Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Flat bottom hull, RSM, not flat bottom hoe.
    sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

    Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

    Comment


    • #62
      how much that upgraded M113 package weighs and how long can the machine cope with it?

      if mobility is the issue, there are 8x8 MRAP-s as well - Lazar BVT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Last edited by BD1; 24 Feb 11,, 19:35.
      If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

      Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

      Comment


      • #63
        The whole point is that the US Army already has 15,000 M113s in inventory...it doesn't need to buy anything.

        Comment


        • #64
          Bill,

          Lets look at the costs of giving a vehicle firing ports and then using them.

          1- The firing ports cannot be covered by ERA/SLAT armor.

          2- Effective fire is only possible via full auto so the infantry man has to burn up his basic load, or the track has to carry fewer infantry to carry more ammo. If they choose fewer infantry then more tracks are needed with the resulting increase in costs.

          3- To be used the track has to go broadside to the enemy and present both its weaker side armor and a bigger target to the enemy.

          4- The limited range of the rifles means the track with be in range of light anti-tank weapons like the AT-4 or RPG (while presenting a big less armored target).

          5- That close range also restricts the tracks main weapon systems its biggest advantages of range and field of fire from a more ideal location.

          6- If the track does take a hit from an enemy AT weapon the infantry is bunched up inside violating the law of tactical dispersal.

          These are real costs, so what is the gain?

          A- suppressive fire that is only marginally successful.*

          B- keeps the infantry under cover on a WMD battlefield.

          C- protects the infantry from small arms fire.

          D- allows a faster advance on an objective

          E- allows a from cover on the move response to an ambush.*

          Both A and E are/ may be better served by dismounting.

          Every major military equipment producer in the world has abandoned the IFV concept because the costs outweigh the gains by such a huge margin. The BMP was designed to fight on a nuclear battlefield. Outside of that role, the infantry is more effective if dismounted and then supported by the track's heavier weapons and radios.

          Comment


          • #65
            The US, UK, France, Germany, France and Russia all still employ IFVs as their primary mechanized infantry vehicles, and will for the forseeable future. If you want to make the argument that heavily armed IFV's are no longer required, then the M113 series is all the more useful still, but to me, the M2 Bradley and Warrior IFV's have proven so over the top successful in actual battle, that i don't see any nation that can afford them to stop using them any time soon.

            I have already conceded firing ports are not effective for all modes of fire, but for some, like during a thunder run, for instance- they are obviously quite useful.
            Last edited by Bill; 24 Feb 11,, 20:20.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Bill View Post
              The US, UK, France, Germany, France and Russia all still employ IFVs as their primary mechanized infantry vehicles, and will for the forseeable future. If you want to make the argument that heavily armed IFV's are no longer required, then the M113 series is all the more useful still, but to me, the M2 Bradley and Warrior IFV's have proven so over the top successful in actual battle, that i don't see any nation that can afford them to stop using them any time soon.
              The M2 is not an IFV. If your going to call it anything other than the BFVS then its an ICV (Infantry Combat Vehicle). IFV's have firing ports. I am not arguing that tracks do not ahve a role, only that the IFV platform is dead. Obviously a track with good protection, effective support weapons, a decent complament of infantry, speed and modern senors is an asset. Also requiring firing ports lessens that value.

              I have already conceded firing ports are not effective for all modes of fire, but for some, like during a thunder run, for instance- they are obviously quite useful.
              I don't think they are. The modern infantryman using 5.XXmm ammo has about 210 rounds on person. The track probalby has a few tins of extra ammo but probalby not clipped. Using that small amount of basic load ammo to spray and pray leaves the squad seriously handicapped if they have dismount.

              Comment


              • #67
                If the M2 is not an IFV there is no such thing, and i do not intend to play cute word games as to what actual initials we should be using to describe the thing.

                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                I don't think they are. The modern infantryman using 5.XXmm ammo has about 210 rounds on person. The track probalby has a few tins of extra ammo but probalby not clipped. Using that small amount of basic load ammo to spray and pray leaves the squad seriously handicapped if they have dismount.
                OK, so the infantryman here disagrees with you.

                An M113 can carry a lot of extra ammo and a lot of troops. Firing ports are useful things.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Bill,

                  The US Army has 6,000 M113s and variants in service or rebuild. They are all earmarked already for other tasks (medic, 1SG vehicle, commo tracks, maintenance tracks, M577s, mortar carriers, etc.) Any M113s laying around are well past service life or have gone for foreign military sales.

                  The Army tested the M113 when the idea came alogn for what is now the Stryker. It did okay...but it has reached its full potential and is no longer useful as main line combat vehicle for the US....others are welcome to them for their main carrier for infantry. Its is a very good (not great) support hull.

                  Adding all of the turrets, etc don't work. Why? The turret ring is too small to handle anything close to an effective modern weapons system. The hull is too small for the stroage needed to make it effective and the area for the drive train can not be expanded.

                  But the the real question is they are not needed as main line combat vehicle.

                  As for Thunder Run. etc? That was an exception. Yes, Soldiers got hit...but that is because good commanders made tough decisions and used what they had to win.

                  I know the commanders who were on the ground that day...they were my peers...I worked for MAJ Buff Blount who was the CG of the 3 ID. I have known Will Grimsley for 25 years. I know Rick Schwartz, I commanded Team A, 1-64 AR when I cross attached my Rifle Company from 3/19 IN (became 3/15 IN).

                  Like you I was a Mechanized Infantryman but I am not nostalgic for the M113...I was damned glad when we converted to M2A1s.

                  MRAPs are a better choice for road patrols, armored HMMWVs have their part to play in suuport roles (AT, recce, MP) as does the M113.

                  But the Stryker and Bradley are what motorised and mechanized Infantrymen in the Army use.

                  I guess we will just have to depart ways on this.
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Bill View Post
                    If the M2 is not an IFV there is no such thing, and i do not intend to play cute word games as to what actual initials we should be using to describe the thing.
                    Its not a cute word game- IFV stands for a particular type of vehicle the same way MBT does. In the case of an IFV one requirement is for firing ports hence infantry fighting vehicle.


                    OK, so the infantryman here disagrees with you.

                    An M113 can carry a lot of extra ammo and a lot of troops. Firing ports are useful things.
                    Yet all the major producing nations agree with me, assumingly after extensive testing revealed the very weaknesses I pointed out.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                      Bill,

                      The US Army has 6,000 M113s and variants in service or rebuild. They are all earmarked already for other tasks (medic, 1SG vehicle, commo tracks, maintenance tracks, M577s, mortar carriers, etc.) Any M113s laying around are well past service life or have gone for foreign military sales.

                      The Army tested the M113 when the idea came alogn for what is now the Stryker. It did okay...but it has reached its full potential and is no longer useful as main line combat vehicle for the US....others are welcome to them for their main carrier for infantry. Its is a very good (not great) support hull.

                      Adding all of the turrets, etc don't work. Why? The turret ring is too small to handle anything close to an effective modern weapons system. The hull is too small for the stroage needed to make it effective and the area for the drive train can not be expanded.

                      But the the real question is they are not needed as main line combat vehicle.

                      I know the commanders who were on the ground that day...they were my peers...I worked for MAJ Buff Blount who was the CG of the 3 ID. I have known Will Grimsley for 25 years. I know Rick Schwartz, I commanded Team A, 1-64 AR when I cross attached my Rifle Company from 3/19 IN (became 3/15 IN).

                      Like you I was a Mechanized Infantryman but I am not nostalgic for the M113...I was damned glad when we converted to M2A1s.

                      MRAPs are a better choice for road patrols, armored HMMWVs have their part to play in suuport roles (AT, recce, MP) as does the M113.

                      But the Stryker and Bradley are what motorised and mechanized Infantrymen in the Army use.

                      I guess we will just have to depart ways on this.
                      Clearly, as i totally disagree with your conclusion with regard to the M113 having reached it's maximum potential.

                      We have to pretend that modified and enhanced M113s (like the one a few posts above) have not been in service in countless other countries to believe that claim. We have to further pretend that the US Army didn't upgrade their M113A3's considerably after OIF began as well. We'd also have to pretend that the Vietnam Era ACAV's didn't have 360 degree open top turrets as well. The .50cal is an effective weapons system in it's own right, don't you agree?

                      I am not a big fan of make pretend.

                      Here is a vehicle that is clearly superior to a circa 2003 US Army M113A3:


                      Though the turret system and .50cal armament of the old ACAV's is still superior, so even this one has room for considerable improvement.

                      I familiarized on the original M2's and was darned glad to have the extra leg room of an M113, to be honest. 113's are also a lot easier to work on and do PMCS on. How a vehicle twice the weight manages to have half the squad size and yet still be more cramped is a feat i may never comprehend... ;)

                      I honestly don't know what you mean the drivetrain of the M113A3 could not be expanded. Diesel and transmission technology have advanced immensely since the M113A3 was designed. A modern computer controlled engine of the same cubic inches today would probably weigh 10-15% less than the one in the A3, and put out 15-20% more power, while also getting much better fuel economy. Likewise, modern transmissions are far more advanced. A six or seven speed auto transmission alone would make a huge difference in torque, pulling power, fuel economy, acceleration and top speed. (I am a trained and certified diesel technician, i do know a little something about this)

                      Zraver you are quibbling on terminology. You don't like firing ports...i get it. For 30 years, everyone east and west did. Trends are what they are- trends. And it seems like every lesson ever learned is forgotten. Like gun shields.

                      They stopped putting them on everything after Vietnam. Was that smart? Warranted? Justifiable?

                      Uhhh, no.
                      Last edited by Bill; 25 Feb 11,, 00:34.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                        As for Thunder Run. etc? That was an exception. Yes, Soldiers got hit...but that is because good commanders made tough decisions and used what they had to win.
                        This one deserves it's own response.

                        I would say that those thunder runs occurred because a full bird colonel decided to ditch carefully laid plans and do a hell bent for glory run into baghdad all by himself, causing the entire start of Phase IV operations to occur in the most chaotic situation possible.

                        The Thunder Runs were hardly necessary, and as they occurred, were in fact not planned at all. So I say those 'good commanders', "made tough decisions using what they had" my ass.

                        Had the actual plan to encircle Baghdad fully and then begin a series of pre-planned thunder runs actually been adhered to, things would have gone a hell of a lot more smoothly in the ensuing Phase IV ops. I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude differently.

                        But there's no glory in sitting back waiting for the Marines to arrive so the original plan can be executed, is there?

                        Sources: Thunder Run, Fiasco, Cobra II.

                        And whatever the reason for the Thunder Runs, it is an unassailable fact that M113s participated, kept up with the columns, and served/performed as well as any other armored vehicle that participated that day even despite the fact that the army had taken zero precautions before hand in either augmenting their armor, adding slat armor, or adding gun shields- all simple mods that could easily have been accomplished before the war ever began. M113s also served with distinction at the interchanges leading into Baghdad despite facing hours of withering fire.

                        There is nothing obsolete at all about the M113 chassis.
                        Last edited by Bill; 25 Feb 11,, 00:32.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by T_igger_cs_30 View Post
                          But I'll wager you liked those pics . . . . . .
                          "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                            But I'll wager you liked those pics . . . . . .
                            Nah not my type ...............
                            sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                            Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Bill View Post
                              This one deserves it's own response.

                              I would say that those thunder runs occurred because a full bird colonel decided to ditch carefully laid plans and do a hell bent for glory run into baghdad all by himself, causing the entire start of Phase IV operations to occur in the most chaotic situation possible.

                              The Thunder Runs were hardly necessary, and as they occurred, were in fact not planned at all. So I say those 'good commanders', "made tough decisions using what they had" my ass.

                              Had the actual plan to encircle Baghdad fully and then begin a series of pre-planned thunder runs actually been adhered to, things would have gone a hell of a lot more smoothly in the ensuing Phase IV ops. I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude differently.

                              But there's no glory in sitting back waiting for the Marines to arrive so the original plan can be executed, is there?

                              Sources: Thunder Run, Fiasco, Cobra II.
                              I actually concur with you, Bill. IIRC, from reading "Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad", the commander on site was given the go-ahead for Thunder Run I, even though the upper echelons knew it would be risky; apparently, they decided the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages of an armored strike through the heart of Baghdad.

                              However, I also remember the M2 turned out to be the best AFV for this particular situation, as most of the opposition were dismounts; the Bushmaster on the M2 was much better at neutralizing hostiles (in this situation) than the M256, even with the coax M240.
                              "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Bill View Post
                                Had the actual plan to encircle Baghdad fully and then begin a series of pre-planned thunder runs actually been adhered to, things would have gone a hell of a lot more smoothly in the ensuing Phase IV ops. I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude differently.
                                Bill,

                                Couldn't disagree more. There were not enough means. An extra week would not have bought any more forces from the bastardized TPFDL. There were ill-defined ends and as a result, you couldn't have the right ways. It was a case of policy of being ill-defined, resulting in the impossible task of creating a viable strategy in a vacuum. You then top that off with a SecDef more concerned about reducing the length of the ground war by weeks for a result of a lack of planning that increased the after the ground war by years.

                                Lastly, it was CJFLCC/CENTCOM decision to remain after the Thunder Run. It may have been an aggressive Division and Brigade Commander that created the opportunity, but higher HQs took ownership of it with the decision to stay.
                                "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

                                Working...
                                X