Its not that bad, and in fact its quite good.
Nice Gavin.
It's ok if you need something that floats, if you don't need to float it's a lot worse than other options.
>>65634040It is NATO's MTLB. If war ever starts up expect to see these things reactivated by the thousands and just as many burned-out hulls littering the landscape.
>>65634040OK now make it fly.
>>65634040I just think they're neat
>>65634040If I was made of money I'd buy one of the high rise command post models and convert in into a cozy little RV.
>>65634040SlowWeakBurns like a magnesium torchAn uparmoed Ford F350 is faster, cheaper (prod cost) and better.
I still see that botched assault by the 3rd Separate, when the M113 with the camera man got penned by an RPG (the screams...), and then he had to do a foot assault into some trench. That was some gnarly shit.
>>65634040the better APC
>>65634236>is fasteruntil you go offroad>cheaper (prod cost)a mostly irrelevant factor, because war always favors heavy spending for even a small benefit >and better.until you meet enemy fire and then you need an armored roof and sides
>>65634083nah, russians have a bonus to senselessly dying, nobody can match them
>>65634628>>65634083actually, the NATO MTLB is a truck, the M113 is closer to a BTRthe MTLB is an artillery prime mover and its passengers are artillery crewmenbut the M113 was phased out of frontline service, so its likely never going to see combat in a mechanized formation, being mostly used for HQ transport, ambulance, mortar carrier, and other secondary roles
>>65634658Ubiquitous, lightly-armored tracked vehicle with space for crew+extras, ambiphious capabilities, and it can have any kind of ad-hoc gun strapped to the top you can think of. To which am I referring to?
>>65635032Its actually easy to tell them apartThe MTLB is primarily for towing artillery and moving its crew, making it equivelant to the 5-ton truck The M113s closest equivalent is the BTR, which serve as battle taxis They were even issued to the same units, which were mech companies in the US and motor companies in the USSRBut its a moot point because the M113 isnt really going to see much combat because its mostly used for support roles now, having been replaced by the M2 brad and the stryker
>>65635041>But its a moot point because the M113 isnt really going to see much combat because its mostly used for support roles now, having been replaced by the M2 brad and the strykerMTLBs weren't supposed to see much direct combat either lmao I don't think you get his point
>>65635101The point is that its NATOs BTR, not the MTLB
>>65634040I drove them, I hate them.
>>65635170Are they easy to maintain & repair? I mean its a box with an engine, it seems like it would be. How much do they shake around when the engine is on / when driving? Did you ever train mechanized assaults on them, or was it a pure battle taxi around the battlefield?
>>65635183>Did you ever train mechanized assaults on them, or was it a pure battle taxi around the battlefield?anyone born after 1970 is unlikely to have ever used it for a mechanized assault, because they were being phased out of mechanizerd units in 1981 and had mostly finished by 1989their use as a battle taxi was for the purpose of a mechanized assault, they were in armored divisions and would have been paired with M1s and M60sthe issue is that a battle taxi was a flawed concept from the start because it was difficult to remount their vehicles, M113 was too poorly armed to really contribute to the battle and trying to do that in vietnam went badlyso M113s were replaced on a 1:1 basis by M2 bradleys, it was the soviets who kept the BTR and BMP serving together with mech units getting more BMPs and motor units getting more BTRs
>>65635194I thought battle taxi meant moving troops around the battlefield in a vehicle protected from light arms and artillery shrapnel, but never engaging in direct combat.
>>65635200>but never engaging in direct combat.this is essentially why they were replaceda mechanized unit would move with tanks and mechs until they made contact, at which point the infantry would disembark and proceed on foot while the M113s would form up into an independent unit and head off somewhere safe until they got new orderssince the M113s were only armed with a .50, they couldnt re-enter the area until the tanks and infantry secured it, which is usually the time they would return to the front to remountthe purpose of switching to the M2 bradley is that the big gun meant it could stay at the front next to the infantry and defend itself and the dismountsso a mechanized attack could continue seamlessly without waiting for the transports to catch up to the front, the infantry were never far from their M2 and could both dismount closer to the enemy and then remount faster after it was donebattle taxis as a very concept were just not ideal if the idea was to continue tempo without giving the enemy a chance to react
>>65635226Ah I see, thank your for the explanation.
>>65634613You deserve to dismount that shitwagon under fire for saying that
>>65635228>dismountYou are suppose to stay inside it and fire your AK's through the firing ports as you drive through the nuclear wasteland.
>>65634040It IS that bad, and it's NOT quite good.
>>65635194Guard had em for a long fucking time, I drove em in like 2010. You're right in the fact that I never used it in combat though.>>65635183Dunno, wasn't a mechanic. They vibrate a bit when on but it's not like shaking a bunch, it's loud as fuck but you wear a CVC to keep the noise out and communicate. Driving is fine, you have to be extremely light on the pedal because it has a tendency to fucking go the second you touch it, and if you hit the brakes it just dead stops.
>>65634040As a medic in 1/1AD who had to drive them, they're comfy to use and dogshit to work on. They're old as fuck and need replacements immediately, I spent more time with 4-70th working on 113s than training medical skills.
>>65635183>was it a pure battle taxi around the battlefield?The only time we ever used the ONE 113 our company had was during training missions, and it was used solely for logistics/admin shit by the HQ platoon. The 113 was supposed to be for the company 1SG to use for CASEVAC / logistics during combat, but when we deployed to Iraq, it never left the wire, and the 1SG used a Bradley our company XO got him somehow, and if he didn't have a Brad, then he'd task out a platoon Brad to help him do whatever. The 113 couldn't handle the IED's in sector, or the RPG's. It was about at the same level of an uparmored HMMWV as far as protection, but at least the guys in a HMMWV can all see out their windows, and deploy in and out of the vehicle faster.If you have no armor, it's better than nothing I guess, but they're best avoided if you do.
>>65634197Until the engine leaks and you die in the back. Or until it decides it wants to piss all it’s coolant on the floor like a puppy.Spooky 113 attached.
>>65634040Modern variants with turrets and extra armor are still being manufactured to this day.
>>65635510Proofs?
>>65635228counter-point, a bigger gun in an enclosed turret
>>65635247You can watch videos from the Ukraine counter offensive of those things being used in the assaults. I think the documentary "1000 meters to Adrivka" (spelling) has some intense footage. One of them gets raked by (I guess) PKM fire which penetrates and fucks up the guys, and then it takes and RPG hit and they have to dismount in the middle of the grey zone. Hard pass from me. Very hard pass.
>>65634040Never trust a vehicle that has less protection than something you can wear.
>>65636547shitty vehicles are worse than no vehicle
>>65636569anything is better than walkingeven a bicycle is better than walkingM113s did fine as ambulances or as staff cars even un ukraine, where light arty protection still matters
>>65634613>cannot dissociate a million rusting hole ridden shitheaps with picrel
>>65635251wait, the 6v53t detroit is bad? i can understand criticism of it being outdated and loud. but they are pretty reliable. just don't forget your pie tin for when the rack gets stuck and it runs away after being stored for a long time.
>>65638549>took until the 60s to get a turret>the turret is still open topped
what if we upgunned it to a 105mm cannon, and then permanently welded on the steel add-on armor for 14.5mm AP resistance, and then gave it a bigger engine because we dont need all that crew space anymore?
>>65639458You'd have a really crappy M48.
>>65639458Cubapilled. I love these abominations but there's no chance they'd do much in an actual scrape with the US
>>65634613>Combat dismount>get run over because of shit hatch placement Its a pos anon.
>>65638595That's the problem, they just aren't reliable though. I'm not sure where you're getting that info. The entirety of 1/1AD had issues with them the entire time I was there. 4-70th had and still has, along with the other bats, horrible readiness rates.
>>65639747APC: M113IFV: M113 with a cannonMBT: M113 with extra-armor and a 105mm gunAA: M113 with a rotary cannon and missile launcherSPG: M113 with howitzer and outriggersTD: M113 with ATGMs
>>65639973>I'm not sure where you're getting that info.been operating 2-smoke detroits my whole life in trucking and agriculture. tens of thousands of hours. they are leaky, weak, and loud but they run fine as long as you do the basic checks like keeping oil in them.could just be the way the army operates them. they find all sorts of interesting ways to make dead-nuts reliable gear not work. like when they found a way to kill the roosamaster pumps in 6.2/6.5L detroits in the humvees by running only JP-8 in them.
>in fact its quite goodAlways has been
Test.
