M113 ?

[Dragon67]

// 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.//

I tend to ignore those arguments. I recall the 60 Minutes segment on the Bradley over a decade ago stating the same things about the Bradley that are issues now coming out about the Stryker.

The Abrahms and Bradley compliment each other and eventually the TO&E for Stryker units will be altered to allow for the Stryker's weaknesses.

There is no military vehicle out there that does not have a weakness.

[cool breeze]

This reminds me. Id like to be able to order my riflemen to shoot at wheeled AFVs at long range but I noticed in Paper Tigers Hasrabit campaign (havent had the pleasure to finish yet) that I couldnt get my SF to open up on the BRDMs with the target command.

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC,

I'd say you are grinding a pro Strkyer ax,

I don't have anything to grind. I am neither pro wheeled nor pro tracked because each has its pros and cons.

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.

No, he accurately reported ONE SIDE of a debate with absolutely no mention of the other side. That's why I called it biased and I stand by that claim. Any "accurate" reporting of a debate presents both sides of the arguments and does not distort or neglect either.

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.

No, the people on the other side would point out that any modern RPG or significant IED will go through the thinly armored M113 very nicely. In fact, IIRC the armor on the Stryker is inherently better. Humvees... that's another story.

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.

Rumsefeld was all about shoehorning the military to fit a naive political vision of warfare. The lot of them should be given a rifle and sent to Iraq to help clean up the mess they made. But that's just my bias

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.

True, but that's got nothing to do with M113s or their merit in theater. It's an argument for a more capable force against the threat. That may include M113s in some capacity, but it may not. That's a separate debate.

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.

Oh, for Pete's sake... are you SERIOUS? If you are, then how would you explain the Bradleys in CM:SF? An even better, more capable vehicle than the M113, are they not? It shows up the limitations of the Strykers even better than the M113 ever could, correct? Maybe we were really making CM:SF an ad for the Bradley? Or the Abrams, since we have a few of those kicking around too.

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.

Bull They are not "used extensively". They are used by HQs and medical services, neither of which are relevant to CM. They are used in limited quantities by Engineers only, as far as we know. If you know something different, please back it up with some facts.

But then again, why bother having this discussion with you (again). Anybody that has hung around here long enough knows your position and your own bias. For the uninformed it's extremely pro heavy and extremely anti medium/light.t

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

I am really getting tired of the "let's replace the Hummer with a track" debate. They were never designed to do the same job. The Hummer is a tactical vehicle that is also used in some combat ops. The M113 is a combat vehicle.

I know, since M1's seem to stand up to attack the best why don't we just replace every vehicle in the military with M1's. We all know that the government doesn't have to worry about money they can just print more. Every man a tanker, that's my new motto.

[JasonC]

They are not "used extensively"

1st ID airlifted a modest number into northern Iraq to support the airborne up there, at the outset of the war.

The first MOH awarded in Iraq was to a combat engineer manning the 50 cal of an M113 in the battle at Baghdad airport.

M113s were used extensively by the "tail" elements of 3rd ID in the run to, and into, Baghdad. You can find several miles of video of them on u-tube.

Specifically, 3-15 service company was hit hard during one of the Thunder Runs, and defended itself from M113 tracks. There aren't rear areas in these fast mobile wars against disorganized and unconventional opponents. Modern US units are easily half "tail". The tail fights, it has to.

11th combat engineers also used them early, same way.

The AFV group sent to Objective Moe in one of the Thunder Runs was 1/3rd M113s, only 2/3rds front line fighting vehicles (a single platoon of M-1s, a company of Brads).

The detailed AARs of the fight into the city are full of reports of the role of the M113s. They were valued compare to the tanks for all around fire by men "up" with SAWs and personal weapons on top of the 50 cals, overwatching vs. infantry at all angles and altitudes.

Iraqi tactics, such as they were, included letting the point by before trying to hit the more vulnerable elements of the column, which were the CSS elements. They also hit HQ elements. The whole column fought, not just the speartip. Some were only in hummers.

M113s were used later in Fallujah by the 1st Cavalry, alongside Brads.

In January 2005, the army announced it was sending over 700 upgraded M113s to the theater to increase force protection. As I said, it was M113 vs. uparmoring hummers, and despite some delay they eventually did send hundreds of them. They are still there.

The Iraqi army is also operating M113s, with 230 on strength as of recent report.

That means there are about 1000 M113s in Iraq. Are there 1000 Strykers in Iraq? What counts then as "used extensively"?

[ May 10, 2008, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[LongLeftFlank]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Modern US units are easily half "tail". The tail fights, it has to.

And that's the "symmetrical" US vs. Syria fight people are looking for.

US supply or engineering column runs into bypassed Syrian force and must fight for its life. Air support is called, but there isn't a proper FAO with the belaguered unit, so air is potentially a hazard to both sides in the dust and haze.

[ChrisND]

Why do we have Humvee supply platoons?

[JasonC]

"is there really much of a difference between the slated M113s and the M1126"

As both roomy MG main armament infantry taxis, no. Otherwise, sure, lots of differences on detail. Fast wheels. Tracks. Remote weapon system. Usually unbuttoned to fire (also mounted fire by the riders as SOP). Significantly bigger, 18 tons. Significantly smaller, 13 tons. Etc. Plenty of differences in detail. We've got how many types of T-72?

[JasonC]

"it's extremely pro heavy and extremely anti medium/light"

You say that like its a bad thing.

Also, M113s aren't "heavy" by any stretch. They are lighter than Strykers.

Also, I am arguing they belong in a game of modern combat. And in the force to give the tail robustness, where they are, but that is secondary.

[JasonC]

Oh, and here is another reason M113s belong in a modern tactical combat game set in the middle east.

Israel has 5500 M113s.

Saudi Arabia has 3000 M113s.

Jordan has 1250 M113s.

Lebanon has 725 M113s.

Kuwait has 230 M113s.

UAE has 133 M113s. (technically, AIFV variant)

Bahrain has 115 M113s.

Throw in ours and the Iraqi's, and there are about 12000 of the things in theater.

What counts as used extensively, again?

[SgtMuhammed]

To be honest I would love to see the M113 in the game. Lots of cool things you can do with it. LTC Marcone at Objective Peach said that the Republican Guards unit that counter-attacked them was using captured Kuwaiti M113's.

[JasonC]

Oh and I left out Turkey. 5000 more of the things, 2000 of them very recent upgrade models. Makes 17000 in theater. There are what, 300 Strykers in theater? Maybe twice that to be generous. Even the US has more M113s.

And yeah, it'd just be cool to have them. They are real, they are used, etc. "Well gosh yes, but people might compare things" (!)

[Thomm]

M113s would be cool, of course. As would be M60s (let WWIII begin!)

In the present setup of the CM:SF editor, it may be a bit of a stretch to introduce them into any of the available OOBs, though.

I can understand that this would keep BFC from introducing them.

Best regards,

Thomm

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Oh and I left out Turkey. 5000 more of the things, 2000 of them very recent upgrade models. Makes 17000 in theater. There are what, 300 Strykers in theater? Maybe twice that to be generous. Even the US has more M113s.

And yeah, it'd just be cool to have them. They are real, they are used, etc. "Well gosh yes, but people might compare things" (!)

Careful, Jason, lest people think you have an "axe to grind" yourself...

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Why do we have Humvee supply platoons?

If I were to guess it was probably because their may have been grander designs for this game.

Either that, or it is so you can have more humvees in a game without have delete entire battalions to use them.

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

Careful, Jason, lest people think you have an "axe to grind" yourself

Anybody that has seen even a modest number of JasonC's posts knows that he has MANY axes to grind. Anything having to do with bashing wheeled armor is one of his favorites

Normal Dude,

Why do we have Humvee supply platoons?

If you mean CM:SF, there aren't any supply units of any sort. Humvees are only in the game where relevant to combat units.

Now, onto Jason's grinding...

Oh, and here is another reason M113s belong in a modern tactical combat game set in the middle east.

Here's a reason why you're going off the deepend into a useless argument... CM:SF does not simulate any of those nations you list, including the Iraqis. So why on Earth are you putting that crap into your argument? It's almost like you're... well... not really interested in being relevant.

Your other post, which is far more rooted in reality, is also nothing new. I don't know how many times I have to say "I know they were used in Iraq and are still used in Iraq". The question is where to draw the line. The logistics and other units are not part of the CM:SF simulation. We don't have a dozen different vehicles necessary to simulate logistics units, so why should we cherry pick the M113 to make an appearance?

Likewise, anything that is relevant specifically to COIN Ops is out. There's tons of stuff we aren't simulating that could be argued for if one looks at Iraq. I note you're not arguing for any of the wheeled stuff that's in Iraq now that we're not simulating. Not surprising, of course, knowing your bias.

Combat engineers... that's really the only relevant argument to make, and I've said that we've drawn a line and it's not on the side you want. We didn't have Funnies in CMBO and some people never got over that either.

So it would seem that JasonC's point is "I want them, and you won't let me have them. Therefore, I'm going to throw a tantrum". Not an impressive line of argument, even if not unexpected.

Steve

[El Hombre]

Well I for one wouldn't mind including Lebanon in that little theatre of operations. You'd make JasonC happy with M-113s, open wheel fanboys happy with the Willys and other French ATVs, and you'd get the good old M48 together with or for symmetric warfare against the T55. Basically a free vietnam campaign in mountainous settings.

Imagine the following scenario: Hezbollah takes over west beirut and starts attacking the mountains with Syria's help, putting pressure on the Lebanese Army which splits along sectarian lines.

US decides on a 2-pronged invasion: from the East (the current CM:SF) and from marines landing in the Christian areas north of Beirut (the marines module).

There you go, everyone happy. You get to play with M-113s, you get to do symmetric battles with early vietnam-era stuff, and you get to use huge numbers of small super-effective AT teams with excellent communications.

[Dragon67]

//Why do we have Humvee supply platoons?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you mean CM:SF, there aren't any supply units of any sort. Humvees are only in the game where relevant to combat units.

Now, onto Jason's grinding...//

Ibn the scenario editor There is unit beneath the engineer company called, "Supply Platton" that contains 4 Humvees. Instead of the Humvees- you could have put M113's in there.

//Here's a reason why you're going off the deepend into a useless argument... CM:SF does not simulate any of those nations you list, including the Iraqis. So why on Earth are you putting that crap into your argument? It's almost like you're... well... not really interested in being relevant.//

Well, it is like everything 80% of the users of your game want you just blow off. That is why you will lose 80% of your customers when the developer that listens comes out with the next game.

We get no on board civilians, no casualty evec, etc.- all in the name of being relevant. A war game with no water or bridge and then when we get it, it will be included with a future WWII mod (most of your base does not want) you have to purchase...

[ May 12, 2008, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Dragon67 ]

[John Kettler]

CNN showed fighting in Lebanon today. And what did I see in one still? The front sprocket and nose of an M113. Interestingly, it was green.

El Hombre,

Interesting idea, but are the Lebanese still running 90mm armed M48s, or are they the M48A5s sporting 105mm guns? I believe the South Vietnamese had the former when they shot the NVA T55s up from such range that the NVA tankers thought they'd hit an antitank minefield, being unable to conceive of taking deadly fire from in excess of double their own combat range.

Regards,

John Kettler

[SgtMuhammed]

Not that they actually supply anything, except 4 Humvees.

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

Not that they actually supply anything, except 4 Humvees.

But at least you get four humvees with out having to delete two entire battalions you purchased to get it.

[El Hombre]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

CNN showed fighting in Lebanon today. And what did I see in one still? The front sprocket and nose of an M113. Interestingly, it was green.

There are (and have been since I was a kid) M113s at every street corner. I barely ever glance at them. Almost all of them are green or green-brown camouflage. Remember that Lebanon doesn't have any desert, it's all green(ish) mountains. Only in the upper mountains (over 1,500m) does it get all rocky and in the passes there I saw a couple of brown M113s.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

El Hombre,

Interesting idea, but are the Lebanese still running 90mm armed M48s, or are they the M48A5s sporting 105mm guns? I believe the South Vietnamese had the former when they shot the NVA T55s up from such range that the NVA tankers thought they'd hit an antitank minefield, being unable to conceive of taking deadly fire from in excess of double their own combat range.

Regards,

John Kettler

The LAF (Lebanese Armed Forces) has both the A1 and A5 version as well as some T55s for good measure. Supposedly also some Leopard A1s but I've never seen those up close.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Dragon67:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

Not that they actually supply anything, except 4 Humvees.

But at least you get four humvees with out having to delete two entire battalions you purchased to get it. </font>

[Webwing]

The British use a vehicle which is quite similar to the M113.

The FV430 series. The FV432 Mk2 is still in use and many are being upgraded to Mk3, the Bulldog.

They look quite impressive.

-