Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #46
    Bill - How about something like this?

    "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


    • #47
      I want one. :D

      What are the particulars on that beast?

      Comment


      • #48
        That is an "M113 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) - Australian variant similar to the M113 FSV, but using the turret from the FV101 Scorpion light tank. The MRV replaced the FSV in Australian service." Wiki states that: "The MRV features a Scorpion turret with 76 mm gun, improved fire control, and passive night vision equipment." However, I believe they've been phased out in favor of wheeled AFV's; perhaps one of ouir Australian friends here could further enlighten us as to the status of this vehicle.
        "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


        • #49
          Pretty badassed.

          This whole tracked vs wheeled thing is just one of the many lessons that the military forces of the west have decided that it would be best to forget.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Bill View Post
            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."
            IFV's have gone the way of the dodo for the simple fact is they waste ammo and risk lives. IFV infanry weapons can only offer supressive fire on an objective. They cannot deliver long ranged fire, forward fire or decent protection from heavy weapons. A dismounted sqaud is much more combat cable than a squad in a track wasting ammo with weapons about as accurate as the old smoothbore Brown Bess.

            Those Vietnam era ACAV's were gasoline powered matchboxes. Historical: Walsh: Cu Chi has 3 pics on it of three different tracks all killed on the same day. Of them, one likely took its passengers with it, one might have and only one was able to get the ramp down. The Cu Chi area during this time (8-20 Jan Ops fargo and Yellowstone) had the 25th Id and 3rd sqd 11 ACR. The ACR suffered the loss of 12 ACAVs, 2 tanks, 6 KIA, 26 WIA for a return of 4 KIA VC and 8 captured. The pics are likely from the 11th ACR as the photo owner uses the term troop not company or battalion.

            http://www.itrp3-11acr.com/history68.html

            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.
            Uhm, I am not aware of any losses by those in 113's during the two thunder runs....

            Comment


            • #51
              US Army personnel were killed during the thunder runs in the back of an M113 variant track. It is documented in the books "Thunder Run" and IIRC, "Cobra II" as well.

              Zraver, I don't agree at all with your notion that IFV's have gone the way of the dodoo. The M2 is not going anywhere any time soon. It proved itself over and over again in both OIF and ODS.

              The army historical site story i linked to in my last post talked about 2 sqns of ACAVs escorting an 80 truck convoy in Vietnam and taking on an entire regiment of NVA in ambush positions at ranges as close as 15 feet. While losses were suffered (they were facing two 76mm recoiless rifles and a 57mm RR as well), the convoy got through, and the mission was successful.

              There were certainly not 4 enemy KIA in that operation.

              I don't see the relevance of the ACAV's being gas powered...all M113s since the A2 model have been diesel powered, going back for decades. It's irrelevant.

              A dismounted squad cannot fire while the vehicle is on the move as part of a convoy or column. Troops with firing ports can. It's all about suppressing fire, keeping the enemy troops heads pinned as the convoy or vehicle or formation passes. Obviously they cannot deliever long range fire, but who cares? That's what the TC's weapon (and on an ACAV, the waist gunners weapons) is for. Firing ports have their uses, they are not intended to be used for all modes of fire.

              You have some very different views than me (and what i've read and learned) on mechanized infantry combat. Were you Infantry?
              Last edited by Bill; 24 Feb 11,, 03:19.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Bill View Post
                US Army personnel were killed during the thunder runs in the back of an M113 variant track. It is documented in the books "Thunder Run" and IIRC, "Cobra II" as well.
                I'll have to check.

                Zraver, I don't agree at all with your notion that IFV's have gone the way of the dodoo. The M2 is not going anywhere any time soon. It proved itself over and over again in both OIF and ODS.
                The M2 is no longer an IFV, the infantry cannot fight from it.

                The army historical site story i linked to in my last post talked about 2 sqns of ACAVs escorting an 80 truck convoy in Vietnam and taking on an entire regiment of NVA in ambush positions at ranges as close as 15 feet. While losses were suffered (they were facing two 76mm recoiless rifles and a 57mm RR as well), the convoy got through, and the mission was successful.
                what was the cost?

                There were certainly not 4 enemy KIA in that operation.
                yet in the source provided, the 11th ACR lost a companies worth of tracks for just over a track loads worth of enemy.

                I don't see the relevance of the ACAV's being gas powered...all M113s since the A2 model have been diesel powered, going back for decades. It's irrelevant.
                You claimed they did well in Vietnam, yet they were match boxes.

                A dismounted squad cannot fire while the vehicle is on the move as part of a convoy or column. Troops with firing ports can. It's all about suppressing fire, keeping the enemy troops heads pinned as the convoy or vehicle or formation passes.
                to provide effective supressing fire they need to be stopped, and once stopped dismounts do better.

                Obviously they cannot deliever long range fire, but who cares? That's what the TC's weapon (and on an ACAV, the waist gunners weapons) is for. Firing ports have their uses, they are not intended to be used for all modes of fire.
                Firign ports have no valid use on a non-nuclear battlefield which is why no firing port vehicles are produced anymore.

                You have some very different views than me (and what i've read and learned) on mechanized infantry combat. Were you Infantry?
                nope, a tanker.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Jason,

                  Just wondering, are you mixing ARVN losses with US losses? ARVN M113 losses were horrendous but the US used the M113s effectively, mainly due to superior recce.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Jason,

                    Just wondering, are you mixing ARVN losses with US losses? ARVN M113 losses were horrendous but the US used the M113s effectively, mainly due to superior recce.
                    Yes, but US losses were very heavy as well. 3/11 ACR was losing a track a day and a KIA every other day during Fargo and Yellowstone.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      The M2 is no longer an IFV, the infantry cannot fight from it.
                      Of course it's an IFV.

                      The historical record shows that the ACAV and M113 in general was an effective platform in Vietnam- I even linked to a story where 2 troops of ACAVs took on an entire regiment of NVA in ambush positions and still accomplished their mission, even despite being gas powered. The late model A3 version is not only diesel powered, but has external fuel tanks as well. It is a total non issue.

                      Firing ports are useful for suppressive fire and for achieving a superior volume of fire. The problem with the ports in the Bradley was not that there were ports, but that they required a special weapon to use at all, which was quite stupid. I completely disagree with your assessment as the potential usefulness of firing ports. While they are not useful for all things, they are useful for some things, not the least of which is observation.

                      For the record, I was a mechanized infantryman.

                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      Yes, but US losses were very heavy as well. 3/11 ACR was losing a track a day and a KIA every other day during Fargo and Yellowstone.
                      I do not see this as an indictment against the M113 in any way. Any other APC type of the day would have suffered similar results. The commonly used B40 warhead could kill any APC and even many of the tanks of that era. In the operation i linked to, 11th ACR took on an entire regiment at point blank range in ambush positions for the loss of just 4 ACAV's.

                      Regardless, even a bone stock M113A3 is a far more survivable platform. With the simple addition of existing applique' and slat armor packages, it is as survivable as any APC in the world.
                      Last edited by Bill; 24 Feb 11,, 18:22.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        This debate has been interesting, especially the passion shown which I love, I have to agree with Bill on this, to easy to write proven vehicles/equipment off to accomadate "modernisation"......... in our case the M113 equivelant the FV432 over 40 years service, upgraded now to being a "BULLDOG" is it the best around? perhaps not,but its longevity and service can never be discredited.
                        Last edited by T_igger_cs_30; 24 Feb 11,, 18:17.
                        sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                        Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          M113 Based Bulldog:



                          Obviously a very well protected design. Coupled with the simple offensive armament suite of a Vietnam ACAV you'd end up with a design far superior to an M113A3, for not much extra cost, and if upgrading existing A3 tracks, for far less than an all new vehicle like a Stryker.

                          Hey, it's not like the US Army has 15,000 of the darned things laying around, right? ;)
                          Last edited by Bill; 24 Feb 11,, 18:28.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The flat bottom hull bugs the living daylights out of me.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              The flat bottom hull bugs the living daylights out of me.
                              Does it kind of remind you of someone OoE sir?...........................

                              Attached Files
                              sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                              Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Flat bottom hull, RSM, not flat bottom hoe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X