Comments on: Army Wants Lots of Lightweight MRAPs

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:59:36 +0000

Concerning the M-113, I remember that it was a vehicle that could go literally anywhere. Once my commander told be to go off a real steep sand embankment through heavy brush through a swamp to get to our next point. I had my doubts since tanks have thrown tracks in a lot less. But the M-113 took the terrain like it was nothing. It was a real all-terrain moment and we were just feeling invincible at it’s ability. Then he brought us back to earth when he took his pocket knife and jammed it into the aluminum armor to remind us that we weren’t as invincible as we thought.

By: Old MSgt

Old MSgt — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:06:14 +0000

The M113A3 with the RISE power pack and armor package and external fuel tanks is not the lightly armored bucket of yore. That’s why they are still being modded and reset when they rotate back from Iraq.
It would be easy to further v-hull this simple design, add the successful Soucy band tracks the Canadians are using, and go places heavier rides cannot.
If your weight means you cannot go to the fight, having awesome firepower doesn’t mean much.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:18:33 +0000

Greg Zurbay has made a very good point. Wat are the S. Africans using? Thier vehicles are mine resistant, fast, and have been effective. It all comes down to politics, and we have enough MRAP’s. Too little too late, though. The procurement process, from assault rifles to aircraft needs to be changed. The M-113 is an aluminum coffin. No place on the battlefield as is. No way. Find another use for them, since there are thousands.

By: Rick

Rick — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:33:53 +0000

Sorry — glancing shots would cause spalling in the troop compartment.

By: Rick

Rick — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:33:10 +0000

The original M-113’s were indeed gasoline powered. In Vietnam they were famous for catching fire and burning, though I guess it was technically melting, to the point where there was nothing left but the (steel) tracks and drive train components.

On a side note, M-113’s are only rated to withstand 7.62mm. We were told that the A2 models that I rode in the 80’s would be penetrated by 12.7mm (.50 cal) at less than 100 meters. 14.5mm could do the job out to 300 meters. As someone mentioned above glancing shots

By: BobC

BobC — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 04:02:09 +0000

M113? I don’t think was EVER gas powered.. It had a CAT Diesel in it.

The M114 had Chevy Small Block in it, waaay underpowered.

The M113A3 can keep up with a Bradley on the road, making it fast enough to get out of trouble, but tracked giving it the ability to go most anywhere. It’s also capable of bolt on reactive armor making it RPG resistant, much more than an Armored Car or a bearcat will ever be.

M113 has a LOT of potential if upgraded for armor protection.. they are exceptionally easy to maintain, parts and logistics are in place a HUGE savings from new program development, and there are 10’s of thousands in surplus.

Track vehicle maintenance isn’t much worse than armored wheel vehicle maintenance, but maybe there is some need for further research and development on improved, longer lasting tracks.

The Bearcat, and the like, one single RPG will turn them into smoldering SMALL piles of melted metal.

By: Marshal Imohowo

Marshal Imohowo — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:45:50 +0000

Why cant they American troops a mode of operation that is they act of using less tract routes, employ the use of sniping positions. Movement can be done mainly at night in such a deceptive form, keeping the insurgents at suspense. Trucks that can resists IEDs is not the solution. Because the more trucks you produce the more destructive the IEDs will be each day that passes.

By: littlebudda

littlebudda — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:14:25 +0000

David, with respect I don’t know of too many people outside the US who hold the view that the war in Iraq was about liberation of an oppressed people. if that was the case the there are many many other countries with greater need to be saved than Iraq. Only they don’t have a huge pool of oil under their soil.

By: littlebudda

littlebudda — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:07:01 +0000

I think the US could do worse than the Australian designed and built “Bushmaster” not one fatality recorded despite being used by Australian British and Danish troops in Iraq & Afghanistan. Certainly several vehicles have been totally written off due to RPG & IED attack but not one death.….

http://www.thalesgroup.com.au/pdfs/bushmaster_eng_170206.pdf

Of course there is also the Australian M113(AS4)
The M113A4s will have greater firepower, protection, mobility and habitability than the existing M113A1 fleet. This will be achieved through the following:

The new M113’s have also been stretched 666mm or just over 2 foot

A powerful EURO III four-stroke DaimlerChrysler-MTU engine coupled to a six-gear ZF automatic transmission will improve speed and mobility.
Yoke steering with true pivot turn and natural steering input in reverse.
Upgraded vehicles will have base-level protection enhanced by external appliqué armour and spall curtains for increased vehicle and crew protection
A new Tenix-designed and manufactured turret will provide a platform to ensure superior firepower.
Day/night sight, including a unity vision periscope channel.
New electric powered turret drives with stabilisation as a future growth capability.
New M2 HB QCB 12.7mm machine gun.
Revised seating and stowage layouts in the M113AS4s providing improved habitability for crew and passengers.
Hull reinforcement to improve mine-blast protection.
The fleet will comprise seven vehicle variants: armoured personnel carriers (APC); fitters track; recovery; mortar; command; ambulance and logistic vehicles.

By: David

David — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:35:04 +0000

The M-113 as used in Vietnam was a tracked flaming coffin. Aluminum hulls prone to spalling from anything of .50 cal and up, and gasoline powered. The Israeli’s are still using them but they look a whole lot different now. Take a look here.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/m-113/M-113.htm
I agree with with OP. These would be better than another overpriced MRAP. They can move over rough terrain at a much higher speed and with greater safet for the crew inside.
I hate to speak unkindly of a brother Marine but your letter was one of the most idiotic I have read from anybody, anywhere. I agree on the wrongness of putting troops on trial for doing their jobs. Murtha should be on trial, not the Haditha Marines. I have to advise you that “War Crimes” are a matter of violations of the Rules Of Land Warfare and the Geneva Conventions, none of which have been violated by our goverment. You can’t try people for non-crimes. To do so would be doing excatly what you just kvetched about.
When we went to war in Iraq it was against a man who was committing crimes against humanity and with the backing of about 40 UN decrees. We stopped and executed mass-murderers and mass-torturers and freed several million people. Is there something wrong with that in your mind? Same can be said of throwing the taliban out of Afghanistan. There’s also a lesson there for Russia: We can do what you couldn’t and with 10’s of thousands fewer troops. Watch out if you’re thinking about messing with the US.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:00:46 +0000

I worked on the South Africa version in Iraq.The Mumas and Pumas,and Casspir,they are very capable and cost less.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:58:05 +0000

What companies will be hiring for MRAP program.I was a DOD contractor for three years in Iraq and looking for work.If anybody had any info please email at amsjj1976@yahoo.com.Thank you

By: brian vance

brian vance — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:54:42 +0000

I have to say, why does it take someone like me/or someone with enough common sense, over these big-budget/bigger is better, etc. gurus in high positions to figure out.. that not only in vehicles, but in anything.. time-tested and proven things work the best. I.E. the AK-47 over the M-16 or M-4, the RPG over the L.A.W. or AT-4, and something like the British have like the Land-Rover vehicle.. Cuuuuuummon! the AK has better capability, the RPG has better capability, and something like the Land-Rover (even though some improvements could be incorperated) is better. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeello top brass, wake up! quit spending more money on JUNK, stuff that gets our soldiers killed so “buddies” of top brass/senior officials can get richer because they’re the one’s who have part ownership in the companies that supply our armed forces. QUIT BEING STUPID. point made.

By: SWATDude

SWATDude — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:39:09 +0000

Why not order off GSA.…the Lenco BearCat has been saving lives and saving dollars for years.
The Army is so fat they can’t see their toes…they even own a few of these.…Fort Carson and Fort Riley.…duh.…the new Lenco BearCat G4 is in the $300k range and has more off road prowess than any MRAP truck.

By: DUMB MARINE

DUMB MARINE — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:21:00 +0000

It is not hunks of Iron or body armor that win was it troops that have a canco attatude and the primission from above to carry out the objective.
The Army and most services have forgot that the tax pyer payes for this crap.
We fought the Vietnam war with 2 1/2 trucks for point middle gurard and a tow truck bring up the rear. We had Ied called land mines and men shooting bullits at flack jackets that stope nothing. I understand the plight of the war they are fighting and should never ingaged in an the men responsibal should have a fair trile then hanged by the neck till dead. The coward is this very moment drawing up his climency while troops are still going to prisons for none crimes. If OBOMA DOES NOT TURN THIS CRININAL OVER TO THE HAGE FOR TRILE THE WORLD WILL LOSE ALL RESPECT FOR US AND OUR FORME OF JUSTICE. WE ARE ALREADY HATED BY ALMOST EVERYONE AND THIS WILL BE THE END. A NATION WITHOUT INTEGERTY IS NOT A NATIONA NATION WITH NOLEDER IS A MOB.

By: hoodedswan

hoodedswan — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:46:33 +0000

The JLTV is the HMMWV replacement. 6 or fewer seats depending on the version. Bolt on armor depending on the mission. This M-ATV is a wheeled APC. Not clear what the seating capacity will be. Armor will be an integral part of the design, although additional armor might be an option.
The M113 has never been designated “Gavin”. It is no better armored than the many other tracked or wheeled APCs of it’s weight made around the world. It was known for it’s vulnerability to anti-tank mines during the Vietnam War. Anyone who suggests that you’re better off with tracked vehicles than wheeled ones probably never had to maintain them. Counter-insurgency warfare puts lots of miles on vehicles.

By: Sgt JFK

Sgt JFK — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:14:22 +0000

Am I not understanding something here? Isn’t this redundant to the JLTV program or is this a different vehicle with a different mission? If they are close shouldn’t they be combined? Could someone clear this up for me?

By: vector141

vector141 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:44:24 +0000

I hate going down this road again, but are we ever going to give Komatsu a shout? Their LAV has been out there for years and could be easily upgraded.

see

http://www.strange-mecha.com/jsdf/jgsdf/jgsdf13.htm#LACV

By: greg zurbay

greg zurbay — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:38:39 +0000

Hey, why not call South Africa — their mine resistant vehicle (from couple of decades ago) was so effective the bombers gave up on trying, they have been rehabbed, I think the price was like $150,000 each. Admittedly US contractors won’t make a bundle, but you could put the difference into other .….…..

By: Sung Hyon

Sung Hyon — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:05:16 +0000

What this author seems to forget is that our military remains supremely capable of destroying a conventional military force that would be capable of creating a “high threat” environment for our soldiers. It’s almost unthinkable that enemy APCs with 20-mm-or-larger cannon would be able to survive for long against the onslaught of Hellfires, Mavericks, Javelins, or depleted urananium penetrators they would most surely face. RPGs, snipers, and mines remain the primary threat to our ground forces for the forseeable future, because we dominate in all other areas.