Author Topic: M113 Family of Vehicles  (Read 223674 times)

Offline abtex

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2012, 09:25:25 PM »
"Generational Change scared. The new face of OPFOR."
http://strangernn.livejournal.com/578171.html

M113 doing imitations of Soviet tanks.

Offline Maverick

  • Suffers from 'Fat Fingers' and accidentally locks his own thread...
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • The profile machine!
    • My Photobucket Thread
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2012, 10:12:12 PM »
The article is quite interesting reading.  The Russians (quite rightly) ask the question "why US OPFOR equipment is still 'Russian' rather than North Korea, Iranian or Chinese?".  Seems a fairly reasonable response, given that they're not necessarily the bad guys any more.

Regards,

John
Regards,

John

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2012, 01:52:59 AM »
Funny that that article came out at the same time as this one:

CNN: Russian general raises idea of pre-emptive strike against missile shield

As far as why the US still makes Russia OPFOR?  Well, a couple of reasons.  First, as the above article shows, Russia isn't quite on our "best friends forever" list.  Second, Russia still equips and trains most of our potential enemies (such as China and Iran).  If we act like we're going up against MiG-29s and Su-27s, we're probably going to be more right than not.  Finally, It's better to be over prepared than under prepared.  If you setup your OPFOR as Iran, you make them old F-14s and F-4s.  We know how those work.  We trained against them for over 40 years.  It's hardly DACT.  We'd get blind-sided if we ran up against something tougher like PAK-FA or J-20 fighters instead.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Frank3k

  • Excession
  • Global Moderator
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My new webpage
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2012, 02:50:01 AM »
The article is quite interesting reading.  The Russians (quite rightly) ask the question "why US OPFOR equipment is still 'Russian' rather than North Korea, Iranian or Chinese?". 

Because most of the North Korean, Iranian and Chinese armor is either an export version of a Russian tank or derived from one. If you squint, that M113 looks like a ZBD-97 (which is based on a BMP-3) or ZLC2000 or even a YW701 with a turret.

Offline Maverick

  • Suffers from 'Fat Fingers' and accidentally locks his own thread...
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • The profile machine!
    • My Photobucket Thread
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2012, 07:04:14 AM »
Whilst I realise that many other nations use Russian or derivative equipment (such a thought wouldn't be lost on the Russians replying to the article), I expect the question raised by the article is moreso why the OPFOR equipment is camouflaged, etc in a Russian way, rather than the other nations' designs which are different (the Chinese use of digital camo for instance).

Regards,

John
Regards,

John

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2012, 09:23:30 AM »
I guess it's also a case of "letting sleeping dogs lie". US Aggressor and Adversary outfits have always painted their aircraft with red stars (save for a few notable exceptions). In some cases, their camo was or is close to Soviet/Russian aircraft, in others not. It's almost "tradition", nobody bats so much as an eyelid. Paint an Eagle in a scheme more or less resembling the recent Su-35 prototypes and it's pretty much business as usual. Announce tomorrow that the Aggressor and Adversary aircraft will be repainted to resemble Chinese aircraft and behold the sh!+storm that will ensue. The PRC will throw a hissy fit and the powers in charge in the US at all levels will have a lot of explaining to do to the media as to why they needlessly p!$$ off the Chinese. Far too much hassle for a very limited benefit in training realism (especially so with most of China's aircraft in rather boring greys anyway).

So, instead of unnecessarily opening a can of worms, schemes are kept as they were. Head honchos adjust training syllabi to reflect the most likely adversaries. Nobody complains. Everything's a-okay.

As for the VISMOD M-113s above, I don't recall either a Soviet or a Russian camo resembling anything close to this. Evenly spaced big stripes in green, black and brown. It doesn't get more "not looking at anyone in particular" than that.
Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline Maverick

  • Suffers from 'Fat Fingers' and accidentally locks his own thread...
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • The profile machine!
    • My Photobucket Thread
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2012, 09:41:35 AM »
Agree totally there Moritz.  The 113 camo is definitely 'different'. 

When I was serving in the ADF, we had a fictional country as an enemy, but when the chips were down, those with a less politically correct bent would routinely call our aggressors Indonesian quite openly, especially when ther weren't any brass around.

Regards,

John
Regards,

John

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #32 on: February 17, 2013, 11:00:35 AM »
Interestingly, I just came across this picture on a Philippines forum:



Their version of an FSV/MRV, independently produced to the Australian one.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2013, 11:02:24 AM »
ROC M24 Chaffee Turret on an M113 hull. They found they were too top heavy to swim and so abandoned the idea.  The turret has obviously been upgraded with improved FCS.





And someone has even made a model of one:



Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2013, 11:58:16 AM »
Love it!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2013, 08:50:57 AM »
What about an AMX13 style oscillating turret mounted on a M113?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2013, 09:42:26 AM »
What about an AMX13 style oscillating turret mounted on a M113?

Do you qualify as a mountain climber when you're a turret crew member?  It'd be very tall, Greg unless you used a cut down hull.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2013, 10:40:24 AM »
Bah! Practicality be damned!
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2013, 12:02:12 PM »
Bah! Practicality be damned!

C-of-G would also be significantly higher...

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2013, 12:11:02 PM »
Bah! Practicality be damned!
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2013, 12:13:35 PM »
Does the turret basket (I'm assuming that the AMX-13 turret has one) have sufficient opening so that access from the rear ramp might be possible?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2013, 02:33:31 AM »
Well there's a fact I didn't know - the M113's trim vane is made of wood. I'd always assumed it was steel or aluminium and maybe added a bit of extra armour protection to the front, but then I saw a closeup of one on a somewhat shabby Aussie FSV and you could see the woodgrain. Bit of research and yep, wood. Various degrees of tinware were added to it with foam for buoyancy etc, but the basic structure is the same.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2013, 10:15:33 AM »
Well there's a fact I didn't know - the M113's trim vane is made of wood. I'd always assumed it was steel or aluminium and maybe added a bit of extra armour protection to the front, but then I saw a closeup of one on a somewhat shabby Aussie FSV and you could see the woodgrain. Bit of research and yep, wood. Various degrees of tinware were added to it with foam for buoyancy etc, but the basic structure is the same.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.  Wood is cheap and easily replaced. It's also significantly lighter than metal, which makes the driver's job of deploying it easier.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2013, 05:57:56 PM »
I didn't know either.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Online Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2013, 04:09:48 AM »
Most folks would never notice the material unless they are maintaining/operating the vehicle. :)
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #45 on: April 03, 2013, 05:07:57 AM »
It just strikes me as a bit fragile - it's all very well saying it's easy to replace, but if you need to swim and your trim vane's been trashed by shrapnel, you may not have time to set up a carpentry shop... Mind you, I supose it's easy to roughly patch up with any old bit of wood and a few self-tappers....

This, by the way, is the reason why the British Army removed the flotation screens that used to be a feature of most of it's AFVs. They were only tin and canvas and got damaged so often that they couldn't be relied upon to be functional on the rare occasions they were actually used.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #46 on: April 03, 2013, 06:33:52 AM »
It just strikes me as a bit fragile - it's all very well saying it's easy to replace, but if you need to swim and your trim vane's been trashed by shrapnel, you may not have time to set up a carpentry shop... Mind you, I supose it's easy to roughly patch up with any old bit of wood and a few self-tappers....

The trim vane can have holes in it and still function. The roll of the vane is to stop waves swamping the front of the vehicle.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2013, 08:27:48 AM »
It just strikes me as a bit fragile - it's all very well saying it's easy to replace, but if you need to swim and your trim vane's been trashed by shrapnel, you may not have time to set up a carpentry shop... Mind you, I supose it's easy to roughly patch up with any old bit of wood and a few self-tappers....

The function of the trim van is to prevent the bow wave breaking over the engine inlets and flooding the engine compartment, it doesn't actually add anything very much to the floatation of the vehicle.  It can still function as long as it's not actually broken or splintered.   If it's destroyed, then more than likely there is something wrong with the vehicle.  It does have BTW a thin sheet of mild steel on the facing surface, which protects it from most common knocks and bangs when it's folded.

Swimming in the M113 particularly when fully loaded was always quite marginal anyway.  There were usually only a few inches of freeboard and it was often easily swamped in any sort of waves.

Quote
This, by the way, is the reason why the British Army removed the flotation screens that used to be a feature of most of it's AFVs. They were only tin and canvas and got damaged so often that they couldn't be relied upon to be functional on the rare occasions they were actually used.

That's understandable, they do actually cause the vehicle to float, so if they are holed, then water will come in and the vehicle won't float, just like on the hull of a boat.   I'd assume that as a consequence greater resources were devoted to mobile bridging/ferries?   
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 11:56:26 AM by Rickshaw »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2013, 10:13:44 AM »
Plywood actually and I must admit I didn't know until I started crewing them either.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #49 on: April 05, 2013, 05:06:26 AM »
Okay, a couple of questions, folks:

Before they moved it out to either side of the ramp, the M113's fuel tank was in the back of the left hand sponson, on the "shelf" over the tracks as you'd see it from the inside. So:

1) What's in the equivalent position on the right hand side?

2) If there's nothing immovable there, then is there any reason why you couldn't extend the vehicle's range by putting another fuel tank there? I know there would have to be a filler cap above it as on the other side.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith