LegionnairE
New Member
Yes, let's compare the upgrade that works with the upgrade that never worked
This is more like an M1 Garand - Mk14 EBR situation. You can make fun of it all you want but there are still people using WWII weapons with some modifications. In fact there are still people who use WWI weapons with no modifications but let's not get into that.
I can't speak for Australia specifically but M113 isn't going anywhere in our lifetimes because there are still reasons to keep it in service.
There are still M113 variants coming out of production lines and countries are still buying this stuff.
They were in Syria, Libya, Ukraine....trying to think of a modern conflict where M113s didn't take part in and I can't think of any. Iraq, Afghanistan... Somalia with UN peacekeepers
The M-113 (upgraded or not) is not survivable in the modern battlefield. Full stop. We are not some third world army that uses soldiers as cannon fodder. Our infantry deserve the best armour protection we can get. We don’t expect our fighter pilots to fly upgraded mirage IIIs in the 2020s.Yes, let's compare the upgrade that works with the upgrade that never worked
This is more like an M1 Garand - Mk14 EBR situation. You can make fun of it all you want but there are still people using WWII weapons with some modifications. In fact there are still people who use WWI weapons with no modifications but let's not get into that.
I can't speak for Australia specifically but M113 isn't going anywhere in our lifetimes because there are still reasons to keep it in service.
There are still M113 variants coming out of production lines and countries are still buying this stuff.
They were in Syria, Libya, Ukraine....trying to think of a modern conflict where M113s didn't take part in and I can't think of any. Iraq, Afghanistan... Somalia with UN peacekeepers
LegionnairE
New Member
Alright, few things;
1. I don't care if you're the richest country in the world, you still have to think about your resources, everything you get for your army is going to come at the expense of other things. Maybe you'll have to spend less on education or you're going to be able to efford fewer F35s.
2. Unless you're getting something like the Israeli namer, a 50 ton MBT chassis to carry around your troops, it won't make a huge difference in terms of survivability. Even then if you want real protection you need some APS. It's the technology that's going to save you more often than just heavy steel.
3. There are good logistical reasons to stick with the lighter APCs.Even if you're the USA, it makes a difference if you can stick 3 APCs into a C17 vs just 1 APC. not to mention the fuel a heavier APC drinks
Look I don't know what the right choice is for Australia. There are too many variables.
I just disagree with the notion that this is a laughing matter.
If you put these two next to each other, even a kid would say that the one on the right is better. But despite having the one on the right being readily available, TAF went with the first one
Last edited:
LegionnairE
New Member
Often considered the best IFV in the world, the Puma isn't without its problems.. Frankly, I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution and we're going to keep seeing everything from 40-50 ton behemoths to armed toyota trucks
Lolcake
Active Member
Yep spot on, lets put this proposition to our TROOPS! Guess we can explain to them why in circa 2028-30 in an armed conflict with an adversery where basically every domain of the armed forces gets the latest and greatest tech, advanced sensors, latest ammunition and real time information beamed onto their display screens, they on the other hand will have the the pinnacle of technology 'protecting' them from certain death i.e. 30mm of 1960s Aluminium Alloy and an engine that cannot keep up with modern battle tanks. Im sure they will be fizzing at the bumhole to ride into a warzone with such battle attire attached!! Sounds so enticing i might jump in myself and give it a whirl!Alright, few things;
1. I don't care if you're the richest country in the world, you still have to think about your resources, everything you get for your army is going to come at the expense of other things. Maybe you'll have to spend less on education or you're going to be able to efford fewer F35s.
2. Unless you're getting something like the Israeli namer, a 50 ton MBT chassis to carry around your troops, it won't make a huge difference in terms of survivability. Even then if you want real protection you need some APS. It's the technology that's going to save you more often than just heavy steel.
3. There are good logistical reasons to stick with the lighter APCs.Even if you're the USA, it makes a difference if you can stick 3 APCs into a C17 vs just 1 APC. not to mention the fuel a heavier APC drinks
Look I don't know what the right choice is for Australia. There are too many variables.
I just disagree with the notion that this is a laughing matter.
If you put these two next to each other, even a kid would say that the one on the right is better. But despite having the one on the right being readily available, TAF went with the first one
View attachment 50030So it's not as obvious a choice as it seems
Apologies about the sarcasm! I can't answer more of this *** without being banned, i tried, oh Lord i tried.
You cant polish a turd, but you can bloody well roll it in glitter and thats what upgrading an 1960s land boat does.
Last edited:
They are APCs not IFVs.Yes, let's compare the upgrade that works with the upgrade that never worked
This is more like an M1 Garand - Mk14 EBR situation. You can make fun of it all you want but there are still people using WWII weapons with some modifications. In fact there are still people who use WWI weapons with no modifications but let's not get into that.
I can't speak for Australia specifically but M113 isn't going anywhere in our lifetimes because there are still reasons to keep it in service.
There are still M113 variants coming out of production lines and countries are still buying this stuff.
They were in Syria, Libya, Ukraine....trying to think of a modern conflict where M113s didn't take part in and I can't think of any. Iraq, Afghanistan... Somalia with UN peacekeepers
They, even in upgraded form, have issues.
They were shagged when I drove them in the 90s.
You use what you have and the M-113 is better than nothing, that does not mean for one second that they shouldn't be replaced.
It's not just protection, it's operability and human factors as well. There is basically no way a 50s design vehicle can be as efficient and capable in a role it's been adapted to as a 2010s 2020s purpose designed vehicle.
Just because you can muddle and bodge your way through, doesn't mean you should. If we go to war it will literally cost lives.
LegionnairE
New Member
Sure, but do also let them know that an Incredible 17 million $ spent on their brand new Puma IFV costs as much as 3 TB2 UAVs. Ask them whether they would want them flying overhead than having the fancier ride
By the way, holy shit I didn't know Puma was that expensive
Lolcake
Active Member
Better ask the Ukranians as to what their troops are begging for now and it sure as hell isnt UAVs.Sure, but do also let them know that an Incredible 17 million $ spent on their brand new Puma IFV costs as much as 3 TB2 UAVs. Ask them whether they would want them flying overhead than having the fancier ride
By the way, holy shit I didn't know Puma was that expensive
LegionnairE
New Member
They also literally wrote songs about the said UAVs
LegionnairE
New Member
Agreed, I can't blame a man for wanting something better, just as long as we all understand what the costs and benefits of either choices are.
I think this is the safest APC in the world, just an MBT Chassis with the turret removed. Weighs 63 tons. Logistically I can't imagine what pain in the ass this would be for most countries. Anything short of this is going to be a compromise. What that compromise will be is going to be different for each country.
hence 40 something countries still driving the M113
I was too lazy to count
M113 armored personnel carrier - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
What you a
In WWII by D Day the Commonwealth forces were so short on manpower they were converting infantry battalions into armoured regiments, entire brigades were armoured.
The primary constraint was manpower, armoured units had and have lower maning.
Also, armour saves lives.
Armoured vehicles draw fire away from dismounted infantry. An armoured vehicle inherently provides more protection for their crews and passengers than being in the open. A vehicle crew, more often than not, survives the loss of the vehicle.
Again, in Normandy, the Commonwealth forces were trading tanks for lives. They were deliberately using tanks with less than ideal infantry support because they had plenty of tanks, they didn't have enough infantry. A knocked out tank whose crew survived can be replaced, a dead infantry section of platoon can't be so easily.
There is a myth that the ADF gold plates everything, the truth is we always go for the cheapest option that almost meets our requirements, and usually the requirements need to be tweaked to hide the loss of capability.
This results in gaps that need to be filled through expensive, poor value for money compromised upgrades. It is the bodging and muddling through that is mistaken as gold plating. The wasteful projects to remediate poor, penny pinching, decisions from the past.
It's not about having a fancier ride it's about survival and mission success.Sure, but do also let them know that an Incredible 17 million $ spent on their brand new Puma IFV costs as much as 3 TB2 UAVs. Ask them whether they would want them flying overhead than having the fancier ride
In WWII by D Day the Commonwealth forces were so short on manpower they were converting infantry battalions into armoured regiments, entire brigades were armoured.
The primary constraint was manpower, armoured units had and have lower maning.
Also, armour saves lives.
Armoured vehicles draw fire away from dismounted infantry. An armoured vehicle inherently provides more protection for their crews and passengers than being in the open. A vehicle crew, more often than not, survives the loss of the vehicle.
Again, in Normandy, the Commonwealth forces were trading tanks for lives. They were deliberately using tanks with less than ideal infantry support because they had plenty of tanks, they didn't have enough infantry. A knocked out tank whose crew survived can be replaced, a dead infantry section of platoon can't be so easily.
There is a myth that the ADF gold plates everything, the truth is we always go for the cheapest option that almost meets our requirements, and usually the requirements need to be tweaked to hide the loss of capability.
This results in gaps that need to be filled through expensive, poor value for money compromised upgrades. It is the bodging and muddling through that is mistaken as gold plating. The wasteful projects to remediate poor, penny pinching, decisions from the past.
LegionnairE
New Member
first of all, If it wasn't obvious enough, I was joking.
For all I know with how cramped they say the back of the Puma IFV is, maybe M113 is the fancier ride.
But if you think that your bureucracy can't handle upgrade programs well, you feel that you're not getting your money's value, then probably buying new, more modern stuff is the better option for you.. The old vehicles can be converted for second line duties.
Like this SAM thingy
or mortar carriers or this or that.
Personally I would keep them around just in case of national mobilization. What fvcked Russia in the ass was not getting mobilized in time.
People who know what they are talking about have been informing you of the M113 APC problems. You seem to think it's funny, but it's not. You are also posting images without providing the sources. Provide the sources in future or the Moderators will take action. Rule #14 applies.first of all, If it wasn't obvious enough, I was joking.
For all I know with how cramped they say the back of the Puma IFV is, maybe M113 is the fancier ride.
But if you think that your bureucracy can't handle upgrade programs well, you feel that you're not getting your money's value, then probably buying new, more modern stuff is the better option for you.. The old vehicles can be converted for second line duties.
Like this SAM thingy
or mortar carriers or this or that.
Personally I would keep them around just in case of national mobilization. What fvcked Russia in the ass was not getting mobilized in time.
the road runner
Active Member
Australia has a small number of Soldiers compared to other Nations in our region. We are not going to put them in Harms way in an outdated 1960s vehicle.
Do you think a capable ISR network could help with Survivability? What about Training and Doctrine? Do you think a capable modern IFV would help with survivability? What about a Networked force with a number of assets all working in a combined arms manner ? Think that would work to ensure a more survivable outcome for our troops? Time to retire the M113
You have to "pay to play". If you want to play by big boy rules you have to spend big money. Defending ones Nation is an expensive game.
Putting our troops in outdated vehicles and sending them off to war borders on criminal behavior. Australia would be better off dumping those 3 M113 out the back of a C17 and onto the enemy instead of trying to fight with them !
I do.. A good IFV would be a good start, add some HIMARS to equation , throw in some good K9 Thunders , wack some Modern Abrams tanks in there ,some AH-64 , Blackhawks, CH 47,some good ISR assets , Loitering munitions and drones , a good communications and a good logistic tail and we are starting to have a modern ARMY
LegionnairE
New Member
Apologies, first few are from Turkish MoD, Tulpar picture is from Otokar and the namer is straight off wikipedia.
All good choices, except I would wait on Abrams. I would keep and upgrade the current M1s but hold off on new orders.
Everything you said about M113 applies on Abrams right now. A new generation of MBTs are coming. The first one was T-14 followed by KF-51 of Germany and more will be available soon. I would wait a few years and grab the new technology with the lessons learned from Ukraine.
It has become painfully obvious that sending a priority target such as an MBT into a battlefield without a good hardkill system is suicide.
The first priority seems to be replacing NH90... I've heard those are trouble.
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
If you keep the current Abrams and upgrade them, you do understand Australia has no tanks as they will be going threw upgrades.. Our Tank force is pretty small as is. Even if we upgrade them in batches it will effect our Tank fleet. Much better to buy an Upgraded fleet
Rubbish, you are comparing a steel/Composite/DU hull with an alloy hull. We are buying a Capability not an Upgrade. Our Abrams package includes tanks, assault breacher vehicles , bridge vehicles and armored recovery vehicles Also included is the manufacture of tank ammunition in Australia.
Soon? Like 10 to 20 years soon?
So you think we should wait for a new generation of Tanks? How long will this take ? 10 years.. 20 years ? Even if we do go for the KF-51 ..do you think Germany would need new tanks before us? I think the Germans would be allocated first production spots off a line Especially with war in apart of Europe unfolding ATM. Buying a tank is NOT like Buying a Car.
Everyone wants to use Ukraine as an example of how future wars will be fought.
Did Ukraine have modern networked equipment to begin with? No.
Did Ukraine have Air superiority ? No
Was the Navy involved ? Not really
Why do we compare how a war is fought in Ukraine to how Australia will fight a war?
Sure we can learn some lessons but the ADF would fight any future conflict with allies,with a Combined Arms Modern networked force
And you want to send an M113 instead
We will replace them with UH 60 M Blackhawks and also replace the Tiger with Apache
Last edited:
LegionnairE
New Member
I guess being from a country with a couple of thousand tanks in storage I never thought about that problem. You might be right
That's great. That should be a priority And yeah M1 saga is coming to an end but the American ammo is top notch. I'm a big fan of their multipurpose round.
MBTs are priority targets, when enemy drone or helicopter, or even an infantry ATGM team sees one, that's the first target to take out. If we're moving in a column of M1 Abrams' and M113 vehicles I'd rather be in the M113. At least after the explosions start I might have a little time to dismount lol.And you want to send an M113 instead
Even guided artillery shells are getting more and more common. I suspect you'll call me a retard but think about it for a sec.
This is an interesting point. In my country we seperate between emergency procurement and planned ones. If you think that the situation warrants an emergency, I can't argue against that but as far as I know the french-german tank is also near completion and the American Abrams replacement have been long talked about. I don't know what stage that project is in but it must be nearing completion too. Obviously those countries will give their own armies the priority but as far as I know there hasn't been any order placed on KF-51 yet.
As stupid as this might sound, German government's hesitance could give Australia a leg up. But in case it doesn't work, you could haggle for a seperate production line in Australia. I'm not even Australian and this thought excites me
Some talk in the war zone about taking the current M1s Australia will be trading back the US. and sending those to the Ukraine as they dont have the DU Armour. Slightly off topic but I think it makes more sense to back fill Leo’s with M1s to country that donate the the Ukraine to minimise the logistics tail.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
DU for armour, don’t think so. DU is for tank rounds as they offer better penetration. Not sure if the US still uses DU due to health/environmental concerns.