"question m548 ammunition carrier" Topic

guys
the m548 was used as a ammunition carrier in support of 155m and 203mm howitzers (possibly also 105mm ?)
what was the quantity of ammo carried
155mm rounds
203mm rounds
105mm rounds?

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHJHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH1

I crewed one of those stupid things for over a year, and cant remember how much it could hold. Maybe because we never had enough ammo to fill it more than partialy.

Of course it was also 30 years ago. I will try to remembere more. I hated that thing

Badger-what did you hate about it?

Didn't crew one (was in FDC) but do remember it was not very well liked. It was replaced with a carrier based on the M109 chassis Which was a much more liked ammunition carrier.

Yes, IIRC it was replaced by the FAASV … link A buddy of mine was one of the techs/engineers that designed on it.

Badger-what did you hate about it?

Was is a maintenace nightmare ? Frequently breaking down and hard to repair and maintain ?

I served in an 8" (M110A2) battalion and IIRC, a full load was 48 rounds, eight pallets of six. The M548 was a 5 ton carrier, so 200 lbs/round x 48 rounds = 4.8 tons. Throw in powder charges and fuses, you're over 5 tons, so 48 rounds is probably about right.
Not sure about how many 155 rounds the beast would carry, but the 155 rounds weighed 1/2 what the 8" rounds weighed, so probably no more than 96 rounds assuming the load didn't cube out, first.
M548s were found in heavy divisions, not light units, so wouldn't have been used with the 105mm howitzers – at least not in US Army. I've certainly never heard of such a thing.
I don't recall the 548's being any worse to maintain than other tracked vehicles. They're essentially a modified M113 which is pretty reliable and easy to use (as tracked vehicles go). I clearly recall pulling into the battalion support area one afternoon in Grafenwoehr to see a bunch of idiots see which 548 driver could jump a berm and go the furthest. This is the kind of thing which turns a vehicle into a maintenance nighmare, so maybe, Badger, you drove one of those. :)

pjm

Good intel ! Thanks mckrok ! Yes the M113 chassis was very reliable and generally "easy" to maintain. As you say as far as tracked vehicles go. But yes, if you don't do PMCS, etc., and abuse it, you could have problems.

All M113 derivatives were known to be very bad about throwing a track when going parallel on hill slope. You were lucky if the track was thrown out, but usually it was thrown in. Murphy's Law of tracked vehicles?

Fortunately we rarely had that problem. Had some good drivers & TCs. Regardless, tracks were thrown on occassions … It's the nature of tracked vehicles.

Overloaded so it busted a lot of final drives. We had one come apart so badly it was like a grenade went off. busted the radiator, and even nicked the oil pan.

This was about 500 meters from the motorpool at the start of a field problem. got to love it when they die on the way out instead of on the way in.

I was a gunbunny for only 4 years then transfered over to FDC. I never had the problems with the M577 that I had with the M548. I never really understood why. perhaps because the ammo weight was more concentrated towards the rear of the vehicle. Or maybe fort Sill vehicles where just used more and where more worn out.

Or, on looking back as it was in 1982, it was because the Army budget was so sucky at that time that new parts where just a lot harder to come by. I just realized all of my M548 memorys are those of a knucklehead private. My later NCO self might not have blamed the vehicle as much. Hhmmmmmmm. Requires some thought.

Owen