User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/24/2007 11:26:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Reactive armor… |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2007 3:37:18 AM EDT
[#2]
It's got a built-in water boiler for making tea and heating rations. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2007 4:09:15 AM EDT
[#3]
Indeed! The BV! 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2007 4:09:33 AM EDT
[#4]
Ouch!   
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2007 4:20:18 AM EDT
[#5]
A squaddie has to have priorities!
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2007 4:24:28 AM EDT
[#6]
My platoon's m113 was doing good until we crashed the freaking thing at 45mph at like 0100, then they gave us m114's..thank god
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2007 4:26:49 AM EDT
[#7]
 Al Faw, 2003, day two of OIF… everything stops for afternoon tea! |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2007 11:51:41 AM EDT
[#8]
Sucks to be an infantrymen working with those in Urban areas On a side note, why is alluminum armour 'poisonous' when burned? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2007 8:07:11 PM EDT
[#9]
This isn't about you, this is about the M113 but I've got to ask, you used the M113 for ONE, again ONE mission and your on the internet giving your opinion like you actually have experience with the M113 What's the deal with that?You shouldn't bash an entire system when you have next to zero experience with it. I've been in and around M113's for almost 15 years and actually know their capabilities and weaknesses. Now, ff you did convoy escort then I would agree the M113 is not the vehicle for you. If you were performing the missions we conducted then the M113 would be a welcome addition to your "play book"  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2007 4:47:16 PM EDT
[#10]
So, if some new (read: not worn out and constantly needing maintenance) M113s were made with the latest armor improvements (see pic on pg. 1) and up-engined to be quicker, would they be one of the more preferred pieces of equipment?
Also, what is the current vehicle of choice in Iraq? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2007 4:51:16 PM EDT
[#11]
An NTV running between your hooch, the chow hall, and MWR.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2007 4:52:11 PM EDT
[#12]
Most people seem to prefer the M1114 (up-armored HUMVEE) If I had to choose between a Bradley and a M113? A Bradley. Had to choose between a new, improved M113 vs a M1114? I'd pick the M1114. (Note: I did a lot of convoy escort duty, so I am basing the decision on that) However, a lot of the deaths are coming from IEDs, and I bet that most of those are on the well-travelled routes and highway. When troops are traveling, they need both speed and armor, something that they can get better from up-armored humvees than a slow, noisy m113. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2007 4:56:39 PM EDT
[#13]
The engineers we borrowed them from weren't happy with them either. They wanted to trade some Humvees for M113s. Convoys, convoy escorts, and basically driving around Iraq is probably the most frequent mission in Iraq. Even raids are typically 90% driving to the target, getting out of the vehicle, doing the raid, and loading back into the vehicle for the drive back to base. Most deaths occur while en route to a destination, not at the actual destination. M1114 would be better suited for these type of missions, they go faster, are just as well armored, and are more quiet..... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2007 6:28:15 PM EDT
[#14]
It's a death trap, for all of the same reasons that it was a death trap in Vietnam.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2007 6:39:58 PM EDT
[#15]
actually the Humvee sucks wind compared to the RG-31 and other IED resistant tactical vehicles, however very few of those are being used by anyone other than EOD and Engineer units. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2007 9:10:51 PM EDT
[#16]
That's probably true, but what about M113 vs a M1114? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2007 9:20:15 PM EDT
[#17]
And those were the early gas powered versions in that photo... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2007 9:44:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Never rode in the M113 in combat. The M1114 however has much suckage IMHO. It is fast, and has a turret gunner position, however it is very hard for the passengers to engage anything to their flanks, they have to sit sideways in their seats. The M113 has an open crew compartment hatch that could be used for airguards, howver it doesn't have a "turret" for a belt-fed. All in all i think it boils down to the situation and application it will be used for. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2007 12:05:56 AM EDT
[#19]
We've just bought a shitload of these for the troops to patrol in… uparmored Cougars 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2007 3:41:28 AM EDT
[#20]
How does the Cougar fare as a combat vehicle? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2007 2:52:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Wow that's hardcore. The Marines (US) and Army EOD have one. I saw a full size Buffalo? on a low-boy being towed to Houston. That thing is HUGE. It easily dwarfed the Ranger I was driving. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2007 3:11:36 PM EDT
[#22]
From what I understand there are several similar systems being field tested between USA and USMC. The extra armor on the HUMVEEs is helping, but are wearing out faster and requiring more maintenance because the drive train and suspension were never designed for the extra weight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2007 3:20:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Some people used them and loved them, some people hated them. Hell, I had that gamut of opinion just in my company (from people with 30 years experience with 113s...not 15) and the same applied; some love, some hate. Just becuase one guy hated it or you loved it doesn't make it a POS or God's Gift to OIF. Second, as far as maintenance goes, you have to take stories about equipment received from engineers with a grain of salt. A combat engineer can fuck up a tanker bar...fucking up a 113 is child's play. Third, as far as IEDs/mines went, neither 113 nor 1114 is IED-proof. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2007 9:02:49 PM EDT
[#24]
577 Oh shit,here comes the upstairs gang,everyone look busy,maybe they won't stop! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2007 9:08:21 PM EDT
[#25]
O.k., o.k., just so I got this straight: 1. Lord loves a workin' man. 2. See a doctor and get rid of it. 3. Don't trust Sparky  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2007 10:04:33 PM EDT
[#26]
Sweet mercy Sparky is a nutjob. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2007 10:25:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Yes on the former. Not sure about the latter, though it's not such a stupid idea. It has been proposed to put the MTU-1500 diesel into the Abrams for export purposes, they were looking specifically at the Turkish requirement. Not all countries are capable of providing the fuel logisitical trail that the turbine requires. NTM |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2007 10:49:41 PM EDT
[#28]
I would be against exporting the m1 in any form... Re-build M60s and sell those. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2007 11:13:27 PM EDT
[#29]
You're a little late, mate. Australia (M1A1 AIM) Saudi (M1A2) and Kuwait (M1A2) have the things. Egypt has a production line for M1A1s and has also bought some M1A2s, so I'm told. There is a questionmark on the quality control over the 600-or-so Egyptian-built tanks, supposedly the 300+ American-built ones are more reliable. NTM |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2007 11:20:35 PM EDT
[#30]
The page I was thinking of wanted to dieselfy US M1s, change back to the 105 to be able to fire 'beehive' rounds, replace the M240 with a larger-caliber coax, and give the commander a cupola ala M60... I think there was a little 'more' in there too... The cart reminds me of Gunkid and the 'Assault Wheelbarrow'... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2007 11:53:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Also none of which are particularly stupid ideas in concept, barring the 105mm. In practice however, there are more feasible alternatives. You can fire Beehive out of the 120mm if anyone bothers to build the ammo (instead, we have cannister for now, the difference is in the fuzing)  CSAMM puts a .50 cal coax mounted externally on the gun tube in much the same manner as the Israelis have been doing for years  (indeed, the French decided to make the .50 cal the default co-ax on the LeClerc from the beginning) And TUSK is fitting an RWS .50 cal to the turret of M1A2s for full capability visibility and under-armour HMG operation better than that provided by M1A1s.  Don't get me wrong, though, I really like the M240, and prefer it to the .50 cal, but each has their use. NTM |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2007 11:58:58 PM EDT
[#32]
I cant believe the 113 is still in service after all these years.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 12:04:09 AM EDT
[#33]
Who manufactures these Cougars?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 12:10:01 AM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 4:19:07 AM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 6:18:23 AM EDT
[#36]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 12:50:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Oh my... It's worse than I thought. I had run cross this guys stuff before, but fortunately have enough experience with the platforms and doctrine involved to see his rantings as just that. I had no clue just how ubiquitous and pernicious he was. Thanks for the link. Is it true nobody has been able to the figure out his actual military background? Has nobody in internetland ever met him on person - or served with him? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 1:55:43 PM EDT
[#38]
He tries to keep to himself. He shows up on the AKO white pages with gibberish instead of his unit identifier. Assuming his rank is indeed as shown on AKO, and that he was indeed an officer when he wrote his 1995 Armor Magazine officer (as claimed), he's got to have one of the slowest promotion progressions in history. Near as can tell, he enlisted in the Marines, but just how long he stayed in (Or even if he passed out of MOS school (or whatever you call it)) is open to debate. Found one chap on a web board from his unit who claimed he never served an active day at all, but this doesn't really match up with Spark's claim to have been an NCO. Unless you can be an LCPL in AIT, I guess. He then went off to get a degree in college and attempted to rejoin the Corps to become an officer, but the Marines evidently failed to recognise his inherent genius and didn't give him a commission. He holds a serious anti-Corps grudge. Eventually he found his way to a Lieutenant's commission in the National Guard, and is assigned to a rigger unit in NC or GA or thereabouts. There is little indication that he knows the first thing about armoured vehicles from first-hand experience. Not many M113s in rigger units, I'll wager. NTM |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 1:58:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Doh Atleast they are friendly countries. Somewhat. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 2:10:30 PM EDT
[#40]
HOw can you consider an m113 a Light tank? It's not. If anything, the Bradley or stryker would be a better candidate for that term, but not the m113. Excuse me, "Gavin". |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 2:10:49 PM EDT
[#41]
Assuming Mike Sparks is his real name, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone who serves in his unit... this is just a weird deal in general. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 2:28:41 PM EDT
[#42]
I can vouch for that, I have heard "Gavin" before and I have never ever seen or heard anything directly made by Sparks or "Combat Reform" until today. In the realm of nutjob claims, this one sounds reasonable - many military vehicles have a name (or several over their lifespan) so it's something that if heard by someone that doesn't know better is not something that really trips your radar as being unreasonable. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 2:32:22 PM EDT
[#43]
Never underestimate the power of Media to influence things - even if it is Mike Sparks's internet campaign. I had never heard a HMMWV called a "hummer" until the gulf war coverage. Then, for a few years in the early '90s - even Joes were calling it that - influenced more by the media than the realization that none of the more senior guys called it that. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 5:24:47 PM EDT
[#44]
The whole Gavin thing started in a sidebar in this 1995 article in Armor Magazine. www.knox.army.mil/armormag/jf95/1sparks95.pdf
The first time that 'Gavin' ever appears in reference to M113 is in this article, which, incidently, advocates that M113 is generally better than M2 Bradley. Forgot to mention, Sparky also believes that Airborne is the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. I'll give him this, he's good at PR. The whole reason he chose Gavin was that he wanted to equip airborne troops with it, and thought that using an Airborne general's name in association might help swing people around to his line of thinking. NTM |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 6:31:50 PM EDT
[#45]
I didn't read all 5 pages, so I'm not sure if this has been said. When an M113 burns, its road wheels will often melt flat to the ground, turning a simple tow home into a massive recovery effort that takes a large amount of troops almost all day (mostly due to the large security effort required when you stay out in the open for hours on end while trying to recover a big metal square). We gave a lot of 113s to the iraqi army (that, and T-72s, which is another issue to which I'll only say: don't give a cave man a rocket launcher).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 6:46:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Its not only the M-113 that has road wheels that melt...   
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2007 8:16:03 PM EDT
[#47]
OMG a sparky thread. Sparky is kinda like the Mall Ninja guy or heavy 6 for the internet armor buffs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2007 3:46:56 AM EDT
[#48]
Sparky's wet dream...
  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2007 3:39:31 PM EDT
[#49]
I left a note on Sparky's youtube Bushco imperialist warmonger video rants. He sent me an IM back with this.
M113A3 Super Gavins, 0 U.S. dead No one has died inside an up-armored Super Gavin. Many have died in Stryker truck turds. Your prejudices are false. You lose. Liar. (Reply) (Delete) (Block User) (Mark as Spam)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2007 3:53:32 PM EDT
[#50]
To my knowledge it is not possible to similarly equip a M113 to be comparable to a Stryker. If you crammed in all the electronics that a Stryker comes with onboard, you'd take up probably 20-30% of a M113s available cargo space. then you'd have to add the RWS to it, which is possible, but would require a goo dbit of overhauling. the m113 is nowhere near as fast as a stryker, or as quiet, and i'd say they're probably even as far as mobility over rough terrain. The Stryker can hold troops/equipment mor comfortably. the armor is almost equivalent with upgrades to the Stryker. In my semi-informed opinion from using them both (only the Stryker in combat), the Stryker is far and away better than a M113 for MOST jobs. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
