$220,000 uparmored Humvee "inadequate" - solutions, workarounds?

[Albany Rifles]

Let me add a few points here.

1. When the HMMWV was first developed it had armored and unarmored versions. The armored versions were, and are, meant for use by antiarmor units, recon, MPs and C2. The armor is to protect from small arms and fragmentation. For that role it is a very good vehicle.

2. When the insurgency kicked off in Iraq the HMMWV was called on to fill missions it was not designed to do...as were a lot of units. From 2005 on ask an Army artilleryman or tanker what he did in Iraq. He will answer foot patrols..and we got around in HMMWVs. A lot of small vehicles were need to quickly work on patrolling. The HMMWV is what was available. CONUS and USAREUR units were stripped of their armored HMMWVs and armor kits for the unarmored variants were developed and shipped to Iraq and A'stan. This was a stop gap until the MRAPs could be procured and shipped to the theater.

3. Neither the MRAP nor the HMMWV are excellent off road vehicles ...though the HMMWV is better. But that is not what they are primarily intended for. The MRAP is intended to protect Soldiers from an IED when travelling on a road. Perhaps the biggest issue with the HMMWV as an armored vehicle is the strain the weight of the armor kit adds to the engine, chassis and transmission. HMMWVs which roll off the production/rebuild line from the get go as armored get better engines and drive trains.

4. Sticking with HMMWV versus the BMR 600? Well Spain has produced a total of the following numbers since 1979 Spain: 682 Egypt: 260 Peru: 20 (Marines)
Saudi Arabia: 200 with the Saudi Marines Morocco: 100 Total of 1262. There are more HMMWVs and light trucks in an Army division than the entire production run of that vehicle. At the height of OIF/OEF the Army was procuring new and rebuilt HMMWVs at the rate of 1,000 a month. Not to mention the entire supply chain whcih backed up the HMMWVs. To hard and too expensive to do it on such a large scale. And the BMR is an APC not a utility vehicle.

5. But what about MRAPs? They were procurred intitially from SA with an integrated logistics package based on the recommendation of the USMC. Some acquisition protocols were waived based on emergency need. The first several hundred were SA built. The rest in the US. I can literally look out my office window here in Southern Virginia and see at least 1 or 2 MRAPs on 18 wheelers heading to the port of Charleston.

6. The HMMWV repalced more than the M151 family of vehicles. It also replaced the Gamma Goat and CUCV variants. The CUCVs outnumbered the M151s in the Army. By the time the HMMWV really started to field in the US Army in 1987 there were very few jeeps rearward of the brigade...almost all CUCVs.

7. Don't know where they got their number for the article on the cost but I just looked it up and its less than half of that.

8. And M113s? The only M113s laying around were being rebuilt to M113A3 standard and fielded to Army units or going to foreign military sales. And the armor on an M113 and UAH are about equal. Not to mention it costs a lot more to operate a tracked vehicle over a wheeled vehicle.


So I guess I am saying this entire article is kind of a BFO...blinding flash of the obvious.


No there there.

[Bill]

The book Cobra II states that there were 3000 M-113s in depot in Saudi Arabia at the start of the 2003 invasion.

[Cowman88]

The book Cobra II states that there were 3000 M-113s in depot in Saudi Arabia at the start of the 2003 invasion.

The only 113's I saw were operated by Ugandans.

[Albany Rifles]

The book Cobra II states that there were 3000 M-113s in depot in Saudi Arabia at the start of the 2003 invasion.

How many belonged to the US and how many belonged to the Saudis? And Crusade II was about the Persian Gulf War, not OIF.

We did not have supply depots in Saudi for combat...we had them in Kuwait. KKMC in Saudi was equipment for the SA NG...they did not allow us to establish a CEG site there after the Gulf War. And equipment depots are organized in unit sets...just just big parking lots of vehicles. So those M113s were earmarked as maintenance tracks, commo tracks, GSR tracks, medic tracks, etc.

All that said, the M113 is a lousy patrol vehicle, esp[ecially compared to an armored HMMWV...slower, louder, less efficieint, costs much more per mile top operate with no appreciable increase in armor protection.

[Bill]

Perhaps it was Kuwait then, but the book clearly state that 3000 US owned M113s were in theater in storage depots. But i'm pretty sure it was Saudi Arabia, they were vehicles left behind after ODS, IIRC.

Compared to a regular hummer a M113 has vastly more protection, and when comparing one to one of the up-armored Hummers, the M113 has vastly more offroad mobility and probably has pretty comparable range too.

It also mounts a big ole .50caliber machine gun and can accommodate an 11 man squad.

As far as speed, how fast you gonna drive around in a top heavy uparmored hummer? Those things are flat dogs even in unarmored form anyway. The M113 is not exactly a quiet vehicle, but that's hardly a show stopper and could easily be "corrected" with a more efficient muffler design, any number of which are available as COTS.

The M113 has it's upsides, and is way better than cruising around in an unarmored hummer by my estimation.

The worst downside would be the damage the tracks caused to roads over time.

[Cowman88]

Perhaps it was Kuwait then, but the book clearly state that 3000 US owned M113s were in theater in storage depots. But i'm pretty sure it was Saudi Arabia, they were vehicles left behind after ODS, IIRC.

Compared to a regular hummer a M113 has vastly more protection, and when comparing one to one of the up-armored Hummers, the M113 has vastly more off road mobility and probably has pretty comparable range too.

It also mounts a big ole .50caliber machine gun and can accommodate an 11 man squad.

As far as speed, how fast you gonna drive around in a top heavy up-armored hummer? Those things are flat dogs even in unarmored form anyway. The M113 is not exactly a quiet vehicle, but that's hardly a show stopper and could easily be "corrected" with a more efficient muffler design, any number of which are available as COTS.

The M113 has it's upsides, and is way better than cruising around in an unarmored hummer by my estimation.

The worst downside would be the damage the tracks caused to roads over time.

but that's the thin they aren't using the up-armored humvees off road they are using them in cities and long distance supply convoy security.

[Bill]

And because they can't use them offroad.

Everyone knows that 113s were not used more prominently in OIF because the Army was trying to sell congress on the "need" for stryker.

It was politics. It's always politics.

[zraver]

And because they can't use them offroad.

Everyone knows that 113s were not used more prominently in OIF because the Army was trying to sell congress on the "need" for stryker.

It was politics. It's always politics.

113's were used by us and several allies. The results were the same as in nam. Thinskinned slowass loud tracks suck in ambush prone areas. A 113 will not keep up with wheeled platforms on Msr's or all weather roads. Using it as an escort cost us lives by giving the hajis more time to plan, execute and sustain an attack.

The uparmoed hummer is still capable of doubling the 113's road speed while being quieter and at least as well protected.

I would not wannt to be in a 113 as its thin flat bottom rolled over an IED

[Bill]

Show me the data on 113 tracks being more vulnerable than any other platform in theater.

The M113 will haul ass at 35+mph cross country and about 40mph on a road. The road march to Baghdad during OIF was accomplished at a whopping 10-12mph, a pace that an M113 can do forever. An M-113 is every bit as fast as an M2 Bradley, and darned near every bit as fast as an M-1 Abrams. It is also no louder than a Bradley either.

If M113s were so vulnerable, why did they take part in both thunder runs into baghdad and fight at objectives moe larry and curly (without a single vehicle loss)?

You have rode in these vehicles before...right? You should know these things if you have.

Oh, and since you mentioned Vietnam, M113s were very successful in that war as armed convoy escorts.a

You lads are going to have to do much better than this.

[zraver]

Show me the data on 113 tracks being more vulnerable than any other platform in theater.

The 113 is loud, it is slow, it lacks modern com gear or protective systems, it can't see at night. Its not used in front line combat anymore. Using any track for patroling is a waste of time, those noise lets the bad guys know your coming. This leaves convoy escort as a possible combat mission... A mission it sucks at, even if it survives its slow speed makes everything else an easier target.

The M113 will haul ass at 35+mph cross country and about 40mph on a road. The road march to Baghdad during OIF was accomplished at a whopping 10-12mph, a pace that an M113 can do forever. An M-113 is every bit as fast as an M2 Bradley, and darned near every bit as fast as an M-1 Abrams. It is also no louder than a Bradley either.

First the only way a 113A2 is going to do 35mph cross country or 40mph road is if an abrams is towing it. 30 is about the best a 113a2 will do on level hardpack. Throw hills, ditches and soft sand in the mix and 25 is often out of reach. Even if the A3 variant can reach those speeds on hard pack, thats still 15mph slower than a humvee or semi-truck. A convoy is only as fast as its sowest member. More importantly than the number of 113's lost would be the number of other vehicles lost in convoys that had 113's in them.

If M113s were so vulnerable, why did they take part in both thunder runs into baghdad and fight at objectives moe larry and curly (without a single vehicle loss)?

A conventional fight using the 113 in traditional (supporting) roles doesn't really translate into COIN ops.

You have rode in these vehicles before...right? You should know these things if you have.

113, 577, 901

Oh, and since you mentioned Vietnam, M113s were very successful in that war as armed convoy escorts.a

You lads are going to have to do much better than this.

The 113 in Vietnam did not do stellar service as an escort. The gasoline engine and thin armor combined to turn the track into a ready made troop cooker. While this doesn't reveal Vietnam losses, this early RAND study 91982) is based in part on lessons learned in Vietnam. The study calls for an attrition rate of 100 tracks per brigade in attack/defense.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA113571

The ARVN tried to turn the track into an AFV and suffered horrible losses. A similar situation the US Army found itself in 03+ in Iraq. The 113 is not designed to take damage.

The Stryker does everything a 113 can do in COIN and do it better. It is mine resistent, can see at night, has awesome coms, can provide the same level of supportign fires without exposing the gunner, it is faster and quieter and more is visually intimidating.

[Chunder]

And because they can't use them offroad.

Everyone knows that 113s were not used more prominently in OIF because the Army was trying to sell congress on the "need" for stryker.

It was politics. It's always politics.

How do you explain other coalition partners with them in their inventory, but instead preferring to deploy Styker Variants and Mine Protected Vehecles...

Nothing wrong with the Stryker's offroad performance - or for that matter MPV's/

[Stitch]

Bill, no offense, but it sounds like you've been reading too much of Mike Sparks propaganda about the M-113 "Super Gavin". Yes, tracks have SOME advantages over wheels, but not enough to make it worthwhile. The other major disadvantage that everybody seems to be avoiding is the amount of maintenance that a tracked vehicle requires over a wheeled vehicle; you're basically doubling the number of automotive components with a tracked vehicle, and they all require a certain amount of maintenance. More maintenance=less time avialable for doing anything useful.

P.S. You'll probably like this website, especially since Sparky's Geocities page has been "temporarily disabled".

[Bill]

It should sound to you like I used to be a M113 TC (and also served in an M577 and M106), and i am therefore intimately familiar with just what a versatile vehicle it is.

The US army was prepared to go to war against the Soviet Union on the Central European front with the M113 as it's primary infantry carrier for over 40 years. I was prepared to do so too.

Yet now people are going to try and sell the "fact" that it can't serve in a low intensity COIN role? You people are smoking crack.

It is a highly capable vehicle that would be ridiculously easy to upgrade with modern comms and already in service PNV systems.

I would serve on one or TC one today with the appropriate minor mods (gun shields, slat armor and a latest generation .50cal mounted PNVS sight and PNVS drivers periscope) without a second's hesitation.

Which is what they call putting your money where your mouth is.

First the only way a 113A2 is going to do 35mph cross country or 40mph road is if an abrams is towing it. 30 is about the best a 113a2 will do on level hardpack. Throw hills, ditches and soft sand in the mix and 25 is often out of reach. Even if the A3 variant can reach those speeds on hard pack, thats still 15mph slower than a humvee or semi-truck. A convoy is only as fast as its sowest member. More importantly than the number of 113's lost would be the number of other vehicles lost in convoys that had 113's in them.

First, convoys in high threat areas and attacking columns dont zip around at the kinds of speeds you are talking about, nor even close. Second, the speeds i quoted are accurate for an M113A3 in good running condition, third, there is no evidence whatsoever that M113s would suffer a higher loss rate than any other vehicle on convoy escort missions (or any other suitable duty).

M113s served right alongside M2s and M1s during OIF and during ODS and did not suffer undue losses, including in front line combat roles. What's more, they served at intersections Moe, Larry, and Curly (or some of them, i don't have Cobra II handy to double check which ones exactly) during the thunder runs into Baghdad, and were present on the thunder runs themselves.

Not one single M113 was lost during the Thunder Runs into Baghdad despite facing the most intense fire of the entire war.

These are facts.

During Vietnam they were used because "gun trucks" were so vulnerable. While the 113 was vulnerable to a B-40 rocket, so was everything else. Finally, M113s have not been gas powered for decades. I honestly didn't even realize the early ones were ever gas at all. You are inventing an issue that does not exist by even bringing up gas powered M113s to begin with.

How do you explain other coalition partners with them in their inventory, but instead preferring to deploy Styker Variants and Mine Protected Vehecles...

Nothing wrong with the Stryker's offroad performance - or for that matter MPV's/

Politics, and wanting to prove the worth of their latest shiny toy probably explains most of it, but operating costs are a factor as well.

Operating costs is not a legitimate criticism with regard to the US military, which operates thousands of M1 Abrams tanks and a massive fleet of fuel thirsty helos. What's more, the US Army proved over 50 years that it can maintain and keep operational a huge fleet of M113 tracks.

Keep trying.

There is no doubt that M113s could have helped to effectively plug the gap in convoy and patrol security early on in the insurgency, when the US military was caught flat footed in almost every way. It was total gross negligence by Rumsfeld and his boys that left our men so totally unprepared, because he wanted to prove his "transformation" theories and use a smaller force. This same wanton negligence found our artillery men and tankers walking patrols with nothing but sidearms or AK-47s.

What's more, the US Army didn't want the M113 upstaging it's shiny new strykers.

It was politics. It's as simple as that.

The M113 is still every bit as effective a base platform today as it has ever been.

Sparks may be a loon, but he is right about the M113 still being a perfectly serviceable combat vehicle.

And all this nonsense about them being "noisy." Seriously? Somehow it was never an issue for my unit. And even if someone insists that it is an issue now, an auxiliary COTS muffler could be added on for about a hundred bucks per PC.

I mean seriously.

[Officer of Engineers]

I mean seriously.

Bill, the truth is, the M113 is now obsolete if for no other reason that no active combat formations are now trainewd with them. When I left the CF, the M113 was still active with the Canadian Engineers. No longer. In fact, when I left, the LAV III was the combat reccee of choice for the CF.

The thing is, Bill, once you put machines into mothballs ... and that is exactly what the M113 storage is, superior platforms will come into play. Can the HUMVEEE do the same job as the M113x, not by any stretch of the imagination ... but I ask you, did we need an M113 to do a reccee?

[Chunder]

Politics, and wanting to prove the worth of their latest shiny toy probably explains most of it, but operating costs are a factor as well.

...

What's more, the US Army didn't want the M113 upstaging it's shiny new strykers.

It was politics. It's as simple as that.

Australia deployed LAV's and Bushmasters. The Latter was in production before OIF began & our commitment in 2005. Both have acquitted themselves quite well in operations. I know the Strykers are different from LAV's - god I feel like im digging myself a hole here.