

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

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

No, but it's still a funny image.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

As for Mr. Gavin Fanboy whathisname, dont' worry, likely you already gave him an erection (likely his first).

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




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


Another Danish M113, fitted with a dozer blade. http://www.armyvehicles.dk/m113dozer.htm has some additional information


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



And finally to finish up, the ARISGATOR, an M113 made into a mini LVTP-7/AAVP-7A1

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.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

...to quote a series of television ads "but wait, there's more..."

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.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Fusilier]

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

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Gavin

Stop that.

It is like picking your nose in public.