"M1, M2 and M113 mobility question" Topic

It is often quoted that one of the design parameters for the M2 Bradley was a need to 'keep up' with the new M1 MBTs – which was something the M113s could not do.

I am wondering if this is true.

A cursory look at the data has the M113 and M2 with roughly equal power to weight ratio and speed. Looking at the track the ground pressure cannot be much different either…

Of course there must be more to all this so I thought I'd ask on here.

Is the M2 Bradley any faster [cross country] than a M113? Is an M1 faster than both?

M1 Is faster than both.

Yes, the M1 and M2 are faster than the M113. I commanded an M113 Company back in the day. The M113 is a pre-Vietnam era design. Based on experiences in Korea and WWII. The M113 could hold it's own with the M60 MBT. The Armor Bn in our Mech Bde had 3 M60 Companies and 1 M1 IP Company. And generally all 3 vehicles could operate together with little problem. I've done it … And usually vehicles move tactically and rarely move at top speed. Save for short distances. However … the M113 was mechanically reliable, but not really considered a "great" APC … Better than the M3 Half-track and better than walking … But the M2 is newer and much better suited for working with the M1 … and is superior to the M113. Even thought the M113 is considered an APC and M2 an IFV … Both are troop carriers, but the M2 is better armed and armored … as well as being faster …

Remembering that everyone has an angle, this is one look at Bradleys: link

Yes, I remember watching that "satire", it may be more truth than fiction ! However, let there be no doubt, the M113 certainly needed to be replaced in Infantry units. I commanded that Mech Co. from '87-'89 at Benning with a Separate Mech Bde that was part of the 18th ABN Corps … Though M113s could be loaded on C-130s(barely), I dismounted my troops every time that was tactically feasible. The M113's best armor was in the front … because of the engine ! And we did more discussion about APCs/IFVs here … TMP link May be of some interesting on this topic …

Power to weight ratio and speed don't tell the whole story. The quality of the suspension is important and the speed across country may well be limited more by the ability of the crew and passengers to survive the battering within the vehicle..

There really is no comparison. They're different critters.

The M113 is a slightly protected taxi. Its goodness derives from what Legion 4 said: you get the grunts out of it every time you can. One the infantry is on the ground, they can do their job.

The M2 aspires to be things it cannot be. It can't fight for squat. It can't carry enough infantry to do the job. And the misguided belief that you can fight from it discourages dismounting. So when its height and appearance turns it into an AT weapon magnet, the fire team in it is likely to perish with it.

Read behind the lines here in this old article:

link

Heaven help US mech infantry if they have to take Bradleys against a skilled and well equipped future adversary, instead of against "insurgents".

Allen

Could the M113 not just wait for a coupla miles, til the M1 runs out of fuel? ;-)

John

Seeing as the Abrams and M1134 each have about the same cruising range (300 or so miles per wiki) that does not help.

Oh my, that's me told. . . . . . . . . . .

Yes, I thought the M2's M231(IIRC)Firing Port Weapons System was a real bad idea … and as we see the M2 had to be uparmored, to increase survivability. And inturn the firing ports covered … Plus it had a reduced troop carrying capacity … So less dismounts … Infantry cannot fight effectively mounted in almost all cases. And really does it's best work on the ground. It would be a tactical error to be tempted to use the M2 as anything but a troop transport. Regardless whether it's called an IFV or APC … The Bushmaster and TOWs give you a nice fire support combination. But using it to go Tank-Hunting should be a last resort. Or used defensively like in an ambush where you'd have to shoot and scoot !! An M2 is not an M1 …

I thought that was what the Brad was supposed to be used as: for infantry support after they dismount. Unlike the 113 which AFAIK would go to the rear (though perhaps the ones with the ACAV cupola armor might have a better fire support role…)

Have to agree about the port firing weapons. I remember the first time I built Tamiya's M2 Bradley, and seeing the "goofy looking" M-16s in there. I thought Tamiya made a goof, until I found out what they really were…

But then AFAIK the Brad was a direct result of the "revolutionary" BMP-1 (and -2), with its firing ports, tank threatening 73mm and AT-3 (no matter you had to open up the fins with a broomstick…!)

Damon.

The M113's .50 cal could be used to support the infantry while they were dismounting, while moving and taking fire, or from a "hull down" covered position, etc. In the defense we usually dismounted the .50 and dug it in … I was in 3 Mech Bns and the only time we had the ACAV Turret mod was in the ROK. Hopefully if we didn't have it, we'd be able to get it before or when we were deployed, once in country. And the M2's Bushmaster and even TOWs would be used for fire support as with the M113's .50, but a lot of time as infantry you move dismounted and are covered and concealed. And there was no clear FOF for either … Ideally either the M2 or M113 would be a position to provide fire support for the dismounts … but that was was not always the case. However you'd be making a mistake by not using the carriers' weapons for fire support if the terrain and situation allowed it. Regardless, an infantryman spends a lot of time in combat avoiding or trying to avoid flying objects. Like bullets, shrapnel, secondary missles, etc., etc. As far as the BMP … I know the M113 needed to be replaced with a "better" troop carrier and one that could keep up with the M1 if needed. The BMP may have had some influence on the M2 design … But it appears a number of factors influenced the M2 … some not necessarily needed … or were a good idea …

At about 35 mph, the 113 is hitting its max. And the troops inside are hanging on for dear life. This would be the saame in a Brad or M1 too. You don't really go bouncing across the terrain if you can help it. Battle speed is maybe 15 to 20 mph.
Weaselhoffen.

Tell me about it !!!!!!!!!! Like I said, you usually move tactically and rarely move at top speed, and if you do it's only for a short time or distance … However, I've been bounced around a few times …

Legion 4,
My first--and last--vehicle in the Army was an M577. I got bounced around a bit in it. But I also developed seal-legs for standing in the top hatch.
Weaselhoffen.

Yes, I had an M577 during my first tour in the ROK … just as much "fun" as the M113 … only taller …