"More photos of Australians in Vietnam" Topic

As promised more pictures. link

Many thanks. The Centurion was a much better looking tank without the side skirts. The mixture of weaponry is fascinating, US and "British".

IIRC the side skirts had a tendency to collect mud, in the wet tropical terrain of Vietnam. So they were removed. Sometimes they did similar with the rubber track covers on the M113.

You can see pics here: link

Ours remained on in both the ROK and West Germany as well as stateside.

I had no idea that the M113 was quite so vulnerable though. As on a similar topic on this Board, I knew mines and IEDs were "a problem", RPG obviously, but even HMGs we are told could penetrate. Begs the question then, if you had to ride outside anyway, what function they served, other than an all terrain taxi?

A logic bomb in any gun/armour race is there is always a bigger gun. In the end it's a compromise. How much mobility will you sacrifice for protection? How much numerical inferiority will you accept for protection?

The M4 Sherman is probably a good model for the 'sweet spot'. They were adequately mobile for the theatres of war they served in. They were ample protection for the vast majority of weapons they had to defeat and they were plentiful. They also enjoyed strategic mobility which many heavier AFVs do not.

Heavy IFV/APC exist, but they are only effective in certain situations. The IDF find them useful because they are extremely sensitive to incurring casualties and don't have to project power much beyond their borders.

I had no idea that the M113 was quite so vulnerable though. As on a similar topic on this Board, I knew mines and IEDs were "a problem", RPG obviously, but even HMGs we are told could penetrate. Begs the question then, if you had to ride outside anyway, what function they served, other than an all terrain taxi?

Yes, the M113 was/is very vulnerable. As I said we'd try to stay in cover as much as possible. Plus Sandbags, etc., as I said on another thread. As I said I commanded an M113 Mech Co., '87-'89. We learned some lessons from Vietnam.

We'd dismount if at a halt for any long period of time.

We'd sandbag the troop compartment deck, the front hull and put sandbags on the top of the hull, around the TC and Troop hatches.
Talked about if deployed/went to war.

As they did in Vietnam, we'd get Chain Linked Fence and pickets to set up a hasty defense. Constructed about 10-15ft. in front and on the sides in our M113s in NDP/Defense. To protect against RPG's HEAT Warheads.

Also a Heavy MG could penetrate the hull. So we tried to stay behind cover if at all possible. Which in many cases it was not …

If you were inside when it hit a mine/IED most of you would be gone.

The M113 was designed to keep up with the advance of MBTs.
So it was better than walking and it did provide a modicum of protection vs. HE and some small arms. Also note the BMP/BMD could be KO'd on the flank & rear with a .50 cal.

Heavy IFV/APC exist, but they are only effective in certain situations. The IDF find them useful because they are extremely sensitive to incurring casualties and don't have to project power much beyond their borders.

Yes that is why the M2/M3 was designed. But in the end it had to have armor added. And of course it has more firepower than the M113.

But the trade off was the Squad was reduced from 11 to 9. With the Driver, Gunner and TC remaining onboard. So you only had 6 dismounts. Not enough in many of our opinions. Yes the firepower is nice but you can't the M2 everywhere that Infantry can go.

The IDF is not only "sensitive" about losses. But today in modern warfare in the West all nations are. We learned a lot of lessons in WWII, and even Vietnam. The losses incurred on a daily basis would not be "happily" accepted today.

Plus we don't have a draft so the numbers to take those looses is not there. Thank the Gods !! And if we did have a draft about 70% of the military age population would not be acceptable. E.g. too fat, could not pass drug test, has a criminal record and even many could not pass the basic military entrance test i.e. too stupid …

The IDF has a beautiful IFV the Namer and amazingly it being made here in my state Ohio. And sent to the IDF. I would have liked that much more than an M113 or even the M2 … link

Never heard of it until now. It is basically a Merkava without a turret….that should make it pretty robust.

Thanks all for the info.

Love that top picture of the Centurion. Just crying out for a modelling project.

The IDF did something similar with all the Arab T-55s that were captured. Before the Namer was deployed … The Achzarit …

link

don't have to project power much beyond their borders.

That may have played into the IDF's IFV designs. But as we see the US, UK, etc., developed and deployed a number of heavier IFVs beyond their borders, e.g. M2 and FV510.

Both the M2 [Bradley I assume] and Warrior FV510 are incremental improvements in protection. Heavier but not in the same bracket as a HEAVY IFV.

The US really needs much lighter AFVs than it currently has, since an invasion from Canada or Mexico are unlikely they need equipment that can be air transported rapidly.

I do hope this is not hijacking a marvellous opening message on the ANZACs in Nam, but the pics of wrecked M113s got this started. Fascinating results.

The Achzarit. They are very eco-friendly the IDF, great at recycling. Skarper's point too. Make then heavy enough for protection, air lift compromised. Only so much you can bolt on too.

Both the M2 [Bradley I assume] and Warrior FV510 are incremental improvements in protection. Heavier but not in the same bracket as a HEAVY IFV.

Yes, they are much more heavily armored And armed are than the M113 and FV432. And are classified as IFVs because of those improvements.

The US has lighter more rapidly deployable AFVs in the Army Strykers and USMC LAVs. The US 82d ABN recently had received some former USMC LAVs. As the C-17 can only hold 3 Strykers but 4 LAVs.

These lighter Army and USMC forces are part of a Rapid Deployment Force/elements. Which can quickly deploy. Establish an Air Head and/or secure a port. To allow the heavier follow on forces. E.g. MBT and IFVs. So if the US Army wanted it could have heavier IFVs. As they would be lighter than MBTs and in turn be brought on with follow on forces.

As we saw in the Iraq and A'stan the M1 had a modification once they realized that there would be more MOUT than first thought[hoped!].

The M1 got the TUSK link

M2 became the M2A3 with more armor added. Making it in fact a Hvy IFV. link Covering among other things those unneeded firing ports for the Infantry inside.

Plus we saw the Turkey Cage added at first to the Strykers link to make them more survivable vs. RPG type weapons.

Which were numerous and very effecting against AFVs in urban terrain.

Also later more armor was added to the Strykers link and even the LAVs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAV-25

So in the long run heavily armor AFVs were required.
And again the Lighter Army and USMC units were generally not to fight always fight without support from the Heavier Forces. E.g. I was with a Separate Mech Hvy Bde, the 197th that was part of the 18th ABN Corps. That would go into support the 82d and 101 once an airhead and/or port was secured.

The US really needs much lighter AFVs than it currently has

That is not completely accurate, IMO. The US probably will not go any lighter than the Strykers & LAVs. And I would not be surprised if the M2 with the heavier armor stays around for awhile. Which will in turn be considered a HVY IFV. Like the Namer but the M2 with more firepower.

The US Army has 3 "Light" Divs now the 10Th Mtn[the most deployed unit in the US military], the 82d and 101. Plus the USMC's 2 Divs, IIRC.

Make then heavy enough for protection, air lift compromised. Only so much you can bolt on too.

Yes that is always a compromise. But I think the US with Strykers and LAVs, those are light enough and still survivable with their added on armor. And the requirement of the heavier follow on forces, e.g. MBTs, IFVs, etc. will remain.

Really interesting. thanks

The top pic set me wondering how the Centurion compared with the M48 and my reading suggests favourably. The one opportunity to judge seems to have been the Indo Pakistan War. Mind you, Centurion fought Centurion when Israel was at war with Jordan, I now read.

Seems gun and armour was superior, even if M48 had the speed and range advantage. Obviously much depends on mark of either being considered, but the consensus seem to have been that for once, the British did design a decent tank

Glad you share Info !

The IDF used 2 versions of the Centurion. ghqmodels.com/store/is1.html One with the 20lber and later one with the standard NATO 105mm. So that gave it a firepower advantage over the standard Centurion.

Centurion Mk5
British built Centurion Mk5s were first purchased by Israel in 1959. They were equipped with 20-pounder guns but from 1963 the 20-pounders were replaced by the L7 105mm gun. Although originally unpopular they were the most successful and popular Israeli tanks during the 1967 war.

Centurion [upgraded] – Upgraded Centurion
After the 1967 war the Israelis upgraded their Centurion with a different engine and transmission. They were called ‘Shot' (‘Whip') by their crews and were the most popular tanks in the 1973 war, although outnumbered by Pattons.
Some Centurions of the headquarters company of tank battalions had Soviet BTU tank dozer blades fitted (they were taken from captured T-55 tanks). These were used for clearing obstructions and entrenching tanks.

The Jordanians use M47s & M48s too.

Jordanian Army MBTs/AFVs, June 1967

2 × Armoured Brigades:

Each 96 with Patton M-48/M-48A-1 MBTs

40 × FV-701 Ferret ARVs

45 × M-113 APCs

18 × M-52 105mm self-propelled howitzers, 18 × M-42 2×40mm self-propelled anti-aircraft guns)

3 × Indp. Armoured Battalions (with Centurion MK-V/VII or Patton M-47 MBTs)