Help support TMP


"Do any UN forces still use the M-113 APC?" Topic


17 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 Modern What-If Message Board

Back to the Ultramodern Gaming (2006-present) Message Board



849 hits since 28 May 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP29 May 2017 4:42 p.m. PST

Thing about some modern what-if scenarios. Thanks…

Rakkasan Supporting Member of TMP29 May 2017 4:57 p.m. PST

The UN does not supply equipment; the contributing nations bring what they have to the mission.
For example, Pakistan, a major contributor, uses the M113 and has sent them on UN missions.

jurgenation Supporting Member of TMP29 May 2017 5:11 p.m. PST

Portugal still does also.

Mako11 Inactive Member29 May 2017 5:31 p.m. PST

Germany does.

cosmicbank29 May 2017 5:48 p.m. PST

Looks like 35-40 countries still use it. Along with a bunch of Police forces around the world.

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP29 May 2017 6:24 p.m. PST

I think I found what I need on Wiki. Thanks. There are a lot more 113s floating around than I thought there were.

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP29 May 2017 7:11 p.m. PST

When you build 80,000 they tend to hang around….

bsrlee30 May 2017 2:48 a.m. PST

Main problem seems to be getting enough spare parts.

cosmicbank30 May 2017 4:23 a.m. PST

With 80,000 units out there seems like share parts is easy

Legion 430 May 2017 7:01 a.m. PST

There seems there are still many in a large number of forces. Many of those designated/deployed on UN missions. As pointed out The UN has no forces. Only UN member nations providing those units for UN missions. But probably most if not all already know that. The UN has no "Foreign Legion" of it's own. huh?

As well as NATO forces, non-NATO, etc. have M113s. As has been pointed out here. IIRC even the Aussies still use(d) a "stretch" version as well.

Spare parts shouldn't be a problem. Many of those parts can be made by local concerns or bought from the US, etc. Plus "looted" for KO'd M113s, etc.

It is a very reliable vehicle from and automotive standpoint. It however really is just an light tracked AFV used as a battle "taxi" as it has been called.

Commanded an M113 Mech Co. '87-'89. As I said, it is a lightly armored tracked vehicle. With flat sides. And as we said, the best armor is in the front … that is where the engine is(!). You really have to use terrain masking, cover and concealment to improve survivability. Dismount mount often based on the tactical situation.

It was designed so the Infantry can keep up with the MBTs. It is not an IFV, just a lightly armor APC. It will however, provides a modicum of protection from some SA and FA, mortars, etc. Unless there is a direct hit then you may not like the "outcome". A heavy MG had a high probability of penetration on the flank armor, etc., generally, e.g. a DshK, etc. And an RPG … could KO an M113 fairly easily.

You have to use the .50 cal on the track from a covered position to suppress enemy fire. But hopefully you have the ACAV turret adaption. Or the TC/Gunner won't last too long, generally. In our Mech Bns in the ROK we had the ACAV turret on our M113s. But no gun shield only the "clamshell".

In the US, we had no ACAV turrets. They would only be authorized if deployed for combat. Hopefully we'd get Bradleys before that happened. Was generally the thought process.

emckinney30 May 2017 7:49 a.m. PST

There are a ton of M113 derivatives as well (Dutch, to start with).

shirleylyn Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member30 May 2017 11:00 a.m. PST

I asked my husband(a combat vet. Afghanistan) why you always see the men riding on TOP of M113's in Vietnam,

He said "because it tends to burn everyone inside the vehicle like toast." Mines, RPG'S will fry everyone inside. So the men ride outside the vehicles.

Legion 430 May 2017 1:47 p.m. PST

Yes, we did the same in the ROK along the DMZ, '84-'85. If you hit a mine, etc. And you are inside you may very well be "toast". We even would sand bag the floor/deck of the troop compartment of the M113 to hopefully limit the blast.

We did the same to many of our M35 Cargo Trucks, the Deuce & 1/2. And our 5 ton trucks as well, forgot the designation. old fart

Lion in the Stars31 May 2017 1:13 a.m. PST

I fully expect to see M113s still soldiering on about the turn of the century (ie, 2100CE!)

Legion 431 May 2017 2:09 p.m. PST

Somewhere on the planet … there will be FMC M113s indefinitely … Even some say even in the year 40,000 something like the M113 may be around !?! huh?

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP31 May 2017 6:14 p.m. PST

The thing is a cockroach. As hard as the Army tries it just sticks around.

Legion 401 Jun 2017 6:13 a.m. PST

It was/is generally easy to maintain. And the US ARMY had a lot of them. But again, it had very limited armor protection. Resulting in limited survivability, etc. But the Army had lots & lots of them.

The IDF bought some from the US. And the troops thought they were great … Until they took direct fire. And many had to be up-armored etc., to improve survivability, etc., … link

It still seems crazy to me that a small turret, i.e. the ACAV was not standard. Even at the Battle of AP Bac link in Vietnam in '63 one of the first engagements where the M113 was used. The TCs behind the .50cal suffered some say "heavy" losses.

But we see again, the HMMMV's .50 cal came with on armor protection. And we saw that many "ad-hoc" turrets had to be added later. After the .50 gunner's took "heavy" losses or so it seemed. Appears the US Military some times take the "wrong" things from "Lessons Learned" …

We used to say, "Heavy Weapons draw heavy fire." … IMO a .50 cal falls in that category … I'd think …

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.