M-113 American Troop Transport is Worse Than You Think
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 сен 2022
- The M113 has been around for 60 years and its starting to show its age. It's America's go to for sending foreign vehicles aid overseas. Can it be modified to work in the future or is far worse than we think? The US Army and ground forces have used it since the Cold War. An entire infantry squad can fit in this armored personnel carrier.
Written and Produced by: Chris Cappy and Andrew Tucker
Edited by: Michael M
Some version have been turned into an infantry fighting vehicle. Soldiers use this for offensive and defense roles even when its best suited for defense. It has seen combat across the globe in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.
Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.
#ARMOR #VEHICLE #MILITARY
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
Thanks for watching I really appreciate it greatly! The M113 is an icnoic influencial piece of history and it's still being modified to work many years from now. Hopefully the new version will breath life into this ancient vehicle.
unironically hooah photos: instagram.com/cappyarmy/
uniornically hooah tweets twitter.com/Cappyarmy
first
Deployed with the man. Definitely taught worse than I think they are, especially coming from Stryker.
A cargo van would make a better APC.
At least Russia has even worse APCs than the US. At least! ⚡
Ex M113A3 TC here, I loved my old girl.
M113's can be uparmored with applique armor as easy as anything else. A lot of NATO and other countries have up armored the hell out of them. A few countries have even put Bradley turrets on them.
Ukraine's Armed Forces serviceman here. To be honest, you're right about low firepower and, especially, weak armour, but M113 are used as a supply transport, not as main force on battlefield. We are in desperate need of such transport, cause at the moment we are using a huge amount of civil cars for supplying forces on the frontline, for soldiers transportation and evacuation.
These M113 boxes really useful for us and it is better to have them, than not to have
Best of luck to you...
May your God bless and watch over you. Plus extra fire-power would be a great Blessing!!!
@@raj_kumar0 thank you !
@@red5llaw thank you !
Keep it up man 🤘Слава Украине!
I have fond memories of the M113 as an ambulance. During a winter training exercise in 1984, 2 guys and I ended up in a NATO wire trap in a Bundeswehr (German Army) training ground in the middle of winter. Once our comrades had cut us out using wire cutters - we were all heavily hypothermic. An M113 ambulance showed up in the middle of a forest on Munster training ground and took us to a hospital. I barely remember getting there, but without the M113, I might be dead. Being a military ambulance might still be a bright future for the M113, given its box shape.
They'd have to remove the weapons so it's not targeted then
maybe stateside, the AMP is basically replacing the m113 an it has an ambulance version and a version to perform surgery.
@@sangbeom6245 you are sadly mistaken if you think medics and ambulances are not targeted.
@@sangbeom6245 medics and ambulances are priority targets lol 😂 they get hit all the time.
@@indiasuperclean6969 bro I can defeat your Indian army with a cow 🐮
The M113 was never intended to go head to head in a firefight. They were intended to get the troops near a combat zone, and then retreat to get more troops, supplies or return wounded troops to the rear.
I wonder if we had a fight with the russkies in the 1980s, NATO vs Warsaw Pact. What if a US M113 battalion fought a regiment of BMP-equipped Soviet force? The M113's would have been defeated very quickly - the BMP's cannon in its protected turret was far superior as a front line vehicle.
@@decimated550 You are comparing two different things. It is necessary to BTR 70/80 and M113
@@decimated550 Not really a fair comparison (APC vs IFV) but we see what would have happened in Ukraine right now: the infantry disembarks and takes out the BMPs easily with anti-tank rockets. The BMP-1 has about the same armor protection as an M113 so its an easy target. And what Russian armored formations gain in firepower they lack in embarked infantry.
Exactly, its a Troop Transporter. Its not meant to be in the front line. These so called RUclips Military experts have no idea.
@@decimated550 BMP-1s were not that well armored either, the 73mm gun was un-stablized and not really a gun (it was a big launch tube for a rocket quite similar to what comes out of an RPG-7), and while the coaxial 7.62mm was useful, the bow mounted ones were pretty dumb. The launch rail for a single AT-3 Sagger missile could defeat many MBTs of the time but like the 73mm "gun", the BMP had to be stationary to fire the missile, it had to be in daylight (TOW's work at night), its range was less than that of a TOW, and it had to be manually reloaded by standing up in the hatch and exposing yourself to the enemy from all sides (not an ideal situation). Anyway the armor protection was basically enough to stop a 20mm cannon fire from the front turret but only about a 7.62mm or smaller artillery fragments on the sides and rears. The other thing to consider about an american mechanized infantry battalion in the 1980s was all the specialist M113 variants that would have been attached also. There'd be mortar carriers, TOW anti-tank carriers, a forward observation vehicle for coordinating fire from the regimental and divisional level artillery, ambulance tracks, HQ tracks and so on. The american doctrine emphasized combined arms tactics a lot more than other countries did. There would also be a tank company assigned to the battalion and I hate to break it to you but M1s would have killed BMP-1s without difficulty. Also this depends on WHEN in the 1980s... M2s and M3s began to enter service in 1981, and the M1 tanks in 1980. As history would show during the 1990/91 gulf war...the Bradley's 25mm gun were easily capable of dispatching BMP-1s even from the front, the TOW missiles could handle the T-72s (and everything before them), and the 105mm gun of the original M1 could do that also but the M1A1 with the 120mm began to enter service in 1986.
I was an infantryman for the Canadian army, I was in Germany 73 to 75. I spent many, many hours in the M113. If you looked at it as a bus it was great, you could carry tons of equipment and water. With the back door it was a pain to get in and out of but the ramp was great, we would put two Jerry cans underneath the ramp to make a huge table when in static positions. The large top cargo door was great for looking outside when in the back and when in hot conditions. Under very cold conditions it worked well but at -40 we would need to have a camping stove underneath to start the engine and heating system was very good. The one thing I hated about it was travelling long distances but as infantry you learn to sleep anywhere so while sitting there was nylon hand straps attached to the ceiling, we would crois our arms slip our hands in put our heads there and sleep while on the move. I always thought putting the fuel rank inside the cargo area was very, very stupid. I always thought if someone fired .50 cal. It would go through the fuel tank and turn it into hell in the back, the only two that would maybe not burn to death would be the driver and crew commander because they had there own hatch.
Compare them however to what your "enemies" had at the time. OT-64 SKOT, designed as infantry fighting vehicle, usualy carrying anti-tank weapons, while amphibious and mobile. They were even equiped with IR optics, air filtration system and compressors to keep wheels inflated despite getting shot through. Able to move 90km/h on roads. The passengers could shoot from inside, using small holes, or open roof hatches, which doubled as armor. Backdoor was double, so two soldiers could exit the vehicle at once. Plus it was much lower, so enemy fire was more likely to miss. There was a turret, with machinegun or cannon.
To this day UN uses a few of these as medivac vehicle.
@@Pyrochemik007 better then nothing
@@nicgur_6981 Even better than riding a Humvee.
@@Pyrochemik007 and yet when these AMAZING ( not) comblok vehicles face the same opposition as m113s they end up burning wrecks too..
funny that..
@@ripvanwinkle2002 test it out in warthunder and let me know.
It’s perfectly adequate when used correctly. It’s a battlefield taxi. Now there are a lot of useful variants: command and control, ambulance and mobile mortar system are the best uses. It needs to have smoke grenade launchers to give it a bit of defense.
agreed great taxi useful for many roles and even modified to work as an IFV sometimes
@@Taskandpurpose If it was able to utilize CROWS for a .50 or 40mm that would be as upgunned as it should be. Anything more and commanders start using it in manners it was not intended. Giving it some stand-off capabilities would be adequate.
These things do 42 mph. You need something that is less heavy and much faster in 2022.
They also used them as TOW launchers, command control vehicles, and for carrying FACs and/or Forward Observers. In Ukarine they'd probably be handy as taxis for their ATGM teams. Use them to get the teams close to their AO then drop them off. Once they're done, come back to pick them up and drive them home or to their next AO with fresh ATGMs in the back for them.
But can!? It!? Fly!?
The M113 was never intended as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle like the Bradley. It was designed, primarily, to get mounted infantry close to the fight and then serve in an over watch role using it's M2 or M60 machine gun. Also, as battles are typically fought using combined infantry and armor, it permitted the infantry to keep up with tanks. In any case, it provides more protection against enemy fire than an Army uniform.
The first IFV was the Soviet BMP. The M-113 pre-dates even the concept of an IFV. lol
That's kinda the point though. If you strictly want to ferry troops, commit to fast and super light. If you want any kind of support, commit with an uparmored, cannoned vehicle. The idea of "oopedy woopedy here we go to bring guys up and cruise on back :'^)" is a century outdated. The M113 serves zero frontline purpose. And even as a taxi behind lines, there are a thousand better options.
But big enough to warrant being shot at by every RPG, tank, and now, drone that can see it, but I remember them being pretty rugged for what they were. I'll give them that.
In my (armchair) opinion, there is no use in equipping something with an MG but not enough armor to stop 50cal rounds, or vice versa.
If you have protection against 50cal fire, you'll want to use that vehicle at least as mobile cover (or as a protected observation post). And in that case there's no reason to not put a gun on top.
If your vehicle has am MG mounted, then put yourself into the shoes of the enemy that is getting molested/suppressed by one that's sitting on a hilltop: what would they use against it? If they have some, their weapons of choice would be (at least) machine guns, sniper rifles and DMRs - even against a Humvee or Toyota Hilux. If your vehicle can't stop that, it's as useful as a technical in that role. I don't get why they thought it was suitable for overwatch.
This basically makes the M113: for uses behind the front lines a battle taxi with a useless MG; and in combat a technical with unnecessary amounts of armor.
@@Pystro I think they are going to mount anti-drone weapons on them and keep them behind enemy lines as a safety net. I wonder if there is anti-air weapons that is mountable on these APCs as well.
I once commanded a company of Mech Infantry in Korea. We had trouble getting parts because of the Nam War. Our unit SOP called for the 113's to get us to the fight and provide .50 cal cover from behind the dismounted troops. They did us a good job. The DMZ in Korea was not a priority in 1966-69 and we got plenty of 100,000 troops provided by the US govt. McNamara's bottom of the tub kids who had no business being sent to a serious situation we had in Korea. The 113 is a good ride if used correctly. It is not a hardened tank. Bruce M. Frazer C 1-17 Mech Inf. ,7th ID.
There is a YT video on McNamara's Morons.
How old are you
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle
I was mechanized infantry in W. Germany in the early 80s and this was our machine. We trained to go fight in the Fulda gap with the M113. We never trained to fight from it. All our training had us off loading before contact or immediately upon contact. The M113 would provide overwatch with the 50 while we maneuvered. Also while in the track we had at least one of our M60 up top helping to spot opfor and another watching for air attacks. Our first response would be with the machine guns while the squad ran out the ramp and got into position while laying down fire.
Also it is not slow at all and it can keep up with any other tracked machines like the Abrams which we had. And the ramp drops very fast and we could get out almost immediately upon contact. Trained constantly at that and never expected to use it in direct contact.
1/48 Inf. 3rd Armored div.
Spearhead and Blood and Guts!
I was stationed in Baumholder with the CSC 2/68th 8th ID(MECH) I was a driver and assistant gunner on a M106A1 Mortar carrier! Silver Lions!!
@@jontallman3878 The Rock.
Used them as well at the same time and place . 23rd eng bn 3rd armour div
@jontallman3878 we went to Baumholder for training a few times if I remember right. I definatly remember the dust at Grafenver.
We were stationed in Gelnhausen
C Co. 1/48 inf. 3d armored div.
Having worked with the M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier, I can tell you it was never designed for direct fire attacks. That being said it is an extremely effective vehicle when used correctly. It is called a battle taxi. It gets troops as close as possible then supports them with 50 cal machine gun fire. It's most outstanding feature though is it's versatility in support rolls. It is an ambulance, mortar vehicle, TOW missle carrier, artillery support vehicle, command post, Engineer support vehicle, maintenance support vehicle. Its uses are endless. Simple, rugged and dependable for so many functions. As long as you don't treat it like a tank it'll do the job!
Well stated.
Imo, if M113 are within 50 cal reach, it's already too close to the enemy.
@@trunglequoc542 The range of an M-2, 50 cal MG is 1800 meters and in an elevated position 7400 Meters. Using most terrain the M-113 can get within 200-300 yards of enemy positions and deliver heavy suppressive fire. Not all land is flat like the stepps of Ukraine and Russia. Even then "flat" terrain has an amazing number of wrinkles in it that let experienced troops get close enough to be effective.
@@muzikizfun : your understanding of Mech Infantry tactics is interesting. Your back ground??
@@johndillard8588 I served with the 1st Bn (M), 50th Infantry; 2nd Bn (M), 50th Infantry; 1st Bn (M), 10th Infantry; 2nd Bn, 72nd Armor; and 4th Bn, 66th Armor. Also served in straight leg Infantry units.
It’s not that bad, considering the niche, it is replacing. The soviet counterpart to the m113 is the mt-lb. If you look up the stats and compare them to the 113, you’ll find out that it’s role is still significant. Also, a lot of 113s are used behind the frontlines as medical/cargo transports
The MT-LB is more of a gun tractor, A better comparison would be the BTRs.
And the BTR has better armor/armament with a 14.5 or a 30mm autocannon.
The Ukrainians would be better off with LAV's instead of M113. These things should have been turned into scrap decades ago instead of us spending one dime to store them.
@@kevinchang6979 btrs don’t carry many troops and aren’t used as heavy cannon carriers as often as the mtlbs
MT-LB is really not Soviet counterpart to M113 (that would most likely be BTR-40, BTR-152 or BTR-50). MT-LB was originally intended (and was mostly used) as artillery tractor, for example those 100mm Rapira AT guns. Over time, it was pushed into different roles, including makeshift APC for artic units.
We've had here different ideas of upgrading МТ-ЛБ with more armor and firepower for different niches up to IFV. Nice to have those M113s with the upgrades already done.
At School of Armour in Australia, to use your M113 as a taxi, drop off infantry, and then retreat them to a totally safe position was called a 'Zulu Muster' and it was heavily frowned upon. At least use them for rear and flank protection, and you'd often see them in direct fire support role of an infantry advance. So even there, in the highest center of learning for them, they still pushed the idea of sending them into harms way.
No offence but my experience with schools (and what i've read of school-taught military doctrine) says that you should at least question the sanity of the teachers
@@angrydragonslayer Did you see the footage out last week from Ukraine where they were doing frontal assaults in humvees? If they're game enough to do that, I'm pretty sure anything I was taught is playing it safe by comparison.
@@angrydragonslayer Australian M113s were in actual use as frontline vehicles in Vietnam, and often quite effectively - they even put tank turrents on them!.
@@angrydragonslayer that's because boards don't hit back, and APCs in training don't get hit and that makes the mech infantry officers with armor inferiority complex feel that it is a light tank and run it around the training ground like it is. no one blows it up in real life and they get a false sense of security
I used to drive these in Ft. Irwin or Camp Roberts up near Paso Robles.
We were always aware of its limitations and we trained with them pretty much as you describe.
Transport troops for helicopter pick-up or follow behind M-60 tanks into battle before dropping the troops off so they could go cover the tanks.
I don't recall ever using one as a frontline vehicle though I'd see a few with big turntables with mortar tubes mounted, set to fire out of the roof! Those were kinda cool!
the Philippine m113 didn't get lucky, they actually added make shift cage armor made of wood specifically meant to counter shaped charges like the rpg and it worked surprisingly well on multiple occasions. You don't always need the most expensive badass vehicle to win, you just need to know what you are facing and adjust accordingly.
Our army DID get lucky. The terrorists were using outdated and weak anti-armor weapons that wood scraps were enough add-on armors. But the army is using it wrong, and I hope that they do not repeat it in the future. They must purchase dedicated IFVs and more armored APCs.
@@patrickd.3553 what are you talking about LMAO
@@allanman98 LMAO if you have any comprehension skills left on you, you will not ask that question.
Insurgencies isn't that interested to get more advance ATGMs since our army is using poorly armored vehicles.
Russians using rubberbabybuggybumpers for reactive armour.......
Chris, you're failing to understand what the Ukr army is using this vehicle for. It's a semiarmored truck. It's not being used as an APC...it's a supply truck
I understand if they're using it that way then that's awesome !
@@Taskandpurpose Yea, man. They're using M113 for taxiing troops and supplies, NOT as fighting vehicles
@@maximak-murza6334 They only started to go on the offensive recently. I would not be to surprised if they get tempted as well to use it in that role.
if it's their supply truck, what do they use as a demand truck?
@@ronrolfsen3977 if they use it in a fight, it's still better than nothing.
I did my thesis on the Vietnam war in college and have a history degree. I like how you use the Battle of Ap Bac As an example of the M113 strengths and weaknesses. As a fellow US Army combat veteran I say, keep up the great work on your content. 😃👍🏾🇺🇸
When used to take troops to the front line and then back off to use the stand-off range of Ma Deuce to support troops, especially with the current ballistic shielding for the gunner, it's a great machine. I drove the M-901 ITV variant for 3 years and it never let us down.
I loved the M113. I worked on rebuilding them at Red River Army Depot and also used them in the field. The reason they are still around is that they are so versatile and can be easily modified for many missions. Honestly the ultimate protection for any infantry fighting vehicle is the dismounted troops around it. They support each other mutually.
that was good. I will keep that in mind that fighting vehicles and infantry support each other.
@@djohanson99 well, that is how it was “s’posed” to work, but I have not noticed any infantry units that can keep up with an armor unit, that is “on the move” hunting enemy forces, unless the armor units get caught in, any entrenched enemy situations, … today’s armor units can, & have quite literally outran their own supply lines, in order to keep them on the move, … maybe, in a future situation, a mobile division of infantry could be arranged, if it comes down to stumbling/finding an enmasse concentration of troop movements, at whatever point in our troops way, in order to actually be able to concentrate a force large enough, to,dispel, any aggressors from attacking our forces, … and the terrains we send our troops into, should be trained in the psychological training of how our enemies have been fighting our troops, … And yes, indeed, … it may well, come down to hand to hand combat, so our people need to learn how to kill their enemies in seconds, instead of trying to outfox one another, …
How the aluminium bodywork can be modified for the different roles? It is quite difficoult to weld it on the field, isn't it?
@@laszlokocsis7817 It could posaibly have ERA blocks attached to it? Other tham that I dont know how the armor could be enhanced beyond that.
Aside from that, You could try to upgun the .50 cal to a 20mm autocannon to improve lethality? Otherwise like Chris is saying it could be used as a support vehicle for AA or towed artillery like the M777.
@@johnosman8971 Even yesterday's armor (WWII) outran its supply lines and infantry support. Multiple examples in North Africa, France, and Russia.
I was in the infantry in 1961 to 64. The M113 was better than a 2-1/2 or the 3/4 for moving around battlefield.
Always a use for a tracked truck.
FACT......!!!!!!
A lot of great information. Thanks.
I used to drive one of these before we switched over to Brads. I loved driving this thing, it was an agile and zippy vehicle compared to the lumbering Bradley, plus lots of room in the back.
It's cheap reliable and capable in transportation of infantry and supplies, it's definitely not a fighting vehicle but have it's role in mortar and TOW , I worked with it for 6 years and have mostly good experience with it.
You are right, the M113 makes a dandy carrier for a 120mm mortar, with the tube sticking out the top cargo hatch. Plenty of room for the crew and ammo.
It's a pretty good vehicle to operate drones out of it since you can fit it with decent electronics equipment and it can hide and run.
A Toyota would do the same job, if not better at getting out
Sooner or later your troop transporter will encounter the troop transporter of the enemy. And it is very unfortunate, when your enemy transports his troops in a something that has a bigger gun and better armor.
@@xijinpingpong4426 That's why there's a nifty concept called "mutual support." The M113 protects the troops, the troops protect the M113. Better yet, the M113 is travelling in the company of other vehicles that can protect it, allowing the infantry to dismount and maneuver to fight the enemy. As far as Russian IFVs and PCs are concerned, their armor can be penetrated by M433 grenades. One person with a MK19 can destroy a column of Russian vehicles in seconds. They're really not superior in any way.
It has a lot more protection than a HMMWV we used in ‘03’ in Iraq. It also gives the Ukrainians more than the Yota Tacomas they use to ferry troops around the battlefield.
Agreed - its not optimal, but if your choice is a hilux or a m113, which are you picking?
@@TheAngryRedGummyBear You can't put a rocket pod strapped off a Hind chopper on a M113. On a Hilux, you can. I know what I choose.
a mortar system seems the best suit. only a few guys on the inside, reduce unwanted causalities. carrys the heavy ammo. mobile out of direct fire, no temptation to push into a fight, maybe a taxi on the way out to get resupplied.
the HMMWV was never meant to be taken into combat, much like the m113. the m113 has an understated elegance to it. it is still usefull for the role it was intended for. making a updated version on the bradley chasis sounds like a good idea.
If I was in their situation, I'd probably prefer whatever deals better with "Rasputitsa" - i.e. the mudfest in fall...
Excellent stuff bro
I just got back from an NTC rotation where I commanded one of these vehicles with a MICLIC in tow. We were combined with Bradley's and used them to break the live fire record time when breaching a mine/wire obstacle. These vehicles are very dependable and a huge hassle for the enemy if you know how to use them.
Engineers lead the way!
During my term of duty, I worked on many of them. The only one I thought was utilized properly was the FIST-V, the forward observer laser designator. It would sit behind a hill and pop the hammerhead over the hill to shine the laser over the battlefield.
I'm guessing you never saw an M901 ITV. The turret on the FIST was developed from the turret of the ITV. In a defensive role, the ITV was pretty good if used hull down.
Yea that FIST-V is very cool, to be able to pop up over cover or a hill and shoot an ATGM
I wanna know who says "term of duty"?..
@@ryanrasmussen5346 The ITV was a TOW vehicle. The FIST was an artillery spotting vehicle. It had a laser in the turret, not missles.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 I did. They were a good system. I felt that the FIST-V was a better utilization, but that was just my impression from the rear.
The M113 is an armoured box on tracks. It is an incredibly useful vehicle. Are the better options? Of course there are, but most of the time the choice is not a M113 or a Bradley or one of the new vehicles that don't exist, the choice is use an M113 or a pick up truck or Hummvee,
It made perfect sense for the infantry to take them into action. The platoon commander is not going to dismount his troops then send 4 50 cal and 4 GPMGs with tens of thousands of rounds of ammo to go and hide when he has that much firepower at his disposal. Do they have great armour? No they don't but they have way more armour and firepower than a rifleman. Are you going to lose a bunch of them? Probably, but if you're using trucks instead, you're going to lose a lot of those.
War is dangerous, your men are going to get killed and stuff is going to get destroyed. This isn't a matter of a choice between M113s and a new vehicle that doesn't exist, this is a choice between an armoured vehicle and a truck.
problem with M113 is that it fills its role so perfectly that it's difficult to replace it. M113 is piece of garbage for modern age. It's armoured, but not enough. It's slow, it's bulky, it's target practice for enemy. But there is nothing as cheap as it is with the same level of protection. This is mainly because it was mass produced when shit wasn't so expensive.
So really what should be done is upgrade it. M1 abrams was shit. M1A2 isn't and M1A2 sepv3 is the strongest tank in the world.
That's what it is 😂
No wonder I nickname it the "caixotão", something like "huge ass box" in Portuguese.
@@Userext47 what upgrades do you suggest?
@@QuietFromMetalGearSolid Wider tracks, stronger engine, ERA and Slat armour, advanced electronic systems, optics&thermals, probably CROWS wouldn't hurt.
@@indiasuperclean6969 If you have toilets everywhere, why do people shit in the streets? Maybe you should toilet train them better.
I remember when my battalion received the Bradley fighting vehicle and we transitioned away from the M113, also with a TOW turret, and the double door for mortars.
Nice video...execellant description of its strengths and weaknesses.
When you’re a heavy weapons team, the M113 was a lifeline. That is why they were loved.
They were better than nothing, but not by much. Ride around in one and you realize within seconds that you're a rolling container of leaking hydraulic fluid and fuel just waiting for the first incendiary round to turn the whole thing into a big fireball with you at the center of it.
@@Vevay1961 With exception of my neighbor who lost his legs while riding on top of one, they were a heavy weapons team savior. He had the misfortune of being on top of one in Vietnam when it ran over a landline.
@@stephenreese5921 Useful for serving as a platform for an M2 or as an ITV for use with TOW2 missiles, but they were a horror to be inside when going any place you might encounter the enemy. Like riding around in a fuel tank, just waiting to explode with any incoming round above 7.62mm coming our way.
I've been both a driver and crew commander for one of these.
We use them like IFVs soley as training aids for when we get more capable vehicles. I certainly wouldn't wanna do it for real though.
One redeeming thing I'll say about the M113 though is that alot of the maintainence can be done by the vehicle operators, without the assistance of more specialist personel.
Beats walking
You go to war with what you've got. I was a troop commander in the Canadian Cougar vehicles ,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVGP
We were told they were training vehicles and if we ever went to war we'd get something else. We (the army, not me personally) ended up deploying them to Somalia and the former Yugoslavia.
@@minuteman4199 Talk 2022 please. These APCs are no match to Javelins and NLAWs. No point in going on a suicide mission. Pick something that's faster and more agile. Like a JLTV, or equivalent.
@@17nirmalya The option isn't anything they want. The option is this or a truck. Given that a T72 is no match for a javelin or NLAW, short of being in an Abrams/Leopard /Challenger, (and probably not even then) your screwed no matter what you're riding in if someone shoots an anti armour missile at you.
@@minuteman4199 I would pick a JLTV. It has a fair balance between speed, agility and armor protection.
I fought in VN with the 11ACR I ‘71. A .50 cal in a cupola and two M-60s in cargo hatch . It was a great weapon system for that war. I saw it gain in Korea in’88-89. It had been upgraded for that mission. Not as good,despite being upgraded. Still a good vehicle if used right.
armored transport with enhanced self defense capability. Self propelled heavy mortar. Armored ambulance.
Great Video!
In Australia, at considerable cost, we have modified about 400 of our M113s with new engines, an extra road wheel on each side and lengthened the vehicle overall. We still want our M113s (obviously) even though we are buying brand new MICVs and still have ASLAVs too. The M113 family is too versatile for us to let go.
Complete garbage. The M113s still persist in Australia because govts have neglected continual requests to replace them. Now, Land 400 phase 3 is shortly to be decided to replace them.
I know the Land 400 program is already underway, but if you guys could work a deal where ALL of the M113AS4s were donated to Ukraine (in exchange for something), that would really help. I think the AS4s were some of the most capable M113-based vehicles around.
FFG in Germany also specializes in modified and upgraded M113 based vehicles, but the Germans have not proven as reliable allies as we might have hoped.
@@GTLandser we are happy to donate what ever we have in our arsenal in Aus for our UA brothers!!! we have thousands of armoured vehicles that will probably never be used!
adding wheels tot he track vehicle is such an aussie move.
@@djocharablaikan8601 And a hotter engine
I remember as a recruit in the Canadian army I had an opportunity to ride in the m113 or a griffon helicopter. Since I had already been in the chopper I chose the m113. I was not prepared for how uncomfortable and cramped it is. Maybe the Ukrainians can use it as a get-away car for anti-tank teams waiting in ambush, since it is actually pretty small compared to other tracked vehicles
It's meant for troop and supply transport and as a field ambulance. There are tons of videos of these vehicles in Ukraine with a big red cross on them.
@@indiasuperclean6969 Sanest indian patriot.
@@indiasuperclean6969 that's a joke right?
@@arakami8547 he's taking drugs from Russia the putinkaine make people feels like Putin indestructible ontochable so this guy is lost in lalandia 😥
@@davidkruse3424 Bot. Report him...
Loved this I'm a Supply Specialist enlisted sever 17rys and equipment always looks good on paper but at real combat situations that where it counts! I had several soldiers complaining about equipment I made sure the had the manufacturers contacts so they can voice possible improvements.
If memory serves me correctly, one , if not the main purpose of the M113 was to allow the infantry to keep up with the armored units in your mechanized infantry and armored divisions. The armor on the the M113 was thin, however it provided better protection for the troops then the old 2 1/2 ton trucks often used to transport the infantry. It also was to designed to provide better cross country mobility. Later on it provided better protection, comfort and mobility over riding in the backend of the dump truck for Combat Engineers who were stationed in Germany. Now include the M577, and you have true mobile command and control capabilities. For your mechanized infantry it allowed them to keep up with their M60 tanks especially in Cold War Germany.
In Australia we put the turrets from Saladin and Scorpion armored cars on them at one point. We also sent M113's to Ukraine but the much upgraded AS4 model which has a new power plant, new armor and is extended with an additional road wheel. It also has an electrically controlled unmanned turret with an M2 Browning in it. They're being replaced in our inventory by either a new version of the Puma IFV or the Redback IFV and some reconnaissance vehicles.
Bad news, Pumas have big issues in german military.
@@Pyrochemik007 It is an updated one. They government is talking about scrapping it now as using the money elsewhere. I think the AS21 Redback from Hanwa was probably beating the new version of the Rheinemetal Puma. It was a new version that isn't currently in use anywhere that they were offering.
If used properly, it can serve perfectly well - you just can't go charging in the open with it. I was in the Scout Platoon of a Mechanized Infantry battalion, and we had 3 M113s and 3 M901 ITVs (dual TOW antitank missile launcher system on a M113 chassis). I was both a driver, and TC on these systems. "The temptation to use them as assault vehicles or support for tanks in assault roles is strong..." Oh, hell no. I never thought of using our M113/variants in this manner - ever - no matter how much our fresh LT wanted to do otherwise (one time our LT ordered the Scout platoon to execute a frontal assault on a prepared position in training. We nearly had a mutiny, and the PSG was able to talk him down). They would rotate new LTs through the Scout Platoon - as well as ROTC cadets - to get them a thorough grounding in reconnaissance, which I'm sure they would go off and forget all about when they found their place as an Infantry platoon or company commander. The issue with misuse falls squarely on the officer corps imho. 😉
Tip Of The Spear.
This IS BULLSHIT
Squad knows.
You have no choice if that obsolete APC was your only asset, and if you have an armed forces with no procurement to acquire a modern, fast and highly mobile, and with high tech weaponry & well protected armor armored personnel carrier or infantry armored fighting vehicles. The solution for the ill equipt military was to purchase a modern APC such as the 6x6 wheel Guaranie or Pandur 2 fighting armored 8x8 wheel vehicles or other similar to that APCs.
@@artvictor5044 It then becomes a quick way to turn the squad inside into mincemeat. There are better ways to assault a position and the M113 is not an IFV, but an APC.
The only reason they might be happier running the M113 is better performance come winter/spring than 6x6 or 8x8
Assault vehicles don't work and haven't worked since the Bazooka and similar weapons gave infantry direct-fire capability.
But there are still loads of indirect fire threats: mortars, howitzers, bounding mines. An APC can't survive going directly over a massive anti-tank mine, but a truck is destroyed going near an anti-personnel mine, 10x as many can be placed for the same weight carried.
@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 The list of places a ute can't go is much longer than the list of places a tracked vehicle can't go.
One's trash is another's treasure. The UA will likely figure out and or engineer a proper use/bushfix for these, but currently it is substantially better to use this over civ vehicles. Especially useful with the seasonal change of Autumn approaching fast and the flat land turning into muck beneath your feet.
Interesting to hear about its history and intended role. I’m not a military guy and never understood its role but now I have a clearer understanding.
Yup. I was deployed in a m113 in Jugo in ‘97. Extra, hollow perforated steel plates were added to the sides and lined with kevlar blankets inside. Should work great, as long as we didn’t Hit a pansermine or hit by a RPG from above…. Oh…or the back. The gunner got a steel tube so only his head stuck out. The extra weight added, was a big strain on the engine and drastically reduced it’s lifespand. Pish posh… safe enough! 😆
Added weight....strain on engines and drive trains...sounds like Wehrmacht WW2 problems.
@@indiasuperclean6969 eeeeh dude… make sure you take your medication, drink water, and stay out of the sun. Take care.
@@indiasuperclean6969 Hahahahahaha! Best laugh all day bozo! You are a comedian sure enough, or just a clown ...you just listed every thing wrong with India as though it was a good thing!
@@jacobbroe5279 too late I`m afraid, the sun got him already
@@asmo1313 sun got bot ...
Used to work as a mechanic on the Dutch YPR 765 until the modernization when we got the Swedish CV9035NL
Informative ❤️❤️❤️
You check out the book Iron Cavalry by Ralph Zumbro. It goes over the ingenious way the ARVN troopers made the M-113 into a base of fire by adding twin 30's along with the M2. They would also mount grenade launchers, mortars, and recoilless rifles. They also upgraded the armor. Zumbro served in Vietnam as a tanker and fought during the Tet offensive. Pretty interesting read.
Exactly...
This variant is also interesting as inspiring the Combat Cars in the Hammers Slammers sci-fi books by David Drake.
The m-1113 is more armored, faster, and better armed then the old Soviet Mt-lb that Russia and Ukraine use right now. It is in large numbers and simple to maintain in Ukraine, and that is what they need right now.
yeh but america and allies could provide like a 1000 but havnt yet given them that much, over 6 months have gone by the sport is verrry slow in ukraine
@@wawaweewa9159 Yep, I’d understand if the M-1113s are all America had but America has sooo many more better things they could provide, which I think is the point trying to be made in the video
@@eeeertoo2597 How much do you give until the Russians eventually get their hands on better troop transports?
@@jayus2033 Never, thats for sure
@@wawaweewa9159 Then maybe Ukraine should beg others for help? We have our own problems, fuck Ukraine, and Russia.
Army National Guard unit I was assigned to back in the early 90's in Arizona still operated quite a few M113. We used them to coordinate targeting positions for our self propelled 155mm howitzers during live fire excerises there not design to go head on into an enemy hot zone. Also they are not comfortable to ride in and you better have your helmet on but it can go through rugged terrain pretty well.
Good vid. You're spot on with most of it too, first time I've seen a video this close to perfect on APCs lol.
Former 11M here, 1997-2000. Primarily a Driver of M1, M2 & M2 ODS Bradley, as well as a few different 113s (but only when we were forced!)
The one GLARING inaccuracy that I saw though - the weight of the 113 is NOT what kept it from being amphibious.
Flotation is about being properly sealed and having the proper displacement, not about weight. The Bradleys I drove weighed 2.5-3x what a 113 did.....Roughly 32 tons vs about 13 tons, and we swam the Brads fairly often. So long as the bilge pumps stayed working and it wasn't really wavy, like the ocean or a big lake, they did just fine. They were good for crossing small lakes/ponds, or deep/slow moving rivers. It was a tactical nightmare though, because it is very slow, I'm guessing it only swam around 1-2 mph? The other issue was the driver needed to be steady. If you tried to steer too much, or came on/off the throttle too much, you would rock it...do that too much and you'd wind up floating like a 32 ton rock. Don't rock the Bradley Boat! :) With the current enemy's changing, so did the theater of operation - from northern, wet climates to the desert, I doubt they even train to swim them anymore though.
The main issue for leakage was the hull on the 113 was not sealed off from the chassis, so there were multiple places for the water to get in. Originally they did not have bilge pumps either, though it is an option now. The 113 was designed to work behind the front lines, as you stated. So that means established roads to move supplies/troops on. With Vietnam being so hot and wet, they knew the hatches would be open a lot, and rain/monsoon would be getting in. So the engineers weren't so much trying to keep water out as much as they were allowing water inside it to drain out.
We hated the 113s. They're no longer effective protection against small arms because of the advancements of modern ammo. They were really only designed for protection against the AK-47 that the NVA was using. That's just a 7.62x39, cheap ammo. The 7.62x51 (or 54) could penetrate it with the correct load, and routinely did. The engines were also significantly under powered and slow. The Vietnam soldiers liked them because it was much better than what they had before, which was just a canvas covered deuce and a half. Maybe that turbocharged Dutch model is better, but we dubbed them Rolling Coffins.
Hope this helps. God Bless!
I really appreciate the direction you have taken with some of your recent episodes. You point out faults with what goes on, then point out some positive things as well. Quite refreshing nowadays to have tubers like you that aren't grossly biased one way or the other. Great channel.
One thing that you forgot is that the M113 is excellent against light infantry and the VC had mostly just light infantry. It was very effective against a force mostly rocking rifles. A grandpa and former ARVN driver said that when an M113 arrived, the VC ran. Rarely did they have proper equipment to deal with any kind of armor
100% wrong lol vc was not lightly armed
@@os1941 I think that a lot of people forget about the NVA regular army troops, and seem to think that the VC Insurgents were the only opponent that US and ARVN troops faced in Vietnam.
The Australian Army used M113s in the Battle of Long Tan against NVA and VC. The M113s were decisive in this battle. Australia fitted Scorpion gun turrets, strengthened the armour and up engined the M113s after the Vietnam War. As well as Bushmaster APCs, Australia has donated the improved M113s to Ukraine.
VC were under armed in 1950s... but by late 1960s and from 1970s NVA were well armed and better armed than ARVN i n many aspects..NVA had Sagger wire-guided anti-tank guided missiles and SA-7 Grail shoulder-fired, infrared-homing anti-aircraft missiles ..to name a few .. VC were armed by the Soviets, entire Soviet bloc and China by then.
I remember using this thing in Arma 3 not too long ago. We drove right at a .50 cal thinking it was armored enough and got absolutely shredded. Fun times.
In the 60's I saw the M113s on the FMC test track. In the 80's I got to ride in both the M113 and Bradley the mech inf unit we cross trained with..Quite a difference
I found this content really interesting.
Although Ive never served in any of our forces, I am right behind our guys and our allies in times of conflict and I eat up any updates on how things are going.
But I also enjoy learning about the technical aspects of the kit and how it performs and this was a well written piece that didnt get bogged down in too many stats so it stayed interesting and even a dummy like me understood.
So all the way from London Ive now subscribed and look forward to catching up on your past material and the new stuff too.
The Australians were the first to add a turret to the M113. In Viet Nam they installed Saladin armored car turrets on several M113 making a fire support vehicle. They also installed Scorpion turrets on M113s after Viet Nam.
We tipped a fortune into these things and they worked for us🇦🇺
@@bestestusername They worked until someone with a DShK or NSV machine gun turned up and riddled them with holes.
@@gusgone4527 ours never really saw combat except for somalia in the 90s and Timor in 1999, no real issues.
@@bestestusername The M113s were effective in East Timor. They were used to quell stone throwing mobs. After the M113s arrived, the mobs would disperse.
We used one to transport our ground surveillance radar equipment when I was in Germany from '72-'74. It's really just a troop transport. It also happened to be one of the most reliable tracked vehicles in the motor pool. And you can swim it.
Excellent presentation.
I served from 1983 - 2005. I spent a lot of time with the M113 and M577. They were reliable, cheap, and easy to maintain. Front line duty? No, but they had a lot of other useful roles.
Did you have any with working heaters in the winter? We got one, in my three years in the things. And it died on the third day.
I was a M577 driver in the Army. I always liked the M113 for the lower silhouette.
@@MonkeyJedi99 Rarely. They almost never worked.
@@awdsvx Yeah, we called it the "RV"
@@MonkeyJedi99 I drove a M577 for about a year and a half. The heater never worked. Luckily, we at Fort Hood.
General Patton claimed that the two most effective weapons of the German army were the American jeep (because American drivers were bad at driving) and the American half-track (because American soldiers tried to use them as if the armored half-tracks were tanks).
The M113, when used as directed, is a great vehicle. If he were still alive today, General Patton would regard the M113 as another swell weapon for the enemy because "the M113 is NOT a tank!"
It is a tankette, not a tank-destroyer or Assault Gun.
Patton was overrated as fuck.
Patton got killed in a car accident.
@@ObliviousPenguin Everybody is overrated. I'm overrated. Still, can you deny that jeep rollovers (into the MUTT M151 days) were not a danger due to poor driver skills? I may be overcritical because I trained military drivers to standard and then tested them. Today, my backing skills, especially with trailers, have decayed and I'd need 40 or more hours working on my weak points before I'd qualify myself as a military driver again. Amazing what a decade of retirement can do to skills.
@@pepelemoko01 There were at least two drivers in that accident--the truck Patton's staff car ran into and Patton's driver. If Patton was a backseat driver, that makes three. And Patton died of pneumonia with a broken neck in a hospital--the broken neck was a result of that collision. You're right in that a car accident was the event that led to Patton's death--proving that Patton was right about American drivers. Besides, Patton wasn't a young man.
I visited Patton's grave in Europe during 1984 while on a battlefield tour.
Great video, loved seeing this beast again. I spent 85-95 as a Combat Engineer on those ( can't hear shit now). It would go anywhere and it was easy to work on. BTW, they don't do 42 mph loaded down. 32 if you're lucky. And it was doctrine to have us support armor. Imagine coming up on a minefield (covered by fire) in a 113 and getting out to breach the minefield. Definitely a soft target. When I got out we were supposed to be going to Bradley's, it took forever for that to happen.
we still had these in the mid 90s until we started getting LAVs which we called BISONs 8x wheeled armored vehicles BTW we had the drop door added from M113 for ease of access of troops :) l remember driving these around the base for training and recovering many during exercises throughout the year . Overall they were reliable but changing out a power pack was not easy as might think .
Australia also fitted turrets from the Saladin and later the Scorpion to the M113’s to create IFV’s and they even latter up engined them and lengthened them.
It has now been decided that they are no longer suitable for modern warfare! But their replacements may not happen due to cost!
Great video mate!
Technical Hilux to the rescue!!!!
@@bocadelcieloplaya3852 or 6x6 Landrovers - oh wait we have already done that! :)
maybe the AMP would be a good replacement. Would fulfill the same role as a m113 and not break the bank.
@@ameritoast5174 I think they want something built here & both proposals state they will be built in Australia. They real point is we keep buying stuff to suit fighting in Europe (or Iraq and Afghanistan) but really our policy is now south east Asia and our own country (which if anyone successfully invaded we would be fighting as insurgent types anyway!).
@@kenfowler1980 The main reason to build here, economic cheaper parts, jobs and can sell to others. Aust tired to sell some M113 to NZ a few years ago the US said no, so we upgraded some to AS4.
Hi Cappy, I love the mix of videos you are posting. Hope you have a great day. :)
thanks I try to do a lot of weapons / geopolitics mixed together !
What i love about this channel the most is deep dive topics and Cappy always willing to admit when he has gotten something wrong and doesn't pretend like he is the dismissive all seeing expert we see everywhere in society today now that everyone has access to the internet 😉
The AMPV as a replacement for the M113 is a smart move.
As the M2 Bradley nears the end of its service life, converting them into the AMPV allows the army to recapitalise over 2,000 Bradleys whilst also replacing the M113 at a reduced cost at the same time.
The Australian DoD found the M113 to be “Unfit for deployment” for Afghanistan.
The report in 2012 found its armour only “Somewhat effective” against 7.62, basically that it would mostly stop 7.62 in the front and side arcs, but from the top or rear (E.G, getting shot from the tops of a mountain or building), it was possible for 7.62 to penetrate semi-reliably.
APCs like the M113 and M59 were designed for war in Europe, where the battle lines are typically well defined. Deploy troops and tanks cross country up to the front lines, then dismount and proceed on foot together with the tanks. Driving an APC down a road in "indian country" is just asking for a deadly ambush. Your DOD was correct.
@@Zulutime44 Since when were M113s used in india
The M113 is wonderful. It is fantastic for bringing supplies and troops to near the front. It is good for the Ukraine because of its low ground pressure.
Try driving the gun version of a Striker on soft ground
UK had their own version called the FV432.
but we had lots of diff models using the same chasis and components.
FV432 troop carrier. FV 433 had a 105mm artillry gun in a turret on the top. 434 command vehicle. 438 fitted with milan anti tank missles. 439 was a REME mobile repair shop. cant rember what the other models did but 1 was fitted with anti air missles. an ambulance version and a few others. they might look diff due to the body work put on them for their role but under the body all the same vehicle.
The replacement for them was also the same way. APC, scout vehicle's, light tanks like the Scorpian and scimitar all built on the same chassis and same components.
Makes logistics a lot easier and also cheaper to make a series of vehicles all using the same basic parts.
UK has been doing that since 1938 when we had r 1st armoured infantry vehicle. the RAM. it was a tank with the turret removed and roof taken off and a door put in the back so troops could travel with the tanks to give them support.
Percy Hobart came up with the idea for an armoured divison. mix oif tanks aroumred vechilces to carry troops and heavy weapons all mixed into 1 dic. Everyone else was keeping all their divs separated from each other like all infantry all tanks and so on but UK mixed tanks with infantry.
1st experimental div created in 1938 was made up of 1 brigade of light tanks and scout cars for recce. 2 brigades of cruiser tanks for their speed and firepower. 1 brigade of Dragoons in RAMS. and 1 brigade of support weapons in converttanks some with artillry fitted in the tank. some with AA guns some with anti tank guns some with mortars. a fuly combined arms div and no other country had anything like it.
Rommel came acrosss in it Belgium in 1940 and got destroyed by it as Germany had nothing to counter it.
Rommel was so impresed by it he copied it for the DAK when he was given command of that for North Africa in 1941. i
til then German panzer divs were just tanks no support.
I got to ride around in those at Carson. They're like a military minivan . They make good center peices for Battlefield TOCs .
The M113 played a significant role in the Battle of Long Tan during the Vietnam War when a squadron of M113's broke through a massive Vietnamese force to rescue a company of Australian troops that had been surrounded.
That assault was conducted in near darkness, in the middle of a monsoonal downpour, through a rubber plantation with limited visibility and fields of fire. The carriers did well, but it was as near a 'surprise' attack as they could have hoped for...plus the NLF troops had been pounded by arty for the best part of a few hours, so they were pretty well disorganised.
@@Gungho1a The remaining Australian soldiers were rescued by the M113's. Nothing else could have done the task and without the M113 it is highly likely that the Australian soldiers would have been overrun as they had used up nearly all of their ammunition. A vehicle like the Bradley if it was available back then would likely have become bogged in the mud and the troop carrying capacity is only half that of a M113.
@@andreasbimba6519 To the lightly armed NVA, the arrival of the M113s had a shock and awe effect.
I loved rolling around in M113s, but they weren't a very practical vehicle for scouts. It was seriously safer for us to bring thin-skin humvees close to the front.
For a time the Army was debating about which vehicle to give light cavalry, and one of the thoughts was that since armored cav was using Bradleys, light cav could just use a variation of the same tactics with M113s. People have this perception that cavalry is a mounted force, but a cav scout is mostly just a slightly educated infantryman; all the work is done running or crawling, with the main difference being that in the cav your rucksack is a truck. In that context, where the important part of your mission is done with the tracks parked 2-3km behind where actual reconnaissance is happening, the M113 should be able to work just like an M2 or M3.
The thing is that moving that far ahead of your vehicles is really risky, and it only makes sense for Bradleys because they are basically light tanks which can move up to rescue you. It's also really slow to keep pushing your dismounts that far ahead of the tracks.
We ended up settling on thin-skinned humvees because they are quicker and much quieter than a 113. You can hear the ramp drop on a 113 for 2 grid squares, so they need to stay way back from any possible enemy when mounting or dismounting; anyone with a room-temperature IQ can figure out how to close a humvee door without slamming it, which makes it impossible to hear if the humvee is dropping off troops. The humvee also lacks track noise, and is a much quieter vehicle overall, so it's usually safe to operate them 1 terrain feature behind the dismounts.
Being able to run the truck closer to the dismounted scouts means they need to go half as far out and back, so the whole section can double the speed that it moves. It also means that the trucks are close if the dismounts get in trouble, and can probably provide covering fire. There is a big difference between just rolling up to the crest of a hill to support, and moving tracks up from 3 km away.
Stealth also makes the Humvee a better vehicle for Javelin teams
Strikers are also pretty quiet (even quieter than humvees, I think), so they could be a good scout vehicle. Bradleys are iffy; they can cover many of the "light tank" recon roles, but they need to stay way behind the dismounts if they don't want to be heard. Armored cav is really a different beast.
Scout platoon, CSC, 1/33 Armor, Germany '77-'79 here. 11D, changed to 19D in '78. We operated the M113A1 and M150. We loved our 'tracks'. Scouts Out, Trooper!!!
Good 19D level of detail.
@@j.b.macadam6516 I really only rode the M113A3 - we loved those too, but just found humvees to be better for recon missions.
For a utility vehicle on the European plain, the M113 would be great.
@@cavalryscout9519 Yes, the Humvee does have a role in recon missions. However, they lack amphibious capability and even the armored versions cannot endure damage from artillery fragments or small arms as well as the M113. I drove Humvees extensively during my second enlistment from '91 to '95. Both vehicles have positive attributes as well as deficiencies in regards to scouting missions. I also believe that recon motorcycles could be utilized as well.
The M113 and M577 are actually pretty good for what they are and the cost. Easy to drive. Easy to maintain. Great engine. To be sure they're not much more than a tank target in the wrong place wrong time, but they're pretty decent as light armor transports and mobile command centers.
Excellent vid. So much so that I haft to fire my 2 cents. I believe it was the heavy MG's being deployed in the fire fights that just happened to be on a tracked vehicle: not the other way around. Close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver. It's a simplistic view, but keeping it simple is how it usually pans out.
The M113/M577 etc. are easy to drive, go almost anywhere and make great traxi's and commamd vehicles, but .50 and .53 and .57 heavy machineguns go through one side and out the other. It is a fine ambulance, fast and handy. I totally agree with your analysis.
you are cotrect but they range has to be less than 300 meters.
That might apply to the sides, but the front armor is pretty sturdy. It’s 38mm thick and angled at 45 degrees. I don’t think a .50 could pierce that at point blank
@@mcmatthew7898 it's aluminum armor. It cannot stop anything more than 12.7 ball. KPV or AP 50bmg will zip thru the frontal arc. It will stop ball.. fragments and rifle/MG fire of standard calibers like .30 or 5.45 no problem.
@@francoisassatlien8642 I don’t think your correct with .50bmg. I don’t think .50 could penetrate the front even at point blank.
A .50 cal can penetrate 25mm of steel. The 38mm of aluminum is about equivalent to 13mm of steel. 13mm angles at 45 degrees is about 25mm thickness, if not higher.
@@mcmatthew7898 us M2 BALL 750gr at 3100fps. The 12.7x108's 3 military AP rounds range from 743gr at 860m/s (2800fps), 855gr at 825m/s or 2,710fps, or 873gr API-T at 820m/s or 2,690fps
us 50 12.7x99 is
M2 AP 707gr at 2910fps
M8/m20 API/API-T 622gr at 2910fps
SLAP/SLAP-T 350/355GR. 4,000+/-FPS
Mk211 (RAUFOSS) API 2940fps
The BMG has superior ballistics, armor piercing, and anti personal capabilities despite being "smaller and lighter". Faster and better designed will always be better than big and hard make stronk.
My friend was in Vietnam, in supply. He thought it was safer, but, he said, he was wrong. Most of the roads weren't paved, so the enemy mined the roads. Or they would get ambushed. They did the hillbilly armor, not to mention sandbags, and rode on top w/ an M-60 and a .50 cal. The supplies went into the vehicle where men would have been.
Great sign of bad leaders and political medeling like Iraq. Plus in both no where near enough troops because of one year rotation which you can't win with.
The roads should have been sweep for mines every time if they were not going to try to fortify the road network Roman style. There no excuse for loseing vehicles to mines. Lose troops and equipment demining yes but lose anything following to mines incompetence and sign not really trying hard to win just show they doing something
what is the hill nilly armor? did they take spare tank tracks or someone got drunk and got sick of it and welded applique armor on it?
The first M-113 I saw in Vietnam had been hit with an RPG. It looked like a tin can that you set off an M-80 firecracker in it. I swore I would never ride in one of them. And I never did.
I was a M113A2 commander and while adding the "chicken plate" onto the commanders hatch to protect commander as he used the M2 was frowned on, it was actually a fairly simple idea that should have been there from the start.
The M113 puts the commander out of the hatch and exposes them to at least the bottom of the chest. An infantryman that is engaging the M113 with a rifle can fire from cover and only expose a small part of his head and upper shoulder. With that in mind, who would you rather be? The person behind cover or the guy that's exposed?
Using a weapon for tasks beyond its design has been done before. The ARVNs used the M113 in battle, because it could be a mobile heavy machine gun. At Jutland, RN battle cruisers were used in the battle line because they had battleship caliber guns ... and went boom because they didn't have heavy battleship armor.
When I was in Germany our company got these. Loved them (for the most part). Spent several winter nights broke down in one. We had candles going for heat and the condensation was dripping off the ceiling. Good times
You think that's bad? Us Brits sold a number of ancient "Saxon" armoured cars from the 1980s to Ukraine.
The former chief commander of British land forces, Richard Dannatt, said that supplying the vehicles to Ukraine was "immoral" as they were "useless" in high intensity warfare. 😬
Didn't mince his words did he?
In fairness I've seen so many videos of heavy equipment being escorted by civvy cars, pickups or vans. Anything can be given a use out there.
wow I was not aware of the Saxon vehicles sent , those deserve a video
@@auto_revolt
I suppose they're better than pick-ups and saloon cars 😂
@@Taskandpurpose
There has been a few write ups about the exchange.
Ukraine paid next to nothing for them, around 30k USD per vehicle.
We buy civilian car for our military, DIY armour protection. Saxon looks fine.
Croatia is acquiring the M2 Bradley, the M2A2 ODS version with slight upgrades. The sale of 89 units has been approved by Congress and the Croatian MoD has signed the deal a while ago. I believe payments have started already.
In my country of Singapore 🇸🇬, our army have used the M113 since the 1970s. As years passed, it was upgraded and refurbished. Now the M113 has been replaced by the locally built Hunter AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle). It is equipped with a M242 BushMaster Cannon, 7.62mm Machine Gun, Smoke Grenades and 2 Spike Anti Tank Missile.
The Australian army developed the M113A1 FSV, which was basically a M1113 with a Saladin AC turret mounted in the passenger compartment.
Australians have an impressive reputation for upgrading equipment and tweaking it for unique purposes.
Good presentation.
The M113 is quite old(Fresh from the factory). They were new when my dad rode in one. Probably the most powerful (offensive weaponry versions) were the TOW versions and the Australian version with a Saladin armored car turret (British).
Ukraine actually feels like it is one of the last wars that the M113 can be used in a doctrinally appropriate manner. Ukraine is massive which allows for that taxiing aspect to come into play. UAF already has armor which can be used as a spearhead for troop advances while the M113 fulfills the logistics and troop carrier duty.
I'd be curious to see how well the M113 stands up to Russian artillery. I would think it would be outright destroyed with a direct hit, but maybe the enclosed troops survive a near hit.
Still if I was a soldier and I had to advance a field with no armor support and was just brought in by an M113, I would want to have that thing go first.
M113s usually have spall liners. Russian BMPs dont seem to.
What is small Armour?
Sorry, what is a spall liner ?
@@kendonahve924 it's a layer inside the vehicle (usually fibrous and non combustible) that mitigate the metal shrapnel and molten metal flying around the interior of a vehicle that happens when the armor is penetrated
@@gobot4455 Yes, starting with the A3 version IIRC. They got turbo charged, steering wheels, external fuel on the back, Kevlar panels for spalling and additional protection, and power brakes. I turned in an old pos version, got the new version, and felt like I got a new car. It was a sweet upgrade.
The reason we called our version of the M-113 the YPR-765 because they upgraded it so far beyond the original equipment it was a new vehicle using a lot of the same parts. It was a great IFV for the time it was used and we have a handful left to do secondary functions but most are stored or sold.
alleen wel erg veel herrie binnenin.
@@Robin6512 ja je kan geen bloeddruk meten in die dingen. De Boxer ambulance is een grote stap voorwaarts.
Original tactics for 113 were to lay on artillery with air bursts and roll M113 onto enemy positions and drop ramp as artillery stops firing and infantry rolls out directly into enemy position. Of course you have to repaint now silver colored M113 after battle. Also works really well with four deuce mortar. As the guy below says, way better than a pickup truck too.
Do this sort of video about M109 howitzer, its versions, and how outdated it is, yet still used.
I drove an M113A3 in ODS. I was very aware of its vulnerabilities.
The Australian Army did a similar thing in the Vietnam War. Placing a Scimitar tank turret on a number of M113s. One is on display in the Canberra War Museum.
Here is some info on another M113 Variant: M113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) - Full designation Carrier, Fire Support, Full Track M113A1 (FS) Scorpion Turret[4] was an Australian variant similar to the M113 FSV, but using the turret from the FV101 Scorpion light tank, instead of the older turret of the Saladin armoured car, that the FSV had previously used. This turret was equipped with an Image Intensifier sight for the main armament. This II sight was the first effective passive night sight fitted to an Australian AFV, giving the MRVs a night fighting capability exceeding the Leopard AS1 and all other Australian AFVs of the period. Whilst fully amphibious, the MRV was also fitted with a light sheet-metal foam-filled trim vane and side pods. These pods and the trim vane were intended to provide additional flotation and stability on the water; they provided virtually no additional armour protection. Other changes included a modified driver's hatch which pivoted toward the centre-line of the vehicle instead of opening to the rear of the driver's hatch; this feature preventing the open driver's hatch being caught on the traversing turret, as well as the fitting of the British "boiling vessel", an electric vessel for boiling water and heating rations. As indicated by the designation change, the MRVs were used as reconnaissance vehicles and issued to the Cavalry (medium reconnaissance) regiments with each troop equipped with 3 LRV and 2 MRV; whereas the FSVs were originally issued to APC squadrons and used to provide infantry fire support. The MRV replaced the FSV in Australian service. M113A1 MRV served in the Australian Army until 1996.
I sometime served on a113 team in RVN. We were the CC&S 2nd Corp. company. Of the 3 113s on the team. One standard TO&E, one had a Xenon Search Light, the one I was on a MIni Gun were the M2 50 would be and M2s were the M60 would be. We worked at night.
we would love to have a bradley its not like we specifically asked for those m113s. But lets be realistic those are expensive (and much less common) even in more early variants unlike 50-60 year old apc from vietnam era you can find in numbers even in europe. We use what we've got.
no you don't want Bradley's, maintenance heavy
@@God__Emperor_ i mean if you have anywhere on a planet any other modern ifvs of one type you can relatively easy to donate to UAF in hundreds or better thousands... Its not a matter of maintenance its just only USA have enough of those already produced so with Bradley we go.
Well said. The M113 is available in large numbers and now. They will be put to good use.
We were driving around Somalia in un-armored Hummers. Would have loved some M113s! Or even better, the LAV25 that the Marines had, which is the Stryker's forerunner.
Back in the stone age when I was in the army, a .51cal chicom round would go in one side and out the other of a 113. The higher up decided that it needed to be up armored. After this modification was made, the chicom round would go in one side and kind of bounce around inside.
@@garygrant91 That's why they added kevlar plates/doors to the inside of the A3 models. Spall protection.
I was surprised seeing these old cold warriors being cleaned and worked on the other week.
They were sitting around here as long as I can remember.
Used 113's for 10 years until we transitioned to Bradleys. Very effective vehicle. Simple, fast, go anywhere, and reliable. Pretty comfortable too (for an APC). With add on armor and sand bagged floors very survivable. The Ma Deuce offers an effective punch to anything short of MBT's. At the end we had a Dragon mount next to 50. I suppose putting an NLAW or Javelin on would be the modern equivalent.
The Israelis have used them as fighting vehicles for decades.
There are so many variants it's hard to imagine. Mortar tracks, ADA, Command etc etc.
Truthfully, I much preferred them to the Bradleys.
They are easily modifiable and in the hand of the Ukes will give good service I am sure.
One thing that wasn't mentioned was the weak floor armor on the early M-113's. One mine and troops inside the vehicle were done. It's why troops in Vietnam regularly rode on the top of the vehicle rather than inside.
Apparently the BTR the Ukrainians and Russians use is the same way. That’s why they ride on top of the damn things too.
It's a common problem for APC, this is why the strykers deployed in middle-east had their floors reinforced with sandbags.
Hey Chris, first I want to say thanks for the consistent and amazing content I have been a subscriber for a long time and I have a humble suggestion; it would be awesome if you can convert the measurements to metric system as well so your European/Asian followers can be immersed more into your content. Again, we can calculate it yes, but I believe it would be good for immersion since it also means recognition for us in your channel
I need to remember to do this more often ! I need to get in the habit of putting converted text on screen for measurements thanks for reminding me !
@@Taskandpurpose Or just do all metric all the time, and show leadership how it's done!
13:02 - appliqué ceramic plates in brackets and Claymore mines affixed?! That version don’t mess.
Well explained
Keep up the good work Chris, definitely became my favorite military analysis channel.
hooooooah