# M113A3 for Kandahar?



## COBRA-6 (11 Jul 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Breech Rings, HA!
> 
> M113 is probably just the thing they need.   The most flex veh we have.   time to think out of the box...
> 
> Tom



Got to see some re-worked M113's w/turret recently in Pet, the users said with the new suspension and engine they really haul ass.


----------



## Gill557 (11 Jul 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Breech Rings, HA!
> 
> M113 is probably just the thing they need.   The most flex veh we have.   time to think out of the box...
> 
> Tom



Why think out of the box.  LOL all you have to do is climb out of it. 
Plus i hear the upgraded version goes like a bat out of h**l.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jul 2005)

M113 cannot tak emaines - well due to their flat squat alluminum hull - the steel hulls on the AVGP and LAV's are shaped and have a greater stand off distance.

 M113's are a nightmare - sell them to a sucker same with the AVGP's...


----------



## TCBF (13 Jul 2005)

"M113 cannot tak emaines - well due to their flat squat alluminum hull - the steel hulls on the AVGP and LAV's are shaped and have a greater stand off distance."

- Actually, the M-113 family has taken mine hits.  In 74' two Strathcona Lynx in Cyprus hit AT mines.

- yhough not popular, it remains the most flexible and cost effective veh we have.

Tom


----------



## KevinB (13 Jul 2005)

Tom - I'd much rather be a LAV/Bison if I hit a mine than a M113 - I'vee seen a hull that had a small crack but no holes completelty thru like 113's 

They are not popular because they are slow, no firepower and an enormous target.


----------



## McG (13 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> They are not popular because they are slow, no firepower and an enormous target.


The new ones are fast and have remote fired .50 or 1 m turret.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2005)

A yes, the TLAV - Grizzly turret extra roadwheel much bigger engine - still same shitty armour.

 I dont consider a .50 particularly spectacular firepower -- any of the LAV variants or BMP/BMD's will kill it with time for coffee/tea before it could get into range.

I always thought we screwed the pooch in not specifically designating brigades as HEAVY - with M1 Abrams and Bradley, Medium/Recce - LAV/Cotoyte/Bison, and Light-SOC - Airborne/Airmobile.

You could not pay me enough to get in a track.


----------



## McG (14 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> A yes, the TLAV - Grizzly turret extra roadwheel much bigger engine - still same shitty armour.


Not all have the extra road wheel.

In any case, this decision seems also to have been made.  We will fight BTE in TLAV and MTVE, but will have to retrain for either Bison or LAV III during TMSBP.  (This would not seem so bad except that we are cutting guys' summer leave to near nothing in order to qualify TLAV drivers and 1 m turret gunners just for an exercise).


----------



## couchcommander (14 Jul 2005)

Two things...

What is TMSBP?

And regarding the "enormous target", I thought that the LAVIII's were both taller and longer than the M113A3's (I might, once again, be out to lunch...)

Thanks


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2005)

The LAV armour is shaped  and steel - the 113 is flat and aluminum.


----------



## MJP (14 Jul 2005)

> author=couchcommander link=topic=32595/post-239404#msg239404 date=1121322495
> What is TMSBP?




I know TMST (theater mission specific training),

Is TMSBP some new buzz word.....McG?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (14 Jul 2005)

TMSBP=Theatre Mission Specific Battle Procedure

Used in this case as HQ 1 CMBG has to get the Bde HQ ramped up over the same period...


----------



## MJP (14 Jul 2005)

ahhh makes sense Thanks!


----------



## Black Watch (23 Jul 2005)

M113 rocks. Upgrade it with a Bradley-style turret, and there you go, you have the perfect APC


----------



## Fraser.g (23 Jul 2005)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> M113 rocks. Upgrade it with a Bradley-style turret, and there you go, you have the perfect APC



Son, 

Either you are joking in which case I would STRONGLY advise that you use a little smiley guy at the end of a statement like that 

or

You are soooo far out of your depth that you do not know of what you speak.

If you have not worked out of a track, or even ridden in one you do not have an opinion on the antiquated battle field taxi known as the M113.

My advice is to read more than you post and learn more than you pontificate.

rant off

GF


----------



## Black Watch (23 Jul 2005)

I had many rides in the m113. But hey look, it's the most sold apc on earth!!!! I went to Switzerland last year, and the have m113 with a panzerII-style turret with a 20mmcanon. Good, reliable and effective...And remember, it's amphibious, LAVIII is not. Of course LAVIII is a speady monster with lots of good points, but I think M113 is the most suited APC for Canada


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Jul 2005)

> I had many rides in the m113. But hey look, it's the most sold apc on earth!!!! I went to Switzerland last year, and the have m113 with a panzerII-style turret with a 20mmcanon. Good, reliable and effective...And remember, it's amphibious, LAVIII is not. Of course LAVIII is a speady monster with lots of good points, but I think M113 is the most suited APC for Canada



The T-LAV family (which includes the M113-A3 and MTVL variants) are not amphibious. Canada has not had any amphibious capabilities since the late 70's to early 80's.


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jul 2005)

Wrong. 4 CER was swimming 113s in the Baggersee in Lahr as late as '90.

Kat


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Jul 2005)

Didn't you hear that it has a "Panzer II" style turrent? They made a Panzer II swim once so clearly this one must be able to swim too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2005)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> but I think M113 is the most suited APC for Canada



And with your vast experience operating them, going on ex or otherwise in them, what makes you think that? Short of a ride or two around the button, what IS your experience in them? Go ahead, pretend your a salesman and your talking to Ottawa.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Jul 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Wrong. 4 CER was swimming 113s in the Baggersee in Lahr as late as '90.
> 
> Kat



Well I stand corrected thx Kat

Chimo!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (23 Jul 2005)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> I had many rides in the m113. But hey look, it's the most sold apc on earth!!!! I went to Switzerland last year, and the have m113 with a panzerII-style turret with a 20mmcanon. Good, reliable and effective...And remember, it's amphibious, LAVIII is not. Of course LAVIII is a speady monster with lots of good points, but I think M113 is the most suited APC for Canada



Yes, it is the most sold Western APC - starting with sales 40 years ago!

The Swiss vehicle you're referring to is the SpZ 63.   It is also very old and only a limited number (approximately 20 percent) were selected for rebuild.   A number of the remainder have been sold off to the UAE, which will donate them to the Iraqi government.

The Swiss experience, since you bring it up, mirrors almost exactly what Canada is doing with ours.   A limited number are being rebuilt and fitted with small (ex-Grizzly) turrets for specialist roles.   Its day in Canadian service as an APC are long gone. 

The fact of the matter is that our vehicles (aside from the rebuilds) are old, have a very heavy logistics tail and cannot provide the mobility, protection and (especially) firepower of the LAV III in an Afghan context.   The Americans I worked with in Kabul parked theirs for exactly the same reasons.

So, you've established (via your profile) that you have very limited experience with the vehicle.   What you haven't established is why you think that our M113s (not modified "notional" vehicles with Bradley turrets) would be suitable for deployment to Kandahar.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## GerryCan (23 Jul 2005)

I nominate Black Watch for sandbag detail in the back of his M113 the next time it goes out for a 'swim'. I believe it's scheduled somewhere around the 12th of Never.

Don't forget your lifejacket and Rubber Boot Gumbies :

As much as I do enjoy walking...I'll stick with the LAVIII.


----------



## ArmyRick (23 Jul 2005)

I have lots of expiriences with m113 (many hours maintenance and bootin around in them).
They are gone.

Thank god and good ridance.

Give me a LAVIII over the mobile icebox any day.


----------



## Gill557 (23 Jul 2005)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I have lots of expiriences with m113 (many hours maintenance and bootin around in them).
> They are gone.
> 
> Thank god and good ridance.
> ...



Mobile icebox?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2005)

G-Man said:
			
		

> Mobile icebox?



Spend a winter ex in one with a busted heater. And don't put your tongue on the cupola ring


----------



## McG (24 Jul 2005)

G-Man said:
			
		

> Mobile icebox?


The average heater never worked, and the metal hull had a way of sucking the heat out of you.   Fortunatly, the new A3s are like saunas.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> A limited number are being rebuilt and fitted with small (ex-Grizzly) turrets for specialist roles.


and even then, we have been told we (Engrs) will never use our new M113A3 & MTVE as anything more than a trg vehicles in Canada.


----------



## Black Watch (24 Jul 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And with your vast experience operating them, going on ex or otherwise in them, what makes you think that? Short of a ride or two around the button, what IS your experience in them? Go ahead, pretend your a salesman and your talking to Ottawa.


I didn't mean that i'm an expert...but ok...

"I'm an amreican...I sell military equipment. Prime minister Martin, you have the choice: either you buy m113's or the u.s. mlilitary wull carry your troops..."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2005)

I said, "Pardon"?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2005)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> I didn't mean that i'm an expert...but ok...
> 
> "I'm an amreican...I sell military equipment. Prime minister Martin, you have the choice: either you buy m113's or the u.s. mlilitary wull carry your troops..."



That's what I thought.

If your going to participate in a discussion, and give MEANINGFUL input, at least have SOME idea of what your talking about.


----------



## Black Watch (24 Jul 2005)

I apologize if I offended someone. I didn't meant to. But annyways, I was givving my point of view, and as you noticed, I have a little experience with the issue... Plese excuse me again


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2005)

Nothing wrong with asking questions when you don't know something. Logical and worthwhile opinions, or points of view, are usually qualified by real world experience. If you have neither, your best bet is to stick to questions.


----------



## JackD (24 Jul 2005)

Hi! I have to agree with you with my experience of the m113 - at least where I was - an armoured troop in 3 field/1CER with a section vehicle that was worse for wear. I was also crew commanding one in Cyprus that had a u-joint break while outside Nicosia - the road that ran along the cliff - it left us teetering on the edge. There was also that fiasco with the Diehl track and the 5km/hr restriction - oh yes - the heaters too. Could you tell me more of what was wrong with the Grizzlies -besides traction in winter, the tires getting beaten up and it not being big enough? Were they that hard to maintain?


----------



## Black Watch (24 Jul 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with asking questions when you don't know something. Logical and worthwhile opinions, or points of view, are usually qualified by real world experience. If you have neither, your best bet is to stick to questions.


 Thanks for the tip... I do have a question. . . Why did CF went on with those whelled apc rather to tracked apc' (I know replacement parts for the drivetrain could be one)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jul 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with asking questions when you don't know something. Logical and worthwhile opinions, or points of view, are usually qualified by real world experience. If you have neither, your best bet is to stick to questions.



There are a few here that should listen to that sound piece of advice.


----------



## beltfeedPaul (26 Jul 2005)

The M 113A3, with an uprgraded turret(scrounged Cadillac Gage turrets off old AVGPs), with new heaters and fresh paint IS STILL AN M113!! The M 113 was conceived, (40+ years ago)as a cheap, air transportable,easy to manufacture APC to shuttle hundreds of thousands of NATO troops to do battle with the Soviets! It was never designed to slug it out with other APCS of IFVs or really even defend itself, if it delivered the troops the to the objective, more or less intact, then its job was done. Why we would spend any money trying to refurbish these old dogs is quite beyond me. Maybe we could pull the turrets out of the Leopards, and rename them Kangaroo IIs!


----------



## TCBF (28 Jul 2005)

"The T-LAV family (which includes the M113-A3 and MTVL variants) are not amphibious. Canada has not had any amphibious capabilities since the late 70's to early 80's."

- The RCAC School ran an Advanced D&M Course before the summer of 95 that had a swim camp in it.  We swam wheeld and tracked veh.  As the veh started leaking too much POL into the sites, or developed other probs, they were pulled from the rotation at the fast or slow swim site.  The one Lynx we had finished the camp.  It was prob the last Lynx in the CF to swim.

- If we are serious about our arctic issues, the ONLY veh we have in any quantity that has the ability and flexibility to serve us in the arctic is the M-113.  Send all of the expensive wheeled gadgets overseas, but keep the 113 for the arctic.

Tom


----------



## Slim (28 Jul 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "- The RCAC School ran an Advanced D&M Course before the summer of 95 that had a swim camp in it.   We swam wheeld and tracked veh.   As the veh started leaking too much POL into the sites, or developed other probs, they were pulled from the rotation at the fast or slow swim site.   The one Lynx we had finished the camp.   It was prob the last Lynx in the CF to swim.
> 
> -Tom



Hey Tom

I was at that swim camp! First (and last) time I ever swam an M113 Dozer! It had a freeboard of like 2mm...And wouldn't steer in the water for sh*t! Glad they're now gone.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## KevinB (28 Jul 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - If we are serious about our arctic issues, the ONLY veh we have in any quantity that has the ability and flexibility to serve us in the arctic is the M-113.   Send all of the expensive wheeled gadgets overseas, but keep the 113 for the arctic.
> 
> Tom


TOM,  BV206...
The Icebox in NOT an arctic vehicle....


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The Icebox in NOT an arctic vehicle....


....but, the new saunas might be.


----------



## TCBF (31 Jul 2005)

How many BV-206 do we have left?  We just flogged a bunch, two are sitting outside of Dryden Ontario?  We had over 1300 M113s at one time.  BV 206 take up-armour?  M113 can.  Next question....

Tom


----------



## Jungle (31 Jul 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> How many BV-206 do we have left?


We have a few at the unit here, including TOW, PLS, ambulance, and MIR variants.
Even though we don't have it, there is an armoured variant, called the BV 206S. Read about it here: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bv2065/


----------



## Unknown Factor (31 Jul 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> How many BV-206 do we have left?



Speaking from same, Light Inf Bn's have the majority within the brigades, in various configurations.  More so the vehicle, though very capable is not a fighting platform, does have a larger profile than the 113 and if you've ever tried to change the oil is difficult to maintain.  I enjoyed the glory years of the 113 ever so fond of the days we had to pound track.  But pound for pound, dollar for dollar they are the most capable vehicle and are undoubtably being reconditioned for that very purpose, not to forget that they are bought and paid for.  When considering all posibilities one must not forget the purpose that we serve in the first place, to defend our nation. It would be un-prudent to assume that the CF is not preparing at some levels that very possibility.  BV 206's have their place within the support and re-supply arenas, but only when there is not a suitable platform do we begin to assume that it's well fit to fight from. - Cheers!


----------



## scm77 (4 Aug 2005)

I didn't know where to stick this so here will have to do (unless a mod can find a better place.) 

US Up-Armoured M113 in Iraq 







(click on them for full sized images)


----------



## Slim (4 Aug 2005)

I guess they don't plan on dropping the trim vien any time soon.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I guess they don't plan on dropping the trim vien any time soon.



Why? Then you'd have nothing to make a table out of.


----------



## Slim (5 Aug 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why? Then you'd have nothing to make a table out of.



Well...You have to admit that it made an awfully nice temporary dining set for those 15 minute lunches and for shaving in the morning!


----------



## mover1 (5 Aug 2005)

Look at all the old warriors gripe.  :warstory:

I thought they were a blast to drive. And like a minhome that just begged improving. Howmany of us ever arced a screwdriver to the batterybox while installing fluorescent lights or a car stereo.

http://www.armouredengineer.force9.co.uk/bucket/

Really good site for you enthusiasts out there. 

So its old. Remember our current enemies are fighting us with obsolescent cold war technology too.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Aug 2005)

I would take my chances with LAVIII over M113. Anyday. I have spent maybe a total time of like 5 hours in a LAVIII to date (I have spent weeks on end living in a M113) and that was more than enough time to determine what vehicle I liked better.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (7 Aug 2005)

Look at the terrain though. I'd rather have the 25mm any day in that open assed desert.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Aug 2005)

On a more grim note:

I heard Meyers and Rumsfeld's press conference today.  The press were asking about the 14 marines and the success of Zarqawi's mob.  More questions about how come their not beat yet, dont you know how to beat them, whats wrong with the kit, where are they getting these super-duper hi-tech weapons that can defeat or super duper hi tech vehicles.

Brief comment from Gen Meyers kind of put things in perspective.  The vehicle the 14 marines were riding in (therefore probably an LVTP7 AAAV pappy or Matt?) ran over a stacked set of mines (3 or so, just like Beerenfinger? and the guys in the Iltis in Afghanistan).  The General indicated the reason for the high casualty count was that the vehicle flipped (it weighs twice as much as an M113 according to my copy of Janes and has the same flammable, aluminum armour) and once it had flipped "you can't get out" according to the General.   I leave it to you professionals to ponder that for a minute.

The mines are simple weapons, easily available. Similarly armoured vehicles, tracked, heavier but similar ground pressure compared to an M113.  Higher casualty count, no survivors when compared to the Iltis event.  Be careful what you ask for and be sure you really want it, you might get it.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Aug 2005)

I'm also reading news reports that the  insurgents had tunneled underneath the road from some distance away to place the mines, leaving no trace visible from the road itself.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Aug 2005)

Tunneling underneath? Command detonated or some sort of automatic remote detonator?


----------



## Spr.Earl (10 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I'm also reading news reports that the   insurgents had tunneled underneath the road from some distance away to place the mines, leaving no trace visible from the road itself.


Er this happened in Yugo also,it's not a new tactic.All's they are doing is repeating hsitory.
But back on topic I likes me DAREOD,turbo charged and have a .50 and 7.62 and only 3 for crew.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Aug 2005)

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/08/jungle-law_10.html

Related commentary - observations of a reporter/blogger riding along in a Stryker in Mosul


----------

