previous post next post  

Shipping over the '113s.

This issue having generated some interest, I thought I'd post a comparison shot of the standard (i.e., no anti-RPG armor) M113 and Light Armored Vehicle (LAV), which the Marines use and from which the Stryker is descended.

Bill T. mentions the ACAV, and riding on top in Vietnam. Pretty good story on that with lots of pictures is available here. Here's a site covering Canadian M113s, of interest being the bottom photos of a M113 damaged by mines during operations in Bosnia. Mike Sparks, a big fan of the M113, might just have the most comprehensive overview of what's going on with getting them to Iraq, and includes a discussion on the up-armoring of the vehicles.

12 Comments

Hey, Another drawback and maintenance nightmare of the M-113s is the Slobber Cup , I am not sure that your current American Soldier, would even want to touch, let alone do, this maintenance chore. Hell, they'd mostly likely be pukin'. This is my post Papa Ray West Texas USA
 
Nice link to the 11th ACR. I only had three flashbacks... =]
 
That's actually an LAV III, which is the third generation of the vehicle. The Marine LAV-25 is first generation. It's a good bit lighter, but not as well armored.
 
Mike Sparks sounds a lot like the Tsunami conspiracy theorist to me. Reading some of his rants makes me doubt everything else he may have to say.
 
You make a valid point, he certainly has the certitude and passion on the subject that matches Vialls. But - you can look at his data, dump the editorial aspect, and still gather some info on the M113's and the mods being done to them. Just because you are over-the-top on an issue doesn't mean you don't have something to offer... Anti-gunners think I'm a moonbat, too! 8^D
 
Dave - see what retirement does to you? Your current vehicle recognition skills decay...
 
That's no worse than me naming a B25 a B24, I suppose... As for 113s, I first learned to drive one in '74 and I spent so much time in them after that as an a11D wanna-be that I got to where I could sleep on the troop bench while they were moving. I never liked driving the 577, which always felt too top-heavy, especially when we were cutting across slopes, and mortar track was too crowded to enjoy being a passenger in, but I did love driving a 113. One of the tracks I drove even had a suicide ramp, and guess who the dummy was that pulled the ramp release handle once without 1st checking for victims... Fortunately, I only knocked a guy over, didn't crush him, but I was lucky to escape with just a butt chewing. And once I was driving for a guy who liked to "tap" my CVC with the .50 barrel to screw with me. I told him several times to stop, but he thought it was funny and kept doing it--right up until I locked the latterals and jolted him almost out of the TC hatch. I told the 1SG I had to stop for the deer that ran across the road. Suffice to say, he stopped hitting me with the .50! Of course, I am not sure I'd want to use one where RPGs are in abundance, but they were the best for tooling around on Hood, Graf, and the FRG countryside. aaahhhh the memories... -SangerM
 
Hey! More like confusing a B-24C with a D, or at the extreme, a B-24 with a Privateer... but not confusing a twin-engine medium for a 4-engine heavy, puh-lease - twin tails or no!
 
Well....ok, it's not quite the same. :-)
 
Okay, okay! 1. Originally there was the PIRANHA AFV family, but no LAV 1; there were three versions of the Piranha 1 aka AVGP(Armoured Vehicle General Purpose), the USMC tested the "Grizzly" APC (6x6). 2. Then came the Piranha II: the USMC bought the 8x8 version with a 25mm gun/2 man turret, and called it the "LAV 25". 3. The version in current production is the Piranha III: the version in the Canadian Army, mounting the 25mm gun/turret, is the "LAV III". A similarly equipt version in Australia is the "AsLAV"; in New Zealand, the NZLAV. The "Stryker" is a "LAV III" chassis with a one-man MG turret. 4. There is a Piranha IV, but no production versions, yet. Both vehicles in the photo are Canadian Army; note the LAV III is missing its barrel. The photo was probably taken at Camp Gagetown. For those who might be interested, the M113A3/MTVL is probably wearing the rubber band tracks. Yes, they are quiet; as of this time last year, they were not ready for service use. Cheers JMH
 
please tell me y'all aren't taking Mad Mikey Sparks seriously..... a quick google search of some of his greatest hits in the military newsgroups on Usenet should be enough to convince most folks that his military exspurt-tease is best restricted to retreiving boxes of grid squares, cans of squelch, and coils of track tension.... for fun, ask him why he was kicked out of the Marines. %-) i've cleaned slobber cups, greased all the PITA grease fittings, not just the easy ones, and pulled up floorboards, just to clean underneath. let's not EVEN begin to talk about checking all the track nuts after a run, as well as the road wheel lugs, and, and, and...... the 113 is a good vehicle for what it was designed for, and you can always stretch it a bit, but after a certain point, one is well served to remember it's a 1950's design, and it's now 2005. redc1c4, 11H/11B M-220/M-113A1,A2,A3/M-577 delta B-9-2 Harmony Church Apr 83 40th ID, CA ARNG
 
Say all you old track toads out there. How many times did you ever refer to your M113 as "Gavin" ? I sure never remember using that name in 1978 with 1/17IN(M) in Korea. Or at any time since with the Cav units I have supported. When the suposed "expert" starts out using a term no one else in the US Army has ever heard of it makes you start to question his "expertness"..... Just food for thought.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.