Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bring back the M-113??????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bring back the M-113??????

    Time for better protection?


    http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...28/wirq128.xml

    Replace the hopeless Humvee, Pentagon chiefs are urged
    By David Rennie in Washington
    (Filed: 28/04/2004)
    Armoured cars being sent to Iraq are not up to the job, according to a senior United States army general, prompting calls for Pentagon chiefs to swallow their pride and reactivate thousands of mothballed Vietnam-era armoured personnel carriers.
    With improvised bombs, rifle fire and rocket-propelled grenades taking an ever deadlier toll on coalition forces, the Pentagon is spending £225 million to replace thin-skinned versions of the Humvee, the US military's ubiquitous jeep-like transport, with an "up-armoured" model, as fast as they can be churned off the production line.
    Commanders have shuddered as troops attached home-made armour plating and even sandbags to ordinary Humvees, whose thin skin, canvas doors and shoulder height windows have made them highly vulnerable to attack.
    The new, armour-plated Humvees have been touted by Pentagon chiefs as the best solution to complaints from the field about the standard version of the vehicle.
    But Gen Larry Ellis, the commanding general of US army forces, told his superiors that even the armoured Humvee is proving ineffective.
    In a memo leaked to CNN television, he wrote: "Commanders in the field are reporting to me that the up-armoured Humvee is not providing the solution the army hoped to achieve."
    Reports from the field say that even with armour plating, the Humvee's rubber tyres can be burnt out by a Molotov cocktail, while at two tons, it is light enough to be turned over by a mob.
    Gen Ellis said it was "imperative" that the Pentagon instead accelerate production of the newest armoured personnel carrier, the Stryker, which weighs 19 tons and moves at high speed on eight rubber tyres.
    But the Stryker has many influential critics who say it is too big to be flown easily on the military's C-130 transport aircraft, and too cumbersome to manoeuvre in narrow streets. Instead, they want the Pentagon to turn back the clock and re-deploy thousands of Vietnam-era M-113 "Gavin" armoured personnel carriers, which are still used by support and engineering units, and are held in huge numbers by reserve units.
    Gary Motsek, the deputy director of support operations for US army materiel command, said: "I have roughly 700 113-series vehicles sitting pre-positioned in Kuwait, though some are in need of repairs. I have them available right now, if they want them."


    http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring121203.html

    The Army's past
    Michael L. Sparks, an Army Reserve officer, and many like-minded veterans, are pressing the Army to move on from the new wheeled Stryker armored vehicle and embrace the past — the venerable M-113 personnel carrier.
    Mr. Sparks wants the Army to bring thousands of M-113 armored personnel carriers out of storage, modernize them and put them in all combat infantry units; including the light infantry which has no armored vehicles. And he wants this affordable enhancement done quickly to help the troops in Iraq right away.
    He contends the tracked M-113 is more reliable, road-safer and provides better protection than any wheeled vehicle can ever offer. He says studies prove compact tracked vehicles are 28 percent more space/weight efficient than placing armored boxes on top of wheeled suspensions/drivetrains.
    "Our troops are driving around Iraq in doorless, fabric-sided [Humvees or High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles], fiberglass/thin metal 10-ton FMTV trucks and 21-ton Stryker rubber-tired armored cars and losing men's lives and limbs daily to roadside bombs and accidents," Mr. Sparks said. "Some soldiers are also foolishly driving around Iraq in gasoline-powered captured or government-provided civilian automobiles. Combat psychology studies show if you look and are vulnerable it will embolden the enemy to attack you."
    Some senators have been critical of the lack of armor protection for the Humvees, which fall prey to roadside bombs that have killed scores of American soldiers. A program to "up-armor" them will take months, or years. Mr. Sparks, an infantry officer, said: "The Army has thousands of thick-skinned M-113 Gavin light tracked armored fighting vehicles sitting in storage that are 'as is' far better protection than the up-armored rubber-tired Humvees or Strykers will ever be.
    "For a fraction of the cost of up-armoring Humvee trucks requiring years of time our men in Iraq do not have, we could fit in a matter of weeks underbelly armor, gun shields for the troops to fire out behind protective cover and rocket propelled grenade-resistant applique armor to M-113 Gavins. This would supply all our men in Iraq protected mobility."
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  • #2
    Originally posted by troung
    Time for better protection?


    http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...28/wirq128.xml

    Replace the hopeless Humvee, Pentagon chiefs are urged
    By David Rennie in Washington
    (Filed: 28/04/2004)
    Armoured cars being sent to Iraq are not up to the job, according to a senior United States army general, prompting calls for Pentagon chiefs to swallow their pride and reactivate thousands of mothballed Vietnam-era armoured personnel carriers.
    With improvised bombs, rifle fire and rocket-propelled grenades taking an ever deadlier toll on coalition forces, the Pentagon is spending £225 million to replace thin-skinned versions of the Humvee, the US military's ubiquitous jeep-like transport, with an "up-armoured" model, as fast as they can be churned off the production line.
    Commanders have shuddered as troops attached home-made armour plating and even sandbags to ordinary Humvees, whose thin skin, canvas doors and shoulder height windows have made them highly vulnerable to attack.
    The new, armour-plated Humvees have been touted by Pentagon chiefs as the best solution to complaints from the field about the standard version of the vehicle.
    But Gen Larry Ellis, the commanding general of US army forces, told his superiors that even the armoured Humvee is proving ineffective.
    In a memo leaked to CNN television, he wrote: "Commanders in the field are reporting to me that the up-armoured Humvee is not providing the solution the army hoped to achieve."
    Reports from the field say that even with armour plating, the Humvee's rubber tyres can be burnt out by a Molotov cocktail, while at two tons, it is light enough to be turned over by a mob.
    Gen Ellis said it was "imperative" that the Pentagon instead accelerate production of the newest armoured personnel carrier, the Stryker, which weighs 19 tons and moves at high speed on eight rubber tyres.
    But the Stryker has many influential critics who say it is too big to be flown easily on the military's C-130 transport aircraft, and too cumbersome to manoeuvre in narrow streets. Instead, they want the Pentagon to turn back the clock and re-deploy thousands of Vietnam-era M-113 "Gavin" armoured personnel carriers, which are still used by support and engineering units, and are held in huge numbers by reserve units.
    Gary Motsek, the deputy director of support operations for US army materiel command, said: "I have roughly 700 113-series vehicles sitting pre-positioned in Kuwait, though some are in need of repairs. I have them available right now, if they want them."


    http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring121203.html

    The Army's past
    Michael L. Sparks, an Army Reserve officer, and many like-minded veterans, are pressing the Army to move on from the new wheeled Stryker armored vehicle and embrace the past — the venerable M-113 personnel carrier.
    Mr. Sparks wants the Army to bring thousands of M-113 armored personnel carriers out of storage, modernize them and put them in all combat infantry units; including the light infantry which has no armored vehicles. And he wants this affordable enhancement done quickly to help the troops in Iraq right away.
    He contends the tracked M-113 is more reliable, road-safer and provides better protection than any wheeled vehicle can ever offer. He says studies prove compact tracked vehicles are 28 percent more space/weight efficient than placing armored boxes on top of wheeled suspensions/drivetrains.
    "Our troops are driving around Iraq in doorless, fabric-sided [Humvees or High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles], fiberglass/thin metal 10-ton FMTV trucks and 21-ton Stryker rubber-tired armored cars and losing men's lives and limbs daily to roadside bombs and accidents," Mr. Sparks said. "Some soldiers are also foolishly driving around Iraq in gasoline-powered captured or government-provided civilian automobiles. Combat psychology studies show if you look and are vulnerable it will embolden the enemy to attack you."
    Some senators have been critical of the lack of armor protection for the Humvees, which fall prey to roadside bombs that have killed scores of American soldiers. A program to "up-armor" them will take months, or years. Mr. Sparks, an infantry officer, said: "The Army has thousands of thick-skinned M-113 Gavin light tracked armored fighting vehicles sitting in storage that are 'as is' far better protection than the up-armored rubber-tired Humvees or Strykers will ever be.
    "For a fraction of the cost of up-armoring Humvee trucks requiring years of time our men in Iraq do not have, we could fit in a matter of weeks underbelly armor, gun shields for the troops to fire out behind protective cover and rocket propelled grenade-resistant applique armor to M-113 Gavins. This would supply all our men in Iraq protected mobility."

    FOR THE 1000000000000000000000TH TIME - THE M113 HAS NEVER BEEN NAMED THE GAVIN!!!!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Colonel,
      Its Sunday go easy
      A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

      Comment


      • #4
        Obviously they'd be vastly superior than HUMVEE's.

        Geez, this was one of the biggest lessons of the Mogadishu raids. Guess no one in power bothered to write it down...

        Comment


        • #5
          But the M113 isn't stylish! e can't use old stuff! We need new stuff! Preferably built in some senators home district.

          George should just order the army to use them.
          sigpicUSS North Dakota

          Comment


          • #6
            Let me get this straight. 20 year old rusted out tracks provide better protection than brand new Strykers?

            The thing that gets me is all these articles gives the impression that the M113 is somehow a Bradley Jr - NOT A CHANCE IN HELL.

            The other problem with the M113 is the lack of qualified drivers and the way the Army is throwing bodies into Iraq, retraining ain't exactly high on the priority list. It's a lot faster to throw makeshift armour than to requalify a driver.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
              Let me get this straight. 20 year old rusted out tracks provide better protection than brand new Strykers?

              The thing that gets me is all these articles gives the impression that the M113 is somehow a Bradley Jr - NOT A CHANCE IN HELL.

              The other problem with the M113 is the lack of qualified drivers and the way the Army is throwing bodies into Iraq, retraining ain't exactly high on the priority list. It's a lot faster to throw makeshift armour than to requalify a driver.
              Do we have enough Bradley's? Or Stryker's? If the M113's in question are operational, wouldn't they be better than HUMMVEE's? If they do work, and get battle damage, then we could just scrap them. That would be cheaper than getting newer stuff wrecked, wouldn't it?

              I hadn't thought about the driver qualification issue. Being an old farmboy, and having operated a wide variety of heavy equipment, I forget that new kids might not even be able to operate a manual tranny.
              sigpicUSS North Dakota

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 2DREZQ
                Do we have enough Bradley's? Or Stryker's? If the M113's in question are operational, wouldn't they be better than HUMMVEE's? If they do work, and get battle damage, then we could just scrap them. That would be cheaper than getting newer stuff wrecked, wouldn't it?
                They're not operational. That's why they're in storage and given the nature of the Middle East - extremely heavy air pollution, the things would suffer from corrosion. Is it cost-effective to bring them back up to operational standards? Or get something to work with the HUMVEEs now?

                Comment


                • #9
                  On the M113 isent the driver and gunner exposed to enemy fire, or have they added amored cockpits for them?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    113s are childs play to drive. You can train someone to operate one in about an hour, and spend 15 minutes of that time talking about sports.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      An armored plate could easily be affixed to the .50 mount.

                      The driver does not have to be exposed to operate the vehicle.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        PS.....113s CAN'T rust. They're aluminum. ;)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by M21Sniper
                          113s are childs play to drive. You can train someone to operate one in about an hour, and spend 15 minutes of that time talking about sports.
                          Find me the child to be my driver. Lord knows I had a hell of a time trying to qualify on the AEV version.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                            Find me the child to be my driver. Lord knows I had a hell of a time trying to qualify on the AEV version.

                            Hehe, sounds like they can use some BMPs and BTRs over there.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'll drive it for you Sir.

                              I'd be honored to be your track driver if we ever found ourselves headed into battle.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X