Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Report: Australia's retrofitted M113 APCs 'vulnerable to current threats'

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

  • Report: Australia's retrofitted M113 APCs 'vulnerable to current threats'

    from the current issue of JDW, due to copyrights issues I can not post the entire article, but you get the idea.


    Report: Australia's retrofitted M113 APCs 'vulnerable to current threats'

    Julian Kerr JDW Correspondent
    Sydney

    Vietnam War-era M113 armoured personnel carriers (APCs) that are undergoing a AUD800 (USD784) million upgrade will remain in Australian Army service until 2030 despite their inability to support close combat operations.

    .
    .
    The ANAO describes the M113s as lagging behind other armoured infantry vehicles and "vulnerable in many current threat environments".
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

  • #2
    Who but Sparks would be surprissed about this? There are simply limits on how much you can gear up a decades old system.

    Comment


    • #3
      Im not a huge fan of the M113 and i cant read the full article but would it be accurate to say that the missions that it is expected to handle it can do quite well and the article is looking at the M113's ability to do tasks that the Australian army is not expecting of it?

      The bucket (as we call it) is a battlefield taxi, the upgrades were designed to keep it current in that role. It was never expected to be an IFV and compared to them in a heavy mech environment it would fail miserably. The army is a mostly light mech/motorised institution and has made a point of avoiding heavy mech style equipment (preferring to upgrade the buckets over purchasing heavy IFV, purchasing large numbers of bushrangers, purchasing Tiger scout/attack helicopters over Apaches etc) as there is really nothing we could add to a coalition in the heavy field that the US could not do better and easier.

      I would wager that compared against the original specifications of the project that the super bucket will perform as advertised.
      The best part of repentance is the sin

      Comment


      • #4
        That's half the point though isn't it. Why are we using the M113 as a battlefield taxi? Does anyone do that anymore?
        Ego Numquam

        Comment


        • #5
          Mate i don't have to agree with it. They just do, similar to the Israelis with their M113's. I think that the Bushrangers do the job well enough. We need a couple of Squadrons of proper heavy IFV's to play nice with the Abrams and be done with it. I would personally work on 1 heavy mech brigade, give them exactly the toys they need then concentrate on building the rest of the army around the motorised/light infantry concept.
          The best part of repentance is the sin

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by chakos View Post
            Mate i don't have to agree with it.
            I have no opinion. It does seem as though they have long since been replaced in every other 'developed' country.

            They just do, similar to the Israelis with their M113's.
            Israel needs the capacity (conscription) It can't afford to replace en mass

            I think that the Bushrangers do the job well enough. We need a couple of Squadrons of proper heavy IFV's to play nice with the Abrams and be done with it.
            Abrams? What Abrams? The Government has reduced the funding of them to under 20 now ?(We just got them). If we can't even figure out what we need at the tip, how in flip's sake can anyone expect the Government to buy proper IFV's? They won't, because they don't have a clue and are completely non-core about their defence funding!

            Add that to cancellation of the SPH and partnership with the USN on BAMS, and one gets the distinct feeling that this government has given defence as much direction as a blind man in a snow storm.
            I would personally work on 1 heavy mech brigade, give them exactly the toys they need then concentrate on building the rest of the army around the motorised/light infantry concept.
            It would be nice if we had a nucleus of what were sure we needed and subsequently made sure it was funded. But we don't. It's resembles more and more like a female in a shoe store that asks the bloke to foot the bill.
            Ego Numquam

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Chunder View Post
              That's half the point though isn't it. Why are we using the M113 as a battlefield taxi? Does anyone do that anymore?
              Yes- Stryker is a taxi. BTR-80 is a Taxi same for simialr Chinese and French systems.

              Comment


              • #8
                Initial design work for the M113 dates back to 1956. Is it shocking news that it is a marginal design for 2012? It remains at least a semi-viable design, that is at least a testament to the design.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I've just revisited the battle of 73 Easting. McMaster's good sense suggested he hold his M-3 Bradley scout platoons in place and pass through with his command element and his two M1A1 tank platoons. Had he not done so, it's likely that initial contact would have been made by one of his Bradley scout platoons. Given the intensity of the actual engagement, I'd question the ability of those Bradleys to survive, much less fight a winning battle by themselves.

                  Help would have been very nearby. Moments actually. Still, things transpired rapidly when contact was made.

                  My point? I'm unsure that IFVs can perform their stated mission much more effectively than the M-113. Certainly their onboard weapons are an asset. So too their mobility. Once in the crosshairs of an opponent's boresight, however, protection is dubious. Remember that one Bradley was hit and destroyed that night by an Iraqi BMP-1 73mm main gun-hardly a modern weapon. Other Bradleys across the Corps frontage were hit by T-72 and American TOW fire that night as well. All destroyed.

                  I don't suggest this a flaw to the Bradley nor do I suggest an M113 could do better. It clearly would not. I do suggest that both chemical energy and kinetic weapons are more than equal to any infantry fighting vehicle now on the planet. As such, line-of-sight direct fire weapons means the likely destruction of any vehicle not armored to MBT specs. Even then results are problematic at best. While the modern IFV of today offers features and advantages, the end benefits weighed against the stated purpose- to accompany MBTs into the death zone and deliver decisive victory-is questionable.
                  "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                  "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Steve,

                    I am unsure of your conclusions. IIRC, the M1s saw the T-72s first and engaged outside of the T-72's range. There's no reason to expect the M3s not to see the T-72s first, also outside of the T-72 range.

                    The Marine's LAV-25s certainly gives credence he who sees first, kills first, engaging and stopping a T-72 column outside of Kafji.

                    Per the Australians, it sounds extremely like the Canadians. One heavy brigade with two mech recce brigades.

                    The Track is long on the tooth but there is still some life left in these hulls and their treads are still effective in certain terrains over their arm'd car counterparts.
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Jun 12,, 03:44.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      OoE Reply

                      "...IIRC, the M1s saw the T-72s first and engaged outside of the T-72's range. There's no reason to expect the M3s not to see the T-72s first, also outside of the T-72 range..."

                      Colonel, here is Cpt. McMaster's official after-action report-

                      Battle Of 73 Easting-McMaster, Ft. Benning

                      The relevant portion begins on pg. 14. While the bulk of his troop engaged a small village and bunker complex right at the 73 easting mark McMaster had two uninvolved M3 Bradleys [Moody] on his troop's northern flank sight, engage and destroy an enemy tank. He talks about cresting an imperceptible rise only to see enemy tanks with his naked eye inside 1420meters.

                      McMaster did see them first, but alone and we're discussing a matter of a few seconds difference. That the Tawalkana T-72s began to immediately orient upon him indicates they also saw him.

                      "It was 4:18 P.M. The sandstorm had not let up. I was issuing final instructions to the Troop when my tank crested another, almost imperceptible rise. As we came over the top, Staff Sergeant Koch yelled "tanks direct front." I then saw more of the enemy position at which Moody was firing.

                      In an instant, I counted eight tanks in dugin fighting positions. Large mounds of loose dirt were pushed up in front of the vehicles and they were easily discernible to the naked eye. They had cleverly established their position on the back slope of the ridge (reverse slope defense) so they could surprise us as we came over the rise. We, however, had surprised them. We had destroyed their scouts earlier in the day and, because of the sandstorm, they had neither seen nor heard us.

                      They were close! Koch hit the button on the laser rangefinder and the display under the gun sight showed 1420 meters.

                      I yelled, "fire, fire SABOT." A HEAT round was loaded but Taylor would load a high velocity kinetic energy round next; a tank defeating depleted uranium dart which travels at about one mile per second. As Koch depressed the trigger, the gun breach recoiled and the HEAT round flew toward the enemy tank. We were still moving forward but the tank's stabilization system kept the gun right on target. The enemy tank exploded in a huge fireball as Koch swung onto another tank. This tank was much closer and was positioned forward of the main defense. It was swinging its turret toward our tank. Taylor actuated the ammunition door. As the door slid open, he grabbed a SABOT round, slammed it in the breach, and screamed, "up."

                      Only three seconds had elapsed since we destroyed the first tank. I was talking on the radio as Koch let the round go. The enemy tank's turret separated from its hull in a hail of sparks. The tank hull burst into flames as the penetrator ignited the fuel and ammunition compartments. Private First Class Hedenskog, slowed the tank down to about twenty kilometers per hour. He spotted an enemy minefield
                      and was weaving between the mines while trying to keep the tank's thick frontal armor toward the most dangerous enemy tank.

                      Hedenskog knew he was setting the course for the Troop. He guided the tank to the right so both tank platoons would hit the enemy position. Two T-72's fired on us but their rounds fell short on either side of the tank..."


                      "The Marine's LAV-25s certainly gives credence he who sees first, kills first, engaging and stopping a T-72 column outside of Kafji."

                      I don't recall such but, if so, they're lucky the Iraqis weren't more determined. Those marines wouldn't be killing any T-72 with 25mm cannon fire.
                      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Having been in/commanded both M113 and Bradley units let me add a few points.

                        M113A3s with slat armor will be sufficient for MOST of the possible missiosn the Australian Army would engage in. Like in the US Army, the Infantry DOES NOT fight from the track....it gets them to the fight where they dismount and fight. The track provides supporting fires, resupply, evacuation and mobility. If engaged while mounted fire is returned and the tracks maneuver to cover and concealment and then dismount.

                        As for the Bradley there was a time when it was believed that the Infantry should fight mounted. That is why we had those dumbass firing port weapons....which I only allowed to come out of the arms rooms to be cleaned and then locked right back into their racks. But we got smart and decided we would go back to what had worked so well for decades since we first put Infantry on horseback (see dragoons, history there of)...Infantry fights best when riding LPCs....leather personnel carriers. What the Bradley gave the Infantry was increased mobility, tremendous firepower and a vastly improved level of protection. I was able to move my Bradleys in swampy FT Stewart, GA, in places I couldn't dream of taking an M113.

                        That said, Steve, to your point about 73 Easting and the M3s....those M3s were the M3A1....just like the M2A1s I got at FT Stewart (first ones in the Army, BTW). They upgraded the TOW to a TOW 2 and had improved final drives installed (the ones they used on the MLRS). There was also better storage, etc, but there was no increase in the armor protection or much else. Due the lessons learned from the Gulf War the M2A2 and then the M2A2ODS (Operation Desert Storm) mods were developed. This was a greatly improved vehicle which did away with the firing ports and added plates of steel armor to the sides, back and turret. That variant and the further upgrade to M2A3 status made the Bradley proof against MOST antiarmor systems below ATGMs and tank main rounds. BMP 1 73mm and BMP 2 30mm were both able to be defeated by that armor.

                        If you read read Thunder Run, the story of 2d Bde, 3 ID attack into Baghdad you will read numerous examples of Brads being hit by a bunch of RPGs and driving on.

                        More here.

                        M2 Bradley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                        As to BG(P) McMaster's tactics at 73 Easting, they were impecable. Passing the armor through the CFVs was smart cavalry/mech infantry doctrine in open country. In restrictive terrain you do the reverse.

                        Now, no IFV or APC in the world can duke it out with a current generation MBT and win, and that includes the Namer. IFVs/CFVs with modern ATGMs can often take on tanks and win because there is often a better range for the ATGMs (See M2s versus T-72).

                        As for the Australians....I do not know enough of what their strategic defense vision is and what they perceive teh threat is they would have to face. Without knowing that you can not evaluate their choice of weapon systems.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A.R. Reply

                          "That variant and the further upgrade to M2A3 status made the Bradley proof against MOST antiarmor systems below ATGMs and tank main rounds. BMP 1 73mm and BMP 2 30mm were both able to be defeated by that armor.

                          If you read read Thunder Run, the story of 2d Bde, 3 ID attack into Baghdad you will read numerous examples of Brads being hit by a bunch of RPGs and driving on..."


                          Understood.

                          OTOH, has the original mission of the IFV changed? Should we expect our potential PRIMARY adversaries to be equipped with inferior night-sights and less-than-fully modern ATGMs and main guns/ammunition? Is there yet more load-bearing capacity available for further up-armor augmentation within our Bradley/Warrior systems? Seem they'd need it to carry through an objective against modern anti-armor systems.

                          I ask because I'd contend the first battle of the next war should focus on the same ol', same ol' adversaries- Russia, the PRC and/or the DPRK. If so, what sufficed for "thunder runs" through downtown Baghdad likely won't cut it if accompanying MBTs in an assault against a well-trained and prepared enemy across open terrain into and on an objective with mounted infantry.

                          As said earlier, the features and advantages are certainly there. The end benefit towards the stated purpose remains, IMV, unproved. If I must, what would I rather ride? An IFV.

                          Must I ride is the question? If so, I'd sure hope to face more of the same from Iraq.:)
                          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Steve,

                            The mission has not changed. There are times when fighting mounted makes sense. But Infantry is at its lethal best on the ground supported by the fires if the IFVs, especially in restrictive terrain and on the defense.

                            So the IFV has a real place on the battlefield, especially in the scenario you mention.

                            More later.
                            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                            Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by S2 View Post
                              I ask because I'd contend the first battle of the next war should focus on the same ol', same ol' adversaries- Russia, the PRC and/or the DPRK. If so, what sufficed for "thunder runs" through downtown Baghdad likely won't cut it if accompanying MBTs in an assault against a well-trained and prepared enemy across open terrain into and on an objective with mounted infantry.
                              Hell I could not imagine a THUNDER RUN through the streets of Grozny against the Chechens.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X