I always like the nickname tin cans with my 50 cal being the can opener.
IFV v APC
- Thread starter Asstroboy
- Start date
Sorry if I over-reacted.
Yes, the M113 is deservedly the best IFV or APC. America used to make things that lasts several wars, like the M4 Sherman. I hope they still do cos that's where we buy nearly all our stuff.
In Singapore, our 700 or so M113 are mostly upgraded with new engine and armour, and in many case, armament. We already have several hundred Bionix IFV that may eventually replace the M113 in that role.
Right now, some of our M113s are equipped as such:
- 120mm mortar carrier
- 40/50 turret
- 25mm OWS (or RWS)
What do you think of the MGS? Or any conversion of a IFV into mounting a gun 90mm or bigger?
o.o. I think many peoples around the globe will disagree with you. Germans and Russians to begin with... From my POV M113 had an advantage of being a simply, cheap, rugged construction. But even for its time M113 was nothing exceptional to say it mildly...
I think the various nicknames tell enough about that - "Tin Can" or "Death Box" almost universally, "Zippo" in Israel, in Germany also e.g. "Coal Box" or "Pig Cube".
MGS I think is a little top heavy, but has satisfactory fire power that would be even better if they would slap in the German RH120-20. For fast deployable vehicles they suite a purpose, I also think they would work well in screening or recon actions along road networks. How does your army view the Bionix and do they have any plans on a possible larger caliber auto cannon.
I think he is stating for reliability purposes and the universal roles that you have with the vehicle. Kinda like comparing a BTR 50 right Chrom, that is when the M113 made its debute in that time frame.
The M113 is likely to be replaced by the Bionix whenever the numbers become available. The M113 would not be phased out of service but its adaptability means we have a hundred other roles waiting for them to take up.
I feel the 120mm mortar role to be one best alternative use for the M113. And we currrently have 2 types of 120mm mortars in our inventory.
And there are also probably AA vehicles too.
On a side note, we have built a BV206 Hagglunds-type vehicle that is taking on many of the roles traditionally reserved for the M113.
...
The Bionix is currently 25mm or 40/50 turret configured.
The 40/50 seems to be a big favourite in SAF.
Until we completely phase out our 300+ AMX-13 with its 75mm gun, there is currently no vacuum in the gun department.
Since they are supposed to accompany either the 100+ Leopard 2 or the AMX-13, there should be no need for gun upgrade in the near future.
Like you said earlier, they (IFV) are not tanks and in most situations wouldn't operate in isolation without bigger gear around.
For some reasons, IFV with ATGM did not catch on in SAF though I think there are at least some V-200 armoured cars so armed.
Yes, when first introduced M113 was adequate and i may even say second to none. My comments about it mainly refered to 70x and 80x time frame.
BTR-50 or 60 for that matter - many countries still use them . But we well understand what it is only due to lack of funds. In USA case we cant blame lack of funds - so it is more likely lack of brains. Or better to say complete neglect of army needs (especially compared to excellent aviation and fleet).
As APC they are not bad even now. But that could be said about many other old armored vehicles...
Well, I read somewhere that the IDF evaluated/considered Bradleys, but eventually rejected them.
But I can't recall the reasons behind, probably cost and the fuel consumption.
And they did not build their own IFV, though they clearly have the ability to.
In spite of their great experience in urban fighting - often with disastrous results for their armour - they still hang on to the combination of tank, M113 and other modified/captured vehicles.
Arab infantry/insurgent AT weapons have improved greatly but IDF armour doctrine in countering enemy infantry has not caught up.
Last edited:
The Israeli's did build a prototype IFV but never proceeded with it as far as I know............possibly because Merkava became a priority.
The IDF has always viewed Heavy APC's better than IFV's for their needs, hence the NAMER about to or just coming into service.
The IDF has always viewed Heavy APC's better than IFV's for their needs, hence the NAMER about to or just coming into service.
Money. Israel has very powerful armed forces in relation to its size, wealth & military budget. One of the ways in which this is achieved is by cutting to the bone all expenditure deemed non-essential. The best possible tank was deemed essential. The best possible IFV was not.
@Chino
I don't want to focus pruely on the ability of an IFV to attack much more targets but its ability to actively fight while being in a mechanized combat.
During a cross country ride with short halts with mainly enemies at longer ranges and often armoured opponents the usual GPMG and HMG of an APC just reduced its role during the mounted phase of the battle to a passive one.
An IFV on the other side can, due to its more versatile and capable weapon systems and better armor, actively participate in the mechanized part of the battle.
This is the big difference.
An APC remains mostly passive (Despite some spray and pray) during the mounted phase of the battle.
I am not focussing on the ability to attack tanks. In the end not all IFVs have this capability.
An IFV remains an active participant during every phase of the battle.
@grndpdr
I apologize for sounding too harsh but this talking about air mech assault, gavin, etc. sounded just too familiar.
Sorry for that.
I agree with you that airborn troops in the US could need some armoured vehicles.
But is the M113 the right choice? As long as I know (But I am not sure so please correct me if I'm wrong) the upgraded M113s are not longer capable of being airdropped (have they ever been airdropped?). They lost this together with their ability to swim.
But with the US never buying any russian equipment (I really like their mechanized airborn units) there are not many possbilities left.
One could buy Wiesels or develop a new vehicle.
And with all the changes which are needed for making then M113 suitable for airborn units one can right now start to develop an armored vehicle for US airborn units.
Maybe it works against the current trend and is not going to be a multibillion dollar goldplated project.
I don't want to focus pruely on the ability of an IFV to attack much more targets but its ability to actively fight while being in a mechanized combat.
During a cross country ride with short halts with mainly enemies at longer ranges and often armoured opponents the usual GPMG and HMG of an APC just reduced its role during the mounted phase of the battle to a passive one.
An IFV on the other side can, due to its more versatile and capable weapon systems and better armor, actively participate in the mechanized part of the battle.
This is the big difference.
An APC remains mostly passive (Despite some spray and pray) during the mounted phase of the battle.
I am not focussing on the ability to attack tanks. In the end not all IFVs have this capability.
An IFV remains an active participant during every phase of the battle.
@grndpdr
I apologize for sounding too harsh but this talking about air mech assault, gavin, etc. sounded just too familiar.
Sorry for that.
I agree with you that airborn troops in the US could need some armoured vehicles.
But is the M113 the right choice? As long as I know (But I am not sure so please correct me if I'm wrong) the upgraded M113s are not longer capable of being airdropped (have they ever been airdropped?). They lost this together with their ability to swim.
But with the US never buying any russian equipment (I really like their mechanized airborn units) there are not many possbilities left.
One could buy Wiesels or develop a new vehicle.
And with all the changes which are needed for making then M113 suitable for airborn units one can right now start to develop an armored vehicle for US airborn units.
Maybe it works against the current trend and is not going to be a multibillion dollar goldplated project.
Yeeehaw.
Mechanized air assault now!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ahem, didn't we talk about sparky some posts ago?
It is not named Gavin. One can make fun of this name and use it in an ironic way but it is defenitely NOT the name of the M113!
BTW, we don't have an bring back the 8" thread...
Edit: 3 minutes, just 3 minutes faster... :-(
You should have typed faster.
: What about battleships? And the 106mm RCL?
As has been pointed out to you, Sparky has saturated the internet with websites promoting his rather eccentric views. The "several sources" which claim the M113 is called the "Gavin" are all his sites, or refer back to his sites. My dismissal of the name "Gavin" for the M113 is based on official US army statements & the testimony of numerous current & former US servicemen, & they're unanimous. The name has no official status, & has never been a nickname used within the US army. It was thought up by Mike Sparks - and he's said so himself!
Anyone can have an opinion, & is free to express it on this site (as long as it's connected with the topic - and occasional digressions are also OK), but coming in here quoting a standing internet joke (i.e. Sparky) as a source is rather asking to be slapped down.
Nobody accused you of anything. The word was "if". You're not him: fine. Welcome to the forum.
Lack of brains Chrom, yep I guess the Germans and Russians have all the answers.
Thank you for your response, do they have a time frame that all AMX - 13s will be phased out.
Na - fuel consumption wasn`t the issue on the Bradley, cost and doctrine played into it. A little ironic but the IDF does operate Strykers.
@Chino
Something else to add.
You said that infantry accompanying tanks is for example used for protecting them against enemy infantry tank hunter teams.
This is right when the infantry is dismounted. But when mounted infantry in an APC cannot work against enemy tank hunter teams and the APC itself is also not able to do this with other means than spray and pray and even this just upt to a much more limited range.
An IFV on the other hand is able to engage enemy tank hunter teams while on the move and is able to attack them with much more precision and firepower than an APC.
This is another example why I refer to APCs as rather passive battletaxis even when used for accompanying tanks.
Something else to add.
You said that infantry accompanying tanks is for example used for protecting them against enemy infantry tank hunter teams.
This is right when the infantry is dismounted. But when mounted infantry in an APC cannot work against enemy tank hunter teams and the APC itself is also not able to do this with other means than spray and pray and even this just upt to a much more limited range.
An IFV on the other hand is able to engage enemy tank hunter teams while on the move and is able to attack them with much more precision and firepower than an APC.
This is another example why I refer to APCs as rather passive battletaxis even when used for accompanying tanks.
funny bu the 106mm rr was mentioned .I offered it for discusion on nother site
due to the fact something that was capable of destroying buildings and thick masonry walls with HED p with openings large enough to walk a squad inside abreast something that was apparently needed in iraq when attempting to breach thick masonry walls and buildings.Some said the 106 obsolete,of course it is if we were engage with an even relatively modern opponent who was able to react deciseively agin the signature of the backblast but the iraqui insurgents arent the rus army.Theres again scads of the 106 around as is a plethora of ammo to be used rather than destroyd.To many a rather simplistic viw if uparmord m113s or Mules if you all dislike the M113 to call on should the need arise to take out a sniper, bunker etc with minimal cost and quite effectively. Mules in that TM of Nicknames along with the M2 Ma deuce
by the way.Dating myself?Or is my authenticy in qustion? im no expert my suggestions seemed common sense to solve immediate problems rather than wade throughthe mil provurement system by which time the war may well be over.Hope springs!!
I would also lketo seE improvd ammunition for the current 5.56 Weapons rather than WAit on new calibers /.weapons.say a havE all lEad core FMJBT with a hollow nose to make it natuarally unstable so it would tumble disitegrate at farther ranges perhaps skip a saw in the squad in favor of a 7.62ap,apit,ball belt for a shortened mag 58 similar in concept to the e3 ' pig' ,again the TM!!Or keep the 2 saws and add a short 7.62 lmg for the harder targets they engage now such as the semi armored small suicide truck
AND MAYBE JUST MAYBE AN EVEN OLDER IDEA THE BULLET TRAP rifle grenade with a FA warhead.And the larger version of the law with more user friendly sites and even perhaps a handgrip to make them easier to utilize like the PPG but with FA warheads to really shake up the target which i believe are either soft targets very vulnerable to a little overpressure or the common thick masonry so as to collapse the Imp bunker.
More to this topic is what would the IDFs tank ,the Merkava is it? that is capable of transporting a squad be calld in this scheme of apcs/IFVs!!??
All the points ive ben attempting to make is why werent better armored vehicles be availble to the only superpower there is by all accounts and why for gods sake were clearly inferior SUVs be uparmored in an attempt to provide what the humve has attemted to become, a battle taxi when thousands of M113s are mothballed right here and could be modernized far quicker than bilding a far inferior design for a great deal more cash than a very efficient modernized M113 cuold have flooded the combat area cheaper than an uparmored humve by some quarter million bucks in favor of the m113 which even unmodifid beyond the diesel engine pack and reocated fuel tanks the M113A1 could have savd more lives by far than any SUV no matter how thich the aror manages t be at the xpense of any offensive armament.
due to the fact something that was capable of destroying buildings and thick masonry walls with HED p with openings large enough to walk a squad inside abreast something that was apparently needed in iraq when attempting to breach thick masonry walls and buildings.Some said the 106 obsolete,of course it is if we were engage with an even relatively modern opponent who was able to react deciseively agin the signature of the backblast but the iraqui insurgents arent the rus army.Theres again scads of the 106 around as is a plethora of ammo to be used rather than destroyd.To many a rather simplistic viw if uparmord m113s or Mules if you all dislike the M113 to call on should the need arise to take out a sniper, bunker etc with minimal cost and quite effectively. Mules in that TM of Nicknames along with the M2 Ma deuce
by the way.Dating myself?Or is my authenticy in qustion? im no expert my suggestions seemed common sense to solve immediate problems rather than wade throughthe mil provurement system by which time the war may well be over.Hope springs!!
I would also lketo seE improvd ammunition for the current 5.56 Weapons rather than WAit on new calibers /.weapons.say a havE all lEad core FMJBT with a hollow nose to make it natuarally unstable so it would tumble disitegrate at farther ranges perhaps skip a saw in the squad in favor of a 7.62ap,apit,ball belt for a shortened mag 58 similar in concept to the e3 ' pig' ,again the TM!!Or keep the 2 saws and add a short 7.62 lmg for the harder targets they engage now such as the semi armored small suicide truck
AND MAYBE JUST MAYBE AN EVEN OLDER IDEA THE BULLET TRAP rifle grenade with a FA warhead.And the larger version of the law with more user friendly sites and even perhaps a handgrip to make them easier to utilize like the PPG but with FA warheads to really shake up the target which i believe are either soft targets very vulnerable to a little overpressure or the common thick masonry so as to collapse the Imp bunker.
More to this topic is what would the IDFs tank ,the Merkava is it? that is capable of transporting a squad be calld in this scheme of apcs/IFVs!!??
All the points ive ben attempting to make is why werent better armored vehicles be availble to the only superpower there is by all accounts and why for gods sake were clearly inferior SUVs be uparmored in an attempt to provide what the humve has attemted to become, a battle taxi when thousands of M113s are mothballed right here and could be modernized far quicker than bilding a far inferior design for a great deal more cash than a very efficient modernized M113 cuold have flooded the combat area cheaper than an uparmored humve by some quarter million bucks in favor of the m113 which even unmodifid beyond the diesel engine pack and reocated fuel tanks the M113A1 could have savd more lives by far than any SUV no matter how thich the aror manages t be at the xpense of any offensive armament.