M113 ?

[Dragon67]

The M113 is currently in use in Iraq by the US military. Over 50 countrys including Turkey and Israel use them. Over 50k have been produced. I don't know the full extent of their use by the US and Iraq in theatre now.

I guess they are not as attractive as the Bradley and could be mistaken for a toaster on the battlefield.

It would be nice to see them in the game, though.

[M1A1TC]

They are not being modelled.They are not used by HQ units only as some might think

[John Kettler]

M1A1TC,

You should see how excited the Combat Reform types are over on YouTube regarding the arrival of the C-130 transported Aussie "Gavins" in East Timor. I suspect there wouldn't be so much cheering had those been Russian An-12s deplaning BMD-4s, SPRUT-S and NONA.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lee]

I certainly hope the M113 APC will be added soon in one of the modules or patches, it's a really important vehicle to have in CMII. That's one of the most noticeably missing vehicles right now.

There are so many interesting variants of the M113, like the quad .50 cal mount version and the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System variant. It would be really cool to have some for use in battles!

[SgtMuhammed]

Considering that the US no longer uses the last two you mentioned I wouldn't expect them.

[Sequoia]

Copied this from a post Steve made May 1st.

If you want the M113 you'll have to convince him.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Modern will continue to be developed for a long time so who knows what will happen in the future. But for the near term, I can say:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />*Stryker Mortar Carrier (MC)

No. There is no support for on-map mortars so that would have to be added first. The good coms of US units means the chances of mortar assets being on-map would be accidental rather than purposeful.

*Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)

No. It's not fielded yet and the guesses as to when it will be are (last I checked) still uncertain.

*M113 Armored Personnel Carrier

No. It's used in a support role for some HQs only, and generally even those are not within CM's scope. Other uses outside of HQs is not within CM's scope.

*M224 60mm mortar

Same answer as the MC.

*Russian Tunguska

As far as I know the Syrians do not have this. They have the older ZSU-23, though. Still, this would be nice to add in the near future. We have no specific plans for it though.

*Syrian air support...

We will likely add Soviet era air power at some point, probably will add when we get to the point of adding more-or-less pure fantasy stuff into the game.

Steve </font>

[Dragon67]

according to the wiki article on the M113- Iraq's army currently has over 230 M113s and there is a photo of the 25th ID using them in Iraq in March 2007.

So they are very much active by US forces in the Middle East and undoubtedly would play a role in any invasion in the Middle East in the near future.

Interestingly, the M113s in Iraq are also being equiped with anti-RPG cages.

[M1A1TC]

Id rather see M3A3 Bradley. Atleast it would be more useful.

Here is M113 used in Iraq - NOT BY HQ UNIT

[ May 09, 2008, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TC ]

[Sequoia]

Okay I'll play Devil's (aka Steve's ) advocate.

Is he right in that they are only used by some headquarters and support units which, as he says, CMSF does not intend to simulate?

Personally I think they'd be a good addition. I'd like to see the Army with some trucks too, but resources are limited and he's the guy you have to convince.

Edit: Hadn't seen M1's post when I posted.

M1 do you know what kind of unit that is exactly?

[ May 09, 2008, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Sequoia ]

[M1A1TC]

Check out the photo I posted - That is not a HQ unit. Yes, HQ units use M577s and M113 for COC and medical transport, but they are also used by infantry as APCs

"URBAN COMBAT--IRAQ

The elegant simplicity of the M113's box-like structure has enabled this versatile vehicle to be employed in many functions. Although superseded by the M2 Bradley in the role of infantry transporter, the "one-one-three" is still widely used by the U.S. Army as a medical evacuation vehicle and combat engineer vehicle. In the latter role, the M113 has seen action during Operation Iraqi Freedom much like that for which it was originally used four decades earlier.

Related Results

Engineer Bradley...

When more than 100 Iraqi soldiers staged a surprise attack on Bravo Company, 11th Engineer Battalion near the Baghdad airport in early April 2003, Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith climbed into the open hatch of an M113 and opened fire with the .50 caliber machine gun. Alter expending nearly 400 rounds of ammunition in an hour and a half of fighting, SFC Smith was mortally wounded. This is precisely the type of situation that caused gunshields to be created 40 years ago, but--like the overwhelming majority of M113s in Iraq--SFC Smith's APC was not equipped with a shield. The widespread use of gunshields oil U.S. Army M113 variants in Vietnam saved the lives of many crewmen in that conflict, and might also have prevented the loss of this courageous warrior.

For those who wish to use them, the cupola armor kits are still in the system (frontal shield only has NSN 2541-01-394-7280; frontal shield with left and right enclosures has NSN 2541-01-497-9999), and can be ordered through normal channels. It is uncertain if the cargo hatch shields and elbow mounts for 7.62mm machine guns are still in the inventory since they have not been seen on U.S. Army M113s for many years.

Also missing from M113s is bolt-on armor that would protect against the effects of shoulder-fired anti-armor weapons like the RPG-7, which has been encountered in massive numbers in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even though the M113A3--production of which began in 1987--was manufactured with provision for attachment of additional armor, no type of passive or reactive armor has ever been acquired.

However, a partial solution to the RPG problem was found in the form of a field expedient modification to increase stowage space by attaching cargo racks to the sides of the vehicle. A side effect of these steel-framed racks, together with the supplies and gear stowed in them, is that they acted as improvised spaced armor and detonated RPGs with some standoff distance from the hull.

One combat engineer reported that, "When RPGs hit [a cargo rack], they would hit a rucksack or a hard equipment case and go off, and fail to do more than gouge a hole in the vehicle's side." However, Task Force 1-64 Armor's after action review (accessible at www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030912.asp) noted that external stores helped, but did not always prevent penetrations by RPG and recoilless rifle rounds.

A more effective spaced armor was designed at Anniston Army Depot in May 2004, creating a "kit" that enables the side skirts and ramp armor taken from older, out-of-service M2A0 Bradleys to be bolted onto M113A3s. The Bradley spaced laminate armor, together with additional ballistic plates on the vehicle front, would give 360-degree protection against 14.5mm projectiles at short range, as well as increasing the capability to survive RPG hits and roadside bombs. Use of the modified Bradley A0 armor would be an elegant way to significantly upgrade the protection level of the M113A3, at extremely low cost.

An M113A3 with additional, well-designed armor bolted onto the sides and front would be able to absorb multiple RPG hits without the concomitant risk of fire. Spaced armor is an inexpensive upgrade, sufficiently lightweight so as to put little strain on engine, transmission, and suspension components, but clearly not the most effective option. Reactive armor would be far superior to spaced armor, as would passive armor like that developed for the M8 armored gun system. The MS's passive armor modules are already type-classified, and could be readily adapted for installation on the M113.

Related Results

Engineer Bradley...

As was learned four decades ago, providing a gunshield for the M2 .50 caliber machine gun would substantially improve TC survivability. The complete kit offers good protection from small arms projectiles, but requires that the gunner expose much of his zipper body when reloading the "filly." Because of this factor, using the frontal shield by itself might be a better alternative, one that offers protection over the frontal arc, while retaining the flexibility and ease of operation of an unshielded weapon.

Installing and manning a 7.62mm machine gun at each side of the cargo hatch would greatly improve situational awareness by having continuous observation of three quadrants, and allow instant return fire against multiple RPG teams. Tiffs is impossible on vehicles armed with only a single weapon, and has resulted in the loss of a number of vehicles in Iraq, including M113s, HMMWVs, Bradleys, and at least one Stryker. Two extra machine guns, and the personnel to man them, would provide an "active defense" against the RPG threat, substantially improving survivability and combat effectiveness.

The M113 has served the U.S. Army well in combat and peacekeeping operations for close to half a century, and is destined to remain in service for many years to come. While it has been eclipsed by the M2 Bradley for high intensity conflicts such as were once considered possible with the Soviet Union, the M113 still has much potential for use as an infantry vehicle for counterinsurgency operations, particularly in urban terrain. The hope is that this article will provide some insight on how that potential has been utilized in the past, so that it might be further built upon in the present and future.

Stanley C. Crist served in the 3rd Battalion, 185th Armor, and has worked as a small arms ammunition consultant. He is the author of numerous articles on small arms testing and evaluation, and his work has appeared in Infantry, Armor, and Special Weapons for Military and Police magazines.

COPYRIGHT 2004 U.S. Army Infantry School

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group"

[ May 09, 2008, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TC ]

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

Okay I'll play Devil's (aka Steve's ) advocate.

Is he right in that they are only used by some headquarters and support units which, as he says, CMSF does not intend to simulate?

Personally I think they'd be a good addition. I'd like to see the Army with some trucks too, but resources are limited and he's the guy you have to convince.

Edit: Hadn't seen M1's post when I posted.

M1 do you know what kind of unit that is exactly?

25th Infantry "Tropic Lightning" based in Hawaii

[ May 09, 2008, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TC ]

[Lee]

Any variants of the M113 would be good to have in CMII. The ones I named would be particularly fun, even though they aren't currently in use, and maybe they'll convert some back over to those configurations again.

[M1A1TC]

January 4, 2005

By Joseph L. Galloway, ©Knight Ridder

Stars and Stripes European edition

WASHINGTON — The Army, beset with complaints that its troops are going into combat in inadequately armored Humvees, will send an older and less used class of armored personnel carriers to Iraq after spending $84 million to add armor to them.

These vehicles, both veteran warhorses, are the M113/A3 armored personnel carrier and the M577 command post carrier. Both will be tougher and safer than newly armored Humvees.

Army officials who pushed hard over the last two years for getting the M113 into duty in Iraq said it was more useful, cheaper and easier to transport than the Army's new wheeled Stryker armored vehicle, which also is in use in Iraq.

The Army and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld found themselves at the center of a firestorm last month over the pace of adding armor to the Humvee, a small transport vehicle that's been pressed into service in Iraq as a combat vehicle. Critics have charged that even with armor the Humvee is too easily destroyed by rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices.

An Army representative, who didn't want to be identified, said Monday that $84 million was being spent to add armor to 734 M113/A3s and M577s.

For the M113s, that includes hardened steel side armor, a "slat armor" cage that bolts to the side armor and protects against RPGs, anti-mine armor on the bottom and a new transparent, bulletproof gun shield on the top that vastly improves gunners' vision.

The M577, nicknamed the "high-top shoe" for its tall, ungainly silhouette, will get only slat armor and anti-mine armor. Its high sides can't take the steel armor without making the vehicle unstable and even more liable to roll over.

The slat-type armor essentially is a metal cage designed to detonate RPGs before they breach the steel armor and the light aluminum wall. Similar slat armor has been added to the Stryker vehicle.

The armor kits will be produced in the United States, the Army representative said, and installed in Kuwait.

The representative said the M113 upgrade was requested by Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the ground commander in Iraq, and approved by Gen. George Casey, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq.

The M113 typically carries a driver, a commander and 11 infantry soldiers. It can be fitted with a .50-caliber machine gun or a MK19 40 mm grenade launcher. The M113/A3 version, introduced in 1987, has a bigger turbo-charged diesel engine, an improved transmission, steering and braking package, and inside liners to suppress spall, the superheated molten metal produced by RPG and tank-round hits. It has a range of 300 miles and a road speed of more than 40 mph. It also can swim.

More than 80,000 M113s in 28 configurations have been manufactured since they were introduced in 1960, and they still do yeoman duty in many of the world's armies.

At around 13 tons, the M113 is much easier to transport than the behemoth M1A2 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle or even the wheeled Stryker.

The Army has spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying armored Humvees at $150,000 each and buying and making special tempered-steel and bulletproof-glass kits to add armor protection to the thin-skinned variety. The demand for armor on the Humvees grew as insurgents began pouring RPGs onto American patrols and convoys, and detonating deadly homemade bombs in the late summer of 2003.

The current demand in Iraq is for more than 22,000 armor-protected Humvees, a goal the Army says it will meet sometime between now and March. Its prime focus has turned now to armoring the five models of trucks that travel Iraq's dangerous roads to supply American forces.

Rumsfeld recently told a Tennessee National Guard soldier, who asked why his outfit had to scavenge dumps in Kuwait for scraps of armor for their Humvees, that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might like to have."

One serving officer, who asked not to be identified, said Rumsfeld "didn't even let us go to war with the Army we had; he made us leave half our armored vehicles at home in pursuit of lighter, faster and cheaper."

[M1A1TC]

M113s used in Iraq

[tiny_tanker]

I haven't seen any M113's in Iraq since I started working there in 05. I noticed that those last two pictures show DCU's, so not to current.

[JP76er]

Originally posted by Dragon67:

The M113 is currently in use in Iraq by the US military. Over 50 countrys including Turkey and Israel use them. Over 50k have been produced. I don't know the full extent of their use by the US and Iraq in theatre now.

I guess they are not as attractive as the Bradley and could be mistaken for a toaster on the battlefield.

It would be nice to see them in the game, though.

Thanks for making me laugh! A toaster! I have Multiple Sclerosis & I'm back in to military models & the good old enduring M113 is one of my favorite class of models. No where near the APCs now but what a workhorse. I love all the different versions & all of the different countries that are or have used the M113.

I'll have my wife get in touch with you when I start scratch building a M113 out of our toaster.

Cheers!

Edited to add that building models does wonders for the fine motor skills in my hands. Helps hand to eye coordination.

[JP76er]

M1A1TC - Those are some great pics. I would love to see more if you don't mind. Any pics of Iraq would be of interest to me. I'm helping out 4 of the 3rd Bat Rangers, from "Black Hawk Down" fame, in 2 websites to help out all vets from all wars. All positive help & stories to show how great the contributions all vets do every day that the news just registers a nano-blip. Any suggestions or any pics & stories would be appreciated. I looked at your profile, are you with the Ohio National Guard? I am never served in our Armed Services; sometimes I'm not sure on things. If you are, we just saw my friend's band, American Dog open for Ace Frehley in Columbus. Excellent show! American Dog always rocks the place. Ace looked great. He has a long history of drug & alcohol abuse but he is sober & clean now. He's heavier in a healthy way. He's coherent & funny as hell. He put on an awesome show. I really like Columbus & the OSU campus. They played at the Newport Music Hall. There were many nice young ladies about the place.

Edited to remember proper spelling & grammar.

[M1A1TC]

Last one is Vietnam era

Yeah, I am in OHNG, Cincinnati. We just had Matt Maupin's funeral last weekend, was very sad. I am in Honor Guard, I volunteer for veteran's funerals besides my normal drills

[Battlefront.com]

Still the same answer as before... no M113s. The ones used by HQs and medical units are not relevant. We don't have the Stryker MEV simulated either for the same reason. There is an argument to be made for their inclusion as part of certain Engineer units, granted. But it's not important enough for us. Sorry guys... we have to draw the line somewhere, and that line has never been "if it exists, put it in". Dozens of vehicles were not simulated in CMx1, so the M113 is not some wild exception.

BTW, pictures do not speak 1000 words. They simply show that it's there. We never disputed that, so the pictures are not relevant. Neither are websites made by a wacko, nor a news story that was put out more than 3 years ago by someone who obviously spoke to people with axes to grind

Steve

[Dragon67]

Maybe if you folks ever want to throw in a Canadian unit the M113 might make an appearance ?

[Splinty]

The only M113s I saw in Baghdad were being used as mobile front gates for FOB Rustamiyah, They literally would drive in front of the entrances and park there. There were a couple of other 113s that belonged to 1/8 Cav, but they never left their spots in the motor pool.

[JasonC]

"by someone who obviously spoke to people with axes"

Joe Galloway is make out of solid gold cred. He was in the Ia Drang in 1965 with Harold Moore, and wrote We Were Soldiers with him. He gets what real grunts think past flak and spin put out by REMFs, but he does not make things up.

[Battlefront.com]

He gets what real grunts think past flak and spin put out by REMFs, but he does not make things up.

Never said he did What I said is he spoke to people with axes to grind and he himself may have one to grind for all I know. My point is that the article he wrote was very lopsided and very typical of the tracks vs. wheels debates that the Stryker brought to a new fevered pitch.

Or put another way... Galloway has an opinion and he is expressing it. But it is just an opinion and one that I find to be biased. And that's my opinion It is also my opinion that it has nothing at all to do with whether M113s should be in CM:SF or not since it was written 3 years ago and the M113s still haven't replaced Humvees, Strykers, or Bradleys.

Steve

[JasonC]

I'd say you are grinding a pro Strkyer ax, and he is accurately reporting a serious debate within the army, over the wisdom of sending men out in glorified jeeps, while armored tracks sat in stateside depots, and sergeants scrounge the scrapyards for sheet metal to bolt onto said jeeps.

That the partisans of lighter faster blah blah blah would like to pretend this didn't happen or matter, is ax grinding of the first order. That they'd like to pretend those calling them on it are cranks, is also ax grinding of the first order.

None of which need say anything about Stryker vs. M113, since it was about M113 vs. Humvee, and old army practical men against Rummy's snake-eater maneuveresque dreamers. Galloway knows which side he is on in that, surely, but that isn't an ax, nor an opinion, and he is reporting it fairly, while Rummy and company tried to pretend no fight about it even existed. Having an opinion that a fight about it didn't occur isn't an opinion, it is simply a falsehood.

It is obvious to everyone that the reason you aren't interested in M113s is CMSF is an ad for Strykers, whatever else it is. The reality in the field, on the other hand, is that M113s were used as early as the Thunder Runs in the active phase of the war and are still used now, and extensively, and no not just by HQs. That you don't care whether your game reflects those realities in the field, is of course your call.

[YankeeDog]

Issues of use of M113s in combat situations by US Forces aside. . .

FWIW, I think using the conceit of a symbolic contribution by the "New Iraqi Army" of a Brigade or so to the invasion of Syria would be a cool addition to the fictional conceit of CMSF, which would allow for the addition of a whole spectrum of older equipment on the Blue side.

Were something like the international events that make up the hypothetical background of CMSF to actually happen, I think such a symbolic participation by the New Iraqi Army would be quite plausible for the obvious political benefits. Similar to the way it was made certain that some Saudi played an active role in GWI.

AIUI, the New Iraqi Army is now fielding a fair number of M113s, amongst other things.

But it doesn't sound like BFC is really looking for *more* vehicles/units to add at this point. . . sounds like they have their hands full with what's already on the schedule. So if you want to argue for the addition of the M113, realistically, you need to think about what should be dropped to make room for it on the work schedule.

Cheers,

YD