Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[ColBosch]

The -113 is a box on tracks. It's super-simple to modify and upgrade. And hell, waste not, want not.

[snewsom2997]

Makes you wonder sometimes. Why try and reinvent the wheel. We have M2, M3s, Stikers, LAVs, can't you more or less do all of this with a modernized M113?

Certainly a remote Turret with an Auto Cannon is possible, Missile Launchers have already been added. It is already amphibious, there are ATC, MHQ, and Ambulance versions. Finally anything with enough Armor to stop a tank round or missile, will be a tank, and not an IFV or Battle Taxi, it won't be air mobile, and it won't be fast anymore.

[glitterboy2098]

The -113 is a box on tracks. It's super-simple to modify and upgrade. And hell, waste not, want not.

also, just about anything you mount on it is going to make it more useful on the battlefield than its intended role as APC..

Makes you wonder sometimes. Why try and reinvent the wheel. We have M2, M3s, Stikers, LAVs, can't you more or less do all of this with a modernized M113?

careful there Sparky.. down that route madness reigns..  :D

just because the M-113 can be heavily modified and made to fit a bunch of different roles doesn't make it an ideal vehicle for any of them. and of all its myriad variants, the ones that suck the most in combat are the ones that try to be APC's and IFV's..

[HobbesHurlbut]

oh now I understand the Rhino and its chassis family in Warhammer 40k....

[glitterboy2098]

oh now I understand the Rhino and its chassis family in Warhammer 40k....

well they did build a slighty-smaller-than-1:1-scale Rhino from a surplus M113 a few years ago..

[Fat Guy]

That's a FV432, not a M113.

[Kidd]

Makes you wonder sometimes. Why try and reinvent the wheel. We have M2, M3s, Stikers, LAVs, can't you more or less do all of this with a modernized M113?

In short, no. Wheels offer different advantages to tracks, and the Bradley is a different beast - more protected, better performance.

Certainly a remote Turret with an Auto Cannon is possible, Missile Launchers have already been added.

Has been done. The Singaporean M113 Ultra comes in 40mm AGL/0.50 cal (see below), 25mm AC and even Igla SAM flavours.





But there's really only so much you can do to a 60s chassis until you're much better off building something brand new, and that line has long been crossed.

Finally anything with enough Armor to stop a tank round or missile, will be a tank, and not an IFV or Battle Taxi, it won't be air mobile, and it won't be fast anymore.

The M113 can about stop 20mm autocannon rounds with addon armour, whereas the Bradley can and up to 30mm. There's a difference.

[glitterboy2098]

without add-on armor the -113 can barely stop .50cal rounds.

[Feenix74]

If my memory serves me correctly, the M-113's aluminium armor was only ever designed to protect the occupants against 7.62mm.

[ColBosch]

If my memory serves me correctly, the M-113's aluminium armor was only ever designed to protect the occupants against 7.62mm.

Correct. It's mounted infantry in the dragoon fashion: you will always be fighting dismounted. Of course, the lesson learned from the dragoons - and forgotten - is that you can never 100% know the time of battle, so you'd better be prepared to fight when mounted. I really, really hate the Stryker, but even I have to grudgingly concede that it's a better APC than the 113.

[Feenix74]

Which makes it quite fitting as many of the M113s in Australian Army use were/are assigned to Light Horse Regiments , who were originally employed as mounted infantry in the dragoon fashion but learnt the hard way (see the Battle of Beersheeba) that they sometimes might need to be able to perform a cavalry charge.

Our old "classic" M113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) - an Australian variant using the turret from the FV101 Scorpion light tank.



Our current M113AS4 upgraded with new engine, transmission, steering, suspension, brakes and hull protection, lengthened to fit an additional road wheel station and fitted with a new Australian-designed electronically driven "one man turret" with 12.7mm heavy machine gun and sight.

[DoctorMonkey]

Is there anything of the original left in the M113AS4?!


One advantage of tinkering with an old design is you can probably bypass a lot of the politics of procurement of a new design but the downside is you lose the spending on new toys that industry likes

[CDAT]

If my memory serves me correctly, the M-113's aluminium armor was only ever designed to protect the occupants against 7.62mm.

Correct. It's mounted infantry in the dragoon fashion: you will always be fighting dismounted. Of course, the lesson learned from the dragoons - and forgotten - is that you can never 100% know the time of battle, so you'd better be prepared to fight when mounted. I really, really hate the Stryker, but even I have to grudgingly concede that it's a better APC than the 113.

I can not say what the 113 was designed to protect against, I had always been told that a 30rd mag of 5.56 would cut a hole in it, 7.62 would go in one side and bounce around, and .50BMG or larger would just make Swiss cheese out of it. I do not know what the armor will stop but I can say that the armor will stop much more than 7.62. Years ago my unit had the opportunity to shoot some old hulls (M981 hard targets). 5.56 green tip (M16A4), 7.62 Black tip (M240B), .50BMG Silver/Red tip (M2HB). After our battle drills we were able to go down range and look at the targets. None of them penetrated, the 5.56 left little pock marks, the 7.62 larger pock marks, with some of them left small slashes, the .50BMG left some large pock marks but mostly slashes in the armor. It had also been shot with TP rounds from something larger 25-30mm was our guess, and you could see the large dents where they had hit it, but even they did not penetrate, so they are much tougher than many (myself included) had been lead to believe. Having said that it is still the vehicle that I hated the most to ride in.

[Feenix74]

Is there anything of the original left in the M113AS4?!

It is like grandpa's trusty old axe, the one that has had 2 new heads and 5 new handles . . .  ^-^

I am sure I have seen photos from Vietnam War where the troops choose to ride on top of the M-113 instead of inside and they have sandbags on the floor of the M-113 to give it a bit more mine protection.

[glitterboy2098]

that, and the fact it meant they could shoot back easier in the event of ambush.





then they had the idea that, if the troops were gonna be up there anyway, to put some extra MG's ontop, the M113ACAV


and what did they stick in the troop bay instead of troops? anything else the unit was gonna need for a patrol. better than sticking it on the outside i suspect.

[Kidd]

Good thing the VC didn't regularly employ airburst artillery eh? Or guided ATGMs... I think I prefer the approach these days where most everything has to come with a .50 cal turret or RWS up top.

[HobbesHurlbut]

Came across this from a link in the gun thread.
https://i.imgur.com/YvlbkAG.mp4

It look like it let the vehicle hug tighter to hard cover without impeding the missile's flight path.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Also means you're not limited to facing any particular direction; useful if you've got attackers approaching from multiple directions.  Simply press-and-serve instead of swing the whole launcher to face the target.

Wonder how much of that's a true VLS cell, Mk-41 style, or if it's just a vertically mounted, horizontally-reloaded single launcher?  Could make sudden flushes much more fun.

[Kidd]

What tank is that?

The old BAE Swingfire was interesting. No doubt a very outdated weapon, its ability to make a sharp 90 was cute if nothing else.

[Deadborder]

What tank is that?

I think it's the SA-15, but don't quote me

[PsihoKekec]

It is, the base ground variant known in Russia as Tor.

[worktroll]

Little known fact - the T28 could remove it's extra tracks for transport. I never knew that. I'd often wondered how they could replace the inner tracks.

Other tanks sometimes had thinner tracks for rail transport, but this was interesting.

W.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

It's how World of Tanks justified having the T28 and T95 as two separate vehicles.

[Kidd]

M1A2 Abrams with Trophy APS, probably a prototype



And unrelated to AFVs except in the most tangential way... I wonder how many kills are represented in this photo

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

That a Soviet squad?

[Matti]

That a Soviet squad?

With scope equipped rifles. They're snipers.

[snewsom2997]

Conservatively 1000's. Couple of those women had 100's all by their lonesome.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko had almost 260.

[Garrand]

Little known fact - the T28 could remove it's extra tracks for transport. I never knew that. I'd often wondered how they could replace the inner tracks.

Other tanks sometimes had thinner tracks for rail transport, but this was interesting.

W.

When I was at Ft Knox & the Patton Armor museum was still there, I totally ignored the rules & crawled all over this thing with a camera. Pretty cool. I also crawled all over a Panther, Pz III & T-34/85 that were awaiting restoration. No one caught me either...

Damon.

[HobbesHurlbut]

And unrelated to AFVs except in the most tangential way... I wonder how many kills are represented in this photo

Some of those medals look "touched", that is photo touching.

[ANS Kamas P81]

They're not.  Look up the Night Witches.  Fear.