Thread 64232167

In retrospect how was the M113?

>>64232167 (OP)
METAL BAWKSES

A workhorse. The Gavin was respected by everyone that used it. It's a shame that the failed experiment that was the MICV scammed its way through Reagan's shitty military buildup.

>>64232167 (OP)
is cool

>>64232167 (OP)
started out great, then just became good

>>64232167 (OP)
The LandGavin was a crucial step in our conquest of the stars without which even basic flight of battle taxis would never have been possible. It might seem outdated centuries later but please give it the respect it deserves.

Gavins, much like the 1911 will feature heavily in WW3

>>64232167 (OP)
>was
It's still being used actively, and a cheap metal box on tracks will probably never go out of style. It's the bare minimum standard for APCs. Lightweight aluminum armor that can still stop shrapnel and machineguns, can mount anything from a machine gun to a recoilless to ATGMs, reliable engine and transmission, roomy and comfy (by armored vehicle standards). Modern APCs may be much more protected and capable, but for basic back-line war stuff it's still perfectly fine today...maybe minus the fact that drones will fuck it up, but that can be said of everything nowadays.

Ukrainians love it.

>>64232167 (OP)
>was
was, is and will be great
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGRdHqogVHc

>>64232167 (OP)
Decent battle taxi whom reputation has been tarnished by one autists attempt to get it to fly.

it just works

The only thing I remember about them in recent years is that some ruskies captured a medical one, gloated about the 'inferior western engineering' and then proceeded to list of features it has that their meat movers don't in almost angry jealousy.

>>64232167 (OP)
they were based
>comfy to sleep in
>easy to hook up an aux cable to the internal comms
>fun to drive in shit conditions
maintenance was kinda gay though

>>64232167 (OP)
Too mechanically complex for what it was. Should had just used the Pershing's chassis for parts commonality.

>>64232167 (OP)
p-put wings on it

>>64233464
>Too mechanically complex

The quantum resonance engine and driveline isn't for everyone

>>64232167 (OP)
It had some of the best specs among armored vehicles of its day and was incredibly versatile and flexible in its roles owing to its air mobility, off road capabilities and armor. Its combination of useful internal volume, cheapness, reliability and protection made it the prime choice for various auxillary roles and it's not an exaggeration to say that M113 variants probably made the majority of NATO armored vehicles because of that, including but not limited to recon vehicles, command vehicles, medevac, morter carriers, missile launchers, tractors, SHORAD and so on. Germans even mounted an artillery cannon into the hull of it back in the day.

It had some flaws, ones that were fixed fairly quickly like the underpowered gasoline engine and ones that persisted for much longer if not until today like insufficient mine resistance even with the add-on armor on the bottom or the shaky suspension that makes for an uncomfortable ride. They are also fairly small and light which limits the amount of armor and power you can get out of them which is why they are being replaced with newer vehicles today.

>>64233562
>Germans even mounted an artillery cannon into the hull of it
I don't believe you
>googles
holy fuck

>>64233423
Look I know Russia is shit but a Gavin can't be some sort of superior tech for them? Can it?

>>64233588
Probably beats their shitty old BMP models in survivability. And is better by miles than any of their shitty battle taxi equivalents like MT-LB and BTR-50

>>64233588
Apparently leg room is considered 'advanced tech'

>>64233585
Germans will turn everything into a STUG if you give them long enough.

>>64233607
*StuH

>>64233588
If it sounds implausible, it is. Even pondering the concept for a second, M113 was replaced with Stryker and Bradley specifically to fight soviet-equipped goat herders like in Iraq and Afghanistan. If M113 was sufficient for that, they'd build a better one rather than replace it entirely.

>>64233588
They had an entire class of vehicles to do what a bog standard Gavin does out of the box, that are inferior to said Gavin in that role. Take a hint.

>>64233629
>M113 was replaced with Stryker and Bradley specifically to fight soviet-equipped goat herders
Do you have brain damage?

>>64232167 (OP)
>retrospect
They're still in service and licensed modernized copies are still being manufactured to this day. When the Terran Empire invades the Alpha Centaurian Concordat, the M113 will drop off the Imperial Army cyborgs.

>>64233423
m113 is super outdated even by soviets standards, among other things it uses 2 stroke engine.
it does have auto box which is kinda nice

>>64233711
The original 5L diesel V6 wasn't too bad, they are extremely simple things and fairly powerful in a small power pack. so you can rip them out, put in a new one and be on your merry way in about an hour or so. Which is a pretty important function
In the AS series we used a Daimler-Chrysler 11.9L 4stroke V6 that had enough torque to pull a nigger off a watermelon and was a lot more modern, same sort of package though with an auto 6pd, 2 reverse automatic. Which did let us put the longer wheelbase and more stuff like armour that actually works and better turrets. Like most things, throw enough money at it and a whole heap of 'cheaper options' can disappear fairly quickly

>>64233694
>Bradley developed in response to soviet BMPs
>Stryker developed in response to Cold War Ending
You should apologize to me since I took the time out of my day to school your stupid ass.

>>64233756
I'll take that as yes, you're completely braidead.

>>64233873
>Doubling down
You've already been humiliated, you don't have to keep going.

>>64233911
>poltroon copes about his favorite goat herder buzzword by acting like an oldfag
So very humiliated.

>>64233920
Why do you keep digging your own grave? Is it a fetish for you?

Things could've gone much better for you if you weren't ignorant and uneducated..

>>64233945
>>64233920
why don't you both fuck off and get a room

it's a matter of record that M113s were used as tank-supporting IFVs and in the "ACAV" role before Bradleys were introduced
Bradleys then replaced M113s in this role

Strykers replaced the Humvees and trucks of previously foot and/or motorised brigades
it's true that Strykers were developed after the Cold War ended, however the Stryker program was under way before 9/11 so it was NOT designed with GWOT in mind per se. probably in response to Bosnia.

>>64233986
>replaced with Stryker and Bradley specifically to fight soviet-equipped goat herders like in Iraq and Afghanistan
If this isn't an extreme example of mental retardation then i don't know what is.

>>64234123
All of your posts are that example actually, and you're still doubling down into your idiocy as multiple people are double teaming you now.

>>64234129
Seething at the person pointing the extreme absurdity of your untruth won't really convince anyone otherwise, zister.

>>64234142
You're the one seething tho, since you have to pretend that actual historical facts are a product of some 'zister'.

>>64234123
>specifically to fight soviet-equipped goat herders like in Iraq and Afghanistan
that wasn't me

in fact, I'm of the opinion that IF the Berlin Wall hadn't fallen, the Stryker would have been built anyway, because the US Army would have wanted to equip its foot/motor infantry with something like the Saxons and Fuchs that European armies used. this was also VERY CONTROVERSIAL at the time, because TL;DR the Army extolled the values of Strykers in network-centric warfare, and this was hated by a lot of people who believed in TRACKS TRACKS TRACKS
(I'm not sure if this is where TEMPO TEMPO TEMPO originated but in spirit, yes it is)

so no I'm not that guy

>>64234156
>vehicles adopted to fight in wars decades after their introduction
>historical facts

>>64234161
No. Nigger.

Stryker was the result of the Pax Americana and lessons learnt in Yugoslavia. There was an understanding that big conventional wars were OUT and peacekeeping was IN. Hence they wanted something that was strategically mobile. It was the doing of Eric Shinseki.

>>64234161
I wasn't implying it was you, just pointing out how nonsensical the vatnigger's tirade is, fueled by the notion that a tracked aluminum box is unknown technology to the homo soveticus.

>>64233607
Wiesel 1 StuG plz.

>>64234167
The Stryker had dual-purpose use and this was a huge point of contention even up till 2022 because people didn't believe its peer-war concept of operations
>they wanted something that was strategically mobile
you can shift M113s strategically too
the controversial wheels were for OPERATIONAL MOBILITY

You know nothing, fuck off.

>>64234169
welp, you carry on, I'm outie

>>64233739
> to pull a nigger off a watermelon

>>64234185
>hurr you said STRATEGIC not OPERATIONAL
My sincere apologies for not basing my definitions on FM 3-0 or JP 3-35. The point stands. The goal was to get something that can drive from its base in Germany to the Baltics with ease to engage in policing actions and not to conduct large scale conventional operations.

>>64234219
>My sincere apologies
very well, in that case, here's a bone. the difference is not semantic; it's the answer to the crucial question of "OKAY BUT WHY NOT TRACKED STRYKER DUH" which has some implications on tactical mobility which again, is not merely semantics
tactically, tracks can go where wheels can't, and carry heavier loads
operationally, wheels can drive from Germany to the Baltics faster and cheaper. pit a Wheeled Stryker in this race against a Tracked Stryker and the former wins
therefore the strategic mobility you refer to, i.e. the C-130 air transportability of Stryker, is largely irrelevant; if the other considerations above had favoured tracks, they could just as easily have built Tracked Stryker instead

>>64233711
The Detroit Diesel Series 53 isn't outdated, it's eternal.

>>64234176
Technically a mortar but heard can use it in a direct fire role in a pinch. Wouldn't know how or want to try it.

>>64233607
Yeah its like crab evolution but for tracked vehicles

>>64233562
>Germans even mounted an artillery cannon into the hull of it back in the day.
>an artillery cannon
You are like little baby

>>64233629
>goat herders
Homie, the Bradley's genesis began in *1963* and the Stryker came about as the result of war studies conducted between 1996 and 1998

>>64234176
>>64234397
If the Wiesel 2 chassis can handle a 30mm recoilless autocannon firing at 300rpm, then even the Wiesel 1 should be able to handle a slower-firing large-caliber recoilless autocannon without tipping over.

>>64235264
I mean, the M274 Mule is about the same length as the Wiesel 1 while only weighing 1/8th as much and it was a perfectly viable platform for a 105mm recoilless rifle.

>>64235297
>>64235264
duh?
have you seen the original mount of a 106mm recoilless rifle?

>>64232167 (OP)
One step below the 12 and one above the 14 series.

>>64232167 (OP)
It's based. Anyone disagreeing is wrong.

>>64233585
Sturm M113...

>>64233756
>>64233911
You are embarrassing yourself, dumbass.

most widely produced western tracked AFV
Y / N ?

Only marginally worse than the Warrior the bongs still use.

>>64232167 (OP)
>how was the M113?
It was delicious. Please give my compliments to the chef.

>>64234397
holy shit

>>64232167 (OP)
Its only real fault is weakness to mines.
An average 10kg HE simple AT mine doesnt just do an m-kill on the track, that box section behind the track that forms the front edge of the troop bench channels the blastwave and rips open along the length of the weld and everybody inside is fucked.
Its acceptable armour against .50cal BMG and arty frag and generally useful, but mines are its weakness.
>I used to do vehicle blast survivability testing, comparing legacy M113s etc to new vehicles by Stanag 4569

Aluminum alloy bodies can be made thicker than steel, but are they not effective in terms of explosion protection?

Liked enough that it still gets new upgrade packages.

>>64233145
>STANG 4569
what did they mean with this?

>>64233585
the STUGavin....

>>64238670
Aluminum isnt as strong as steel. It is soft enough that the force of a large explosive directly under the vehicle will destroy it much more completely than steel. It also melts, and doesn't look very good as a wreck.

>>64238700
this is what I looked like after my ex finished blowing me

>>64238700
>the force of a large explosive directly under the vehicle will destroy it much more completely than steel
So long as it's durable enough to stand up to the required spec, who cares? You're not saving any additional lives either way

>>64238691
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=STANAG+4569

>>64238660
Do you have any information on the add-on bottom protection for the M113? Supposedly it's been around since the first versions but i could never find any pictures or specific descriptions of it.

>>64238670
The biggest flaw isn't with aluminum but with the hull design - a flat bottomed box with sharp 90 degree corners is very much not ideal for withstanding pressure from below, especially with a notoriously thin bottom.

>>64234488
Its when you start getting the double stug mutation is when you need to be afraid!

>>64239716
LMAO 2STUG
2STUG!!

>>64239773
Just wait till you see Half-Stugs!

>>64232167 (OP)
Nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. You can do a lot with a metal box on tracks and a greyhound bus engine. A lot of fun to drive, too.

I think "it's not protected against mines" isn't that big of a negative, honestly. Even in a vehicle that's protected against mines, that's still a mobility kill on the vehicle and a bunch of injured guys. If you've hit a mine, you've already failed to do a bunch of shit you're supposed to do.

>>64233986
>Strykers replaced the Humvees and trucks of previously foot and/or motorised brigades
IBCTs remain footmobile to this day and will for the forseeable future
You arent going to see strykers within an IBCT
IBCTs converting to SBCTs isnt really true replacement, just administrative reshuffling

Stykers have, if anything, replaced the bradley
Armored divisions are switching out 1 tank brigade for a stryker brigade to increase flexible response in the field
Infantry divisions are still 100% infantry

>>64232167 (OP)
In retrospect, it wasn't.

>>64232167 (OP)
Ask the Flips. Philippine Army still uses them.

>>64232167 (OP)
Not even bad. Had plenty of power to weight with the twincharged 6V53T that still powers 16 ton LAVs to this day. They could have easily doubled the armor on these and put mk19s on top and they would have been find for their intended purpose. Super cheap to run and maintain.

>>64241882
Automotive and mechanically it's a great vehicle, the complaints come in about its aluminum armor (and what happens when-after it goes up in flames) in combat

>>64248736
>Automotive and mechanically it's a great vehicle
Then why does it take more to maintain the drive train than a Bradley or BMP? I've heard endless complaints about how often it needs servicing compared to other APCs and even IFVs.

>>64249030
Did you read ^^upthread? It's a lot simpler than Bradley and better than BMP

>>64249030
Thing is, they're old so you do need to give them a little care but for the time and equivalents they're very cheap- like maybe 1/4 or 1/3rd of the cost of something like an M60 tank just for the running costs in fuel, parts and everything else. Its been years since I had anything to do with one but they're generally cheaper than something like a mid sized dozer, say a D6 in terms of the parts cost and much easier in terms of the actual servicing.
You pull the whole fucking lot out the front on a crane, stick your new one in and the power pack goes off to the diesel and transmission specialist mechanics. If they're not available you're talking 2nd year apprentice levels of filters, fluids and grease points.
I can't say I ever enjoyed doing road wheel or track maintenance but anyone who ever said they did was probably fucking crazy