Am I opening a can of worms here? I think I am...M113...

[copeab]

Col. David Hackworth during Desert Shield/Desert Storm joked one time that he thought he should host a conference with all the reporters out there and teach them how to properly ID vehicles. "See this It's big and heavy, it has tracks, it has a turret, and in the turret is a really big cannon...we call THIS vehicle a tank." ROFLMAO!!!

Y'know, I'd make the argument that calling a Bradley or BMP a 'tank' is not completely wrong -- MICVs are oversized light tanks with undersized rifle squads crammed inside.

[B.T.]

During my time in the Bundeswehr, we usually called the M113 "Panzer", like in phrases as: "No smoking in the Panzer!"

But "Panzer" is not clear as definition: The Tank (= Main Battle Tank) in German is: "Kampfpanzer".
The IFV/CAV and even the APC are called "Schtzenpanzer" in German.
"Panzer" is used as a word for all kinds of tracked vecicles in German.

Therefore it was not completely false, but on the other hand: Everybody knew, that the M113 was not a "Panzer" like the Marder (and the Marder is a true "Schtzenpanzer"). It was used as a kind of mocking phrase.
When we were introduced to our workhorse, the NCO explaining the M113 mentioned, that the trim vane would serve as a kind of additional armor. I've never read something like that afterwards, but in a way he was not for from reality. That special NCO even added that you could saw a M113 into pieces with MGs in 7,62 NATO, given time and a lot of ammo. Still don't know, if this is true.

[dragoon500ly]

The Russians referred to the M-3 Lee/Grants they received as "a coffin for six brothers".



Although the sponson mount of the 75mm gun gave it very limited traverse and it was low-velocity, at the time it was the only allied tank to mount a 75mm gun (some British tanks replaced their 2-pdrs with 3" howitzers for close support work, but these had an even lower velocity than the M-3's 75mm gun and were not very useful for AT work).

Not to mention that there was a complete lack of 75mm AP ammo in the Western Desert. So 8th Army Ordnance took captured German 75mm APHE ammo, ground down one of the rifling bands so that it would work in the US gun, mixed the old propellent and remeasured it (for more even ballistic performance) and then reissued it to the Grants.

The Brits also pulled the fuzes from the US HE ammo and replaced it with old French fuzes, these were fitted with a drift element that allowed a 0.3 second delay, a feature that the US fuzes lacked. This allowed the Grants to fire HE rounds just short of German antitank guns and "ricochet" and explode over the crew's heads.

Hmmmm, German projectiles on US shells....US projectiles with French fuzes.....almost sounds like a T2K game

[dragoon500ly]

Y'know, I'd make the argument that calling a Bradley or BMP a 'tank' is not completely wrong -- MICVs are oversized light tanks with undersized rifle squads crammed inside.

Ouch! I can see your point, but even a light tank carries more armor than a MICV!

[Raellus]

It could be funny if one side was primarily Democratic while the other side was primarily Republican...

Great thought, Paul. I'm really surprised that I've never thought about this before. It makes sense. MilGov, including most of the U.S.'s remaining military forces, would likely be more Republican because of that party's pro-military stance. CivGov, attempting to be more "democratic" and appealing to "the people", seems more like the Democrats.

I'm probably never come back to this again but it is an interesting idea. I think I prefer to think of MilGov and CivGov to be two new political entities, replacing the old two-party system. I'm sure each group spans the political spectrum on its own.

[Raellus]

I know that the M113 is lightly armored and lightly armed but I've always thought of it as one of the better tracked vehicle options for a group of T2K PCs.

Spare parts wouldn't be too hard to find as several NATO armies would have been using large numbers of them during the war.

It's got a relatively roomy interior (compared to a Bradley or Marder).

Side-mounted racks can carry a lot of gear and serve as stand-off armor against HMG and RPG rounds (same with the trim vane, as B.T. mentioned). There are also a few stand-off armor packages that users might have added by the Exchange.

The roof hatches over the troop compartment allow passengers decent all-around vision. Multiple MGs can be mounted there as well, giving it decent all-around firepower. With a Mk-19 or M2HB in the gunner's turret, it can tackle threats up to heavy IFVs and MBTs. Fuel tanks can be mounted on the back for extended range (although this increases its vulnerability somewhat).

The Israelis have been doing all of these things for years. They'll be the first to admit the vulnerabilities of the M113 on the modern battlefield, but they're still using them all these years later.

Also, I like calling it the Gavin, mostly because it irritates the piss out of Legbreaker.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I used to be in a unit that used the M113 in the recce role. Having seen a door that was once part of the rear ramp used as a target, I would say that yes, given enough time anybody with a 7.62mm NATO machinegun will cut an M113 in half (excepting the drivetrain etc.) - because aluminium does not stop 7.62mmN, it'll stop small calibre projectiles and slow speed fragments but that's about all.

As for the Gavin name, it pisses me off as well - there's a whole bunch of dumbfuck media and civilians who are now calling it that and just adding to the confusion of identification. These same people are swallowing the crap that the M113 is the panacea to all the military's ills. The Gavin name has not been officially recognized, let alone adopted, by any military that operates the M113.

The person who gave it that name believes that the M113 should be called the Gavin because it is his notion of the perfect airborne combat vehicle (and as such should be named after a general deeply involved in airborne forces). Never mind the hard reality that all the modifications he wants to put on it will make it less and less capable as an airborne combat vehicle - try to make a single vehicle do everything and you end up with a vehicle that does none of them well.

[natehale1971]

I'm actually thinking of using the Gavin name in my campaign for the replacemet of the M113... the American lisence built version of the Weisel AWC.

I just can't figure out wht the 'M' number would be.

[pmulcahy11b]

I'm actually thinking of using the Gavin name in my campaign for the replacemet of the M113... the American lisence built version of the Weisel AWC.

I just can't figure out wht the 'M' number would be.

Think of a random "M" number off the top of your head, and then run it through Google and see if it actually existed in the T2K timeline. Then you can decide whether to throw it out or use it.

[natehale1971]

Think of a random "M" number off the top of your head, and then run it through Google and see if it actually existed in the T2K timeline. Then you can decide whether to throw it out or use it.

That's what i've been thinking of doing.

I have to admit that i like the Strykers.... especially what some of the guys using them in Iraq said about them, namely that they were fro the most part quiet while running when compaired to the Bradley's.

[Schone23666]

That's what i've been thinking of doing.

I have to admit that i like the Strykers.... especially what some of the guys using them in Iraq said about them, namely that they were fro the most part quiet while running when compaired to the Bradley's.

Well, how about "M-69"

As far as vehicle numbers go, I don't see one anywhere...and I can see all the snickering going around with that number designation.
Just imagine if the vehicle complement was a 50/50 mix of say, female Project Athena members and male GI Joe members...okay, better drag my brain out of the gutter....

Would this be pretty much the Weisel "as is" or would there be any modifications done by the Americans I was considering having Weisels appear in a few of my fics in use by my fictitious American military task force as well.

[Panther Al]

*twitch-twitch* ... must not get started on ... *twitch*



Ok, I will admit that the Stryker is a hell of lot quiter than any tracked vehicle - even the M1. which means I have found one good thing about it as a combat vehicle- kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day....

[ArmySGT.]

*twitch-twitch* ... must not get started on ... *twitch*



Ok, I will admit that the Stryker is a hell of lot quiter than any tracked vehicle - even the M1. which means I have found one good thing about it as a combat vehicle- kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day....

ROWS with 2 Axis stabilization is kind sweet. Blue Force Tracker. FBCB2.

8x8 morning commute goodness.

[cavtroop]

*twitch-twitch* ... must not get started on ... *twitch*



Ok, I will admit that the Stryker is a hell of lot quiter than any tracked vehicle - even the M1. which means I have found one good thing about it as a combat vehicle- kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day....

Coming from a former Bradley crewman, I like the Stryker. I think it fits the counterinsurgency role much better than the Bradley does. However, in a shooting war, give me heavy armor over the Stryker any day

Right tool for the right job, and all that

[Graebarde]

Try here to start with....
http://www.enlisted.info/field-manuals/

Thank you.. I FINALLY found the FM in there I've looked for a LONG time. FM 5-488 Forestry and Logging..