"m113 conundrum" Topic

Hey folks. I got a bag of m113s as part of my valentine's gift from my lovely wife.

Upon opening the bas I noticed the crew serve weapon did not match the .50 cal crew serve as shown on old glory'S website.
It is some kind of m60 / 240 bravo hybrid. The mount has a weird crank thing and has two ammo box attachments (one on each side). I looked on Google for any picture and how it we mounted to the weapon mount. The weapon'S mount has a 2 foot tall pole thaf fits into the couple mount. The only way a TC could Fire it is if he was waist defaliade.

I will try to submit a pic tomorrow to help with a visual ID.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Is it the ACAV M60 mounts?

The single mount mg would be a fifty, and yes you are pretty exposed operating it see the picture on wiki it is a good illustration of that. If they have a can on each side the right side (I think) would be to catch brass. You can't load from both sides.

I'd like to see a photo of the weapons that were included with your M113s.
I served 12 years in the US Cavalry and spent many a day aboard just such a vehicle. Ours were armed with M2 .50 Cal. MGs. Later we received a kit to add the Dragon A/T missile system. But I've never seen a mount that included a brass catcher.

I was in 3 Mech Bns and commanded an M113 Co. back in my distant youth … We had the ACAV turrets with our Mech Bns in the ROK. But no gunshield for the M2 .50 cal., IIRC … M60 MGs were ever mounted on the M113 anywhere I was. And yes, we too did get the Dragon AT mount. Stateside, we were not issued ACAV turrets. We'd supposedly get those issued once [if] we deployed. Couldn't even order them … And yes, I don't remember seeing a brass catcher either …

I forgot how exposed you are with the 113'S crew serves. Tankers do not like going past name tape defaliade.

No. It is not the ACaV mount.

I will post a pic later today.

Here are the pics of the weapon.

link

link

link

link

link

link

It looks like a 240 machine gun to me…but it also looks a little like an m60.
What do you guys think? Has anyone ever seen this weapon before?

I need to figure out how to post the photo directly to the forum message.

Is it the TOW launcher version?

No. It is standard Command Decision M113 set. If you check the old glory listing the model has a .50 mounted.

I just had a look to the Skytrex webpage after looking at your photos. You got the wrong MG. Yours seems to be the one they offer with the T-72 (serving as NSVT there) and with the BTR-152 and BTR-60P where it seems to serve as SG-43 and/or DShK.

Cheers,
Benjamin

I think MCV 80 is right. As soon as I saw the picture I thought it looked Russian.

I forgot how exposed you are with the 113'S crew serves

I haven't, like I said, we never mounted M60s or M249s, etc. in the back troop hatch. We had no "mounts" per se, and none of those gun shields, either. But the troops did ride with their weapons, M16s, 203s, M60s, etc., pointing out to fire if needed. Sometimes we put sandbags around that top troop hatch. To give some sort of a modicum of "cover" … That mystery weapon you posted pics of, looks to me like an M240 or even M249. However, I don't see a butt stock ? I know on our M901 ITVs, IIRC, there were M60s with "butterfly" grips like on the M2 .50 cal … As mentioned it does look a little like a DShK. Which also has a "butterfly" grip. But next to an M60/240/249, the DShK is a pig, clearly bigger than any MMG or SAW …

I sent an email to Old Glory customer service asking for a replacement. Does anyone know how good OG is at responding to issues like this?

Thanks for all the help.

I can definitely use those Russian MGs for something else. Perhaps my rebel forces can turn it into a jury rigged tripod MG.

Legion 4 =
In Iraq I used to use a 240B with a bipod in the back of the m113. One time the track hit a bump and the belt of ammo (that was loaded into the weapon) slipped off the side of the track. I had a terrible fright trying to get the belt back on the track. I was afraid the rounds would get caught up in the tracks and go off.

The butt plate on the weapon does look like the butt plate on the vehicle mounted 240s. What confused me was the feed tray cover looks like an M60 (to me) and I have never heard a brass catcher before. Well, we had them for the coax on the M1s…but not on a humvee turret.

Legion 4 =
In Iraq I used to use a 240B with a bipod in the back of the m113. One time the track hit a bump and the belt of ammo (that was loaded into the weapon) slipped off the side of the track. I had a terrible fright trying to get the belt back on the track. I was afraid the rounds would get caught up in the tracks and go off.

The butt plate on the weapon does look like the butt plate on the vehicle mounted 240s. What confused me was the feed tray cover looks like an M60 (to me) and I have never heard a brass catcher before. Well, we had them for the coax on the M1s…but not on a humvee turret.

Well yes, if you mean the bipod on the MG, yes, we'd do the same. Along with all our weapons, pointing out of the track from the troop top deck hatch. But yes, we'd even have M249 ammo boxes fall off too. We didn't have any M240s … only refurbished M60s, which had a tendancy to jam. So what you're saying the M240B had a butterfly grip like the M2 and M60 on the M901 ITV, IIRC ? Instead of the pistol grip …

I was in a tank company. Our 240 machine guns had the pistol grips and bipods when mounted on m113s or humvees.

They had the butterfly grips when mounted on the loader'S hatch of the m1. The coax 240 had the little trigger thing. I am not sure what you call that.

My unit only had 50 cals and 240S in Iraq. Each humvee section had one AT4. We did not have much firepower in a section due to how small a tank company was. A full tank platoon is 16 guys. That was spread out in 4 humvees to 4 guys a vehicle. The CO'S driver had an m203 m16 but only carried a few smoke rounds.
We carried m16s and m4s. This forced us to stick close to our vehicles for any type of machine gun support. That came pretty natural to us as a tanker never wants to dismount anyways.
I always felt a bit cheated when we did humvee mounted patrols. I am not sure why we did humvee patrols at all when we were a heavy tank battalion. Our mission should have been to do tank patrols and heavy QrF To the sector.

Ah, I see … yes a Tank Company would have some different small arms arrangments that an Inf Co. In my Mech Co., each 11 man Squad[2 Fire Tms of 5 +1 SL] had and M203 and M249, per Fire Tm. One of the F/Tms had the M60. The other had the M47 MAW, The Dragon. The .50 usually stayed mounted on the track. Unless we went of the defense. Then was emplaced in a fighting postition. Of course the rub was of your 11 man Squad, the Driver and the TC had to stay with the track. So your 11 man squad went to 9 frequently … Regardless, either mounted or dismounted we had a lot of fire power …

Our mission should have been to do tank patrols

I agree they should have used MBTS, instead of Hummers. But who knows what higher HQ was thinking ?

Old Glory finally replaced my machine guns. I was sent two bags. One was another set of NSVT machineguns with
"These go with the package as per instructions". The other bag had the proper .50 cals with
"These go with another C.D. set?".

I am still trying to figure out how the second statement is a question.

The morale of the story is that it took almost three months for Old Glory to get the proper parts. If I could do this over I would have gotten the Flames of War Vietnam m113s. Bear this thread in mind if you order vehicles from Old Glory. They are a great company but the customer service was pretty lousy.

It took 13 months (yes months) for my one and only Old Glory order to get to me. It arrived one week after they offered a refund or replacement.
So no complaints from me about anything except the 13 months!

As Legion correctly points out, for the M113, I've seen some official TO&Es listing 9 men, instead of the 11 in the squad.