"Not for Wimps": Ukrainian Legion Soldier about M113
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 апр 2024
- M113 Workhorse in Ukraine, in this video I talk what a German combat engineer thinks about the M113 and then I talk with a former Leopard 2A6 gunner about it as well, particularly we look how it compares to MRAP and other vehicles.
Cover Image: АрміяInform, CC BY 4.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons.
MT-LB at Technical Museum in Tolyatti 2020, Photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin, permission granted.
Disclaimer in 2018, 2019, 2020 & 2023 I was invited by the Panzermuseum Munster.
/ daspanzermuseum
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
00:00 Intro
00:24 Combat Engineer's Opinion on M113
02:11 T-Shirts & Books
02:37 Museum Introduction MHV
04:05 Leopard 2 Gunner's Opinion
#M113 #Workhorse #WorkhorseUkraine
CAT Person T-Shirts here: everpress.com/mhv
»» GET BOOKS««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
The weapons and mines being used against AFV's and IFV are designed to take out tanks. The fact is AFV/IFV's will never be good enough.
One can do as we did in the US Army with our M-113A3 and made a facade from framing and canvas that made it look like a small building. It bolted to the slab-sides and allowed it to still drive/relocate when needed. Our version of hiding in plain sight.
Ah yes, even a TRAINED SOLDIER EXPERIENCED IN WAR says that tanks and armored vehicles are modern day death traps, yet you still "disagree" with him
I have ridden in an M113. It was far and away the most uncomfortable vehicle experience I have ever had. The seats are unyielding canvas, every bump or stone bangs you in the arsch, and unless you're the driver or the commander, you can see nothing, it's almost pitch black. Hideously memorable, and I was only in it for about 15 minutes.
You forgot loud. Loud AF. They have never had a problem getting troops to dismount from a 113. lol.
@@obsidianjane4413 : Right you are!
Sounds even worse than the Pbv302!
I see that the IDF are still using the M113s. 😀👍
canvas... clearly it was not a Danish engineering M113... we had wood boxes... with a thin pillow on top.
I've served on various versions to include the M113A3, M577, and M981. Make no mistake: the M113 was designed to get you to your attack position/dismount point then you would fight as infantry as if you had gotten off a truck, helicopter or parachuted in well before making contact with the enemy.
Thank you for explaining this simple fact it is just a battlefield taxi now everyone wants to drive thru assault positions. Funny how people who always criticize the equipment never used or served in them
out of interest: how do they do under artillery attack? I am thinking of 81-82 mm mortar impacts nearby, as well as 120 and 155mm: what is the expected survival, penetration rate etc: How close would such grenades need to be in order to significantly penetrate the vehicle? Seeing as artillery is a big factor in peer-on-peer wars..
@@mortenovergaard7397 The will stop basically any HE shell fragments, and all calibers up to 8mm at normal machine gun ranges, that is less than 800m. Any basic shaped charge will penetrate. It's designed to get the troops around safely protected from fragmentation and snipers, and then provide limited direct fire support *when appropriate*.
See FM 7-7 (1985)
@@mortenovergaard7397in Iraq we had an 82mm go through the commanders hatch and detonate on his seat. No one was in the vehicle at the time but it ran and drove fine afterwards.
Exactly. I drove the M981 in the 80s and I loved it. But it was _always_ known to be a death trap if you fought the enemy and they had anything more powerful than an AK.
I honestly liked my 113 ambulance. It did it's job and did it well. Once you lose the governor you can reach 45 to 50 mph. The periscope work. The engine is big robust and easy to work on. Mine was only 2 years older than I was in the eighties.
Mines got more than a few decades on me now, but its still the same. Engine is nice and you can generally tell if something is wrong just by the sound. If she purrs shes loving life, if she sounds like a lawnmower you're in for a bad time. Pretty nimble and honestly when you pack it out right it its not that bad of a home to work out of.
@@hoy455 and if she sounds like a rock crusher...? (asking for a friend)
@@SonsOfLorgar Even better just redline it all the time.
its a detroit, they sound crazy just rev and go they dont make any power in the low rpm @@SonsOfLorgar
We had M113 in Germany, 1977-1981. We also had the command version, M577 Command Post Carrier higher, can stand inside, with generator mounted just behind and above the driver. The M113 had a wood front flap that folded out to help keep the water from splashing up into the hatch when crossing a river. I crossed water in one, very scary, the water level was only two inches below the top of the APC. Fun vehicle to drive.
My uncle served in these during the Vietnam war, for the longest time he thought the hulls of them were made of steel. I had to inform him that he was only protected by aluminum all that time.
o.O
They were made of 2” compressed aluminium armoured plate which was designed to protect against 7.62 mm rifle bullets and artillery shell splinters and is approximately equivalent of 1/2 inch of steel plate.
It may be aluminum but its thick, thick enough to stop small arms fire and shrapnel. Which is the expected level of protection.
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized if you want to see an excellent movie with the M113. Danger Close, which is the Battle of Long Tan. Let me the Australian's used the M113 as a rescue vehicles for company of Aussies pin down by the Viet Kong. The movie is excellent.
The aluminum was FIT FOR PURPOSE and chosen because tested performance IN ITS INTENDED ROLE exceeded steel. People who don't work with metal automatically assume alloys like 5083 are poor but the real problem is that the vehicle is an APC (which means "helpless against any modern weapons")
From my time driving and commanding 113's in Australia, we used to tell the Grunts, "A second class ride beats a first class walk!"
113 is a fantastic vehicle if you use it correctly. Versatile, adequate protection for its initial role, adequate armament for that role, loved the A2. Fun to drive.
The protection doesn't even fit it's intended role. It was designed as an armored personnel carrier. The standard for protection is at the bare minimum 12.7mm machine gun fire. Which the M113 cannot stop. They sort of cheated on the tests by saying if the engine block stops the round that's a pass.
Its protection is laughable with even a basic RPG7v round penetrating.
RPG-7 can pen most things, it's all about the skill of the captain. @@jesseterrell2109
I drove one for about half of my time in the Army National Guard. Well, the Mortar carrier and command track variants.
The command variant we called "The RV". It was tall enough that some could stand up inside, and with the tables deployed it could sleep four in comfort, six with excess familiarity.
Even back in the 1980's we knew it was a way to get from A to B without infantry weapons (rifles, medium machine guns) taking us out, and to allow bad terrain transport of indirect fire systems.
@@jesseterrell2109 neither does T-90M anywhere except front ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The M113 is basically a "Battle Taxi" to carry infantry to combat. 100 to 200 meters in some sort of cover before dismounting the infantry, the .50 Cal machinegun is for suppression and support. Once infantry has been dismounted the carriers then leave to a support by fire position. That's the way we had trained with the M113.
The M113 is a classic, but there are good reasons the Army replaced it. For a 12 ton vehicle it does the best it can. It’s too bad there isn’t time to up-armor all of the vehicles. The Australians had an excellent armor package that gave decent mine protection.
They are replacing, they aren't replaced yet.
@@hoy455 we still have them but now they are only intended for the defence of Australia and police action’s only, not frontline offensive roles anymore.
they will probably end up staying in service for a while longer, the ADF has significantly scaled back the amount of new IFV's purchased as part of land400,
They'll never fully get rid of something as versatile as an aluminium box on tracks.
All of the ones being given to Ukraine are the A3s or better. So they have the internal spall liners and what not.
But really, it has the same problem BMPs do. There isn't much that can be done to protect them from anything that is a threat to AFVs, RPGs, light cannons, mines, drones, etc. Its just not a front line vehicle and should be treated as such, its armor is just there to protect itself from the ambient lethality of the battlefield.
For a vehicle conceived in the 1950s, to be relevant in 2023 is pretty amazing. Of course, in the US we do not consider this vehicle an APC or IFV. It is great for moving things around the battle space behind the lines, carrying mortars, or for engineers and other supporters who are not actually fighting at the front. In my units, we had one in a company which the XO used for things like moving between the ALOC, UMCP, etc, and for taking things up to the IFVs. I spent a year as his driver and the 113 could go places no wheeled vehicle could.
Its an armored box on tracks. As long as we don't have hovering tanks and no shrapnel they will remain relevant.
yeah it wasnt really a true APC, much less IFV, even when it was built. It was designed with super weak but light armor so it could easily move around behind allied lines and ferry men and material through even terrible terrain. That light armor also made it good for amphibious crossings, muddy/swampy ground, and easy to air transport. The armor is mainly just meant to defend against really small arms and shrapnel. The Americans didnt really consider it front line material and most losses have been when people treat it like an IFV and find out the hard way that it cant stand up to armor piercing rounds, AT guns, tanks, or RPGs.
But is that really the case, though?
Just because it's used in Ukraine and by other countries, does that really make it relevant, or is it more a case of "Hey, it's the only thing we got, so we have to use it".
I personally would argue the latter, rather than the former.
@@Orcawhale1
Swear to God, the ass kissing for outdated Western equipment is surreal. They could send that WWII Kiwi Bob Semple tank where a 9mm pistol can penetrate it, and they’ll call it “relevant”
@@Orcawhale1It's better than a "borrowed" pickup truck or SUV.
At 1:52 I'm pretty sure that MHV (and by extension the German combat engineer serving in Ukraine) are talking about "riding on the roof" and not 'driving on the roof' as the narration says. The popular conception of M113s in Vietnam was that soldiers would ride on the roof because their main worry was mines, and not a peer or near-peer competitor with a full suite of artillery, aircraft, missiles and drones to cause pain from overhead.
He could have been talking about driving with the hatch open.
You wouldn't want to drive up to the frontline in this, but sometimes the frontline drives up to you.
I actually have an affection for the vehicle as I had three in my Scout platoon.
As a scout vehicle, it was actuall superior to even the bradley. Much more manueverable, better cross country mobility, quick as a hiccup.
Less firepower perhaps, but the scout who engages anything with a weapon OTHER than a radio has already screwed up royally.
The meatball (MTLB)? Nowhere close. Rode in several as OPFOR at the NTC at Fort Irwin. Wouldnt do it again on a bet.
Give me the M113 anytime.
Not surprising considering that M113 was made with transporting people in mind while MTLB was probably designed to transport dwarves, hobbits and other fantasy cratures not higher than a grown mans chest. Yes, it's primary purpose is to be a prime mover for an MT-12, but whoever decided *Correction: structural, inernal is even less* hull height to be 1,2m is probably being repeatedly flattened by a hydraulic press in hell (as they absolutely should be).
Yes and no on the weapon. Don't forget that in US doctrine, the cav units can also be tasked with guard and cover missions, which absolutely requires shooting things. Indeed, for a while when the recon squadrons had no tanks, they were incapable of conducting covers.
It is a great tracked truck.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Not arguing the need for firepower. The unit I was in was A troop, 15th Cav, $1.97th Brigade, a J-series MTOE cav troop with 9xM60A3s. We later got Bradleys and M1s, but that M113 was still my favorite vehicle for recon (can't say the same for that M901 we were saddled with).
One of our configurations was to use a 'sniper tank' - matching scout and tank sections for an on-demand direct fire during screening ops.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Yes, that is one of the greatest mistakes and weaknesses in current US doctrine. We need to separate our recon from every other mission.
1970s ex australian armoured corps here (Cav recon) the M one one three armour was 5083 aluminium alloy it was never meant to be more than small arms resistant . having driven most australian variants including time as gunner on FSV and radio operator on ACV it was never meant as a IFV it was always meant as a battle taxi. we called it a butter box. discomfort had a lot to do with the skill of the driver any assault troopers let you know quickly if you were not up to standard. most driving was done heads up and many drivers had scar under chin from hatch ring. all in all a good vehicle length of service tells you that.
I was a driver of a M113 in 1991. One without hydraulic stearing. It was a very fine car. Only a better hardhat, but very good to drive. Miss it.😊
I served 6 years driving, servicing and living in the M113. After nearly 60 years of service, this is probably one of the best combat vehicles ever devised for the U.S. Military!
😂
I had an M125A1 mortar carrier in Berlin Germany in the late 80's just before the wall came down. Funny thing is that it had 3 repaired bullet holes in the driver's front corner made by what looked to be made by a 12.7mm. that old girl had been brought back from Vietnam, repaired, and then shipped to Germany. I still hold great affection for my "wounded guppy".
My takeaway: what is the best thing you can say about the M113? “Not Useless” 😂
"Better then a car" (depending on circumstance presumably) is mine😂
Found it unsettling. We always called it the M-One-One-Three. I spent most of my infantry career around them. I was pissing off the top one time during a tactical halt when the driver suddenly took off again. I let myself fall into the "sun roof" and everybody caught me. I could drive the A2 version one handed and held my morning coffee in the other and usually had a cigarette. I have many stories that won't ever be a movie. :))
For what its worth, the Australian vehicles in the videos are M113AS4, our latest version prior to be replaced by LAND400-3.
The ride characteristics are different say Leopard 1. M113 slows down to negotiate ditch, Leopard 1 speeds up.
Not to mention the M113AS4 has improved ceramic armour and mine/IED protection.
Again nice Video. I like that the MT-LB and M113 bring cheap protected mobility to the battle area. Something that apparently is going to be needed much more in the future
4:00 In Singapore we've got an AA variant of the M113, one version with 2 pairs of ready-to-fire Iglas and a version that also comes with a Fire Control Radar
I was both the driver and ammo barer on a 113 mortar variant, had to scramble between positions for every fire mission and got stuck every time.
The Dutch variant of the M113 known as the YPR-765 has resulted in over 20% destroyed/damaged/abandoned. This variant offers much better armor protection than the typical M113.
Depends on what they are used for. Some roles will always suffer more causalities compared to others. Even the FV432 was considered a Battle Taxi and not an IFV. Universal carriers in WW2 were incredibly useful but were terrible if used as AFVs (British doctrine generally was to consider them as soft skins.)
@@ptonpc The Dutch variant offers better armored protection regardless of mission.
I have seen videos of such dutch vehicles been used in assaults in ukraine. And that will of course mean higher losses.
I believe that half of all Bradleys sent to Ukraine has been lost. 10 Leopard 2 tanks have been destroyed and 20 is undergoing repairs out of something like 120 vehicles. So yea, losses have been heavy. But resistence have been hard and losses on the other side has been hard as well.
To me it seems like the Ukrainians are using their dutch M113 according to tactics provided by western instructors and they are not used as any IFVs because they are no such vehicles.
The YPRs seen here on you tube were way out in front dropping off troops and suppressing the Ruskis with their machine gun.
No matter them being better than the standard M113, they're not built to be out in front catching mortar and AT grenades taking tremendous abuse.
@@mirola73 Ukrainian troops use what they have. And often they pay the price.
It succeeds at being a metal box.
Exactly 👍
On tracks.
As a former Cavalryman, I love the M113. It is the "VW Beetle" of APC's. It is reliable, easy to work on and rugged. As with the "Kaefer" or "Bug" it can only do, what it can do. It is a "battle taxi" not an IFV. It floats in water (barely), is relatively fast and excels as a command-and-control vehicle due to its fantastic mobility. Did I mention it sleeps four comfortably in winter and eight in good weather. Like the VW Beetle it is a product of its time and this needs to be considered in its tactical deployment.
As a former mechanic in the US Army. I have had M113's assigned as my vehicle. Since maintenance teams typically only put 2 people per track its not too bad inside. Especially if you mount the medic stretcher rack to one side for sleeping cots.
As for mobility and crossing difficult terrain? Yeah I 100% agree with this. The M113 can cross over ground that heavier vehicles instantly sink into. The M113's is actually very light weight for a tracked vehicle and it spreads that weight nicely along its tracks. The A3 versions are pretty damn zippy as well.
As for Armor protection? Light fragmentation and small arms is the most I would ask of it. Its made from Aluminum so anything bigger just zips right through it like a beer can.
Yeah it can mount several different crew served weapons like the M2. But honestly the M2 is your best bet here. With maybe a 240B as a close second.
It was never intended to be a front line fighter and was pretty much only meant to be a battle taxi. Take troops to the front and drop em off then GTFO. What I have seen the Ukrainians use them for is boarder line suicidal imo. But you use what you got. So best of luck to them.
I´ve been a driver and commander of a M113 for several years in the german army. I had different versions of the german M113 ambulance and i loved them. Quite fast and mobile. For comfort: 2 or 4 beds, a great heating and a beer cooling system aka NBC System :) Miss them a bit
A good vehicle for its time. It did look as it had lots of space inside it when I saw it at a tank museum. So I think it still can be useful for certain roles like medical evacuation, or as a command vehicle and perhaps as a mortar. It is of course not a modern IFV as it is an old vehicle and do not have the same armor and fire power as CV90 or any hatches for the infantry from where they can stick up their heads and rifles to shoot at targets. However they are mechanically reliable. And I rather sit in a M113 in a battlefield than a flammable BMP-1 that lacks gun depression or a crampy pansarbandvagn 301
I know this vehicle well. Started as a mechanic on it back in 1994. I been a driver instructor, technician instructor and commander on it. I still work on our variants of M113 along with our Leopard 1 and 2 FOV and CV90 FOV.
The original variant is expoced to everyting over 7.62. Unfortunately this is the variants that have been donated to UKR. But we have new variants with add on armor, mine and IED protection, spall liners and secure inventory to secure the crew. But it can't be compared to any of the modern IFV.
During my military service [Australia] we always joked that you could always pick out M113 crew commander, usually a Corporal, by his lack of front teeth caused by the top hatch not being\unable to be locked down securely and as such it would\could swing forward and hit the Commander in the back of the head and smashing his head forward and knocking his teeth out on the front of the hatch ring ? Don't know if this was a problem for all or just the models supplied to Australia, as I was in 'chooks', which is Aussie slang for Signal Corps ? Thanks again for another great video\story from your channel, pls keep up the great work ?
Thanks for that insight, I sent a screenshot of this to the combat engineer with a meme with a guy with 3 teeth ;)
Properly maintained vehicles wouldn’t do that.
Yeah that is false. The hatch is spring loaded. If its not positively locked, the hatch will try to settle at about 1/4 open. So the TC will feel it pushing on their back. It doesn't just flop back loose.
If there is any kernel of truth here, its that the butt of the .50 cal is the offender.
@@obsidianjane4413 Maybe it's just the older Australian turret I'm familiar with, but isn't the rear of the .50 beside the commander, not in front of them?
How do you fail to secure the hatches open? Give it a yank before driving to proof the catch, anyway. Step and lean down on the hatch if the latch is finnicky. Then again, I've read a few Aussie's complaining about underfunding for the army. Maybe your 113's latches eventually broke and never got mended...
As someone that have driven a Danish M113, the description sounds pretty spot on, although its some of the best sleep I have ever gotten xD
I loved driving the M-113 but it was a rough ride on the TC and especially the passengers. The driver knew what was coming, had the sticks (A-2 version) to hold on to, and a decent seat. TC and the scouts were more marbles in a can. I never knocked any passenger unconscious but other drivers in my troop did.
I grew up driving 4wd and 2wd off road so I was good.
The used to come with another "door" over the engine compartment door that you would folded out when doing a water crossing. It was supposed to act break the bow wave when they went into the water.
It’s called a “trim vane”, it’s a metal reinforced plywood sheet that locks out when you go swimming with them. It you forget to deploy it, the crew commander gets the bow wave right in the face and down the hatch when entering the water, the wave goes right over the driver.
It also makes a great table.
Its been over 20 years since Ive driven one and I can still remember everything about it. It is a simple machine to maintain and drives fast. The only bad thing is its protection. Its good against small arms and thats about it.
I commanded an M113A1 ACAV with 2/11th ACR in VN. The remarks by the interviewee were spot on.
I visited a friend who worked at defense manufacturer in Israel. They did things like custom R&R, of various ground vehicles and things like that, which is a very common thing there. Anyway, they had an M113 turned into an IFV of sorts. See, they had fitted a M134 to it (mounted to CROWS). The ammunition chute extended down into the compartement where infantry would usually ride. Here was mounted a large magazine system that took up half of the compartment. If memory serves correctly, this held something like 30,000 rounds of 7.62 nato, and would continuously feed the M134 up top.
Interesting regards the Ride Comfort. I've read comments from actual users that the Universal Carrier (its earlier inspiration as a battlefield utility vehicle) was designed to carry a weapon and its crew across shelled bullet strewn ground in absolute discomfort... Having had a ride in a repro Carden-Lloyd Mk IV (The Universal Carrier calls it daddy), its definitely a bone shaker (seat is effectively a cushion bolted to the floor, next to the engine!). Make sure your fillings are secure before climbing in.
Having been almost run over by a Universal Carrier, I can attest, they are surprisingly fast and quiet but yep, say goodbye to your spine.
First off, it's not generally pronounced "One hundred thirteen", it's pronounced 1-1-3. I had 4 or 2 113s in my platoons or sections. It's a good armor vehicle. With the new additions of AP rounds, it's an outdated system. But a GOOD system. They are easy to convert, easy to drive, easy to work on, easy to do PMCS on, and to me quick on its tracks. As for the ride, I'll put it this way. My company was enroute to our bivouac site after check-in. It was late by the time we got our gear stowed and rigs checked out. I think it was a 25 mi road March to our site. My 113 was smooth enough to rock me sleep several times. Good vehicles. But very glad we Combat Engineers are using Bradley's now
As a guy who has spent time with light infantry and have done a bit of force on force with tanks/afvs i totally agree that from the outside they all seem like deathtraps, unless you are in a very narrow set of envornments they are just too big of a target with too little informataion getting to the crew, i can see how a tanker could think that "ah my thermals/nightvision is so much better" or "im so much more protected" but as an infantry guy our reality is we have a whole platoon of guys looking, listening, smelling and generally being alert. I dont care how far your night vision can see its the funcion of being cut off from the world and people around you that gives me the heeby jeebies. Nobody is radioing the tank in the middle of the night to casually ask if you heard something, and when you are on the move you dont have 30 some odd eyes scaning every sector along with you. We just cant substitue that yet.
Ma thermals can see your patrol tromping thru the woods 200 m. before the scouts in an OP hear the sound of crunching leaves. Now a days, you are likely to be spotted by a drone no matter where you are and pretty soon there will be swarms of autonomous hunter killer drones/robots that will make flesh and blood infantry extinct.
It's called a one one three. I was a US armored officer in seventies. I spent a lot of time in 113's and thought they were versatile and useful.
My experience with this vehicle? You ride on top and when you come under fire you jump off and get away from that aluminium monster. There was a extra plate underneath that would disappear to a scrapyard, becouse some desperate private neaded cash. A lot of room inside to carry extra ammo, chow and water.
Drove the M113 1981 in the german army. We swam in a river called Lahn like a mississippi strammer.
Regards from Germany
When I was a combat engineer platoon leader it was quite difficult to keep up with Abrams and Bradleys in my 113s. Got my ass chewed so many times at Ft Riley trying to keep up. sorry for being so slow. :(
We stuck the turret and guns from the Scorpion on a versions called the FSV here in Australia. Interesting that your video showed the Australian AS4 variant. It is probably the most upgraded version in service still. Better armour, remote weapon station and better ride comfort. Though Russia have taken out a couple of AS4’s.
Yeah I think the swiss army knife/leatherman/multitool analogy for the M113 fits. A Multitool has a shit knife, a shit pair of tongs, a shitty saw, somewhat ok screwdriver etc. And generally you would rather use a real tool than rely on your Multitool.
But you have it in your pocket, and you can use it to stand in for anything you couldn't bring to get at least some work done.
I know M113 is rather liked as a medevac vehicle in Ukraine because you can make the interior work pretty well for that.
And it can be pushed into many roles though ofc to way lesser effiency than a specialized vehicle (we all know it is ancient).
That in itself bears value tho, especially if you don't have the budget to buy a set of shiny new purpose made tools.
Its sort of the "budget option" if you are a beggar and can't be a chooser but I think it still does very well as that.
"the armoured vehicle we have at home".
Will you cover the new AMPV that was selected to replace the M113? That would be interesting.
In the Army reserves had a 2 week excercise where I operated out of one for a week. We would role around and complete 6 or more section attacks per day. Basically between section attacks go to sleep as it is hot and uncomfortable inside and as soon as you feel the vehicle halt wake up and wait for the back door to lower. Jump out and then orientate yourself the the enemy. Fight through then reorg on the objective back on the buckets (M113) and repeat. Being light infantry used to walking infinitely better than walking with a pack on. Also hanging out with them the crews had kettles that could make heaps of hot water which made the morning routine much easier (shit shave, shit wash and coffee)
Yep I remember one morning the M113 crew coming around the position with pots of boiling hot water for shaving and PANCAKES. I wanted to work with them more so I could have pancakes every morning ha ha.
My first ride in an M-113 was at Tempelhof airport during an open house by the US military during the Cold War. A few years later I actually took the light track course (M-113 family of vehicles) with the Canadian military. I thought it was a bit unfair that Canada had these, while our West German allies had the superior Marder. Still, as a straightforward “battlefield taxi” to get you near the front lines, it is a much better option than an unarmoured truck. Same for ambulances, which aren’t supposed to be targeted, but somehow still are.
Based on my past experience 50+ years ago : "IF" you are using the M113 as a front line assault vehicles in todays combat/conflicts , You'd Better Choose Your Battles Wisely !
It’s a motorized, slightly armoured Paul Bunion (small shipping container) designed for C130 transport……it’s a Swiss Army knife of combat support roles in the B esh and thats why it has never been replaced…..also you can teach anyone that can drive, to drive one in a matter of hours and it’s one of the first (but not the best) designed for battlefield component replacement….level ground, decent crane >8 hrs to replace entire power train. The old “APC” ain’t sexy, but it’s pretty handy at filling the roles nobody thought of or didn’t want to do…..that’s it’s super power….B echelon tracked Swiss Army knife.
The advantage of the MT-LB compared to the M113 is also that it can fit many more people, as they often ride in and on the vehicle, 20-25 versus 11, because it will be harder to sit on the M113 and it also has a smaller area. If those MTLBs don't have infantry on them, you often see canisters, crates, stretchers on the roof, not so simple either.
Yeah, it's much better at this kind of role, since it was designed as artillery tractor first, APC second.
Riding on the roof of vehicles has proven to be pretty deadly to the dismounts in Ukraine lmao. Both Ukrainian and Russian roof riders have been minced by numerous mines, drones, etc etc. The Russians had the same issue in Chechnya and Afghanistan but they keep doing it regardless. And yeah the same for the M113. You strap various things to the top and sides of the vehicle. It has tie-downs for this purpose lol, thats not something unique to the MT-Lb lmao.
@@hoy455 Are you 10 years old, that you use so much childish words?
Aside from the low ceiling, the MTLB is also reasonably comfortable. Not quite to the point where you're all that likely to fall asleep in the back, but much better than you'd expect. I really wouldn't want to ride on the roof, though.
@@hoy455 Its mainly a thing with BTRs because they have a godawful passenger compartment. Its in the middle, so the only way to get out is from the side as rear is blocked by engine and front is by the turret. But the side is also blocked by the giant wheels. So there is a tiny af hatch sandwiched between wheel #2 and wheel #3 that a dozen dudes fully kitted out have to try and contort themselves out of while being shot at. The BTR also have barely enough armor to stop even small arms. So staying inside isn't an option. You are better off sitting on top than inside because it literally is a death trap.
It’s main benefit is protection from small arms and shrapnel from artillery. Why people think it can do more is beyond me.
"armored protection is... rather bad"
If you act like it can't take a hit, you'll probably survive, unless you get ambushed by proper armored vehicles.
As far as current-day usage, IMO it's best thought of as a "tracked HMMVW, with that HMMVW not having the up-armor kit".
The armor of the default M113A1 is only rated to withstand direct hits from 7.62mm ammunition and splinters from artillery shells, so like I said, "pretend it doesn't have armor and you'll probably survive".
If you're wondering what happened to the original M113, the A1 of M113A1 denotes the diesel version, which is the one with the highest production numbers. The M113 before it was gasoline fueled and phased out of service quickly after the debut of the M113A1.
Of course, there ARE add-on armor kits for the M113A1, however these universally add weight and still only provide protection against moderate-caliber autocannon fire. The slat armor kit is also of limited effectiveness, being only useful against shaped-charge warheads approaching from the side and not the top.
I was a 63H from 87 to 91. Those Detroit Diesel engines are a beast and they are pretty easy to maintain. I think that is a take away that a lot of people miss about the platform. It is easy and inexpensive to keep a fleet of them running. The army loves that engine so much that they put a double turbo charged version in the Bradley.
I drove one for about two years and the guy that trained me just flat out said "this isn't a vehicle you take into a fight. This is a vehicle that takes you close to the fight" It's meant to do tasks in the rear where dangers like artillery and bombs are the main threat. It won't take a direct hit but it stops shrapnel pretty effectively. Since I was a brigade level grease monkey, I got to work on all sorts of variants, An AA version with two Vulcan rotary cannons mounted on the top, a CnC version for artillery command, loads of ammo carriers that followed M109s around, the list goes on. The only version I knew of that ever went even close to the front was the combat engineers. They would fire Bangalore torpedos out of the back to clear obstacles and mines for armored units. They liked the 113 because it can get in and out of that situation quickly.
@@Ilex1
I'm sure that you mean MCLC or Mine Clearing Line Charge instead of Bangalore Torpedo, right?
The Bangalore Torpedo doesn't need to be fired, it's literally just a fence post with a strip of high explosive putty or a few rows of detcord down one side of it, intended to be used to cut thru barbed wire or other similar light fortifications in a similar use case to a breaching charge against a door.
MCLC on the other hand is designed to clear a path for vehicles thru a mine field, and sometimes to "render safe" particularly nasty IED's (the most expedient method of clearing an IED being to blow it up, of course).
There's a version of the Stryker that can use the MCLC as well, the US currently fields it.
Sure is quicker than a mine flail or other methods of prematurely setting off mines in a manner to clear a path thru a mine field, but because it uses high explosives and is generally one of the loudest things on the battlefield even compared to artillery guns (the MCLC is louder (at one instant) than a battery of M777's being fired off), it's generally only used when troops are advancing and don't have time for the minesweepers to do their job the "normal, careful" way.
EDIT:
Additionally, due to the bulky and volatile nature of the MCLC, in US armed forces use it is usually carried on a trailer towed behind the vehicle that is intended to use it, with that vehicle being picked because it is rated to withstand nearby blasts. So while the US using the Striker with the MCLC is probably a better overall experience for the troops inside it, the M113 is still "suitable for purpose" in this role.
@@44R0Ndin That's some interesting information. I never really knew much about the weapons on most of the vehicles I repaired. I just called them Bangalore torpedos because the CE's that showed up with the track referred to the system as that. I guess they didn't get too deep in the weeds on the explanation to a mechanic. Frankly, until I fixed their track, I didn't now a thing about that system or that it even existed. It looked cool as shit though.
I spent a time on tank and artillery ranges watching them fire but other than watching the AA version do target practice at The NTC I never saw anything other than small arms being fired. It would have been cool to see the MCLC do its job. I got closer to combat than most mechanics because I was on a contact team and I did recovery but the truth is I was a certified REMF.
"pretend it doesn't have armor and you'll probably survive"
Yep. In Iraq they were banned from going on patrols because they were so vulnerable to IEDs and EFPs. They were kept on the FOB and used as the "QRF" but mostly they just sat in the motorpool because no one wanted to take them out.
It was an infantry taxi by design! Quick drop off the troops and retreat for later pick-up.
Many variants of the platform offered differing/improved comfort levels. Lived in/out of one for weeks on end in all weather,
would have liked AC on some ops, but the heaters were ok, when we could tactically use them.
They were absolutely ubiquitous in NATO exercises, outnumbering exponentially anything else!
They have also been (or can be) extensively and easily modified and upgraded by most users, so they remain relevant to this day.
The “Flensburger Fahrzeugbau ffg” offers a complete update for the vehicle with new engine and different arms.
My least favorite quality on the M113 is its silhouette. It literally challenges RPGs to miss.
As a young Marine I stood with the guard on a sensitive Naval Weapons Station and we had several QRF vehicles, each fulfilled a specialized tactical purpose. The sweetest ride was the 14 ton Dragoon 300. The worst steel pig was this, the M113. While the Dragoon could fly (up to 75mph) and arrive first with the turret putting accurate .50 cal fire on target, with some of the lighter vehicles taking their positions with their weapons (one w/mK14 40mm auto grenade, one w/TOW missile) the last to arrive would be the M113. And woe to the Marines inside who came along for the ride. If the driver pushed it, it ripped and roared at withering speeds up to 35mph with full load. And when the door opened...well, of course we were trained to quickly and effectively exit the vehicle and assume the hasty defensive position BUT I'd be lying if I didn't say that you were dying to get out of that monster and hope you didn't leave any pieces of your flesh on any of the many hard pokey parts. Once a Marine earned a little time there they would be sure to get their name on the crew/team of any QRF vehicle except the M113. I respect it for the mission it fulfilled, transporting the assault element of the QRF which was up to an entire squad=13 or 1 squad leader, 3 fire teams of 4, including 4 automatic rifleman and all their ammo! That's a lot of grown ass men, in armor, with weapons to deliver in (as much of) an expedient manner (as you'd want to bear). But I detested it for the shake n bake it gave you as a passenger, which only increased exponentially the faster the vehicle traveled.
*Remember as a Fleet Marine, one rode in some notorious armored personnel vehicles, from Humvees to AAVs. M113s are not familiar vehicle to a Marine Infantryman. But small detachments will have whatever vehicles suit their needs, or whatever vehicles they can get.
After our machine gun jeeps were retired, my scout unit used the 113 for a long time. Eventually we went to an Humvee MTOE.
The 113 was far superior to the wheeled vehicles in every way except speed on a paved road. The 113 is one of the most capable off road vehicles ever built, if you can't get there in "the track" then you likely need a helicopter.
As far as some of the complaints in this video, that's totally not my experience. And I spent years either driving, riding in, or commanding one.
I loved my M113A1 and we swam it across the Main River in Germany, even at night. It had so much flotation that once I felt the front end bob up in a deep mud hole. Awesome simple maintainable lovable things. If an artillery round lands close, would you rather be in an F150 or one of these? Supply delivery, dash-in dash-out ambulance, glad it's getting a long life.
We had these in the 1/6 Inf. Our Medical Platoon had five, four 113s and a 577 for the Bn Aid Station. I recall when one 113 from one of the line companies, skidded in a turn and flipped on it's top. The T/C was somehow stuck out of his hatch, vehicle upside down. He would have been pancaked if there had not been a ditch. I crawled in the ditch, pulled him most of the way out, put a backboard on him and got him out, somehow. I really don't recall much of that because of the adrenaline running. Typical wet German Spring.
The quality, benefits, drawbacks and worth of the vehicle (or other equpment) must always take into account how it is used or suppused to.
I drove the M113 and its backwoods camper version, the M577.
The comments about the ride comfort are a bit exaggerated.
This is one of Military History's most cursory videos, with a few inaccuracies. I get the impression he made it purely to meet a RUclips Creator engagement quota.
Not knowing the 113's front hatch opens to the engine compartment should be automatic disqualification from talking about this simple vehicle.
You guys need to get mic'd up, I couldn't understand the interview segment.
Drove one for four years in the Army.
I just got close to one last week i was so surprised how short it was compared to me (im over 1.8m) i would be dying cramped if i was riding in them.
Long time operator of these boxes here, yes they're exceptionally uncomfy and protective headgear is a pre unless you want to end up unconscious 😂
But that engine purrrrrr hmmmmmm❤
what is the modern replacement of the m113 ??
My dad had an old dumptruck with a V6-53 in it, just like the M113. That 2 cycle (most engines are 4 cycle) diesel engine would scream. It would cause hearing loss driving it without ear plugs. Those engines will last a long time and have a lot of power. I used to illegally drive my dad's dumptruck and we used to extremely overload it too.
I think what matters is the O-Ring on top so potentially excellent anti drone and shoot and scoot "battle taxi" also a very robust 2 stroke Detroit diesel. Over 100,000 manufactured very austere and performed very well in Vietnam so long as limited engagements were the norm which for the most part was true. Very versatile and the epitome of shoot move communicate and improvise adapt overcome so all about true infantry support putting ground assault soldier as primary instead of the heavy metal.
The M113 is the world's most popular battle taxi. It's there to get you to the front line like a truck. It drops you off. You go fight. It picks you back up after.
Use it correctly, and you'll love the ole girl. Use it incorrectly, and you're going to have a bad day. 🤠
In my day we always called the M one one threes. Never one hundred thirteen...
Its from the way how you call it in german
Yes spoken like one would on the radio.
To sum it up, it's not an apc you want, but an apc you need
The only amphibious versions are the original M113-most or all of these donated to the ARVN-which has a petrol engine; and the M113A1 which has a 6V53 Detroit Diesel engine. The M113A2 has the 6V53 engine and two external fuel tanks protruding rearward on each side of the ramp door, instead of one fuel tank at the left rear of the passenger compartment. The M113A2 is heavier and non-amphibious. Subsequent production/updated vehicles all have the external fuel tanks and are non-amphibious.
As a former driver of both A2 and A3 versions...I find your claims to be false. I have personally done river crossings in both versions and they float just fine.
@@yolandria Okay, bad info. I retract my assertion in regard to amphibious capabilities. Obviously A4 onwards. Having said that, if someone forgets the bung, they sink quite nicely🙂.
I quess it's an acceptable alternative to MT-LB, but damn does it have a high siloutette for what it actually is, and does not have roof space to carry various equipment/bolt on various kinds of ordinance. But I'd imagine it must be less crammed than MT-LB, being that tall.
in vietnam us soldiers rode on top. it is said because the 113 could not stop even the smallest mine
The Ford Motor Corporation made 80,000 of these and in 2000 BAE upgraded 1,000 for Iraq and other countries.
The US has a substantial amount we can lend lease 1,000 to Ukraine.
A M113 in good working order cost about $100,000
mrap is a great aim for helicopters, and AI cameras which monitor fields and opponent positions
It is Transportation with light armor protection from small arms fire and 7.62mm machine guns.
Funny how they say the armor is out of date today. It was out of date back in Vietnam. Guys would place sandbags on top and ride on top to avoid the possible RPG attacks.
A nearly seventy-year-old tracked metal box is not a wünderwaffe. Who would have thunk...
"You can't ride on the roof!!"
You think that maybe the designers of an Armoured Personnel Carrier might be assuming the personnel would be inside the armour?
Was common for US troops in vietnam to ride on the roof for safety from minefields.
You have to understand, the 113 very lightly armored.
@@danielboatright8887 cheers dits, my first job was working on 432s which are even more lightly armoured than 113s, so no, I don't need to "understand" anything.
These days the M113 is the modern equivalent of the universal carrier.
its called a one, one three get with the program. it is a comfy ride like a roller coaster. would you rather walk? Also Beggers can't be choosey. Yes i spent some time in them. Very reliable. i cant remember having maintenance issues..
He's Austrian. We're lucky he's not going; "Einhundertunddreizehn!"
"Like a roller-coaster" Yeah, that's my experience exactly.
As a logistics connector it does well. As a fighting vehicle it struggles. But if you have bad weather and rough terrain and contested airspace you will appreciate the supplies, reinforcements, and casualty evacuation capabilities of M113. Press it into front line contact and you are rolling the dice.
Ukraine can make good use of these under their current war conditions. Seasonal mud and snow, dangerous airspace, and large scale logistics needs.
Hmm, it's not the most comfortable ride, but a 2nd class ride is always better than a 1st class walk.
It's the cornering that's the rough bit - straight line, even over rough ground, it tends to glide over obstacles in my experience.
i still prefer my Canadian Kangaroo APC. Those were classics i'll tell ya
Had two times in an M113 neither combat FYI. First: I was trash in the back as Range Patrol in the winter time patching tank targets. Black and grey targets, Hole in grey use grey duct tape, ect, half and half get artsy! Not allowed to walk on the ground due to 80 years of unexploded crap in the ground, but we did. Frost 4 feet thick, it's solid and frozen. Best score from that job...50 Cal bullet that was shot and just laying there on the snow. Mint with rifling! Second: was Driving M113 Ambulance. Big red cross, most days those stretchers made the best 'Nap time beds"! Also hooked up with a Dentist truck in the Unit and got my teeth cleaned a filling replaced! They were just as bored. Canadian Military, be a Tanker, drive everything with 4,6,8 wheels or tracks but not Tanks. Get farmed out instead to other units in the 80's-90's. Zero complaints. I had a good time
Weird how a company that canned meats designed such a good can for holding meats
Maybe Australia's refurbished M113s are unique enough to deserve a video?
* We took 2x M113s, cut them in half & made 1x long wheel base 'new' M113.
* These are almost a separate M113 species they are so modified throughout.
Currently serving alongside our Bushmaster in Ukraine. Cheers from Canberra.
M113s were not intended to be IFVs and even the ones with turrets were not meant to go directly into combat. Their armor was thin and made of aluminum so they could float.
That meant that the armor was intended to protect the crew and passengers from shell fragments and debris thrown up by explosions. It was not designed to stand up to even a light AT weapon. The first time I ever saw an M113 was in basic combat training. There was one parked in a training area. It had been used as a target for a M72 LAW to show what happened to the crew in a lightly armored vehicle that had been hit by one, and the dummy crew were riddled by the molten fragments of the HEAT jet.
The job of an M113 was to deliver troops to an area where they could dismount and walk to the battlefield. If it ever got shot at directly, then the crew had messed up badly. Even the versions of it that carried AT systems were meant to hide in defilade and not be seen.
That didn't mean they didn't get ambushed, though. Viet Cong guerillas used to do that, and because of the risk you see a lot of photos of US troops riding on the top of M113s instead of inside. That was because they knew all too well that the RPGs used by Charlie Cong would blow right through the vehicle and kill everyone in the passenger compartment.
The one you were standing next to was not the command vehicle. Those were much taller because they had an armored boxlike extension on the back so that people could stand up in it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M577_Command_Post_Carrier
What I don't get is why dont they pop a few cameras on these vehicle and give a VR google to the driver. You could do the whole thing for the cost of single modern guided artillery shell. And the driver would suddenly have a complete 360 vision out of the vehicle while keeping all the existing visibility.
Back in the day, we just called it a "one thirteen."
I wonder how the M 113 compares to its British counterpart, the FV 432 ?
Imagine what they could do with the Aero-Gavin
Also called the Deathtrap
Its a wartaxi, and shouldnt be compared to a tank, but rather compare it to something like the hummer.
It can protect the crew from fragments and direct fire from 762s, while providing a solid platform where to you can strap a 50cal HMG or other.
It is NOT an IFV. and thats where things fall apart. - it was made for one purpose and is being held up as if it should fullfill other roles.(plz dont get me wrong here, I know of the different variants. What I mean is, its not a frontline combatvehicle)
It was great in its time. But as many other things, its now obsolete. Its rather noisy, and the high profile makes it an easy target.
It shouldnt be used as a frontline combat vehicle, but rather as backup in the 2nd line, perhaps back in 3rd
Its very mobile, and we pulled em out for some civic service when the snow was too deep.
These puppies can go just about anywere, even go through meters of snow..
#Curious -> What would be the Feasibility to use these as Mobile Bunkers in dug outs....
-> The Dirt & Berm would protect it... YET you would have use of Gadgets & Power as well as a Weapons system....
If the Armor is dated ... But the engine & systems are good...
regardless of vehicle. The previous battlefield taxi concept where everyone dismounts and assembles and then moves into ambush or to infiltrate in the attack. Check out the way in which this is done under drone surveillance in Ukraine. With the Russians waiting until everyone has turned up and spread into the village and then the Russian artillery ambush destroys every house on the first salvo.