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

[Bill]

I'm not saying LAV's or Strykers are bad.

I'm just saying that M113A3's with slat armor, already standard night vision systems and armored gun shields were perfectly capable of adequately filling the void in armored patrol and escort vehicles that existed early in the insurgency.

The US Military got flat out caught unprepared (or was forced to be so, if you believe the books Cobra II and Fiasco). There is no denying it, and there is no denying that M113A3s with just basic modifications would have been about a thousand times safer than driving around in unarmored Humvees.

Aren't M113's are in active service in Afghanistan right now?



That sure looks like a couple M113's, and that sure looks like Afghanistan.

Sure looks like the M113s are escorting a convoy in this pic:




Here's another one, looks like Iraq:


Note the use of enhanced armor, field expedient armor, gunshields, and a simple Ma Duece mounted passive night vision system for the TC.

That picture right there depicts a perfectly adequate escort, patrol or fire support vehicle.

Are there better choices? Yes. Are there worse choices? You bet your tail there are. And unarmored Humvees full of DATs and Gunbunnies packing AK47s because we ran out of Infantry units and M16s in a hot zone is one of them.

[Officer of Engineers]

Bill,

Are you suggesting that just because the M113s did the THUNDER RUNS that they could have done a better job at Grozny? I know I'm putting words into your mouth but what I want was to contrast the difference between a successful operation (THUNDER RUN) and a failed one (Grozny) and seriously, would the M113 made a difference in the latter.

[Bill]

I am not familiar enough with the operations surrounding Grozny to make an educated guess on that question.

I can however definitively say that had the US had large numbers of M113s available for use (and of course the killer is that they were in theater already) after the fall of Saddam for patrol, convoy escort, fire support and road block operations, that US forces would have suffered much lower casualties than we did by using unarmored Humvee's in those roles.

All of what happened did so because Rumsfeld, Feith, and company wanted to prove their notions of transformational information age warfare. All those men that died, died for a failed theory and for the ego of a few men in suits who wielded great power. The only upside was that in so doing, Rumsfeld's ideas were shattered on the battlefield, much as the bodies of so many of our troops were.

Quite frankly, it is a total disgrace that the US Military leadership allowed any of it to happen as it did. That they kowtowed to Rumsfeld and shirked their responsibilities to the troops is an utter disgrace. That they allowed gunbunnies, and DATs to make mounted and unmounted patrols with insufficient training, outmoded body armor, inferior and obsolete seized enemy personal weapons, and unarmored Hummer's is an absolute outrage.

That our forces paid the price so dearly in blood is a crime beyond any ever committed by any mass murderer or serial killer in the history of this nation.

There is no question in my mind whatsoever that the use of M113s with just minimal upgrades would have significantly reduced the butcher's bill in blood that our troops paid.

There is also no question in my mind that for convoy escort or any mission that might require any sort of offroad excursions whatsoever, that an M113, right now, and today, is a better combat vehicle than an uparmored Hummer.

US Army M113A3 upgraded for use in Iraq:


This vehicle right here is far more suitable for almost all combat operations than an armored Humvee.

Anyone that says that M113s were not suitable for the ops i'm talking about had better be prepared to explain why they have in fact been used for the ops i'm talking about, and with good success.

[Cowman88]

I'm not saying LAV's or Strykers are bad.

I'm just saying that M113A3's with slat armor, already standard night vision systems and armored gun shields were perfectly capable of adequately filling the void in armored patrol and escort vehicles that existed early in the insurgency.

The US Military got flat out caught unprepared (or was forced to be so, if you believe the books Cobra II and Fiasco). There is no denying it, and there is no denying that M113A3s with just basic modifications would have been about a thousand times safer than driving around in unarmored Humvees.

Aren't M113's are in active service in Afghanistan right now?



That sure looks like a couple M113's, and that sure looks like Afghanistan.

Sure looks like the M113s are escorting a convoy in this pic:




Here's another one, looks like Iraq:


Note the use of enhanced armor, field expedient armor, gunshields, and a simple Ma Duece mounted passive night vision system for the TC.

That picture right there depicts a perfectly adequate escort, patrol or fire support vehicle.

Are there better choices? Yes. Are there worse choices? You bet your tail there are. And unarmored Humvees full of DATs and Gunbunnies packing AK47s because we ran out of Infantry units and M16s in a hot zone is one of them.

None of those are US troops.

[Cowman88]

I am not familiar enough with the operations surrounding Grozny to make an educated guess on that question.

I can however definitively say that had the US had large numbers of M113s available for use (and of course the killer is that they were in theater already) after the fall of Saddam for patrol, convoy escort, fire support and road block operations, that US forces would have suffered much lower casualties than we did by using unarmored Humvee's in those roles.

All of what happened did so because Rumsfeld, Feith, and company wanted to prove their notions of transformational information age warfare. All those men that died, died for a failed theory and for the ego of a few men in suits who wielded great power. The only upside was that in so doing, Rumsfeld's ideas were shattered on the battlefield, much as the bodies of so many of our troops were.

Quite frankly, it is a total disgrace that the US Military leadership allowed any of it to happen as it did. That they kowtowed to Rumsfeld and shirked their responsibilities to the troops is an utter disgrace. That they allowed gunbunnies, and DATs to make mounted and unmounted patrols with insufficient training, outmoded body armor, inferior and obsolete seized enemy personal weapons, and unarmored Hummer's is an absolute outrage.

That our forces paid the price so dearly in blood is a crime beyond any ever committed by any mass murderer or serial killer in the history of this nation.

There is no question in my mind whatsoever that the use of M113s with just minimal upgrades would have significantly reduced the butcher's bill in blood that our troops paid.

There is also no question in my mind that for convoy escort or any mission that might require any sort of offroad excursions whatsoever, that an M113, right now, and today, is a better combat vehicle than an uparmored Hummer.

US Army M113A3 upgraded for use in Iraq:


This vehicle right here is far more suitable for almost all combat operations than an armored Humvee.

Anyone that says that M113s were not suitable for the ops i'm talking about had better be prepared to explain why they have in fact been used for the ops i'm talking about, and with good success.

but that's the thing they aren't using the up-armored humvees off road they are using them in cities and long distance supply convoy security.
We escorted fuel from Jordan to Bagdad you in one night on six lane highways. You could not do that with a M113.

[Bill]

Obviously there are some missions it's not as well suited for, as is the case for all vehicles. An M113 could do such a mission though, as could a Bradley, a LAV, or a Stryker. It's just a matter of the speed at which it could accomplish the mission.

There were a whole bucket full of combat missions being pressed on unarmored Hummers (and non infantry forces) because there was nothing else available early in the insurgency. M113s (especially M113s full of infantry) would have been a much better choice for a lot of those missions.



Caption: U.S. troops from the 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment drive atop of an armored personal carrier outside OP Hotel in Ramadi, Iraq, April 21, 2006. (AP Photo/Todd Pitman)
Notice the slat armor and the ballistic glass gunner’s shield.

[Stitch]

Okay, let's skip the whole M113 thing; if that's the case, why not just go all the way, and just use more M2/M3's? Twice the protection, twice the firepower, and 1-1/2 time faster than an M113. Yes, the M113 was used on the Thunder Run, but it was usually toward the end of the column, being used in a support (medic) role. The AFV that actually turned out to be the most effective was NOT the M1, OR the M113, but the M2; IIRC, the M2/M3 actually scored more armor kills in OIF than the M1 (using DU rounds, of course). Plus, the guys are already trained on the M2/M3.

[Bill]

M-2/3's are extremely capable, but they too have their downsides. They weigh 2x as much as an upgraded slat armor/turreted M113A3, and they have about half the dismount squad. Still, they too are fully capable of the full range of combat missions that can be asked of a military combat vehicle.

[Bill]

None of those are US troops.

Those are:


And those are too:


And one i crewed on a couple decades ago:

M106A2 4.2" mortar carrier

[Albany Rifles]

Bill,

The 3,000 M113s you referred to in 2003 were part of the Army War Reserve # 5 which consisted of 2 brigade sets at Camp Doha, Kuwait and 1 set afloat in Qatar. In the ramp up towards OIF the 3 ID fell in on these sets and had more equipemnt shipped in from AWR # 1 Combat Equipment Group - Europe. So the 3,000 number were not just sitting around awaiting takers....they were in preconfigured unit sets waiting for troops to fall in on them.

When the war started the HMMWV and armored HMMWV were the only game available for other than mechanized units. As I said they were not in theater and most were in CONUS.

As for whether or not an M113 can do what a Stryker can do....I am sorry but as much as I loved my M113A1 and M113A2 it was nowhere near as capable a vehicle as a Stryker. But that said, the Stryker was not used as a convoy escort vehicle as a rule. The SBCTs had their own comabt areas of responsibility to operate within, similiar to all f the other brigades.

And yes, the M113s made the Thunder Run not because they were the best vehicle...it was because they were the only armored support vehicle.

When the threat was small arms, armored HMMWVs were perfectly adequate at a cheaper cost per mile and with less maintenance....and the Army actually had a lot more experience by 2004-2005 with maintaining the HMMWV than the M113...because the M113 had been withdrawn from much of the force and was only a support vehicle.

Slat armor, whether on an M113 or Stryker, is intended to stop RPG rounds.

When the threat changed to IEDs we floundered for quite some time until the Marines suggested we use the MRAP...and that was the right course to take as it saves lives.

Oh, and as for Rumsfeld wanting his Net Centric warfare (along with Feith and others)....it was Eric Shinseki, hardly a fellow traveller who pushed the Stryker so hard.

[Bill]

I am familiar with these things (what would make you think i thought slat armor was for IEDs? Where did i ever say or imply that?), but there were more M113s sitting in Saudi Arabia, they are discussed in Cobra II. I don't know where i put mine, or i'd have already posted a quote and page number reference.

As far as the M113A3 vs the Stryker, i never made a direct comparison, but i would sure hope the Stryker is 'better' at most things. It has state of the art ceramic armor, state of the art engine and systems computers, and state of the art comms. It's also a design that's about 50 years newer.

An "M113A4" with all the latest electronic gizmos, a small enclosed 1 man powered turret, COTS thermal sight, a 21st century powerplant and six or seven speed auto trans, and lightweight ceramic armor would be a hell of a lot more capable than the A3 is too, don't you think sir?

The A3 is based on decades old technology. An "A4" would be a much bigger leap in capability than the A3 was to the A2.

As a base chassis, the M113 is still extremely upgradeable.

The only gripe i have with Stryker is it's main armament (and cost but that's every system we buy nowadays), which seems very wimpy to me, and which for some reason, is not stabilized. A gyro-stabilized rapid fire 20mm cannon would make far more sense to me, and would give much, much better capability vs IFV's and armor. 20mm HVAPFSDSDU rounds will easily kill an MBT with engine compartment shots, and 20mm HE rounds would be a lot better vs soft targets than .50 API rounds are. And the system's stand off range would be greatly increased as well. But i digress.

I also know that Shinseki pushed stryker, but so did Rumsfeld, and the strkyer was but a very tiny part of transformation. Transformation was a (deeply naive and flawed) philosophy, not a hardware package.

As for IED's, as with any vehicle, there are things that could be done to increase an M113s protection vs IEDs.

[USSWisconsin]

How about a 40mm grenade launcher MG, and a 7.62 MMG for lesser targets. (to arm the M113)

[Shek]

@Buck - my company did escort duty for about two months starting about six weeks after I left command. Someone had to make sure that the ice cream could get through from Kuwait. However, that was the exception to the rule. It was hazardous duty to the health of insurgents. Where a SBCT or two or three would have been ideal would have been securing the LOCs and clearing urban areas as necessary behind 3ID during the march northward to Baghdad.

@Bill - the RWS is now stabilized - that mod occured around 2006 IIRC.

[Bill]

How about a 40mm grenade launcher MG, and a 7.62 MMG for lesser targets. (to arm the M113)

A 40mm GL with a coaxial 7.62mm machinegun has already been done on the M113, decades ago:





The fact that such heavily armed M113 configs existed in active duty service during the Vietnam war makes one wonder why on earth the US Army would decades later be fielding the Stryker (and all M113A3s) with an inferior weapons suite. But then again, the US Army had to re-learn the lesson that gunshields save lives too. There is no lesson ever learned that our military is not capable of forgetting.

Maybe it's me, but i like this config the best. :D



A couple people here have mentioned that the M113s were not at the vanguard of the Thunder Runs, as if that means anything at all. When a column is attacking with speed and surprise, it is often the trailing elements that face the heaviest fire due to the simple fact that the lead elements have come and gone before the enemy realizes what's going on and concentrates it's fire. Several personnel were hit, and at least one killed when their M113 was hit on the thunder runs, because the troops were firing their personal weapons from the rear hatches. Those M113s faced intense machine gun and rocket fire, but none were lost.

M113s also held critical positions at the interchanges as well. Interchanges that were under continuous fire for hours on end.

Here's one with 8 firing ports, seen here with the muzzles of M-14 rifles protruding.


This is a version that was very popular back during the vietnam war:

No idea why every M113 infantry model in the US Army wasn't standardized on this configuration, only the generals know such things. It had a gunshield for the main .50cal, 2 gunshield pintle mounted M60s for the infantry in the rear, and 8 firing ports. It was called an "ACAV."

Lots and lots of good people were lost during OIF and the thunder runs and the subsequent insurgency because the morons that run the US military forgot just how highly effective simple steel gun shields are.

@Buck - my company did escort duty for about two months starting about six weeks after I left command. Someone had to make sure that the ice cream could get through from Kuwait. However, that was the exception to the rule. It was hazardous duty to the health of insurgents. Where a SBCT or two or three would have been ideal would have been securing the LOCs and clearing urban areas as necessary behind 3ID during the march northward to Baghdad.

@Bill - the RWS is now stabilized - that mod occured around 2006 IIRC.

Thanks Shek about the RWS info. Now all they need to do is mount a rapid fire 20mm chain gun on that bad boy, and all will be good. M113's have been fitted with a 30mm Aden cannon turret in some pix i've seen.

I agree with your assessment about using front line units to secure LOCs and about how effective they would be in killing bad guys. Not having such units to secure the LOCs slowed the advance during OIF by several days if not weeks as front line units had to slow their advances and clear bypassed areas of insurgents.

M113s, M2s, LAVs, Strykers, BMPs, Marder's, Warriors, whatever, they are all capable of such duty, and are highly capable in that role when combined with infantry dismounts.

[Bill]

The Vietnam era ACAV M113 variant is really kick ass, i wish we would have had those at my unit (we had standard M113A3's). It boggles the mind that the US Army didn't standardize those upgrades with the A3 model.


You could break a lot of stuff with a company of M113A3s armed like this.

Looks like one of it's main roles was as convoy escort too:

"When the 11th Armored Cavalry-the "Blackhorse Regiment"- arrived in the Republic of Vietnam in September 1966, the threat of ambush hung over every highway in the country. Since the regiment's three squadrons each had a company of main battle tanks, three armored cavalry troops, and a howitzer battery, the Blackhorse was well suited for meeting the challenge.

Each of the cavalry troop's three platoons had nine armored cavalry assault vehicles (ACAV's). The ACAV was an M113 armored personnel carrier modified for service in Vietnam and particularly adapted to convoy escort. With the M113's usual complement of one .50-caliber machine gun augmented by two M60 machine guns, all protected by armored gun shields, and with one of its five-man crew armed with a 40-mm. grenade launcher, the vehicle took on some of the characteristics of a light tank. Fast, the track-laying ACAV could keep pace with wheeled vehicles and also deliver withering fire.

Aware that convoy escort would be a primary mission of the 11th Cavalry, the regiment's leaders had concentrated in the five months between alert and departure for Vietnam on practicing counter ambush techniques. In countless mock ambushes, the cavalrymen learned to react swiftly with fire. The first object was to run thin-skinned vehicles out of the killing zone; the armored escorts would then return to roll up the enemy's flanks, blasting with every weapon and crushing the enemy beneath their tracks.

Chapter 2: Convoy Ambush on Highway 1

----

With slat armor and the applique armor plates on the Danish models in post #31 above, modernized ACAV's like this would still be capable of virtually any mission that you could ever ask of a mechanized infantry unit.

I suspect that these sorts of ACAV variants were never mass adopted/produced because they would have posed a serious threat to the adoption of the Bradley, from a political standpoint. These modifications sure would have been nice to have on ours, that's for sure.

From the grenande launcher model above, to the mortar carrier variants to the ACAVs, to the TOW II models, the FIST-V, to the Vulcan AD track, to the M577 to ambulances and even full on turreted models, the M113 is the most successful and versatile tracked vehicle in the history of the west, and perhaps of all time. It is still every bit as fundamentally capable today as it has ever been. It is foolish to dismiss it as obsolete. There is really no mission that the M113A3 and it's variants with minimal modification are not capable of performing, even today.