Author Topic: M113 Family of Vehicles  (Read 82347 times)

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #15 on: May 03, 2012, 06:07:05 PM »
Apparently the guard is a "Fire suppression rail" to stop the possibility of firing the mgs into the cargo area of the Bucket.

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/firestorm/fst081.htm  (specifically the 3rd Photo & paragraph directly above this).

Regards,

John


I still reckon its a pretty rare thing.  As I've said I've never seen one and while I don't claim I've seen every one of the 800+ M113s we bought, if it was common I'd have expected to see it at least sometimes.

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 #16 on: May 03, 2012, 06:14:49 PM »
Have to agree there Brian.  Although it's mentioned often enough in various sources, the Buckets I saw/rode in were without it.  Perhaps it was considered superfluous in an operational sense and was removed at the unit level?

Regards,

John
Regards,

John

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #17 on: May 03, 2012, 06:26:26 PM »
Have to agree there Brian.  Although it's mentioned often enough in various sources, the Buckets I saw/rode in were without it.  Perhaps it was considered superfluous in an operational sense and was removed at the unit level?

Regards,

John

More than likely not bothered with.  I don't see that much value in it being there, except as a grab handle for the diggers in the back when they're standing in the hatch.  It would have been a valuable part of the vehicle CES and knowing QMs, not issued for fear of loss.  ;)

Offline Feldmarschall Zod

  • Kitbasher extroinadaire
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I hope that's not the sound he makes...
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2012, 06:32:45 AM »
I just may try to build a version like that, :o


how about like this ??


What kind of turning radius does that long version have? :-\
Every time you eat celery,an angel vomits in a gas station bathroom. Tanks rule. I know the load is late,but the voices tell me to pull over and clean the guns.

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 #19 on: May 04, 2012, 06:36:41 AM »
Depending on the steering system, it could potentially turn on a dime as the Yanks say.  Simply one track forwards and the other going in reverse and voila!  Might take a shade longer than a conventional vehicle though.

Regards,

John
Regards,

John

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2012, 09:32:59 AM »
Have to agree there Brian.  Although it's mentioned often enough in various sources, the Buckets I saw/rode in were without it.  Perhaps it was considered superfluous in an operational sense and was removed at the unit level?

It was an initial thing from when they were first modified and soon found to be superfluous and removed or not fitted.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2012, 09:45:57 AM »
M113 with the ARES Talon 35mm gun.





Would look good beside a Tracked Rapier.

Circa 1979, based on the M548 TLC. Each gun fired at 1,200 rpm a 35mm shell at 1,175 mps.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2012, 09:49:16 AM »
Rarely seen M113 AVLB. Bridge was 33' long and could support 15 tons.


Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M113 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2012, 10:23:34 PM »
They trialled that in Vietnam IIRC.  Obviously not a success as it basically sank from history without a trace, like the Sheridan one.

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 #24 on: May 05, 2012, 03:05:46 AM »
M113 with the ARES Talon 35mm gun.





Would look good beside a Tracked Rapier.

Circa 1979, based on the M548 TLC. Each gun fired at 1,200 rpm a 35mm shell at 1,175 mps.


I really like the look of that - makes this sketch I did a little more plausible too:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

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
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My 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