Australian M113s

[Manfred]

In which way is a 12,7mm better suited for any mission than a 20-30mm with a 7.62mm coax?

I don't think it should be a question of better, but which is more handy to the troops in the field. A single caliber of ammunition is always better than two. One type of weapon is easier to maintian than two, and you need a full turret for a 20mm and a 7.62mm M.G.

The biggest benifit from the two gun system is the longer range and penetration of the 20mm, and maybe the short-range spray of small bullets from the MG. A twin 12.7mm mount (or better yet; 14.5mm) would seem to be able to both jobs well enough. The M2hb is such a simple gun to maintain, I would much rather work on two of them than one 25mm Bushmaster.

 

[Waylander]

If your troops have problems with supporting a autocannon turret and its coax than you have much bigger problems than what new turret would be the best.

And you just don't get the range and power of a 20-30mm with even three 12,7mm.

In the end the whole "make a good modern IFV/APC bastard out of the M113" thing is bullshit.
Save the money. Buy some additional LAVs or new IFVs and get out of this messy M113 game.

 

[Manfred]

Oh, I argee 100% about the M-113. The things you find in the bargain-basement generaly belong there (meaning underground). The M-113 is 40 years out of date... it was the generation right after half-tracks! You stear it with clutch-levers and it has a Bus engine, and the "armor" does not deserve the name.

If you can have a 30 or 35mm gun, go for it. What I was picking at was the 60 year-old concept of a 20mm with a medium MG for a co-ax.

 

[Waylander]

I thought about the 20mm because you one might keep the space and weight down on a refitted M113.
As I stated in the IFV claibre thread I also believe that 30-40mm are the best choice for an IFV with 30mm representing the borderline and reaching its limits.

Why not use the M113s for something were they can still be usefull?
Give it to the medics, combat engineers, staff units, school instructors, referees at training centres, etc.
There they can do what they do best till they finally get phased out and don't suck up money which could better be used on a real modern IFV.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Private collectors were interested in the M113.

Unfortunately the NZ ordel put a end to that when they basically told the NZ government to jump, they are still US equipment and they will not be sold privately but crushed into cubes.

Shame, I would have bought one if they ever came up. Even perhaps on a long term lease agreement. They were apparently going to go for $10,000-$15,000 each. Which places them as equal value as a cheap korean car.

Modern european cars have radar, nightvision, external cameras and are proberly better armoured than a M113. They certainly handle, brake and accelerate better. Some would cross country almost as well and carry as many troops.

There are a number of rolls the M113 could perform. Firefighting, medics, light duty peace keeping and security, etc.

I think the key motivation is that we already have 700 of them.

I think there would have been other companies other than tenix that could have handled this upgrade and should have been concidered.

 

[Waylander]

Baaah, I would not eaven drive one if it is a gift.

Of all armoured vehicles I have sitten in this ugly little cube is the most embarassing one. :sick

 

[Falstaff]

Of all armoured vehicles I have sitten in this ugly little cube is the most embarassing one.

True. But at least our medics proved you can sleep in it better than in other APCs during several maneuvers

I don't think the M113 is that bad. It still plays a versatile role in almost every western army and has proven it can be heavily modified and used as IFV. Look at the dutch YPR-765 which served them well for almost 30 years and the turkish ACV which is based on the M113. And in the German army there are still some 3000 of them, despite Fuchs, Marder and others (not as IFV or APC any more).
I don't know anything about the Australian upgrade apart from what I've read here but it seems to me that
1) the fighting doctrine of the Australien army doesn't require a "full" Bradley/Marder-class IFV (or am I wrong? please correct me) at this time and one thing is clear, the M113 will never be one, no matter how heavily it's modified
2) the upgrade program could have been a low-cost, low-risk solution

As AD said, the question is why Tenix can't manage it, especially since I read that Tenix teamed up with FFG, a company that did the upgrades ("NDV" 1+2) on the German M113 fleet. . So many users upgraded their fleets without any serious problems. New engines and gearbox, longer hull with additional roadwheel, additional armour, turret, all been done for decades.

Seven years later, things have changed. Army kept changing its requirements, more armour, different fuel tankage, additional versions, etc. They then found the costs had blown out, primarily because the upgrade path chosen - the addition of an extra hull section and roadwheel station had revealed how badly fatigued the hulls were.

I don't think this is an excuse. Nothing new here for M113 upgrades.

 

[rickshaw]

But in Iraq as well as in A-stan the troops over there are quite happy with their guns of 20-30mm.
In which way is a 12,7mm better suited for any mission than a 20-30mm with a 7.62mm coax?

It is lighter, cheaper and it fires as fast with a round that weighs considerably less. The first is important in that it means the turret is simpler to design, build and maintain. The second is important because it keeps the bean counters happy. The last is important because when you are at the end of a long line of supply, how many rounds you can bring forward can be as important as the weight of fire produced.

Now, remember, in our primary AO we were/are unlikely to be faced by a target which requires more than a 12.7mm round. A rioting Indonesian militia member is killed just as effectively by a .50cal round as he is by a 20mm and there is less chance of collateral damage in the process as well.

Not every army is facing the Warsaw Pact type enemy.

Even in COIN operations in Afganistan or Iraq, I would suggest that there are few targets worth the cost of a 20mm round.

 

[Waylander]

Yeah, but we don't use them for carrying our infantry around.
As I said my point would be to give it to secondline units. There its cross country mobility and basic armor protection is in good use.
But giving it to the infantry with just a 12.7mm is just not the best choice in my eyes.

You could defenitely make an IFV like vehicle out of it but that was only an option some years ago.
There is a reason for everyone who has the money trying to get away from it.

 

[rickshaw]

Well, I suspect that the German M113 fleet wasn't as clapped out as our's was. I saw some very serious cracking around the wheel stations on the hulls I examined, which is why they all needed remachining, whereas the original plan ASIUI was to only do the new wheel station which was spliced into the hull.

 

[Waylander]

Ok, if they need to get overhauled than do this. But not more.

 

[Aussie Digger]

As you note, things have changed. The problem is Defence doesn't have a crystal ball. Personally, I'd suggest that for our primary AO the upgrade was perfectly adequate. Now that we are adventuring further afield, and as long as we are primarily engaged in COIN ops, its still quite adequate. The advantages that a turret confers over a RWS are still useful and its considerably cheaper, AIUI, as well. What should be added to the vehicle is provision for the fitting of bar armour if/when required. If increased firepower is desired, then I'd suggest a RWS at a latter date, perhaps on the hull rear a'la Marder with a 7.62mm MG.

I think part of the real problem is that the Army can't decide where or what its going to do with its armour assets. Are they going to be employed in an armour heavy environment, such as Korea or possibly even Iran or are they going to be engaged in power projection in the immediate neighbourhood or as support to infantry engaged in COIN ops? If its the former, then I'd suggest that the upgraded M113 is not the vehicle we need. If its the latter, then its perfectly adequate as an addition to the Bushmaster/ASLAV combination.

I don't so much have a problem with the vehicle per se, I DO have a problem with A) the armour protection levels the designed vehicle will provide B) the so called "firepower improvement" that the vehicle is intended to provide, but clearly DOESN'T and C) the cost effectiveness of the vehicle.

Supporting Australian jobs is important but sooner or later the line has to be drawn and I'd NOT like to compare an off the shelf purchase of "zero lifed" M2A4' s and "zero lifed" M113AS3/4's because I KNOW what would provide more capability, I'm just not certain what would be cheaper...

I'm not sure of the advantages that a turret provides over an RWS, particularly in relatively small calibre weapons, so if you'd care to explain it I'm willing to listen. (I "screwed" the T-50 around enough to have SOME practical experience of a turret)...

Australian Industry involvement is fine. My POV is though, that there's more to Australian Industry then Tenix. I'm not sure Tenix would care to put their M113 turret up against CROWS in cost v capability comparision, for instance and it is only one of many capability options that didn't even EXIST at the time this contract was written and offers MANY more capabiliies at a reasonable cost.

Sooner or later Tenix is going to HAVE to be brought to account, just as Kaman was, in relation to this (continuing) underperforming project.

I'd personally like to see a few "off the shelf" solutions ACTUALLY used to resolve these problems. They are proven relatively cheap, available QUICKLY, effective - capability wise and even in-service on other platforms .

I really can't think of too many "downsides"...

 

[Manfred]

Rickshaw;

I would am not so sure about the 50 cal. having a significantly smaller collateral damage factor. They only come in ball and armor piercing rounds, and have a very high penetration ability (this is the reason the US did not bother with anti-tank weapons until the late 1930s).

20mm cannon have much greater flexibility in ammunition, such as the thin-walled H.E. rounds and other items that can kill without turning a cinder-block building into a sieve.

 

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw;

I would am not so sure about the 50 cal. having a significantly smaller collateral damage factor. They only come in ball and armor piercing rounds, and have a very high penetration ability (this is the reason the US did not bother with anti-tank weapons until the late 1930s).

20mm cannon have much greater flexibility in ammunition, such as the thin-walled H.E. rounds and other items that can kill without turning a cinder-block building into a sieve.

How much fragmentation do you get from a 20mm HE round as against a 12.7mm solid round?

 

[rickshaw]

I don't so much have a problem with the vehicle per se, I DO have a problem with A) the armour protection levels the designed vehicle will provide B) the so called "firepower improvement" that the vehicle is intended to provide, but clearly DOESN'T and C) the cost effectiveness of the vehicle.

You don't think those choices are rather dependent upon the environment its designed for?

Supporting Australian jobs is important but sooner or later the line has to be drawn and I'd NOT like to compare an off the shelf purchase of "zero lifed" M2A4' s and "zero lifed" M113AS3/4's because I KNOW what would provide more capability, I'm just not certain what would be cheaper...

More than likely, considering the cost of what the AS3/4s have now come to, per unit.

I'm not sure of the advantages that a turret provides over an RWS, particularly in relatively small calibre weapons, so if you'd care to explain it I'm willing to listen. (I "screwed" the T-50 around enough to have SOME practical experience of a turret)...

Turrets have improved vision over RWS. They also as the yanks have discovered with the Stryker tend to be safer for the commander to use. The result is improved situational awareness, without necessarily the danger of an exposed MG.

Australian Industry involvement is fine. My POV is though, that there's more to Australian Industry then Tenix. I'm not sure Tenix would care to put their M113 turret up against CROWS in cost v capability comparision, for instance and it is only one of many capability options that didn't even EXIST at the time this contract was written and offers MANY more capabiliies at a reasonable cost.

Sooner or later Tenix is going to HAVE to be brought to account, just as Kaman was, in relation to this (continuing) underperforming project.

Were the Seasprite's Kaman's fault? My impression is again a case of poor DoD Project Management, rather than necessarily contractors' fault.

I'd personally like to see a few "off the shelf" solutions ACTUALLY used to resolve these problems. They are proven relatively cheap, available QUICKLY, effective - capability wise and even in-service on other platforms .

I really can't think of too many "downsides"...

Costs would increase as time once more was needed to rejig the design to utilise them. Simple rule of project management - you start to screw around the design and the costs will blow out as time is wasted. It would be cheaper to either scrap the project or simply continue with it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

You don't think those choices are rather dependent upon the environment its designed for?

Not especially. Australia cannot afford a range of mechanised vehicles designed for differing operational scenario's. Stating that Army's only tracked APC should be "designed for our region" is not especially bright in my opinion, especially when you consider that Australian strategic advice recognises this region as proliferating in "highly lethal" anti-armour weapons and typified by close combat operations in complex terrain...

A vehicle purposefully designed NOT to be capable of operating in such an environment seems rather useless...

More than likely, considering the cost of what the AS3/4s have now come to, per unit.

What a surprise... Let's by all means continue this farce then to PAY Tenix to build us such an in-capable design at such a hefty price...

Turrets have improved vision over RWS. They also as the yanks have discovered with the Stryker tend to be safer for the commander to use. The result is improved situational awareness, without necessarily the danger of an exposed MG.

Stryker uses Protector RWS in the main...

Were the Seasprite's Kaman's fault? My impression is again a case of poor DoD Project Management, rather than necessarily contractors' fault.

The contractor still promised a capability that was shown to be all but beyond it's capability to deliver. Admittedly defence stuffed up big time too and the platform should never have been chosen, but it's hard to blame defence I suppose. Gaining new capability in the early 90's was a HUGE ask...

Costs would increase as time once more was needed to rejig the design to utilise them. Simple rule of project management - you start to screw around the design and the costs will blow out as time is wasted. It would be cheaper to either scrap the project or simply continue with it.

Agree. Hence my POV it should be canned. Immediately and an off the shelf M2A4 Bradley purchase should be conducted...

 

[Waylander]

Are Brads for sale out there?
As long as I know most of the ones which are not in the units or in the areas of operation are really worn out and broken down.
I think the US Army needs nearly all its Brads to make sure that there are enough in theater.
The repair facilities in the US are more than full and despite the money pumped into the system they are too slow there for a circle and so new Brads from depots have to be used to keep numbers in Iraq and elsewhere high.

Maybe CV90s? I think there are new ones and used ones for sale in Sweden.

 

[rickshaw]

Not especially. Australia cannot afford a range of mechanised vehicles designed for differing operational scenario's. Stating that Army's only tracked APC should be "designed for our region" is not especially bright in my opinion, especially when you consider that Australian strategic advice recognises this region as proliferating in "highly lethal" anti-armour weapons and typified by close combat operations in complex terrain...

Actually, I'd suggest the reverse. The cost of vehicles is really only a small fraction of the cost of defence compared to the cost of training and/or personnel themselves. Australia could easily afford to have two or three differing sets of equipment scales, and Orbats designed around different threat scenarios. As long as the vehicles had common controls/equipment, you could have a light APC (eg Bushmaster) for COIN/Peacekeeping/intervention duties and a heavy APC (eg M2) for conventional warfare duties. You'd issue the type best suited to the situation, as required.

A vehicle purposefully designed NOT to be capable of operating in such an environment seems rather useless...

Define the "environment". As I keep pointing out, part of the problem is that the Army has such a wide range of scenarios to prepare for that it is nearly impossible to actually have a vehicle which is suitable for them all.

What a surprise... Let's by all means continue this farce then to PAY Tenix to build us such an in-capable design at such a hefty price...

You've yet to prove its incapable. What is meant to be incapable of? It was always only intended to be an improved battlefield taxi, nothing more. How is it incapable of performing that duty?

Stryker uses Protector RWS in the main...

Yep and they've found that its a danger to the commander if he's operating head out. The smoke dischargers are right by his head, apparently and can't be fired. Not a good situation according to the end users.

The contractor still promised a capability that was shown to be all but beyond it's capability to deliver. Admittedly defence stuffed up big time too and the platform should never have been chosen, but it's hard to blame defence I suppose. Gaining new capability in the early 90's was a HUGE ask...

I think its hard to blame Kaman as well. Defence failed in managing the project and let the situation get away from it, just as it has with Tenix (starting to detect a pattern here yet?).

Agree. Hence my POV it should be canned. Immediately and an off the shelf M2A4 Bradley purchase should be conducted...

I think we should continue with the project. Its will prove to be a useful vehicle to have. However it will need to be supplemented, both at the top and the bottom end of the scale IMO.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Actually, I'd suggest the reverse. The cost of vehicles is really only a small fraction of the cost of defence compared to the cost of training and/or personnel themselves. Australia could easily afford to have two or three differing sets of equipment scales, and Orbats designed around different threat scenarios. As long as the vehicles had common controls/equipment, you could have a light APC (eg Bushmaster) for COIN/Peacekeeping/intervention duties and a heavy APC (eg M2) for conventional warfare duties. You'd issue the type best suited to the situation, as required.



Define the "environment". As I keep pointing out, part of the problem is that the Army has such a wide range of scenarios to prepare for that it is nearly impossible to actually have a vehicle which is suitable for them all.



You've yet to prove its incapable. What is meant to be incapable of? It was always only intended to be an improved battlefield taxi, nothing more. How is it incapable of performing that duty?

Meeting it's required performance for one. Meeting the agreed upon schedule for another. The vehicle IS required to improve mobility, protection and firepower for land combat forces. Protection is really the only thing that seems to have been achieved out of these 3 and then we don't really know do we? As armour protection levels are rightly classified...

Yep and they've found that its a danger to the commander if he's operating head out. The smoke dischargers are right by his head, apparently and can't be fired. Not a good situation according to the end users.

I hardly think that it's the same thing. Different vehicle, different configuration, however it's HARDLY an unachievable project. As Kongsberg themselves point out, integration work necessary to adapt it to the M113 FOV has already been conducted at THEIR expense... It's even Kinnaird compliant given that it's in-service with the Norwegian Army and Air Force on their M113's...

I think its hard to blame Kaman as well. Defence failed in managing the project and let the situation get away from it, just as it has with Tenix (starting to detect a pattern here yet?).

Defence are HARDLY perfect and deserve any amount of blame here. Unfortunately the contractor cannot escape it either.

I think we should continue with the project. Its will prove to be a useful vehicle to have. However it will need to be supplemented, both at the top and the bottom end of the scale IMO.

The fact remains that even as you state we will require a different or "supplemental" vehicle. 1 Brigade already has the "low end" covered with Bushranger and the enhanced vehicle under Overlander (if it's ever selected").

It's the "high" that's absent this should replace the M113As3/4. It's time has passed. It should have been in-service 10 years ago and be replaced from now onwards. The fact that it's NOW going to serve until 2015 at LEAST as our only armoured vehicle for our mechanised infantry forces (Bushrangers are NOT "A" vehicles remember?) is unpalatable in the extreme to me...

Useful it may be, until we have to face an anti-armoured threat or an opposing armoured vehicle force. At which point it's shortcomings will be all too familiar...

 

[Manfred]

How much fragmentation do you get from a 20mm HE round as against a 12.7mm solid round?

It varies, there are dozens of different types of 20mm ammo on the market now. The smallest/lightest round is a copy of the round developed by the Luftwaffe back in 1940 for thier aircraft. The idea was low-velocity shells for lighter guns, and this meant lower penetration.

In South Africa, they have a new sniper rifle that fires that round. While I question that value of such a weapon, it does show how vast the variety is in 20mm options.

Talking about using 20mm guns for crowd control seems a little over the top, but the situation in Indonesia might be as bad as they say. In such a case, you want the round to do damage where you aimed it, not travel onwards, punch through a wall and kill mom and the kids hidding in the apartment. That is why I was going on about penetration.