Help support TMP


"Armor: Replacing M113 Is Not Easy" Topic


20 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board



1,255 hits since 2 Jan 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP02 Jan 2017 9:44 p.m. PST

"Two nations (Israel and the United States) are actively seeking to design an effective (and salable) replacement for the thousands of M113 APCs (armored personnel carriers) each uses. Both nations still heavily use the M113s.

Actually, about 10,000 M113s are still in use and the U.S. and Israel account for about have of those. Both countries want an effective and affordable replacement. So far the U.S. appears to have settled on support version of the M2 IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) while Israel is leaning towards a wheeled armored vehicles (the U.S. considered by rejected). In any event the M113 is a hard act to follow.
The M113 entered service in 1960 and served effectively during the Vietnam War and was the main American APC throughout most of the Cold War. About 80,000 M113s were manufactured. At 13 tons (probably closer to 15 tons with added armor and other accessories), the M113 is lighter than the M2 and Stryker that replaced it in the combat role. The major shortcoming of the M113 is the time and expense of keeping elderly ones running. That's because it runs on tracks, like a bulldozer. That means it has a max speed of only 65 kilometers an hour compared to at least 100 for wheeled armored vehicles. Those tracks wear out quickly and have to be replaced at great expense (over $10,000 USD a set) every 6,000 kilometers (or less, as traveling on roads wears out the tracks faster). The tracks also limit how much weight you can add. However, the M-113 has proved to be a very flexible platform, lending itself to modifications by many of the dozens of armed forces that still use it. Some countries have added turrets, mounting 25mm cannon. Israel, however, wants more protection for the urban fighting its reserve troops (who rely on the M113) will likely encounter…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Legion 403 Jan 2017 4:24 p.m. PST

The M113 was very easy to maintain, well as easy as any tracked vehicle can be, and very reliable. It got the job done. But it was very fragile. To enemy fire of all types.

You really had to know what you are doing when maneuvering thru various types of terrain. Use good field craft techniques and try to stay under cover, etc. But even then Bleeped text happens. huh?

IIRC the IDF up-armored some of their M113s … Also used modified T-55s as an APC. They captured a large number of those. They also use an APC based on the Merkava hull too.

Andy ONeill04 Jan 2017 5:34 a.m. PST

The Merkava has an unusual design feature in the form of an extra rear compartment.
It can carry up to 6 men crammed in or 4 rather more practically.
Intended for rescuing crew, specific ops or exceptional circumstances.

Legion 404 Jan 2017 8:59 a.m. PST

Yes, I had heard the same. The Merkava has a rear hatch originally for quick ammo reload. Lessons learn from combating massive waves of Arab AFVs. Plus using the hatch for rescuing crews, Medevac, etc., …

Bangorstu Inactive Member05 Jan 2017 12:53 p.m. PST

TBH how hard can it be? I mean at a pinch make some more ….

Legion 405 Jan 2017 3:56 p.m. PST

You mean M113s ?

M1911Colt Inactive Member05 Jan 2017 4:46 p.m. PST

Well there's the catch Stu. You cant just make more. They have not been produced since 2007. That would be like Ford deciding the just start making 2007 F-150's again. The tooling and suppliers just are not there. It would take years to get a production line, back online again.

Mithmee Supporting Member of TMP05 Jan 2017 7:05 p.m. PST

We need something like what the Colonial Marines in "Aliens" had.

picture

As for the M113 that was a piece of crap but it was built by the cheapest bidder.

Bangorstu Inactive Member06 Jan 2017 3:26 a.m. PST

OK, I understand that the machine tools aren't there but…

It's basically an armoured box on tracks. It has a defined combat role, and is still performing that role after decades.

It's deficiencies are well known.

So how hard could it be do knock up a design built to 21st century standards?

As with everything in NATO armies, the exclelent seems to be the enemy of the good.

Charlie 12 Inactive Member06 Jan 2017 6:54 a.m. PST

So how hard could it be do knock up a design built to 21st century standards?

Already been done. Its called the AMPV.

Legion 406 Jan 2017 8:56 a.m. PST

Well there's the catch Stu. You cant just make more.
Agree with all your post, M1911.

Mithmee, that might cost too much. M113s were much cheaper. wink

Already been done. Its called the AMPV.
Yes we talked about this on anther thread here. About upgrading the M2. Just can't find it …


It's deficiencies are well known.

the exclelent seems to be the enemy of the good.
Yes, but in this case, you don't want to be in as "fragile" an AFV as the M113. Believe me …

Murvihill06 Jan 2017 11:32 a.m. PST

Let's change its designation from an AFV to an all-terrain tractor.

Bangorstu Inactive Member06 Jan 2017 12:57 p.m. PST

Legion, I understand the deficiencies of the M113. My point was that it's a simple machine doing a simple job .. defence contractors seem to overthink and hold plate things.

I mean, even today is there anything fundamentally wrong with a BMP1?

Legion 406 Jan 2017 4:21 p.m. PST

Understand stu … But I'd think tech should have advanced beyond the good old M113. Again especially if you had to drive around in one.

The BMP, we used to practice with our .50s on flank targets of them. They could be taken out by our .50s. And vis versa …

Charlie 12 Inactive Member06 Jan 2017 6:56 p.m. PST

As a general utility vehicle the M113 is still good enough for most armies. The push to replace it in the US Army is that it is waaaay too slow to keep up with the M1/M2 force. Hence, the AMPV (which uses the same powerplant and track system used by the M2 and the newly rehab M109. And that vastly simplifies the logistics for all three). As a modern combat IFV, the M113 is sadly out of its league (even with copious armor and gun upgrades. Which would just result in slowing an already slow track even more). Sorry, Stu, the M113 has had a long and illustrious career; time to retire the old girl….

Legion 407 Jan 2017 9:22 a.m. PST

the M113 has had a long and illustrious career; time to retire the old girl….
Agreed … and on all your points you posted there …

Steve Wilcox12 Mar 2018 12:52 p.m. PST

Yes, but in this case, you don't want to be in as "fragile" an AFV as the M113. Believe me …

Indeed! I thought of you when I saw this today!

https://i.imgur.com/C2wsuQ5.gifv

soledad12 Mar 2018 1:52 p.m. PST

I read up on the AMPV. it says it can carry 6 soldiers apart from the crew. According to Wikipedia it has 78% more interior volume compared to the M113. Yet the M113 can supposedly carry 11 soldiers?

Am I missing something in the figures? a lot more Interior space but only carrying roughly half the troops? Where is the catch? what am I misunderstanding?

Gaz004513 Mar 2018 2:01 a.m. PST

The IDF have just given the go ahead to order the Eitan…

link

Lion in the Stars13 Mar 2018 10:50 a.m. PST

I mean, even today is there anything fundamentally wrong with a BMP1?

Ergonomics are poor, layout is worse. Who the flying heck thought that a midships engine in a troop transport was a good idea?

Gun is not great, either, but that's just a turret swap.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.