Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pics of slat armor on M113s

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

  • Pics of slat armor on M113s

    I found some pics of the M113 with slat armor on my friend's (Mike Sparks) website.

    http://www.geocities.com/armorhistor...leupgrades.htm

    The ballistic glass shield is a much better option than the chicken plate IMO. It was also interesting to see the M113 outfitted with a birdcage. However, I'll point out a few flaws in his propaganda bullets below the pics.

    1. The M113 is 5" narrower than the Stryker, which has little room to spare on the sides in a C130. A M113 with additional hardened steel armor and then a birdcage will not fit in a C130. He doesn't make that specific claim, but his wording implies it IMO.

    2. I haven't seen the specs of the RHA for the M113, but my guess is that it raises the protection of the M113 to 14.5mm. With the birdcage, you get an additional blast shield and then the slats, which raise your protection beyond 14.5mm for both the Stryker and the M113. Once again, careful wording leaves this out while implying that it provides better protection than the Stryker.

    3. I'm having a hard time finding where you can store stuff on the outside below the hull and birdcage. Maybe he forgot those pictures. Now, if he wants to store additional stuff between the blast shields and the slats, he can go ahead, but I'm not sure why you would want to defeat your own slat armor yourself!?!?!? The slats work by catching the round between the slats and then breaking the fuze to prevent detonation. Obviously, this doesn't happen all the time, so when it does, the slat causes detonation of the shape charge away from the hull and the shape charge wastes energy penetrating the slat, the blast shield, and isn't focused as it strikes the hull, reducing the chance of full penetration and minimizing injuries in the event of penetration. Adding material between the blast shield and slats serves only to detonate those RPGs that are "caught" between the slats. If he wants a 100% chance of detonation, he can reach his goal by storing materials there.

    However, I will stop there as I don't want to make anymore sacrilegious comments about "the greatest armored fighting vehicle of all time" (he's calling these "Super Gavins"). ;) In all seriousness though, I'm glad to see these upgrades reaching our soldiers in Iraq. These upgrades make the M113 equally survivable as the Stryker, which is especially great for the M113s that are with engineer units and are seeing action everyday on IED patrols.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  • #2
    Sparks is obviously an *******, but it's good to see the ole' 113 warwagon getting the 21st century treatment.

    The 113 is, and always has been, an eminently useful and reliable APC. It's nice to see it finally being taken seriously by today's leadership.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by M21Sniper
      Sparks is obviously an *******, but it's good to see the ole' 113 warwagon getting the 21st century treatment.

      The 113 is, and always has been, an eminently useful and reliable APC. It's nice to see it finally being taken seriously by today's leadership.
      Full agreement here.
      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't think the Stryker will ever replace the m-113. Not saying the Stryker is a piece of s*** (well, you already know nmy opinion) or anything, though.

        BTW Shek, are you still in the army or what?

        Comment


        • #5
          Shek's on subatical on the taxpayers dime. ;)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            Shek's on subatical on the taxpayers dime. ;)
            Speaking of which, has anybody noticed how media reports about the Stryker have dropped way off?
            Or haven't I been looking at the news lately?

            If true, I would say this is a good indicator that Stryker is doing it's job as intended.
            Otherwise, we'd still be hearing about it. I mean, who really wants to read about a weapons system that is working?
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TopHatter
              Speaking of which, has anybody noticed how media reports about the Stryker have dropped way off?
              Or haven't I been looking at the news lately?

              If true, I would say this is a good indicator that Stryker is doing it's job as intended.
              Otherwise, we'd still be hearing about it. I mean, who really wants to read about a weapons system that is working?
              I think you haven't seen much for a several reasons. First, the Stryker has been in Iraq for 18 months now and has proven itself to be survivable. Second, soldiers overwhelmingly like the Stryker overall (which isn't to say that they don't want some improvements). Third, Army officials are pleased with the performance of the Stryker Brigades that have served in Iraq. Fourth, Stryker commanders have been very vocal and responsive to negative Stryker articles with facts that generally refute or diffuse the criticism. Fifth, the funding for the Stryker Brigades has been almost completely appropriated, so the Stryker is a done deal - the M113 will not see service in an IBCT role. Lastly, the fact the M113s are using the exact same slat armor packages poses an interesting challenge to the vocal M113 crowd.

              Personally, I think the March WP aticle that was loosely based on the CALL report was more of a "kick the Pentagon" while it's down article on the heels of the HMMWV armor issue rather than a anti-Stryker article.

              Sniperdude - As far as the Stryker replacing the M113, it wasn't designed to replace the M113 in its current role, it was only selected to fill the need for a medium platform for the IBCT. It wouldn't make sense to try and put a wheeled vehicle into a tracked vehicle formation whose job it is to go where the other tracked vehicles go. And yes, I am still in the Army. Duty uniform - REI convertible pants, t-shirt, sandals, and goatee. Reveille - 9 AM (not 0900 ). Duty hours - 10-15 hours of class a week. Snipe is dead on - a tax payer funded sabbatical!
              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

              Comment


              • #8
                Just as I suspected. Nothing "newsworthy": Shattered Stryker hulls everywhere, dismembered and dying US soldiers. Scandals all around.

                Fcking jackals. Why can't we draft all members of the media that report on military situations and send them all to Iraq?
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TopHatter
                  Just as I suspected. Nothing "newsworthy": Shattered Stryker hulls everywhere, dismembered and dying US soldiers. Scandals all around.

                  Fcking jackals. Why can't we draft all members of the media that report on military situations and send them all to Iraq?
                  I forgot to add one more reason - insurgent have been able to destroy Bradleys and Abrams as well, so it makes it hard to argue that the Stryker is the weakest link. My only issue is that the "newsworthy" controversies tend to be written by folks that aren't that familar with what they are writing.

                  It was interesting a few weeks back - a writer for the Tacoma News Tribune that had been embedded with my brigade was cruising through StrategyPage and found some posts that I had made on the Stryker and wrote me asking if it was me (he was embedded with my company for a few days and I typical hauled around the media so that my PLs wouldn't have to worry about escorting embeds around). He sent me a few pics that he had and when I asked him his opinion of the WP article and he said he was PO'd first because he had to come in on a Sunday away from a family outing to write an article in response and second because the conclusions/spin from the article didn't match with his experience embedded with the brigade. Also, the only other media that I had embedded for a couple of days was an ABC guy that did a Nightline segment - the segment raised some questions about the Stryker but in general was positive and I thought was a fair piece. So, I would throw out that those that are actually embedded are generally on target. The issue is that many of your pieces that hit the MSM are written by those that use stringers and therefore end up with a spin that may not match reality.
                  "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    As I recall Sparks and his minions once decryed the slat armor and are now jubilent it's fitted to M113s.

                    I've long said that both platforms do things the other can't and it's better to have both of them in service.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      To be fair to mike, they 'decried' the slats because to them it was evidence the Stryker was inadequate as originally delivered.

                      The Stryker slat armor was really a last minute add-on right before they deployed IIRC.

                      So really, Mike was on target with that particular criticism, because one can fairly say that 'if it needs slat armor it's not well enough protected to begin with'...which really, is true.

                      Of course, almost no military vehicles are well enough protected, so that charge applies EVERY BIT as much to the M-113.

                      It so irks me to be on the same side of the argument as that guy. :(

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ability to stow troop gear, sandbags on outside beneath hull and bird cage to increase ballistic protection levels
                        But storing gear and sandbags in flimsy wireshields cause fires leading to these DAMFs to burn to death in their egomanic wheeled deathtraps...

                        Funny how storing "luggage" on an M-113 is good but doing the same on the Stryker is being a ninetando egomanic....
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by M21Sniper
                          To be fair to mike, they 'decried' the slats because to them it was evidence the Stryker was inadequate as originally delivered.

                          The Stryker slat armor was really a last minute add-on right before they deployed IIRC.

                          So really, Mike was on target with that particular criticism, because one can fairly say that 'if it needs slat armor it's not well enough protected to begin with'...which really, is true.

                          Of course, almost no military vehicles are well enough protected, so that charge applies EVERY BIT as much to the M-113.

                          It so irks me to be on the same side of the argument as that guy. :(
                          And it also applies to a Bradley, which can be destroyed by a RPG with its base armor. It needs ERA to better protect against RPGs. Only an Abrams fits the bill (and now the Super Gavin!). And I guess the Super Stryker too!

                          The slat armor was designed as an interim solution until the add on armor panels (ERA) were developed, tested, and fielded, which will be next year. So, RPG protection wasn't an afterthought, it just wasn't ready to go and so they developed the slat armor. The slat armor has some advantages such as allow infantrymen to use the Stryker for cover without running the danger of being wounded/killed from a tile exploding and weighing less. Of course, this would have to be weighed (no pun intended) with the chances of injury/death from a RPG penetrating the slat vs. the more effective protection that ERA panels would provide.
                          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ERA and dismounts don't really mix too well. From that standpoint, the slats really are quite superior IMO. OTOH, most ERA is encased in steel plate that will stop most rifle fire in it's own right, and obviously adds a fairly decent amount of additional protection vs HMG and light cannon HE fire.

                            Like everything made by man, it's all a series of trade-offs, lol.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I wonder why the Marines haven't looked a light and modulat slat armor package for their LAVs? The Aussies ahve one for their ASLAVs that's currently seeing service in Iraq. The LAV really isn't suited for heavy ceramic or steel applique and it's base armor s too thin for ERA I believe, slats seem like a good idea to me. One of several upgrades they should consider.

                              ASLAV with slat armor
                              Last edited by Wraith601; 03 Jun 05,, 07:32. Reason: Add link

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X