"US Sending M-113s to Ukraine" Topic

…The latest arms transfer will include 11 Mi-17 helicopters that the administration had originally planned for Afghanistan but will send to Ukraine instead. The package also includes 18 155mm Howitzers, 300 Switchblade drones, 200 M113 armored personnel carriers, and 100 armored high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles…

Defense One: link

M113s?? Are they still running?

An M113 is sort of the Hilux of APC. Never seem to 'really' die

Aren't M113s basically outclassed by everything now? Can't say this seems like a good idea.

Kinda like sending lend lease WWI destroyers in WWII.
On the other hand they really want to suck us in don't they?

Saber 6 +1

'87-'89 I commander an M113 Mech Co. with a Mech Hvy Bde(Sep). At Ft. Benning, GA. Which was part of 18th ABN Corps. They are very mechanically reliable and generally easy to maintain. However, they are pretty fragile, we had to sandbag them in many areas, etc. Use terrain masking/camo-cover & concealment, etc. We sent about 60 M113s to A'stan too. Now in Taliban hands.

I'm sure the Ukrainians won't use them in the front lines, most likely. They can do a lot behind the lines to contribute to operations, etc. They are tracked of course although lightly armored[that's why we used the sandbags].

Former mech platoon leader myself. They're not fighting vehicles and shouldn't be used as such, but they could be quite useful for ambulances, resupply, courier work, etc., and by virtue of being fully tracked they will be less affected by the Ukraine mud season about to get fully underway.

How do they compare with (I guess) more readily available vehicles in the region like BMPs? Those are also tracked vehicles.

Legion 4, I'm curious: do sandbags protect against anything but small arms? Could they help against an RPG for example?

They're not fighting vehicles…

Battle taxis.

..Maybe we have some Sheridans leftover..In fairness M113;sstill in use in many countries.

How do they compare with (I guess) more readily available vehicles in the region like BMPs? Those are also tracked vehicles.

BMP is designed as an infantry fighting vehicle, with an armed turret, though the armoured protection is pretty limited. It has relatively low profile, but by my understanding the interior is pretty cramped.

M113 probably has more spacy interior, which would likely be very useful for transporting supplies etc. And while the armour protection is limited, it still helps to stop shrapnel.

And while the armour protection is limited, it still helps to stop shrapnel.

I believe they used to say that the armor isn't enough to stop bullets, but it's enough to keep them from exiting the vehicle, so they just bounce around inside…

"…from exiting the vehicle, so they just bounce around inside…"

A quote also attributed to 1/2 track crews of the
US M2/M3 track of WWII…

Eumelus +1 👍👍

How do they compare with (I guess) more readily available vehicles in the region like BMPs? Those are also tracked vehicles.

A BMP is an IFV … as noted an M113 is an APC. The IFV is more heavily armored & armed. The APC is not …

Legion 4, I'm curious: do sandbags protect against anything but small arms? Could they help against an RPG for example?

The M113's armor will protect against most light smalls. And shrapnel, secondary missiles, etc. from most mortars, FA, etc.

However, the Russian heavier DshK, 23mm, etc. will penetrate the armor pretty easily. We used to say, the best armor on the M113 is in the front – that is where the engine is … Yes that is hyperbole.

Based on the Vietnam Vets, AARs, etc. we'd sandbag the deck in the troop compartment. To give a modicum of protection from mines/IEDs-booby traps, etc. We'd ride on top in many cases, as if you are on the inside and hit a mine, etc. you may be a KIA/WIA. We were told that if need be stay on top until we take effective fires.

The trim van in front would be opened like if you are going to swim the M113. And sandbags stacked on it and part of the front hull.

Sandbags would be placed around the troop hatch on the top deck too.

Could they protect against RPGs/B40s ? Probably/Maybe … better than nothing.

The best protection vs RPGs/B40s was a technique also learned from Vietnam. When the M113 was stopped for any considerable length of time. E.g. in a Night Defensive Position[NDP]/any defensive positions, long halts, etc.

Is to hang chain link fence on pickets, etc. 10-15 Ft. in front of the APC in about a 180. More or less. As we know RPGs' HEAT Rds have a probe on the tip of the warhead. When the tip hits something solid, the probe detonates the HEAT warhead.

The probe must pretty much hit "dead on", as sloped armor could cause the probe not to detonate. And the chain link fence if the probe hits the metal, it may detonate. That is why there is a 10-15 ft. standoff zone between the fence and APC.

The RPG is not moving fast enough to break thru the fence wire. It may just get hung up in the wire and not detonate. This is the precursor/concept of slat/"Turkey Cage armor".

..Maybe we have some Sheridans leftover..

The M551 was not that a successful design. The 152mm main gun/missile launcher was not a particularly good concept. The 152mm was good to about 800ms. The missile's range was much longer but was hard to use, etc., IIRC. If all the reports, etc. are correct. And I believe they are. The 82d used them as that was the only light heavily armed AFV that could be airdropped or most likely LAPES'd [Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System]. With success most of the time. I never was in a unit that had M551s. Was only familiarized with the AFV So if former M551 crewmen are out there. You may have better input.

All the being said, most of M551s became "Vismods" of T72s at the National Training Center for Desert training exercises, etc. in the US Mojave Desert … Vismod = Visual Modification – fiberglass, etc. pieces made to look like a T72 by adding these piece to the M551 hull. So at a distance it looked like a T72, or a few other Russian AFVs. So no the Ukrainians won't be getting any M551s.

In fairness M113;sstill in use in many countries.

Yes, some/many are/were modified by those nations to fit their needs, e.g. Australia, Germany, etc. Plus we gave the ANA about 60+ M113s. That now are being used by the Taliban.

BMP is designed as an infantry fighting vehicle, with an armed turret, though the armoured protection is pretty limited.

True, we'd practice on side and rear plywood profiles with our M2 .50 cals on the target range. We could take them out from those aspects with the M2. Plus the M72 LAW, etc.

It has relatively low profile, but by my understanding the interior is pretty cramped.

Very much so, the BTR series is about the same. We'd joke the USSR must be developing Dwarves to get into most of their AFVs. The interior in an M113 is down-right "spacious" in comparison.

M113 probably has more spacy interior, which would likely be very useful for transporting supplies etc. And while the armour protection is limited, it still helps to stop shrapnel.

True as I already posted.

I believe they used to say that the armor isn't enough to stop bullets, but it's enough to keep them from exiting the vehicle, so they just bounce around inside…

Not really the M113 will not be penetrated by most small arms and shrapnel.

"…from exiting the vehicle, so they just bounce around inside…"

A quote also attributed to 1/2 track crews of the
US M2/M3 track of WWII…

Yes, I believe that quote was from a US survivor of Kasserine Pass. But the IDF used the M2/M3 half-tracks until the late '60s, IIRC.

I believe they used to say that the armor isn't enough to stop bullets, but it's enough to keep them from exiting the vehicle, so they just bounce around inside…

Which is why the A3 models and newer have 1/2"-thick Kevlar spall liners inside the troop compartment. The aluminum armor should stop anything smaller than a .50 cal, and whatever passes through will either be stopped by the Kevlar or destroy the vehicle entirely.

Strikers would be more use than M113.

is why the A3 models and newer have 1/2"-thick Kevlar spall liners inside the troop compartment.

Wish those were around when I was an M113 Co Cdr. ☹

The aluminum armor should stop anything smaller than a .50 cal,

As I posted, the M113's armor will protect against most light small arms. And shrapnel, secondary missiles, etc. from most mortars, FA, etc. … But yes a .50 is not a Small Arm … the Russian heavier DshK, 23mm, etc. will penetrate the armor pretty easily.

Strikers would be more use than M113.

Probably … it is newer, has better armor, etc. However, it still is an armored Infantry Carrier Vehicle. Basically an 8 wheeled armored truck. But yes, probably a better choice than M113s.

I've read that the frontal armor on the M113 is supposed to be proof against 23mm rounds, but don't know if that is really true. Apparently, more armor was added at some point to some to help with that.

Add on a TOW 2 missile, and the little M113 gets a lot of punch. I suppose you could mount a Javelin, or other ATGMs too it as well, e.g. Saggers, etc., as well, since it even had 106mm RRs at one point.

Think of the M113 as a "battle taxi" best used to help protect troops from shrapnel, and not direct enemy fire, even from heavy MGs from the flank and rear.

I would not like to be inside an M113 that is taking hits from 23 mm AP rounds to the front. Not that 23 mm rounds are all that common in modern ground combat, except for the odd third world technicals with a 23 mm AA gun stuck to the back of a truck.

As for support weapons, US managed to mount all sorts there back in the Cold War days, including AA guns and missiles. ATGMs might be handy for emergency defense, though for a dedicated tank destroyer M113 might have unnecessarily high profile. As a mortar carrier, it should still be pretty useful.

As for this US contributions, 200 M113 APCs will not be able to equip a huge force. My estimate would be around three mechanised infantry battalions (three infantry companies, heavy weapons company and battalion headquarters), and they would each still require a good number of trucks for the logistics support.

Well, I trained with 113s, decades ago, at Fort Benning (Infantry Officer Basic). We never even contemplated fighting from them, and they made sure to show us a piece of side armor that a 50 cal MG had turned into swiss cheese. We DID train to have the tracks well back but able to give some cover fire with their own 50 cals. And the point about shrapnel is not minor; hasn't it pretty much always been the #1 casualty causer?

I suppose the important questions are learning curve and how easy are they to fix (tracks aside)? Also just how many more of them are there in existence that could either be reactivated or broken for spares (Wikipedia gives a production figure of 80K for all types)?

They are also, bluntly, rather non-threatening – a metal box on tracks. Rather difficult I would say to build narrative around them that would make them some kind of existential threat to Russia! Though one would assume the Ukrainian's will pimp them with what they have to hand.

One thing the Ukrainians do seem to be better at is not attempting to fight from their vehicles compared to the Russians (from the limited information available).

ROU, yes, good points. We were trained -- and this was 50 years ago, with less lethal AT threats -- that the vehicle was a death trap and you HAD to dismount instantly and aggressively if ambushed. And that dismounting was not what poorly trained or unmotivated troops wanted to do or would naturally do, so leadership was essential.

Since the armor is made of aluminum, it has only about 60% of the effective protection of steel armor, so…..

I've read that at very close range, it can be even be penetrated by 7.62mm MG rounds when fired at its flank and rear.

Yes, HE rounds are usually the number one cause of casualties and deaths to personnel on the battlefield.

The M113 does have a high profile compared to more modern IFVs. It is an APC and not really an AFV/IFV.

That said, with proper tactics and long-range weaponry in the rear, it can be a real threat to the enemy, e.g. when carrying ATGMs, mortars, and troops carrying A/T weaponry. They'll make great battle taxis as long as they stay out of direct fire range and targeting.

Just need to hide them behind undulations in the ground, hills, buildings, etc.

Those little BMPs they're getting from NATO are much better, from a combat standpoint, assuming they run reliably, and are not lemons. Seems they've been passed around a lot between friends.

I've read that the frontal armor on the M113 is supposed to be proof against 23mm rounds, but don't know if that is really true. Apparently, more armor was added at some point to some to help with that.

Well as I said, that is where the engine is … so that may help if a 23mm hits. But M113 would be a mobility kill, at least.

200 M113 APCs will not be able to equip a huge force. My estimate would be around three mechanised infantry battalions (three infantry companies, heavy weapons company and battalion headquarters), and they would each still require a good number of trucks for the logistics support.

Close but in the mid-'80s we reorganized to :

4 Mech Cos.[14 M113s + 2 M901 ITVs]

1 ITV Cos[M901s – M113 hull with TOW Launcher]

1 Sct Plt[3 M113s & 3 M901s]

1 4.2 in Mortar Plt[4 M106s 4.2 Mortars + 1 M577 – M113 Cmd version]

Add the Bn TOC, Medics, Maint., etc.

So yes about 2 Bns plus rolling stock e.g. trucks, Jeeps, etc.

doc mcb +1

And the point about shrapnel is not minor; hasn't it pretty much always been the #1 casualty causer?

Yes it is. But IIRC in most cases the M113 armor could stop it. Didn't want to find out !!!

that the vehicle was a death trap and you HAD to dismount instantly and aggressively if ambushed. And that dismounting was not what poorly trained or unmotivated troops wanted to do or would naturally do, so leadership was essential.

Yes, we would dismount is we were at a halt for any length of time, situation & terrain dependent of course. And good leadership is very important, as we see the Russians suffer from lack of that at almost all level.

I've read that at very close range, it can be even be penetrated by 7.62mm MG rounds when fired at its flank and rear.

That is true AFAIK …

Generally, as doc mcb noted it could be a death trap. Was not a very good design overall. Tall, flat sides, thin armor, etc. It should have been replaced long before it was, IMO. However, you will still find them everywhere worldwide. As I said we gave the ANA about 60 of them … now belong to the Taliban.

Close but in the mid-'80s we reorganized to :

….

So yes about 2 Bns plus rolling stock e.g. trucks, Jeeps, etc.

Thanks for the info, I was not aware that 1980's US mech battalion was that large.

However, I was thinking in the context of modern day Ukrainian battalions, which I presume would be somewhat smaller (haven't seen any TOEs though), in which case around 60 tracks might be just about sufficient (presuming that the logistics tail would be largely in trucks rather than tracks).

That said, actual usage may vary depending on whether the M113 shipped in are all basic versions, or whether some of them have been modified into support variants.

Was not a very good design overall. Tall, flat sides, thin armor, etc. It should have been replaced long before it was

It was probably a major improvement over M3 halftrack when it was introduced, but was probably much less impressive by 1980's standards.

Tall profile and flat sides is definitely bad if you are intending to operate in areas that are expected to be covered by enemy fire. However, the resultign interior spaciness could be valuable for support vehicles operating further back from immediate front line (mortar carriers, ambulances, command vehicles, maintenance posts, cargo transports etc.).

There's always compromises in any armoured vehicle design.
M113 have a motor and enough armour to stop the thing causes over 80% of casualties.
So far Ukraine is doing pretty well. I wouldn't rely on Russians continued ineptitude if I were them though.

I was not aware that 1980's US mech battalion was that large.

Yes IIRC, the Mech Bn back then had about 76 or more M113s including variants. E.g. M901s, M106s, etc.

Ukrainian battalions, which I presume would be somewhat smaller (haven't seen any TOEs though), in which case around 60 tracks might be just about sufficient (presuming that the logistics tail would be largely in trucks rather than tracks).

They'd probably using BMPs with Log vehicles being trucks. But no reason if need be M113s could not carry supplies, etc.

actual usage may vary depending on whether the M113 shipped in are all basic versions,

I'm thinking they'd be the standard M113A2(?) troop carrier/APC. Don't know if they'd mount the US M2 .50 cal or a Russian MG, e.g. DshK, PK, etc. ?

major improvement over M3 halftrack when it was introduced, but was probably much less impressive by 1980's standards.

Certainly was, there was a similar "precursor" – the M-59.
link
Which proved to be an unsuccessful design but looked similar to the later M113.

As I said the IDF used versions of the M3 Half-Track in the 6 Day War in '67 and before. As well as afterwards for a time. They did get M113s later. Used in the '73 Yom Kipper War and beyond. However, they did make some modifications/improvements, etc., to some of them.

interior spaciness could be valuable for support vehicles operating further back from immediate front line (mortar carriers, ambulances, command vehicles, maintenance posts, cargo transports etc.).

In many cases they were not "at the front". However, the list you posted did operate very near the front at times in an M113 Mech Bn.

There's always compromises in any armoured vehicle design.
M113 have a motor and enough armour to stop the thing causes over 80% of casualties.

Yes the Armor vs. Mobility, etc., is always a balancing conundrum. But yes the M113 could survive most small arms fires and shrapnel. But not much else. Bottomline they needed an APC to keep up with the MBTs. Infantry could ride on the back deck to the MBTs. But that incurs a number of negatives. Verses the plus of Infantry could move riding on the tank, instead of walking of course …

I wouldn't rely on Russians continued ineptitude if I were them though.

Nor would I, never underestimate your enemy. And possibly the Russians actually learned some lessons .. maybe ?

I wouldn't rely on Russians continued ineptitude if I were them though.

The problem for Russia it isn't all vanilla ineptitude a lot of it is baked in systemic problems.

Seems many US former and current GENs, etc., believe the Russain military incompetance will most likely continue.

Looks like our military is rushing to the bottom to meet them on the incompetence level, sadly.

The Ukrainian's are today claiming that for the renewed offensive in the Donbass the Russian military are still using the old Soviet playbook.

Looks like our military is rushing to the bottom to meet them on the incompetence level, sadly.

In some cases possibly. However US military, Intel assets, etc. are "advising" the Ukrainians possibly daily, etc. The Ukraine seems to be doing pretty well vs. the Russians overall.

the Russian military are still using the old Soviet playbook.

I don't doubt that, they can't retrain overnight.