View Full Version : Why no M113 APC in Bagdad?
I just read that there are 6,700 M113 armored personnel carriers in the National Guard's inventory. If this is the case then why are our troops patrolling the streets of Bagdad in soft-skinned vehicles and getting killed as a result?
Let me guess. The senior Army leadership is concerned that they may loose the funding for the new LAV IIIs if they deploy M113s already in our inventory and, horror of horrors, they succeed in saving soldiers lives.
Somebody tell me I'm wrong.
garyfanclub
11-01-2003, 06:33 PM
Perhaps because an M113 is the epitome of RPG bait? Even more so than a hummer.
neither M113 nor HMMWV is a good solution. one lacks armor, the other isn't very defendable. M113 armor isnt enough to defend it against RPG's either. moreover the vehicle isnt very maneuverable in the confines of 3rd world streets/alleys.
Seoulstriker
11-01-2003, 07:42 PM
I just read that there are 6,700 M113 armored personnel carriers in the National Guard's inventory. If this is the case then why are our troops patrolling the streets of Bagdad in soft-skinned vehicles and getting killed as a result?
Let me guess. The senior Army leadership is concerned that they may loose the funding for the new LAV IIIs if they deploy M113s already in our inventory and, horror of horrors, they succeed in saving soldiers lives.
Somebody tell me I'm wrong.
you're wrong.
StarvingStudent47
11-01-2003, 08:15 PM
It's been a DECADE since Somalia. We've invented the Predator drone, the Raptor, the Comanche, and a half-dozen other neat toys. We've pumped I-don't-know-how-many-million dollars into the Osprey, and it doesn't even fly! But in the ten years since Somalia, the best and the brightest vehicle designers for the U.S. military haven't managed to design a vehicle that can transport troops through third-world streets and take a hit from an RPG.
Does anyone else think that this is negligent and just plain stupid? Come on guys, it's not like we couldn't have predicted we'd be fighting in these sorts of environments, or that people would be using RPGs in said environments.
Seoulstriker
11-01-2003, 08:18 PM
It's been a DECADE since Somalia. We've invented the Predator drone, the Raptor, the Comanche, and a half-dozen other neat toys. We've pumped I-don't-know-how-many-million dollars into the Osprey, and it doesn't even fly! But in the ten years since Somalia, the best and the brightest vehicle designers for the U.S. military haven't managed to design a vehicle that can transport troops through third-world streets and take a hit from an RPG.
Does anyone else think that this is negligent and just plain stupid? Come on guys, it's not like we couldn't have predicted we'd be fighting in these sorts of environments, or that people would be using RPGs in said environments.
the osprey can fly, but it has some software-hardware interface problems which cause it to crash. :|
StarvingStudent47
11-01-2003, 08:19 PM
the osprey can fly, but it has some software-hardware interface problems which cause it to crash. :|
If it keeps on crashing, it isn't flying, now is it? ;)
Seoulstriker
11-01-2003, 08:23 PM
the osprey can fly, but it has some software-hardware interface problems which cause it to crash. :|
If it keeps on crashing, it isn't flying, now is it? ;)
no, it can fly, but the computer correction for the torque spins of the rotors were not correct when there were heavy loads, so it was grounded for a re-design of the software-hardware interface.
Ratamacue
11-01-2003, 08:23 PM
We've pumped I-don't-know-how-many-million dollars into the Osprey, and it doesn't even fly!
Actually, it flies perfectly fine. All the problems that it's had have really been attributed to pilot error. It's hard to transition from hover to forward (which is when most accidents have occured).
Seoulstriker
11-01-2003, 08:24 PM
and the osprey has flown plenty of times, just that there were a few crashes (and 20+ marines killed).
StarvingStudent47
11-01-2003, 08:45 PM
Okay, okay, maybe the Osprey isn't quite so fundamentally flawed as I thought it was. Doesn't change the main point of my post...why have ten years gone by since Somalia and we still haven't developed an appropriate troop transport for these situations?
Ratamacue
11-01-2003, 08:47 PM
Any of the Marines in here, how does the LAV-25 perform? How does it compare to the Stryker and the AAV7 (I've heard that the Stryker and LAV-25 are the same, but I've also heard that they're not).
if my memory serves me correctly:
marine lav-25 is a piranha 2, army stryker is piranha 3 (with a detroit diesel powerplant as opposed to the mtu powered europack).
neither can take a shaped charge rpg.
http://www.mowag.ch/En/02_ProdukteEn/PIRANHAEn/02-02_Frameset.htm
imho, we should've gone with:
http://www.one35th.com/bionix/bionix_main1.htm
i'd really like to hear why it lost to the piranha in trials.
the problem with armored vehicles is simple. some options that go in include armor, speed, and maneuverability. pick two. unfortunatly the three of them are offsetting. to get armor you need size, size begets speed/maneuverability. same thing for the added weight that is a direct result of armor. a vehicle that can handle small alleyways has to be smaller, and so making the armor plates becomes a problem because the shaping process weakens the armor, and the shapes involved prevent some of it from going on the vehicle at all. personally i think the best solution is that new jeep-style vehicle the marines have started using. its so much smaller(esp in height) then a HMMWV that i'd guess it's a harder target to hit.
I like the Marines new FAV type thingy too but I don't think it would be much use supporting a dismounted patrol. It also has no defense for the command detonates mines that the troops are dealing with these days.
StarvingStudent makes a very good point. You know, bazooka/panzerfaust/RPG type weapons have been around for 60 years. More than half a century. The U.S. has yet to field an APC that can protect its soldiers from shaped charges. Something as simple as sandbags or a metal fencing material works to predetonate the warhead but no, the Army can't come up with a solution. Maybe it wouldn't look sexy with all that stuff on it. Whatever the case, the Army brass was willing to spend billions on the Bradley, gave it a gyro-stabilized, dual feed auto-cannon system with themal sights but they chose to ignore the threat of a $20 RPG that gets thrown around the modern battlefield like the proverbial candy.
The Army brass is guilty of serious dereliction of duty. The lives of our troops just don't seem to matter to them. If I were the 101st commander I would be screaming until I got some M113s. Then I would put sandbags all over those things to help protect them from mines and RPGs. (Yes, I know armor is not in the 101st's TO&E.) What about the General of the Army? Is he able see the need for armor? To take the intiative to send some M113s to Iraq even if none have been requested? What, do they give these guys a frontal labotomy when they get their stars? Or maybe they don't want to rock the boat and step on some egotistical officers toes in order to do the right thing. This sort of BS has been going on too long. The deal with Gen. Shinzeki and the Stryker is just the latest iteration in a decades long story of stupidity.
Sorry, folks. I needed to vent. I get sick of hearing about our troops getting killed. Not by Iragis but by our own military "leadership". It's like Vietnam all over again.
perdurabo
11-02-2003, 07:23 AM
Everything can be destroyed but one easly other hard but every have it's weak points. Russia have systems aginst rockets and other stuff -Arena Belarus (or Ukraine) have Zaslon system.
Saranof
11-02-2003, 07:41 AM
Also, it's probly very difficult to make such a thing. It has to be small, but tough. And thats were the hummer came in I suppose..but that didn't suffice really,
spier
11-02-2003, 07:10 PM
One reason why there arent that many M113s in Iraq:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/coalition_hardware_losses_iraq/web_gal/hardware/gallery/pages/apc_001.htm
He219
11-02-2003, 07:28 PM
One reason why there arent that many M113s in Iraq:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/coalition_hardware_losses_iraq/web_gal/hardware/gallery/pages/apc_001.htm
The picture is not of an M113, but a USMC AAV destroyed by friendly mortar fire, I believe.
With Generay Dynamics aquiring Steyr Spezialfahrzeug of Austria, we should see more Pandur APCs among other new LAVs, AAAVs and AMBTs in the US arsenal.
Kingpin
11-03-2003, 02:32 AM
:D
It seems that in next US war you will blame friendly fire for EVERY loss.
Why makes you think that it was friendly fire?
Philbert
11-03-2003, 03:20 AM
I think the US should invest in the ASLAV
damn good things.
rofl
but probly couldnt take an rpg either
FallenAngel
11-03-2003, 04:38 AM
There was a Marine AAV that took an RPG during the invasion- damn thing went up like a roman candle. Killed or wounded everyone in the thing.
perdurabo
11-03-2003, 06:16 AM
aginst RPG and stuf like that NII Stali (Russia) projected for BTRseries special metal cages so warhed explodes before main armour i've seen pics of Stryker with somethig like that
Here's my contribution:
IDF APC
The IDF had little success when using the M113 in Tyre. The limitations included:
-Vulnerability to RPG fire. Their aluminum armour burst into flame when hit causing extensive IDF casualties.
-Inability to provide suppressing fire. Their machine-guns lacked sufficient elevation to use against upper stories of building.
-Extreme vulnerability to sniper fire for the crews serving out-side mounted machine-guns.
-Inability to maneuver in narrow roads and allies of cities and refugee camps.
All quite obvious flaws, widely known. The M113 is totally outdated, especially now that fighting is so urban area biased :|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.