M113 Family of Vehicles

[Mark Aldrich]

Add this baby to your M113.....Soviet 122mm D-30 Gun.
http://milinme.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/maut-693.jpg

[Weaver]

M113 105mm assault gun proposal from 1977 by Krauss Maffei and Rheinmetall a sort of "StuG-113" if you like....

Length with tube: 6.04m
Width: 2.91m
Height, hull: 1.76m
Height, commander's cupola: 1.92m
Crew: Commander, Loader and Driver/Gunner
Ammunition: 42 rounds
Loaded weight: approx 14,000kg





From here: http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=40544

[Weaver]

From the same site:

M113 with Cockerill 90mm gun:

[apophenia]

Modelling the Danish M/92 PNMK (with Oto-Melara T25 turret) mentioned by Weaver in Reply #73
http://m113.blog.cz/en/1303/m92-pnmk

[ChernayaAkula]

Modelling the Danish M/92 PNMK (with Oto-Melara T25 turret) mentioned by Weaver in Reply #73
http://m113.blog.cz/en/1303/m92-pnmk

"When I grow up, I want to be a Bradley!" 

[dy031101]

"When I grow up, I want to be a Bradley!" 

Bonus point if it could be done with an one-man turret.

[Logan Hartke]

From the same site:

M113 with Cockerill 90mm gun:

So pretty...

Cheers,

Logan

[Frank3k]

The M113 with Cockerill 90mm gun has an M3 Lee vibe going for it. Just add another big gun in a sponson.

[ChernayaAkula]

^ Or a heavy machine-gun in a sponson on the side. And - hey, presto - you have a real-life equivalent for a Predator Destructor from Warhammer 40k. 

[Weaver]

Damn! - I was trying to do that at lunchtime today but I couldn't find the right Warhammer vehicle!  :)

[M.A.D]

I didn't want to post this picture before from Hunnicutt's Bradley in case it pre-empted Weaver's work. Nothing is new under the sun?



But not to worry M113 Scimitar turret fans because this is actually a turret from the Fox scout car! So therefore an entirely different concept. No context as to what the proposal was for but possibly a sales attempt from the makers of the Rarden 30mm gun?

Nice bullet trap between the hull and actual turret 

M.A.D

[M.A.D]

Cheers for that!  :)

Another question folks:

The US Army has always favored powered ramps at the back of an APC/MICV, whereas the British Army has always favoured side-hinged doors. What do we think of this? What are the issues and who's right/wrong?

Personal experiance....... its much easer and quicker to get the whole section out the back with the ramp arrangement of the M113!
Plus the ramp itself makes for a great platform for the troops and crew in the wet season, when statinary! Thry that with hinged door arrangement!! I've operated from both M113 and ASLAV's! I know which one I will choose!!
To give you a better idea, take a look at footage of troops trying to get in and out of a BMP-1/2/3 and that of the M113


M.A.D

[M.A.D]

From the same site:

M113 with Cockerill 90mm gun:

With the range of modern ammo, this arrangement would have been a great replacement for the Australian Army's M113A1 Fire Support Vehicle (FSV) / M1113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV). Unfortunatly our only fire support is the 25mm cannon of a handfull of ASLAV-25's! These do not offer effective HE or anti-armour/ anti-bunker capability. But that's why I have probably favoured the incorporation of the likes of the South African Ratel 90 turret (with it's 90mm gun) arrangement incorporated onto the ASLAV or what about on a Bushmaster!!!
M.A.D

[scorchio]

Having a look at Weaver's musings on What If the British Army bought the M113? as an alternative to the FV430 series, I'm curious if any M113 variant was ever produced with a low-profile hull along the lines of the FV433 Abbott SPH and 'Falcon' SPAAG variants of the FV430.

The only thing that immediately springs to mind are the sort of flatbed type conversions on the M548, Tracked Rapier etc. but they still have that high cab at the front that doesn't really lend itself to a traditional tracked SPH silhouette.

I suppose the silhouette of the Lynx reconnaissance vehicle (M113 C&R) isn't far off, bit it still seems fairly tall at the back (compared to the FV433 hull), and obviously would need expanding back to original M113 length (and width?) or even extending, to fit something like an Abbott turret.

[Rickshaw]

There were various experimental vehicles, mounting either missile control shelters (Pershing system) or SPAAG (Vigilante 37mm Gattling system) which were never adopted, which had low profile hulls (so low in fact that the driver had a "conning tower" arrangement with a cupola on top to provide room for him).   I've often wondered what might have been possible if a supine driver's position had been adopted.

[Weaver]

With the range of modern ammo, this arrangement would have been a great replacement for the Australian Army's M113A1 Fire Support Vehicle (FSV) / M1113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV). Unfortunatly our only fire support is the 25mm cannon of a handfull of ASLAV-25's! These do not offer effective HE or anti-armour/ anti-bunker capability. But that's why I have probably favoured the incorporation of the likes of the South African Ratel 90 turret (with it's 90mm gun) arrangement incorporated onto the ASLAV or what about on a Bushmaster!!!
M.A.D

Since ASLAVs are basically MOWAG Piranha 8x8s, a 90mm Cockerill turret should go straight on.

[GTX_Admin]

I wonder...reverse the drive (i.e. have it drive in reverse when going forward) so that the driver etc are at the rear, replace troop compartment with low profile, armoured gun - either fixed or in turret.  Result: a tank destroyer with crew right at back and thus somewhat more protected.  Maybe somewhat akin to the ASU-57 or ASU-85 (see below)?

[GTX_Admin]

Speaking of the ASU-57, what about a M113 of more conventional arrangement (as opposed to what I proposed above) but with a main gun and open topped gun compartment like the ASU-57:

[raafif]

Speaking of the ASU-57, what about a M113 of more conventional arrangement (as opposed to what I proposed above) but with a main gun and open topped gun compartment like the ASU-57:

I thought it was already posted here ..... it's somewhere on here ....... Libya mounted Russian D-30 howitzers in several M-113s just like that.

[Rickshaw]

The ASU-57 is tiny.  Basically not much taller than a normally seated man.   The ASU-85 is considerably taller, about the height of a tall standing man.

[Volkodav]

The M-113 has a transfer case to turn the drive 180 degrees to the transmission and the differential.  It would / should not be that difficult to ditch the transfer case and run the drive through a shaft from a mid or even rear engine set up, reprofile the nose and recline the driver.

[GTX_Admin]

The ASU-57 is tiny.  Basically not much taller than a normally seated man.   The ASU-85 is considerably taller, about the height of a tall standing man.

And...

[Weaver]

Well the "StuG-113" I posted back in #102 has a distinctly lower profile than a standard M113, but still keeps the front engine.

[raafif]

here's that Libyan M-113 SPG ...

[scorchio]

There were various experimental vehicles, mounting either missile control shelters (Pershing system) or SPAAG (Vigilante 37mm Gattling system) which were never adopted, which had low profile hulls (so low in fact that the driver had a "conning tower" arrangement with a cupola on top to provide room for him).   I've often wondered what might have been possible if a supine driver's position had been adopted.

Tah! The M474 TEL and T249 do fit the bill quite well, perhaps they're even too low profile compared to the 433 silhouette. It looks like one could raise the hull-line to the top of those strange cupolas without the need for a supine driver's seat, and still come in lower than the standard M113's height.

However, I figure depending on the dimensions of the turret-ring for an Abbott-type vehicle one could move the driver hatch back a bit and adopt a more supine position to eliminate the strange cab and cupola features of this vehicles quite easily. When in doubt though, there's always the option to stretch the hull and add another roadwheel like the M113AS4 and M113G3DK(ext), if the turret-ring would get in the way.