CAT Person T-Shirts here: everpress.com/mhv »» GET BOOKS«« » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com » IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com » StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de » Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de » Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
One can do as we did in the US Army with our M-113A3 and made a facade from framing and canvas that made it look like a small building. It bolted to the slab-sides and allowed it to still drive/relocate when needed. Our version of hiding in plain sight.
I have ridden in an M113. It was far and away the most uncomfortable vehicle experience I have ever had. The seats are unyielding canvas, every bump or stone bangs you in the arsch, and unless you're the driver or the commander, you can see nothing, it's almost pitch black. Hideously memorable, and I was only in it for about 15 minutes.
I've served on various versions to include the M113A3, M577, and M981. Make no mistake: the M113 was designed to get you to your attack position/dismount point then you would fight as infantry as if you had gotten off a truck, helicopter or parachuted in well before making contact with the enemy.
Thank you for explaining this simple fact it is just a battlefield taxi now everyone wants to drive thru assault positions. Funny how people who always criticize the equipment never used or served in them
out of interest: how do they do under artillery attack? I am thinking of 81-82 mm mortar impacts nearby, as well as 120 and 155mm: what is the expected survival, penetration rate etc: How close would such grenades need to be in order to significantly penetrate the vehicle? Seeing as artillery is a big factor in peer-on-peer wars..
@@mortenovergaard7397 The will stop basically any HE shell fragments, and all calibers up to 8mm at normal machine gun ranges, that is less than 800m. Any basic shaped charge will penetrate. It's designed to get the troops around safely protected from fragmentation and snipers, and then provide limited direct fire support *when appropriate*. See FM 7-7 (1985)
@@mortenovergaard7397in Iraq we had an 82mm go through the commanders hatch and detonate on his seat. No one was in the vehicle at the time but it ran and drove fine afterwards.
Exactly. I drove the M981 in the 80s and I loved it. But it was _always_ known to be a death trap if you fought the enemy and they had anything more powerful than an AK.
I honestly liked my 113 ambulance. It did it's job and did it well. Once you lose the governor you can reach 45 to 50 mph. The periscope work. The engine is big robust and easy to work on. Mine was only 2 years older than I was in the eighties.
Mines got more than a few decades on me now, but its still the same. Engine is nice and you can generally tell if something is wrong just by the sound. If she purrs shes loving life, if she sounds like a lawnmower you're in for a bad time. Pretty nimble and honestly when you pack it out right it its not that bad of a home to work out of.
I actually have an affection for the vehicle as I had three in my Scout platoon. As a scout vehicle, it was actuall superior to even the bradley. Much more manueverable, better cross country mobility, quick as a hiccup. Less firepower perhaps, but the scout who engages anything with a weapon OTHER than a radio has already screwed up royally. The meatball (MTLB)? Nowhere close. Rode in several as OPFOR at the NTC at Fort Irwin. Wouldnt do it again on a bet. Give me the M113 anytime.
Not surprising considering that M113 was made with transporting people in mind while MTLB was probably designed to transport dwarves, hobbits and other fantasy cratures not higher than a grown mans chest. Yes, it's primary purpose is to be a prime mover for an MT-12, but whoever decided *Correction: structural, inernal is even less* hull height to be 1,2m is probably being repeatedly flattened by a hydraulic press in hell (as they absolutely should be).
Yes and no on the weapon. Don't forget that in US doctrine, the cav units can also be tasked with guard and cover missions, which absolutely requires shooting things. Indeed, for a while when the recon squadrons had no tanks, they were incapable of conducting covers.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Not arguing the need for firepower. The unit I was in was A troop, 15th Cav, $1.97th Brigade, a J-series MTOE cav troop with 9xM60A3s. We later got Bradleys and M1s, but that M113 was still my favorite vehicle for recon (can't say the same for that M901 we were saddled with). One of our configurations was to use a 'sniper tank' - matching scout and tank sections for an on-demand direct fire during screening ops.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Yes, that is one of the greatest mistakes and weaknesses in current US doctrine. We need to separate our recon from every other mission.
We had M113 in Germany, 1977-1981. We also had the command version, M577 Command Post Carrier higher, can stand inside, with generator mounted just behind and above the driver. The M113 had a wood front flap that folded out to help keep the water from splashing up into the hatch when crossing a river. I crossed water in one, very scary, the water level was only two inches below the top of the APC. Fun vehicle to drive.
The steel versions were NOT better and both hulls were tested! It's natural for those with little understanding of armors to imagine aluminum to be weak, but the real problem is the APC concept was a complete mistake for the very simple reason mobility and ANY armor COERCES use as an IFV. All APC should have been IFV from the start but they're a hangover from the nuclear warfare doctrine of the 1950s.
At 1:52 I'm pretty sure that MHV (and by extension the German combat engineer serving in Ukraine) are talking about "riding on the roof" and not 'driving on the roof' as the narration says. The popular conception of M113s in Vietnam was that soldiers would ride on the roof because their main worry was mines, and not a peer or near-peer competitor with a full suite of artillery, aircraft, missiles and drones to cause pain from overhead.
My uncle served in these during the Vietnam war, for the longest time he thought the hulls of them were made of steel. I had to inform him that he was only protected by aluminum all that time.
They were made of 2” compressed aluminium armoured plate which was designed to protect against 7.62 mm rifle bullets and artillery shell splinters and is approximately equivalent of 1/2 inch of steel plate.
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized if you want to see an excellent movie with the M113. Danger Close, which is the Battle of Long Tan. Let me the Australian's used the M113 as a rescue vehicles for company of Aussies pin down by the Viet Kong. The movie is excellent.
The aluminum was FIT FOR PURPOSE and chosen because tested performance IN ITS INTENDED ROLE exceeded steel. People who don't work with metal automatically assume alloys like 5083 are poor but the real problem is that the vehicle is an APC (which means "helpless against any modern weapons")
1970s ex australian armoured corps here (Cav recon) the M one one three armour was 5083 aluminium alloy it was never meant to be more than small arms resistant . having driven most australian variants including time as gunner on FSV and radio operator on ACV it was never meant as a IFV it was always meant as a battle taxi. we called it a butter box. discomfort had a lot to do with the skill of the driver any assault troopers let you know quickly if you were not up to standard. most driving was done heads up and many drivers had scar under chin from hatch ring. all in all a good vehicle length of service tells you that.
113 is a fantastic vehicle if you use it correctly. Versatile, adequate protection for its initial role, adequate armament for that role, loved the A2. Fun to drive.
The protection doesn't even fit it's intended role. It was designed as an armored personnel carrier. The standard for protection is at the bare minimum 12.7mm machine gun fire. Which the M113 cannot stop. They sort of cheated on the tests by saying if the engine block stops the round that's a pass.
I drove one for about half of my time in the Army National Guard. Well, the Mortar carrier and command track variants. The command variant we called "The RV". It was tall enough that some could stand up inside, and with the tables deployed it could sleep four in comfort, six with excess familiarity. Even back in the 1980's we knew it was a way to get from A to B without infantry weapons (rifles, medium machine guns) taking us out, and to allow bad terrain transport of indirect fire systems.
The M113 is basically a "Battle Taxi" to carry infantry to combat. 100 to 200 meters in some sort of cover before dismounting the infantry, the .50 Cal machinegun is for suppression and support. Once infantry has been dismounted the carriers then leave to a support by fire position. That's the way we had trained with the M113.
Found it unsettling. We always called it the M-One-One-Three. I spent most of my infantry career around them. I was pissing off the top one time during a tactical halt when the driver suddenly took off again. I let myself fall into the "sun roof" and everybody caught me. I could drive the A2 version one handed and held my morning coffee in the other and usually had a cigarette. I have many stories that won't ever be a movie. :))
For a vehicle conceived in the 1950s, to be relevant in 2023 is pretty amazing. Of course, in the US we do not consider this vehicle an APC or IFV. It is great for moving things around the battle space behind the lines, carrying mortars, or for engineers and other supporters who are not actually fighting at the front. In my units, we had one in a company which the XO used for things like moving between the ALOC, UMCP, etc, and for taking things up to the IFVs. I spent a year as his driver and the 113 could go places no wheeled vehicle could.
yeah it wasnt really a true APC, much less IFV, even when it was built. It was designed with super weak but light armor so it could easily move around behind allied lines and ferry men and material through even terrible terrain. That light armor also made it good for amphibious crossings, muddy/swampy ground, and easy to air transport. The armor is mainly just meant to defend against really small arms and shrapnel. The Americans didnt really consider it front line material and most losses have been when people treat it like an IFV and find out the hard way that it cant stand up to armor piercing rounds, AT guns, tanks, or RPGs.
But is that really the case, though? Just because it's used in Ukraine and by other countries, does that really make it relevant, or is it more a case of "Hey, it's the only thing we got, so we have to use it". I personally would argue the latter, rather than the former.
@@Orcawhale1 Swear to God, the ass kissing for outdated Western equipment is surreal. They could send that WWII Kiwi Bob Semple tank where a 9mm pistol can penetrate it, and they’ll call it “relevant”
The M113 is a classic, but there are good reasons the Army replaced it. For a 12 ton vehicle it does the best it can. It’s too bad there isn’t time to up-armor all of the vehicles. The Australians had an excellent armor package that gave decent mine protection.
@@hoy455 we still have them but now they are only intended for the defence of Australia and police action’s only, not frontline offensive roles anymore.
they will probably end up staying in service for a while longer, the ADF has significantly scaled back the amount of new IFV's purchased as part of land400,
All of the ones being given to Ukraine are the A3s or better. So they have the internal spall liners and what not. But really, it has the same problem BMPs do. There isn't much that can be done to protect them from anything that is a threat to AFVs, RPGs, light cannons, mines, drones, etc. Its just not a front line vehicle and should be treated as such, its armor is just there to protect itself from the ambient lethality of the battlefield.
A good vehicle for its time. It did look as it had lots of space inside it when I saw it at a tank museum. So I think it still can be useful for certain roles like medical evacuation, or as a command vehicle and perhaps as a mortar. It is of course not a modern IFV as it is an old vehicle and do not have the same armor and fire power as CV90 or any hatches for the infantry from where they can stick up their heads and rifles to shoot at targets. However they are mechanically reliable. And I rather sit in a M113 in a battlefield than a flammable BMP-1 that lacks gun depression or a crampy pansarbandvagn 301
The Dutch variant of the M113 known as the YPR-765 has resulted in over 20% destroyed/damaged/abandoned. This variant offers much better armor protection than the typical M113.
Depends on what they are used for. Some roles will always suffer more causalities compared to others. Even the FV432 was considered a Battle Taxi and not an IFV. Universal carriers in WW2 were incredibly useful but were terrible if used as AFVs (British doctrine generally was to consider them as soft skins.)
I have seen videos of such dutch vehicles been used in assaults in ukraine. And that will of course mean higher losses. I believe that half of all Bradleys sent to Ukraine has been lost. 10 Leopard 2 tanks have been destroyed and 20 is undergoing repairs out of something like 120 vehicles. So yea, losses have been heavy. But resistence have been hard and losses on the other side has been hard as well. To me it seems like the Ukrainians are using their dutch M113 according to tactics provided by western instructors and they are not used as any IFVs because they are no such vehicles.
The YPRs seen here on you tube were way out in front dropping off troops and suppressing the Ruskis with their machine gun. No matter them being better than the standard M113, they're not built to be out in front catching mortar and AT grenades taking tremendous abuse.
@@mirola73 Ukrainian troops use what they have. And often they pay the price.
11 місяців тому+5
Again nice Video. I like that the MT-LB and M113 bring cheap protected mobility to the battle area. Something that apparently is going to be needed much more in the future
I loved driving the M-113 but it was a rough ride on the TC and especially the passengers. The driver knew what was coming, had the sticks (A-2 version) to hold on to, and a decent seat. TC and the scouts were more marbles in a can. I never knocked any passenger unconscious but other drivers in my troop did. I grew up driving 4wd and 2wd off road so I was good.
I served 6 years driving, servicing and living in the M113. After nearly 60 years of service, this is probably one of the best combat vehicles ever devised for the U.S. Military!
I had an M125A1 mortar carrier in Berlin Germany in the late 80's just before the wall came down. Funny thing is that it had 3 repaired bullet holes in the driver's front corner made by what looked to be made by a 12.7mm. that old girl had been brought back from Vietnam, repaired, and then shipped to Germany. I still hold great affection for my "wounded guppy".
During my military service [Australia] we always joked that you could always pick out M113 crew commander, usually a Corporal, by his lack of front teeth caused by the top hatch not being\unable to be locked down securely and as such it would\could swing forward and hit the Commander in the back of the head and smashing his head forward and knocking his teeth out on the front of the hatch ring ? Don't know if this was a problem for all or just the models supplied to Australia, as I was in 'chooks', which is Aussie slang for Signal Corps ? Thanks again for another great video\story from your channel, pls keep up the great work ?
Yeah that is false. The hatch is spring loaded. If its not positively locked, the hatch will try to settle at about 1/4 open. So the TC will feel it pushing on their back. It doesn't just flop back loose. If there is any kernel of truth here, its that the butt of the .50 cal is the offender.
@@obsidianjane4413 Maybe it's just the older Australian turret I'm familiar with, but isn't the rear of the .50 beside the commander, not in front of them?
How do you fail to secure the hatches open? Give it a yank before driving to proof the catch, anyway. Step and lean down on the hatch if the latch is finnicky. Then again, I've read a few Aussie's complaining about underfunding for the army. Maybe your 113's latches eventually broke and never got mended...
For what its worth, the Australian vehicles in the videos are M113AS4, our latest version prior to be replaced by LAND400-3. The ride characteristics are different say Leopard 1. M113 slows down to negotiate ditch, Leopard 1 speeds up.
The used to come with another "door" over the engine compartment door that you would folded out when doing a water crossing. It was supposed to act break the bow wave when they went into the water.
It’s called a “trim vane”, it’s a metal reinforced plywood sheet that locks out when you go swimming with them. It you forget to deploy it, the crew commander gets the bow wave right in the face and down the hatch when entering the water, the wave goes right over the driver.
Interesting regards the Ride Comfort. I've read comments from actual users that the Universal Carrier (its earlier inspiration as a battlefield utility vehicle) was designed to carry a weapon and its crew across shelled bullet strewn ground in absolute discomfort... Having had a ride in a repro Carden-Lloyd Mk IV (The Universal Carrier calls it daddy), its definitely a bone shaker (seat is effectively a cushion bolted to the floor, next to the engine!). Make sure your fillings are secure before climbing in.
As a guy who has spent time with light infantry and have done a bit of force on force with tanks/afvs i totally agree that from the outside they all seem like deathtraps, unless you are in a very narrow set of envornments they are just too big of a target with too little informataion getting to the crew, i can see how a tanker could think that "ah my thermals/nightvision is so much better" or "im so much more protected" but as an infantry guy our reality is we have a whole platoon of guys looking, listening, smelling and generally being alert. I dont care how far your night vision can see its the funcion of being cut off from the world and people around you that gives me the heeby jeebies. Nobody is radioing the tank in the middle of the night to casually ask if you heard something, and when you are on the move you dont have 30 some odd eyes scaning every sector along with you. We just cant substitue that yet.
Ma thermals can see your patrol tromping thru the woods 200 m. before the scouts in an OP hear the sound of crunching leaves. Now a days, you are likely to be spotted by a drone no matter where you are and pretty soon there will be swarms of autonomous hunter killer drones/robots that will make flesh and blood infantry extinct.
As a former mechanic in the US Army. I have had M113's assigned as my vehicle. Since maintenance teams typically only put 2 people per track its not too bad inside. Especially if you mount the medic stretcher rack to one side for sleeping cots. As for mobility and crossing difficult terrain? Yeah I 100% agree with this. The M113 can cross over ground that heavier vehicles instantly sink into. The M113's is actually very light weight for a tracked vehicle and it spreads that weight nicely along its tracks. The A3 versions are pretty damn zippy as well. As for Armor protection? Light fragmentation and small arms is the most I would ask of it. Its made from Aluminum so anything bigger just zips right through it like a beer can. Yeah it can mount several different crew served weapons like the M2. But honestly the M2 is your best bet here. With maybe a 240B as a close second. It was never intended to be a front line fighter and was pretty much only meant to be a battle taxi. Take troops to the front and drop em off then GTFO. What I have seen the Ukrainians use them for is boarder line suicidal imo. But you use what you got. So best of luck to them.
My experience with this vehicle? You ride on top and when you come under fire you jump off and get away from that aluminium monster. There was a extra plate underneath that would disappear to a scrapyard, becouse some desperate private neaded cash. A lot of room inside to carry extra ammo, chow and water.
4:00 In Singapore we've got an AA variant of the M113, one version with 2 pairs of ready-to-fire Iglas and a version that also comes with a Fire Control Radar
First images doesn't show the classic M113, it shows the massively modified Aussie M113 APC called the AS4. Hull is lengthened, now has one more road wheel station, powerpak upgrade GM V6 Two Stroke diesel is gone, Alison TX100 auto tramsmission is gone, the original T130 track shoes are gone. External fuel tanks, Aussie designed and made turret replaced the original Cadillac Gage T50 Tuurret. In Aussie Army we called them battle taxis, yet also used them for medium range recon for many years! I was a M113 driver then crew commander with a recon regiment RAAC. M113 sull is made of Aluminum 5083 marine grade, 38mm thick! Good for shrapnel and smaller calibre ammo protection. They are fun to drive, driven them lots til I retired over twenty years ago, Then several years later, drove one in the UK (ex norwegian Army) for a public event. That M113 had just been purchased by a Brit for UKP50,000 - it was working well and drove well. I was envious of the owner a good man!
Yeah I think the swiss army knife/leatherman/multitool analogy for the M113 fits. A Multitool has a shit knife, a shit pair of tongs, a shitty saw, somewhat ok screwdriver etc. And generally you would rather use a real tool than rely on your Multitool. But you have it in your pocket, and you can use it to stand in for anything you couldn't bring to get at least some work done. I know M113 is rather liked as a medevac vehicle in Ukraine because you can make the interior work pretty well for that. And it can be pushed into many roles though ofc to way lesser effiency than a specialized vehicle (we all know it is ancient). That in itself bears value tho, especially if you don't have the budget to buy a set of shiny new purpose made tools. Its sort of the "budget option" if you are a beggar and can't be a chooser but I think it still does very well as that. "the armoured vehicle we have at home".
"armored protection is... rather bad" If you act like it can't take a hit, you'll probably survive, unless you get ambushed by proper armored vehicles. As far as current-day usage, IMO it's best thought of as a "tracked HMMVW, with that HMMVW not having the up-armor kit". The armor of the default M113A1 is only rated to withstand direct hits from 7.62mm ammunition and splinters from artillery shells, so like I said, "pretend it doesn't have armor and you'll probably survive". If you're wondering what happened to the original M113, the A1 of M113A1 denotes the diesel version, which is the one with the highest production numbers. The M113 before it was gasoline fueled and phased out of service quickly after the debut of the M113A1. Of course, there ARE add-on armor kits for the M113A1, however these universally add weight and still only provide protection against moderate-caliber autocannon fire. The slat armor kit is also of limited effectiveness, being only useful against shaped-charge warheads approaching from the side and not the top.
I was a 63H from 87 to 91. Those Detroit Diesel engines are a beast and they are pretty easy to maintain. I think that is a take away that a lot of people miss about the platform. It is easy and inexpensive to keep a fleet of them running. The army loves that engine so much that they put a double turbo charged version in the Bradley. I drove one for about two years and the guy that trained me just flat out said "this isn't a vehicle you take into a fight. This is a vehicle that takes you close to the fight" It's meant to do tasks in the rear where dangers like artillery and bombs are the main threat. It won't take a direct hit but it stops shrapnel pretty effectively. Since I was a brigade level grease monkey, I got to work on all sorts of variants, An AA version with two Vulcan rotary cannons mounted on the top, a CnC version for artillery command, loads of ammo carriers that followed M109s around, the list goes on. The only version I knew of that ever went even close to the front was the combat engineers. They would fire Bangalore torpedos out of the back to clear obstacles and mines for armored units. They liked the 113 because it can get in and out of that situation quickly.
@@Ilex1 I'm sure that you mean MCLC or Mine Clearing Line Charge instead of Bangalore Torpedo, right? The Bangalore Torpedo doesn't need to be fired, it's literally just a fence post with a strip of high explosive putty or a few rows of detcord down one side of it, intended to be used to cut thru barbed wire or other similar light fortifications in a similar use case to a breaching charge against a door. MCLC on the other hand is designed to clear a path for vehicles thru a mine field, and sometimes to "render safe" particularly nasty IED's (the most expedient method of clearing an IED being to blow it up, of course). There's a version of the Stryker that can use the MCLC as well, the US currently fields it. Sure is quicker than a mine flail or other methods of prematurely setting off mines in a manner to clear a path thru a mine field, but because it uses high explosives and is generally one of the loudest things on the battlefield even compared to artillery guns (the MCLC is louder (at one instant) than a battery of M777's being fired off), it's generally only used when troops are advancing and don't have time for the minesweepers to do their job the "normal, careful" way. EDIT: Additionally, due to the bulky and volatile nature of the MCLC, in US armed forces use it is usually carried on a trailer towed behind the vehicle that is intended to use it, with that vehicle being picked because it is rated to withstand nearby blasts. So while the US using the Striker with the MCLC is probably a better overall experience for the troops inside it, the M113 is still "suitable for purpose" in this role.
@@44R0Ndin That's some interesting information. I never really knew much about the weapons on most of the vehicles I repaired. I just called them Bangalore torpedos because the CE's that showed up with the track referred to the system as that. I guess they didn't get too deep in the weeds on the explanation to a mechanic. Frankly, until I fixed their track, I didn't now a thing about that system or that it even existed. It looked cool as shit though. I spent a time on tank and artillery ranges watching them fire but other than watching the AA version do target practice at The NTC I never saw anything other than small arms being fired. It would have been cool to see the MCLC do its job. I got closer to combat than most mechanics because I was on a contact team and I did recovery but the truth is I was a certified REMF.
"pretend it doesn't have armor and you'll probably survive" Yep. In Iraq they were banned from going on patrols because they were so vulnerable to IEDs and EFPs. They were kept on the FOB and used as the "QRF" but mostly they just sat in the motorpool because no one wanted to take them out.
As a logistics connector it does well. As a fighting vehicle it struggles. But if you have bad weather and rough terrain and contested airspace you will appreciate the supplies, reinforcements, and casualty evacuation capabilities of M113. Press it into front line contact and you are rolling the dice.
This is one of Military History's most cursory videos, with a few inaccuracies. I get the impression he made it purely to meet a UA-cam Creator engagement quota. Not knowing the 113's front hatch opens to the engine compartment should be automatic disqualification from talking about this simple vehicle.
My dad had an old dumptruck with a V6-53 in it, just like the M113. That 2 cycle (most engines are 4 cycle) diesel engine would scream. It would cause hearing loss driving it without ear plugs. Those engines will last a long time and have a lot of power. I used to illegally drive my dad's dumptruck and we used to extremely overload it too.
Based on my past experience 50+ years ago : "IF" you are using the M113 as a front line assault vehicles in todays combat/conflicts , You'd Better Choose Your Battles Wisely !
The advantage of the MT-LB compared to the M113 is also that it can fit many more people, as they often ride in and on the vehicle, 20-25 versus 11, because it will be harder to sit on the M113 and it also has a smaller area. If those MTLBs don't have infantry on them, you often see canisters, crates, stretchers on the roof, not so simple either.
Riding on the roof of vehicles has proven to be pretty deadly to the dismounts in Ukraine lmao. Both Ukrainian and Russian roof riders have been minced by numerous mines, drones, etc etc. The Russians had the same issue in Chechnya and Afghanistan but they keep doing it regardless. And yeah the same for the M113. You strap various things to the top and sides of the vehicle. It has tie-downs for this purpose lol, thats not something unique to the MT-Lb lmao.
Aside from the low ceiling, the MTLB is also reasonably comfortable. Not quite to the point where you're all that likely to fall asleep in the back, but much better than you'd expect. I really wouldn't want to ride on the roof, though.
@@hoy455 Its mainly a thing with BTRs because they have a godawful passenger compartment. Its in the middle, so the only way to get out is from the side as rear is blocked by engine and front is by the turret. But the side is also blocked by the giant wheels. So there is a tiny af hatch sandwiched between wheel #2 and wheel #3 that a dozen dudes fully kitted out have to try and contort themselves out of while being shot at. The BTR also have barely enough armor to stop even small arms. So staying inside isn't an option. You are better off sitting on top than inside because it literally is a death trap.
Its been over 20 years since Ive driven one and I can still remember everything about it. It is a simple machine to maintain and drives fast. The only bad thing is its protection. Its good against small arms and thats about it.
I´ve been a driver and commander of a M113 for several years in the german army. I had different versions of the german M113 ambulance and i loved them. Quite fast and mobile. For comfort: 2 or 4 beds, a great heating and a beer cooling system aka NBC System :) Miss them a bit
It’s a motorized, slightly armoured Paul Bunion (small shipping container) designed for C130 transport……it’s a Swiss Army knife of combat support roles in the B esh and thats why it has never been replaced…..also you can teach anyone that can drive, to drive one in a matter of hours and it’s one of the first (but not the best) designed for battlefield component replacement….level ground, decent crane >8 hrs to replace entire power train. The old “APC” ain’t sexy, but it’s pretty handy at filling the roles nobody thought of or didn’t want to do…..that’s it’s super power….B echelon tracked Swiss Army knife.
Long time operator of these boxes here, yes they're exceptionally uncomfy and protective headgear is a pre unless you want to end up unconscious 😂 But that engine purrrrrr hmmmmmm❤
After our machine gun jeeps were retired, my scout unit used the 113 for a long time. Eventually we went to an Humvee MTOE. The 113 was far superior to the wheeled vehicles in every way except speed on a paved road. The 113 is one of the most capable off road vehicles ever built, if you can't get there in "the track" then you likely need a helicopter. As far as some of the complaints in this video, that's totally not my experience. And I spent years either driving, riding in, or commanding one.
As a former Cavalryman, I love the M113. It is the "VW Beetle" of APC's. It is reliable, easy to work on and rugged. As with the "Kaefer" or "Bug" it can only do, what it can do. It is a "battle taxi" not an IFV. It floats in water (barely), is relatively fast and excels as a command-and-control vehicle due to its fantastic mobility. Did I mention it sleeps four comfortably in winter and eight in good weather. Like the VW Beetle it is a product of its time and this needs to be considered in its tactical deployment.
The M113 is the world's most popular battle taxi. It's there to get you to the front line like a truck. It drops you off. You go fight. It picks you back up after. Use it correctly, and you'll love the ole girl. Use it incorrectly, and you're going to have a bad day. 🤠
People talk so much shit about the Gavin... But it's survived for 70+ years for a reason. They're good enough that Ukraine took one apart and copied it and is manufacturing new ones. (And new HMMVs...) There's a lot to be said for a small arms resistant tracked platform that can haul shit around and fit down narrow streets. It's easy to work on, has space for hauling all sorts of shit, and it's easy to find or make parts. It's definitely no bradley, but when you need to get to the front without losing your squad to artillery shrapnel on the way or you need to patrol areas close to the lines, evac casualties, whatever.
I visited a friend who worked at defense manufacturer in Israel. They did things like custom R&R, of various ground vehicles and things like that, which is a very common thing there. Anyway, they had an M113 turned into an IFV of sorts. See, they had fitted a M134 to it (mounted to CROWS). The ammunition chute extended down into the compartement where infantry would usually ride. Here was mounted a large magazine system that took up half of the compartment. If memory serves correctly, this held something like 30,000 rounds of 7.62 nato, and would continuously feed the M134 up top.
Turkish Defense contractor FNSS makes some pretty neat modernization packages, including a full IFV version that makes it into a baby Bradley 😂. I wonder how they stack up to fully modern or more modern equipment.
When I was a combat engineer platoon leader it was quite difficult to keep up with Abrams and Bradleys in my 113s. Got my ass chewed so many times at Ft Riley trying to keep up. sorry for being so slow. :(
I know this vehicle well. Started as a mechanic on it back in 1994. I been a driver instructor, technician instructor and commander on it. I still work on our variants of M113 along with our Leopard 1 and 2 FOV and CV90 FOV. The original variant is expoced to everyting over 7.62. Unfortunately this is the variants that have been donated to UKR. But we have new variants with add on armor, mine and IED protection, spall liners and secure inventory to secure the crew. But it can't be compared to any of the modern IFV.
Funny how they say the armor is out of date today. It was out of date back in Vietnam. Guys would place sandbags on top and ride on top to avoid the possible RPG attacks.
The Ford Motor Corporation made 80,000 of these and in 2000 BAE upgraded 1,000 for Iraq and other countries. The US has a substantial amount we can lend lease 1,000 to Ukraine. A M113 in good working order cost about $100,000
I've only been in a M113 derivative (YPR765) a handful of times, but got to agree: It is rather cramped. I had to hunch over a bit and if the road's bad, nevermind offroad you're going to need your helmet. But maybe all APCs have that as the Patria was notoriously bad on this as well. I'm also 2,02 tall so maybe I'm not the best 'baseline'. That said our version the YPR does solve the main issue for combat operations with the M113, and that is the armour. The M113 was designed as 'just enough' against small arms, and not even proof against some specialist ammunitions. That makes it a 'battle taxi' and even the apc role for frontline delivery it's a bit lacking. The uparmoured version however should be proof against most things besides dedicated anti-armour weapons or very close artillery hits. In my opinion that's an important protection level to have since it most you'll survive most attacks, and more protection still would require MBT levels of protection. It sure felt safe enough with those in Afghanistan as they're supposed to be proof against most RPGs even. Ukraine has been using the YPR765 as both an APC and IFV, mainly the machinegun versions. They feature in a lot of assaults to Russian positions riding just behind a tank or simply rapidly delivering troops to a trench system. Lost versions of the YPR feature both in Bachmut and around Cherson. Doctrinally I question the IFV use if I'm completely honest, firing mobile machineguns at a line doesn't seem effective to me, but Ukraine probably has more knowledge on how to fight a peer-level conflict than we do. We're also supposed to have supplied (or are supplying) the cannon-armed variety, but I've not seen those on war videos yet.
its called a one, one three get with the program. it is a comfy ride like a roller coaster. would you rather walk? Also Beggers can't be choosey. Yes i spent some time in them. Very reliable. i cant remember having maintenance issues..
The only amphibious versions are the original M113-most or all of these donated to the ARVN-which has a petrol engine; and the M113A1 which has a 6V53 Detroit Diesel engine. The M113A2 has the 6V53 engine and two external fuel tanks protruding rearward on each side of the ramp door, instead of one fuel tank at the left rear of the passenger compartment. The M113A2 is heavier and non-amphibious. Subsequent production/updated vehicles all have the external fuel tanks and are non-amphibious.
As a former driver of both A2 and A3 versions...I find your claims to be false. I have personally done river crossings in both versions and they float just fine.
@@yolandria Okay, bad info. I retract my assertion in regard to amphibious capabilities. Obviously A4 onwards. Having said that, if someone forgets the bung, they sink quite nicely🙂.
My first ride in an M-113 was at Tempelhof airport during an open house by the US military during the Cold War. A few years later I actually took the light track course (M-113 family of vehicles) with the Canadian military. I thought it was a bit unfair that Canada had these, while our West German allies had the superior Marder. Still, as a straightforward “battlefield taxi” to get you near the front lines, it is a much better option than an unarmoured truck. Same for ambulances, which aren’t supposed to be targeted, but somehow still are.
"You can't ride on the roof!!" You think that maybe the designers of an Armoured Personnel Carrier might be assuming the personnel would be inside the armour?
@@danielboatright8887 cheers dits, my first job was working on 432s which are even more lightly armoured than 113s, so no, I don't need to "understand" anything.
Maybe Australia's refurbished M113s are unique enough to deserve a video? * We took 2x M113s, cut them in half & made 1x long wheel base 'new' M113. * These are almost a separate M113 species they are so modified throughout. Currently serving alongside our Bushmaster in Ukraine. Cheers from Canberra.
We stuck the turret and guns from the Scorpion on a versions called the FSV here in Australia. Interesting that your video showed the Australian AS4 variant. It is probably the most upgraded version in service still. Better armour, remote weapon station and better ride comfort. Though Russia have taken out a couple of AS4’s.
Can they not just modernized M11A3? Fitted with 25mm chain gun, dual ATGM and added protection from ERA and APS, its economical but efficient and effective IFV....
Is a vehicle that is damn easy to upgrade, even domestically, but then you don´t get politicians cashing their asses from newer, more expensive toys, simple as that. and quite honestly in times of war and homeland invasion those attitudes are pretty redundant to say the least...
Additionally, not all M113's are amphibious. Only the original M113, the A1, and the A2 are amphibious. The up-armored M113A3 is NOT amphibious, and it is restricted to fording no more than 40 inches of water, because it does not float. For the rest of the world, that fording limit is 101.6 cm, but for the sake of brevity you might as well just truncate it it 1m (I'm an auto mechanic in the US, and I play a lot of Kerbal Space Program, so I'm at least somewhat familiar with both measurement systems, and I do find it easier to physics problems in metric).
It also doesn't have the waterjets and the hull floatation of the MTLBs. I never understood why the MTLBs were still in service until I saw videos of last year's Rasputitsa, where they were wallowing thru the mud, half driving half swimming. It was an "ah ha" moment. 113s would sink like a rock in the same situation.
@@williamwilson6499 Amphibious means it floats. Uparmored M-113s won't float because the extra panels and the external fuel tanks makes it unbalanced, it doesn't have have enough freeboard to not flood into the hatches and sink.
@@williamwilson6499 40 inches isn't 20 feet. The M113, A1, and A2 can traverse ANY DEPTH of water, meaning that it can FLOAT. The M113A3 can not float, meaning it is restricted to fording 40 inches, because the modifications did not remove the seals that keep the water out, but if the engine's air intake goes underwater the thing can't move.
Ukraine uses what it has and unfortunately APCs like their "Purple Heart box" M2 halftrack ancestor in WWII were a mistake. All tracked combat vehicles should have been designed as AFV from the beginning for the very simple reason that "some" armor plus tracked mobility and low ground pressure COERCES APC use in AFV roles with deadly results. The US Army of course ignored this as did the USSR because their APCs were designed for a war no one has ever waged, tactical nuclear exchanges in Europe! An NBC and splinter shelter with tracks is not an IFV though there is no reason M113 could not be armored to Bradley levels. Foreign users upgrade their 113 FOV much more than the US whose leaders simultaneously want something better but refused to agree on what that was for over half a century. US uniformed leadership frequently make costly mistakes but are not accountable for them and militarily illiterate public doesn't care until scandals like those which begat MRAP cost lives over time. There is zero reason the US could not have easily fielded modern COMFORTABLE M113 FOV with proper modern suspension, a vee hull unpierced by torsion bars, Brad-thickness armors and modular armors and a suitable power pack but no one cared so that was that. Consider how many years it took to get the fuel tank out of the crew compartment and replace it with very simple armored external tanks that don't roast the crew when hit.
Had two times in an M113 neither combat FYI. First: I was trash in the back as Range Patrol in the winter time patching tank targets. Black and grey targets, Hole in grey use grey duct tape, ect, half and half get artsy! Not allowed to walk on the ground due to 80 years of unexploded crap in the ground, but we did. Frost 4 feet thick, it's solid and frozen. Best score from that job...50 Cal bullet that was shot and just laying there on the snow. Mint with rifling! Second: was Driving M113 Ambulance. Big red cross, most days those stretchers made the best 'Nap time beds"! Also hooked up with a Dentist truck in the Unit and got my teeth cleaned a filling replaced! They were just as bored. Canadian Military, be a Tanker, drive everything with 4,6,8 wheels or tracks but not Tanks. Get farmed out instead to other units in the 80's-90's. Zero complaints. I had a good time
As a little kid i always wondered why the USA built Pbv 302's didnt have a turreted 20mm canon, Now as an adult i understand that USA never built any Pbv 302's but i still cant fathom why they skipped the Turret for an open option.
Yeah, the m113 predates our pbv 302. FMV evaluated the m113 back in the early 1960ies iirc, concluded that they didn't like the aluminium armor, the armament or the inadequate snow handling. They then noted what features they did like compared to the old and inadequate pbv 301, and incorporated that in the design work for the prototypes that eventually resulted in the pbv 302. An APC that was so close to an IFV that foreigners often misclassify it as such just like they missidentify the strv 103 as a tank destroyer instead of the turret less medium tank that it is.
Great video, I'll just point out (ex-Australian Army). The Aussie and US M113 are different, The Australian Army updated them around 15 years ago (give or take some years). this included a whole bunch of stuff, but the main thing is that we extend it from 5 road wheels to 6 (easily spotted in this video). I believe they renamed them M113AS4, the Australian newer version and the American older ones. Not sure on the impact on logistics and they had different engines and drive trains.
#Curious -> What would be the Feasibility to use these as Mobile Bunkers in dug outs.... -> The Dirt & Berm would protect it... YET you would have use of Gadgets & Power as well as a Weapons system.... If the Armor is dated ... But the engine & systems are good...
Love the Aussie troop footage at the start, looks like my old Regiment/Squadron as I recognise the training ground. I was a M113AS4 Driver, same variant as seen at the start of the video. That thing has an 18 tonne braking system, when we roll with 14.5 tonne actual weight (unladen). Fair to say that the infantry boys got a ride and a half forward on stop drop procedures, oh and only their section commander is hooked into the internal vehicle comms so they best pay attention to him.
I loved my M113A1 and we swam it across the Main River in Germany, even at night. It had so much flotation that once I felt the front end bob up in a deep mud hole. Awesome simple maintainable lovable things. If an artillery round lands close, would you rather be in an F150 or one of these? Supply delivery, dash-in dash-out ambulance, glad it's getting a long life.
It seems they are unhappy it isn't a warrior or Bradley . . Well guess what it isn't. Like the similar FV432 it is a big metal box on tracks, cheap, multi purpose and a very useful item to have.
These are very tested in combat but they are definetly not infantry fighting vehicles.. they are battle taxi . Drop you close than drive off while you walk in.. Israel loved them..
Just remember guys the M113 is better armored then any attack/transport helicopter helicopter. Which says a lot to how effective the armor on helicopters are.
M113s were not intended to be IFVs and even the ones with turrets were not meant to go directly into combat. Their armor was thin and made of aluminum so they could float. That meant that the armor was intended to protect the crew and passengers from shell fragments and debris thrown up by explosions. It was not designed to stand up to even a light AT weapon. The first time I ever saw an M113 was in basic combat training. There was one parked in a training area. It had been used as a target for a M72 LAW to show what happened to the crew in a lightly armored vehicle that had been hit by one, and the dummy crew were riddled by the molten fragments of the HEAT jet. The job of an M113 was to deliver troops to an area where they could dismount and walk to the battlefield. If it ever got shot at directly, then the crew had messed up badly. Even the versions of it that carried AT systems were meant to hide in defilade and not be seen. That didn't mean they didn't get ambushed, though. Viet Cong guerillas used to do that, and because of the risk you see a lot of photos of US troops riding on the top of M113s instead of inside. That was because they knew all too well that the RPGs used by Charlie Cong would blow right through the vehicle and kill everyone in the passenger compartment. The one you were standing next to was not the command vehicle. Those were much taller because they had an armored boxlike extension on the back so that people could stand up in it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M577_Command_Post_Carrier
What I don't get is why dont they pop a few cameras on these vehicle and give a VR google to the driver. You could do the whole thing for the cost of single modern guided artillery shell. And the driver would suddenly have a complete 360 vision out of the vehicle while keeping all the existing visibility.
The M113 is not a combat vehicle, but a means of transport. One of its decisive advantages is that, while being a box from the outside, it is also a box on the inside. A BMP, on the other hand, not only has an extremely cramped but also extremely jagged interior, which makes it practically unusable as a means of transport, n. b. a BMP is also practically unable to carry out effective fire fighting while on the move. Compared with vehicles from the same era, such as the Hotchkiss, the M113 is by no means particularly loud or uncomfortable, quite the opposite. On the other hand, comparing the noise of the M113 to a Leopard for example, the noise of the Leopard may not be quieter, but it is more pleasant. However, under no circumstances should you use the petrol version of the M113, as there were fatal accidents up until the 1980s. And you should also make sure that the heating remains functional.
CAT Person T-Shirts here: everpress.com/mhv
»» GET BOOKS««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
The weapons and mines being used against AFV's and IFV are designed to take out tanks. The fact is AFV/IFV's will never be good enough.
One can do as we did in the US Army with our M-113A3 and made a facade from framing and canvas that made it look like a small building. It bolted to the slab-sides and allowed it to still drive/relocate when needed. Our version of hiding in plain sight.
Ah yes, even a TRAINED SOLDIER EXPERIENCED IN WAR says that tanks and armored vehicles are modern day death traps, yet you still "disagree" with him
I have ridden in an M113. It was far and away the most uncomfortable vehicle experience I have ever had. The seats are unyielding canvas, every bump or stone bangs you in the arsch, and unless you're the driver or the commander, you can see nothing, it's almost pitch black. Hideously memorable, and I was only in it for about 15 minutes.
You forgot loud. Loud AF. They have never had a problem getting troops to dismount from a 113. lol.
@@obsidianjane4413 : Right you are!
Sounds even worse than the Pbv302!
I see that the IDF are still using the M113s. 😀👍
canvas... clearly it was not a Danish engineering M113... we had wood boxes... with a thin pillow on top.
I've served on various versions to include the M113A3, M577, and M981. Make no mistake: the M113 was designed to get you to your attack position/dismount point then you would fight as infantry as if you had gotten off a truck, helicopter or parachuted in well before making contact with the enemy.
Thank you for explaining this simple fact it is just a battlefield taxi now everyone wants to drive thru assault positions. Funny how people who always criticize the equipment never used or served in them
out of interest: how do they do under artillery attack? I am thinking of 81-82 mm mortar impacts nearby, as well as 120 and 155mm: what is the expected survival, penetration rate etc: How close would such grenades need to be in order to significantly penetrate the vehicle? Seeing as artillery is a big factor in peer-on-peer wars..
@@mortenovergaard7397 The will stop basically any HE shell fragments, and all calibers up to 8mm at normal machine gun ranges, that is less than 800m. Any basic shaped charge will penetrate. It's designed to get the troops around safely protected from fragmentation and snipers, and then provide limited direct fire support *when appropriate*.
See FM 7-7 (1985)
@@mortenovergaard7397in Iraq we had an 82mm go through the commanders hatch and detonate on his seat. No one was in the vehicle at the time but it ran and drove fine afterwards.
Exactly. I drove the M981 in the 80s and I loved it. But it was _always_ known to be a death trap if you fought the enemy and they had anything more powerful than an AK.
I honestly liked my 113 ambulance. It did it's job and did it well. Once you lose the governor you can reach 45 to 50 mph. The periscope work. The engine is big robust and easy to work on. Mine was only 2 years older than I was in the eighties.
Mines got more than a few decades on me now, but its still the same. Engine is nice and you can generally tell if something is wrong just by the sound. If she purrs shes loving life, if she sounds like a lawnmower you're in for a bad time. Pretty nimble and honestly when you pack it out right it its not that bad of a home to work out of.
@@hoy455 and if she sounds like a rock crusher...? (asking for a friend)
@@SonsOfLorgar Even better just redline it all the time.
its a detroit, they sound crazy just rev and go they dont make any power in the low rpm @@SonsOfLorgar
I actually have an affection for the vehicle as I had three in my Scout platoon.
As a scout vehicle, it was actuall superior to even the bradley. Much more manueverable, better cross country mobility, quick as a hiccup.
Less firepower perhaps, but the scout who engages anything with a weapon OTHER than a radio has already screwed up royally.
The meatball (MTLB)? Nowhere close. Rode in several as OPFOR at the NTC at Fort Irwin. Wouldnt do it again on a bet.
Give me the M113 anytime.
Not surprising considering that M113 was made with transporting people in mind while MTLB was probably designed to transport dwarves, hobbits and other fantasy cratures not higher than a grown mans chest. Yes, it's primary purpose is to be a prime mover for an MT-12, but whoever decided *Correction: structural, inernal is even less* hull height to be 1,2m is probably being repeatedly flattened by a hydraulic press in hell (as they absolutely should be).
Yes and no on the weapon. Don't forget that in US doctrine, the cav units can also be tasked with guard and cover missions, which absolutely requires shooting things. Indeed, for a while when the recon squadrons had no tanks, they were incapable of conducting covers.
It is a great tracked truck.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Not arguing the need for firepower. The unit I was in was A troop, 15th Cav, $1.97th Brigade, a J-series MTOE cav troop with 9xM60A3s. We later got Bradleys and M1s, but that M113 was still my favorite vehicle for recon (can't say the same for that M901 we were saddled with).
One of our configurations was to use a 'sniper tank' - matching scout and tank sections for an on-demand direct fire during screening ops.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Yes, that is one of the greatest mistakes and weaknesses in current US doctrine. We need to separate our recon from every other mission.
We had M113 in Germany, 1977-1981. We also had the command version, M577 Command Post Carrier higher, can stand inside, with generator mounted just behind and above the driver. The M113 had a wood front flap that folded out to help keep the water from splashing up into the hatch when crossing a river. I crossed water in one, very scary, the water level was only two inches below the top of the APC. Fun vehicle to drive.
The steel versions were NOT better and both hulls were tested! It's natural for those with little understanding of armors to imagine aluminum to be weak, but the real problem is the APC concept was a complete mistake for the very simple reason mobility and ANY armor COERCES use as an IFV. All APC should have been IFV from the start but they're a hangover from the nuclear warfare doctrine of the 1950s.
From my time driving and commanding 113's in Australia, we used to tell the Grunts, "A second class ride beats a first class walk!"
At 1:52 I'm pretty sure that MHV (and by extension the German combat engineer serving in Ukraine) are talking about "riding on the roof" and not 'driving on the roof' as the narration says. The popular conception of M113s in Vietnam was that soldiers would ride on the roof because their main worry was mines, and not a peer or near-peer competitor with a full suite of artillery, aircraft, missiles and drones to cause pain from overhead.
He could have been talking about driving with the hatch open.
I was a driver of a M113 in 1991. One without hydraulic stearing. It was a very fine car. Only a better hardhat, but very good to drive. Miss it.😊
My takeaway: what is the best thing you can say about the M113? “Not Useless” 😂
"Better then a car" (depending on circumstance presumably) is mine😂
My uncle served in these during the Vietnam war, for the longest time he thought the hulls of them were made of steel. I had to inform him that he was only protected by aluminum all that time.
o.O
They were made of 2” compressed aluminium armoured plate which was designed to protect against 7.62 mm rifle bullets and artillery shell splinters and is approximately equivalent of 1/2 inch of steel plate.
It may be aluminum but its thick, thick enough to stop small arms fire and shrapnel. Which is the expected level of protection.
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized if you want to see an excellent movie with the M113. Danger Close, which is the Battle of Long Tan. Let me the Australian's used the M113 as a rescue vehicles for company of Aussies pin down by the Viet Kong. The movie is excellent.
The aluminum was FIT FOR PURPOSE and chosen because tested performance IN ITS INTENDED ROLE exceeded steel. People who don't work with metal automatically assume alloys like 5083 are poor but the real problem is that the vehicle is an APC (which means "helpless against any modern weapons")
1970s ex australian armoured corps here (Cav recon) the M one one three armour was 5083 aluminium alloy it was never meant to be more than small arms resistant . having driven most australian variants including time as gunner on FSV and radio operator on ACV it was never meant as a IFV it was always meant as a battle taxi. we called it a butter box. discomfort had a lot to do with the skill of the driver any assault troopers let you know quickly if you were not up to standard. most driving was done heads up and many drivers had scar under chin from hatch ring. all in all a good vehicle length of service tells you that.
113 is a fantastic vehicle if you use it correctly. Versatile, adequate protection for its initial role, adequate armament for that role, loved the A2. Fun to drive.
The protection doesn't even fit it's intended role. It was designed as an armored personnel carrier. The standard for protection is at the bare minimum 12.7mm machine gun fire. Which the M113 cannot stop. They sort of cheated on the tests by saying if the engine block stops the round that's a pass.
Its protection is laughable with even a basic RPG7v round penetrating.
RPG-7 can pen most things, it's all about the skill of the captain. @@jesseterrell2109
I drove one for about half of my time in the Army National Guard. Well, the Mortar carrier and command track variants.
The command variant we called "The RV". It was tall enough that some could stand up inside, and with the tables deployed it could sleep four in comfort, six with excess familiarity.
Even back in the 1980's we knew it was a way to get from A to B without infantry weapons (rifles, medium machine guns) taking us out, and to allow bad terrain transport of indirect fire systems.
@@jesseterrell2109 neither does T-90M anywhere except front ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wouldn't want to drive up to the frontline in this, but sometimes the frontline drives up to you.
The M113 is basically a "Battle Taxi" to carry infantry to combat. 100 to 200 meters in some sort of cover before dismounting the infantry, the .50 Cal machinegun is for suppression and support. Once infantry has been dismounted the carriers then leave to a support by fire position. That's the way we had trained with the M113.
Found it unsettling. We always called it the M-One-One-Three. I spent most of my infantry career around them. I was pissing off the top one time during a tactical halt when the driver suddenly took off again. I let myself fall into the "sun roof" and everybody caught me. I could drive the A2 version one handed and held my morning coffee in the other and usually had a cigarette. I have many stories that won't ever be a movie. :))
For a vehicle conceived in the 1950s, to be relevant in 2023 is pretty amazing. Of course, in the US we do not consider this vehicle an APC or IFV. It is great for moving things around the battle space behind the lines, carrying mortars, or for engineers and other supporters who are not actually fighting at the front. In my units, we had one in a company which the XO used for things like moving between the ALOC, UMCP, etc, and for taking things up to the IFVs. I spent a year as his driver and the 113 could go places no wheeled vehicle could.
Its an armored box on tracks. As long as we don't have hovering tanks and no shrapnel they will remain relevant.
yeah it wasnt really a true APC, much less IFV, even when it was built. It was designed with super weak but light armor so it could easily move around behind allied lines and ferry men and material through even terrible terrain. That light armor also made it good for amphibious crossings, muddy/swampy ground, and easy to air transport. The armor is mainly just meant to defend against really small arms and shrapnel. The Americans didnt really consider it front line material and most losses have been when people treat it like an IFV and find out the hard way that it cant stand up to armor piercing rounds, AT guns, tanks, or RPGs.
But is that really the case, though?
Just because it's used in Ukraine and by other countries, does that really make it relevant, or is it more a case of "Hey, it's the only thing we got, so we have to use it".
I personally would argue the latter, rather than the former.
@@Orcawhale1
Swear to God, the ass kissing for outdated Western equipment is surreal. They could send that WWII Kiwi Bob Semple tank where a 9mm pistol can penetrate it, and they’ll call it “relevant”
@@Orcawhale1It's better than a "borrowed" pickup truck or SUV.
The M113 is a classic, but there are good reasons the Army replaced it. For a 12 ton vehicle it does the best it can. It’s too bad there isn’t time to up-armor all of the vehicles. The Australians had an excellent armor package that gave decent mine protection.
They are replacing, they aren't replaced yet.
@@hoy455 we still have them but now they are only intended for the defence of Australia and police action’s only, not frontline offensive roles anymore.
they will probably end up staying in service for a while longer, the ADF has significantly scaled back the amount of new IFV's purchased as part of land400,
They'll never fully get rid of something as versatile as an aluminium box on tracks.
All of the ones being given to Ukraine are the A3s or better. So they have the internal spall liners and what not.
But really, it has the same problem BMPs do. There isn't much that can be done to protect them from anything that is a threat to AFVs, RPGs, light cannons, mines, drones, etc. Its just not a front line vehicle and should be treated as such, its armor is just there to protect itself from the ambient lethality of the battlefield.
A good vehicle for its time. It did look as it had lots of space inside it when I saw it at a tank museum. So I think it still can be useful for certain roles like medical evacuation, or as a command vehicle and perhaps as a mortar. It is of course not a modern IFV as it is an old vehicle and do not have the same armor and fire power as CV90 or any hatches for the infantry from where they can stick up their heads and rifles to shoot at targets. However they are mechanically reliable. And I rather sit in a M113 in a battlefield than a flammable BMP-1 that lacks gun depression or a crampy pansarbandvagn 301
The Dutch variant of the M113 known as the YPR-765 has resulted in over 20% destroyed/damaged/abandoned. This variant offers much better armor protection than the typical M113.
Depends on what they are used for. Some roles will always suffer more causalities compared to others. Even the FV432 was considered a Battle Taxi and not an IFV. Universal carriers in WW2 were incredibly useful but were terrible if used as AFVs (British doctrine generally was to consider them as soft skins.)
@@ptonpc The Dutch variant offers better armored protection regardless of mission.
I have seen videos of such dutch vehicles been used in assaults in ukraine. And that will of course mean higher losses.
I believe that half of all Bradleys sent to Ukraine has been lost. 10 Leopard 2 tanks have been destroyed and 20 is undergoing repairs out of something like 120 vehicles. So yea, losses have been heavy. But resistence have been hard and losses on the other side has been hard as well.
To me it seems like the Ukrainians are using their dutch M113 according to tactics provided by western instructors and they are not used as any IFVs because they are no such vehicles.
The YPRs seen here on you tube were way out in front dropping off troops and suppressing the Ruskis with their machine gun.
No matter them being better than the standard M113, they're not built to be out in front catching mortar and AT grenades taking tremendous abuse.
@@mirola73 Ukrainian troops use what they have. And often they pay the price.
Again nice Video. I like that the MT-LB and M113 bring cheap protected mobility to the battle area. Something that apparently is going to be needed much more in the future
I loved driving the M-113 but it was a rough ride on the TC and especially the passengers. The driver knew what was coming, had the sticks (A-2 version) to hold on to, and a decent seat. TC and the scouts were more marbles in a can. I never knocked any passenger unconscious but other drivers in my troop did.
I grew up driving 4wd and 2wd off road so I was good.
I served 6 years driving, servicing and living in the M113. After nearly 60 years of service, this is probably one of the best combat vehicles ever devised for the U.S. Military!
😂
I had an M125A1 mortar carrier in Berlin Germany in the late 80's just before the wall came down. Funny thing is that it had 3 repaired bullet holes in the driver's front corner made by what looked to be made by a 12.7mm. that old girl had been brought back from Vietnam, repaired, and then shipped to Germany. I still hold great affection for my "wounded guppy".
During my military service [Australia] we always joked that you could always pick out M113 crew commander, usually a Corporal, by his lack of front teeth caused by the top hatch not being\unable to be locked down securely and as such it would\could swing forward and hit the Commander in the back of the head and smashing his head forward and knocking his teeth out on the front of the hatch ring ? Don't know if this was a problem for all or just the models supplied to Australia, as I was in 'chooks', which is Aussie slang for Signal Corps ? Thanks again for another great video\story from your channel, pls keep up the great work ?
Thanks for that insight, I sent a screenshot of this to the combat engineer with a meme with a guy with 3 teeth ;)
Properly maintained vehicles wouldn’t do that.
Yeah that is false. The hatch is spring loaded. If its not positively locked, the hatch will try to settle at about 1/4 open. So the TC will feel it pushing on their back. It doesn't just flop back loose.
If there is any kernel of truth here, its that the butt of the .50 cal is the offender.
@@obsidianjane4413 Maybe it's just the older Australian turret I'm familiar with, but isn't the rear of the .50 beside the commander, not in front of them?
How do you fail to secure the hatches open? Give it a yank before driving to proof the catch, anyway. Step and lean down on the hatch if the latch is finnicky. Then again, I've read a few Aussie's complaining about underfunding for the army. Maybe your 113's latches eventually broke and never got mended...
For what its worth, the Australian vehicles in the videos are M113AS4, our latest version prior to be replaced by LAND400-3.
The ride characteristics are different say Leopard 1. M113 slows down to negotiate ditch, Leopard 1 speeds up.
Not to mention the M113AS4 has improved ceramic armour and mine/IED protection.
The used to come with another "door" over the engine compartment door that you would folded out when doing a water crossing. It was supposed to act break the bow wave when they went into the water.
It’s called a “trim vane”, it’s a metal reinforced plywood sheet that locks out when you go swimming with them. It you forget to deploy it, the crew commander gets the bow wave right in the face and down the hatch when entering the water, the wave goes right over the driver.
It also makes a great table.
Interesting regards the Ride Comfort. I've read comments from actual users that the Universal Carrier (its earlier inspiration as a battlefield utility vehicle) was designed to carry a weapon and its crew across shelled bullet strewn ground in absolute discomfort... Having had a ride in a repro Carden-Lloyd Mk IV (The Universal Carrier calls it daddy), its definitely a bone shaker (seat is effectively a cushion bolted to the floor, next to the engine!). Make sure your fillings are secure before climbing in.
Having been almost run over by a Universal Carrier, I can attest, they are surprisingly fast and quiet but yep, say goodbye to your spine.
I commanded an M113A1 ACAV with 2/11th ACR in VN. The remarks by the interviewee were spot on.
I rode around in this thing and used to sleep on top of it every night in 1966 and1967.😊
As a guy who has spent time with light infantry and have done a bit of force on force with tanks/afvs i totally agree that from the outside they all seem like deathtraps, unless you are in a very narrow set of envornments they are just too big of a target with too little informataion getting to the crew, i can see how a tanker could think that "ah my thermals/nightvision is so much better" or "im so much more protected" but as an infantry guy our reality is we have a whole platoon of guys looking, listening, smelling and generally being alert. I dont care how far your night vision can see its the funcion of being cut off from the world and people around you that gives me the heeby jeebies. Nobody is radioing the tank in the middle of the night to casually ask if you heard something, and when you are on the move you dont have 30 some odd eyes scaning every sector along with you. We just cant substitue that yet.
Ma thermals can see your patrol tromping thru the woods 200 m. before the scouts in an OP hear the sound of crunching leaves. Now a days, you are likely to be spotted by a drone no matter where you are and pretty soon there will be swarms of autonomous hunter killer drones/robots that will make flesh and blood infantry extinct.
As a former mechanic in the US Army. I have had M113's assigned as my vehicle. Since maintenance teams typically only put 2 people per track its not too bad inside. Especially if you mount the medic stretcher rack to one side for sleeping cots.
As for mobility and crossing difficult terrain? Yeah I 100% agree with this. The M113 can cross over ground that heavier vehicles instantly sink into. The M113's is actually very light weight for a tracked vehicle and it spreads that weight nicely along its tracks. The A3 versions are pretty damn zippy as well.
As for Armor protection? Light fragmentation and small arms is the most I would ask of it. Its made from Aluminum so anything bigger just zips right through it like a beer can.
Yeah it can mount several different crew served weapons like the M2. But honestly the M2 is your best bet here. With maybe a 240B as a close second.
It was never intended to be a front line fighter and was pretty much only meant to be a battle taxi. Take troops to the front and drop em off then GTFO. What I have seen the Ukrainians use them for is boarder line suicidal imo. But you use what you got. So best of luck to them.
It succeeds at being a metal box.
Exactly 👍
On tracks.
My experience with this vehicle? You ride on top and when you come under fire you jump off and get away from that aluminium monster. There was a extra plate underneath that would disappear to a scrapyard, becouse some desperate private neaded cash. A lot of room inside to carry extra ammo, chow and water.
4:00 In Singapore we've got an AA variant of the M113, one version with 2 pairs of ready-to-fire Iglas and a version that also comes with a Fire Control Radar
I was both the driver and ammo barer on a 113 mortar variant, had to scramble between positions for every fire mission and got stuck every time.
First images doesn't show the classic M113, it shows the massively modified Aussie M113 APC called the AS4. Hull is lengthened, now has one more road wheel station, powerpak upgrade GM V6 Two Stroke diesel is gone, Alison TX100 auto tramsmission is gone, the original T130 track shoes are gone. External fuel tanks, Aussie designed and made turret replaced the original Cadillac Gage T50 Tuurret.
In Aussie Army we called them battle taxis, yet also used them for medium range recon for many years! I was a M113 driver then crew commander with a recon regiment RAAC. M113 sull is made of Aluminum 5083 marine grade, 38mm thick! Good for shrapnel and smaller calibre ammo protection. They are fun to drive, driven them lots til I retired over twenty years ago, Then several years later, drove one in the UK (ex norwegian Army) for a public event. That M113 had just been purchased by a Brit for UKP50,000 - it was working well and drove well. I was envious of the owner a good man!
Yeah I think the swiss army knife/leatherman/multitool analogy for the M113 fits. A Multitool has a shit knife, a shit pair of tongs, a shitty saw, somewhat ok screwdriver etc. And generally you would rather use a real tool than rely on your Multitool.
But you have it in your pocket, and you can use it to stand in for anything you couldn't bring to get at least some work done.
I know M113 is rather liked as a medevac vehicle in Ukraine because you can make the interior work pretty well for that.
And it can be pushed into many roles though ofc to way lesser effiency than a specialized vehicle (we all know it is ancient).
That in itself bears value tho, especially if you don't have the budget to buy a set of shiny new purpose made tools.
Its sort of the "budget option" if you are a beggar and can't be a chooser but I think it still does very well as that.
"the armoured vehicle we have at home".
My least favorite quality on the M113 is its silhouette. It literally challenges RPGs to miss.
"armored protection is... rather bad"
If you act like it can't take a hit, you'll probably survive, unless you get ambushed by proper armored vehicles.
As far as current-day usage, IMO it's best thought of as a "tracked HMMVW, with that HMMVW not having the up-armor kit".
The armor of the default M113A1 is only rated to withstand direct hits from 7.62mm ammunition and splinters from artillery shells, so like I said, "pretend it doesn't have armor and you'll probably survive".
If you're wondering what happened to the original M113, the A1 of M113A1 denotes the diesel version, which is the one with the highest production numbers. The M113 before it was gasoline fueled and phased out of service quickly after the debut of the M113A1.
Of course, there ARE add-on armor kits for the M113A1, however these universally add weight and still only provide protection against moderate-caliber autocannon fire. The slat armor kit is also of limited effectiveness, being only useful against shaped-charge warheads approaching from the side and not the top.
I was a 63H from 87 to 91. Those Detroit Diesel engines are a beast and they are pretty easy to maintain. I think that is a take away that a lot of people miss about the platform. It is easy and inexpensive to keep a fleet of them running. The army loves that engine so much that they put a double turbo charged version in the Bradley.
I drove one for about two years and the guy that trained me just flat out said "this isn't a vehicle you take into a fight. This is a vehicle that takes you close to the fight" It's meant to do tasks in the rear where dangers like artillery and bombs are the main threat. It won't take a direct hit but it stops shrapnel pretty effectively. Since I was a brigade level grease monkey, I got to work on all sorts of variants, An AA version with two Vulcan rotary cannons mounted on the top, a CnC version for artillery command, loads of ammo carriers that followed M109s around, the list goes on. The only version I knew of that ever went even close to the front was the combat engineers. They would fire Bangalore torpedos out of the back to clear obstacles and mines for armored units. They liked the 113 because it can get in and out of that situation quickly.
@@Ilex1
I'm sure that you mean MCLC or Mine Clearing Line Charge instead of Bangalore Torpedo, right?
The Bangalore Torpedo doesn't need to be fired, it's literally just a fence post with a strip of high explosive putty or a few rows of detcord down one side of it, intended to be used to cut thru barbed wire or other similar light fortifications in a similar use case to a breaching charge against a door.
MCLC on the other hand is designed to clear a path for vehicles thru a mine field, and sometimes to "render safe" particularly nasty IED's (the most expedient method of clearing an IED being to blow it up, of course).
There's a version of the Stryker that can use the MCLC as well, the US currently fields it.
Sure is quicker than a mine flail or other methods of prematurely setting off mines in a manner to clear a path thru a mine field, but because it uses high explosives and is generally one of the loudest things on the battlefield even compared to artillery guns (the MCLC is louder (at one instant) than a battery of M777's being fired off), it's generally only used when troops are advancing and don't have time for the minesweepers to do their job the "normal, careful" way.
EDIT:
Additionally, due to the bulky and volatile nature of the MCLC, in US armed forces use it is usually carried on a trailer towed behind the vehicle that is intended to use it, with that vehicle being picked because it is rated to withstand nearby blasts. So while the US using the Striker with the MCLC is probably a better overall experience for the troops inside it, the M113 is still "suitable for purpose" in this role.
@@44R0Ndin That's some interesting information. I never really knew much about the weapons on most of the vehicles I repaired. I just called them Bangalore torpedos because the CE's that showed up with the track referred to the system as that. I guess they didn't get too deep in the weeds on the explanation to a mechanic. Frankly, until I fixed their track, I didn't now a thing about that system or that it even existed. It looked cool as shit though.
I spent a time on tank and artillery ranges watching them fire but other than watching the AA version do target practice at The NTC I never saw anything other than small arms being fired. It would have been cool to see the MCLC do its job. I got closer to combat than most mechanics because I was on a contact team and I did recovery but the truth is I was a certified REMF.
"pretend it doesn't have armor and you'll probably survive"
Yep. In Iraq they were banned from going on patrols because they were so vulnerable to IEDs and EFPs. They were kept on the FOB and used as the "QRF" but mostly they just sat in the motorpool because no one wanted to take them out.
As a logistics connector it does well. As a fighting vehicle it struggles. But if you have bad weather and rough terrain and contested airspace you will appreciate the supplies, reinforcements, and casualty evacuation capabilities of M113. Press it into front line contact and you are rolling the dice.
Ukraine can make good use of these under their current war conditions. Seasonal mud and snow, dangerous airspace, and large scale logistics needs.
I drove the M113 and its backwoods camper version, the M577.
The comments about the ride comfort are a bit exaggerated.
This is one of Military History's most cursory videos, with a few inaccuracies. I get the impression he made it purely to meet a UA-cam Creator engagement quota.
Not knowing the 113's front hatch opens to the engine compartment should be automatic disqualification from talking about this simple vehicle.
My dad had an old dumptruck with a V6-53 in it, just like the M113. That 2 cycle (most engines are 4 cycle) diesel engine would scream. It would cause hearing loss driving it without ear plugs. Those engines will last a long time and have a lot of power. I used to illegally drive my dad's dumptruck and we used to extremely overload it too.
Based on my past experience 50+ years ago : "IF" you are using the M113 as a front line assault vehicles in todays combat/conflicts , You'd Better Choose Your Battles Wisely !
To sum it up, it's not an apc you want, but an apc you need
A nearly seventy-year-old tracked metal box is not a wünderwaffe. Who would have thunk...
The advantage of the MT-LB compared to the M113 is also that it can fit many more people, as they often ride in and on the vehicle, 20-25 versus 11, because it will be harder to sit on the M113 and it also has a smaller area. If those MTLBs don't have infantry on them, you often see canisters, crates, stretchers on the roof, not so simple either.
Yeah, it's much better at this kind of role, since it was designed as artillery tractor first, APC second.
Riding on the roof of vehicles has proven to be pretty deadly to the dismounts in Ukraine lmao. Both Ukrainian and Russian roof riders have been minced by numerous mines, drones, etc etc. The Russians had the same issue in Chechnya and Afghanistan but they keep doing it regardless. And yeah the same for the M113. You strap various things to the top and sides of the vehicle. It has tie-downs for this purpose lol, thats not something unique to the MT-Lb lmao.
@@hoy455 Are you 10 years old, that you use so much childish words?
Aside from the low ceiling, the MTLB is also reasonably comfortable. Not quite to the point where you're all that likely to fall asleep in the back, but much better than you'd expect. I really wouldn't want to ride on the roof, though.
@@hoy455 Its mainly a thing with BTRs because they have a godawful passenger compartment. Its in the middle, so the only way to get out is from the side as rear is blocked by engine and front is by the turret. But the side is also blocked by the giant wheels. So there is a tiny af hatch sandwiched between wheel #2 and wheel #3 that a dozen dudes fully kitted out have to try and contort themselves out of while being shot at. The BTR also have barely enough armor to stop even small arms. So staying inside isn't an option. You are better off sitting on top than inside because it literally is a death trap.
Its been over 20 years since Ive driven one and I can still remember everything about it. It is a simple machine to maintain and drives fast. The only bad thing is its protection. Its good against small arms and thats about it.
In my day we always called the M one one threes. Never one hundred thirteen...
Its from the way how you call it in german
Yes spoken like one would on the radio.
I´ve been a driver and commander of a M113 for several years in the german army. I had different versions of the german M113 ambulance and i loved them. Quite fast and mobile. For comfort: 2 or 4 beds, a great heating and a beer cooling system aka NBC System :) Miss them a bit
It’s a motorized, slightly armoured Paul Bunion (small shipping container) designed for C130 transport……it’s a Swiss Army knife of combat support roles in the B esh and thats why it has never been replaced…..also you can teach anyone that can drive, to drive one in a matter of hours and it’s one of the first (but not the best) designed for battlefield component replacement….level ground, decent crane >8 hrs to replace entire power train. The old “APC” ain’t sexy, but it’s pretty handy at filling the roles nobody thought of or didn’t want to do…..that’s it’s super power….B echelon tracked Swiss Army knife.
Long time operator of these boxes here, yes they're exceptionally uncomfy and protective headgear is a pre unless you want to end up unconscious 😂
But that engine purrrrrr hmmmmmm❤
After our machine gun jeeps were retired, my scout unit used the 113 for a long time. Eventually we went to an Humvee MTOE.
The 113 was far superior to the wheeled vehicles in every way except speed on a paved road. The 113 is one of the most capable off road vehicles ever built, if you can't get there in "the track" then you likely need a helicopter.
As far as some of the complaints in this video, that's totally not my experience. And I spent years either driving, riding in, or commanding one.
As a former Cavalryman, I love the M113. It is the "VW Beetle" of APC's. It is reliable, easy to work on and rugged. As with the "Kaefer" or "Bug" it can only do, what it can do. It is a "battle taxi" not an IFV. It floats in water (barely), is relatively fast and excels as a command-and-control vehicle due to its fantastic mobility. Did I mention it sleeps four comfortably in winter and eight in good weather. Like the VW Beetle it is a product of its time and this needs to be considered in its tactical deployment.
The M113 is the world's most popular battle taxi. It's there to get you to the front line like a truck. It drops you off. You go fight. It picks you back up after.
Use it correctly, and you'll love the ole girl. Use it incorrectly, and you're going to have a bad day. 🤠
People talk so much shit about the Gavin... But it's survived for 70+ years for a reason. They're good enough that Ukraine took one apart and copied it and is manufacturing new ones. (And new HMMVs...) There's a lot to be said for a small arms resistant tracked platform that can haul shit around and fit down narrow streets. It's easy to work on, has space for hauling all sorts of shit, and it's easy to find or make parts. It's definitely no bradley, but when you need to get to the front without losing your squad to artillery shrapnel on the way or you need to patrol areas close to the lines, evac casualties, whatever.
I visited a friend who worked at defense manufacturer in Israel. They did things like custom R&R, of various ground vehicles and things like that, which is a very common thing there. Anyway, they had an M113 turned into an IFV of sorts. See, they had fitted a M134 to it (mounted to CROWS). The ammunition chute extended down into the compartement where infantry would usually ride. Here was mounted a large magazine system that took up half of the compartment. If memory serves correctly, this held something like 30,000 rounds of 7.62 nato, and would continuously feed the M134 up top.
Turkish Defense contractor FNSS makes some pretty neat modernization packages, including a full IFV version that makes it into a baby Bradley 😂. I wonder how they stack up to fully modern or more modern equipment.
It's called a one one three. I was a US armored officer in seventies. I spent a lot of time in 113's and thought they were versatile and useful.
These days the M113 is the modern equivalent of the universal carrier.
When I was a combat engineer platoon leader it was quite difficult to keep up with Abrams and Bradleys in my 113s. Got my ass chewed so many times at Ft Riley trying to keep up. sorry for being so slow. :(
I know this vehicle well. Started as a mechanic on it back in 1994. I been a driver instructor, technician instructor and commander on it. I still work on our variants of M113 along with our Leopard 1 and 2 FOV and CV90 FOV.
The original variant is expoced to everyting over 7.62. Unfortunately this is the variants that have been donated to UKR. But we have new variants with add on armor, mine and IED protection, spall liners and secure inventory to secure the crew. But it can't be compared to any of the modern IFV.
It’s main benefit is protection from small arms and shrapnel from artillery. Why people think it can do more is beyond me.
Funny how they say the armor is out of date today. It was out of date back in Vietnam. Guys would place sandbags on top and ride on top to avoid the possible RPG attacks.
The Ford Motor Corporation made 80,000 of these and in 2000 BAE upgraded 1,000 for Iraq and other countries.
The US has a substantial amount we can lend lease 1,000 to Ukraine.
A M113 in good working order cost about $100,000
Its cheap its good for it's purpose, its Not a fighting vehicle. Its the infantrys mule .
I've only been in a M113 derivative (YPR765) a handful of times, but got to agree: It is rather cramped. I had to hunch over a bit and if the road's bad, nevermind offroad you're going to need your helmet. But maybe all APCs have that as the Patria was notoriously bad on this as well. I'm also 2,02 tall so maybe I'm not the best 'baseline'.
That said our version the YPR does solve the main issue for combat operations with the M113, and that is the armour. The M113 was designed as 'just enough' against small arms, and not even proof against some specialist ammunitions. That makes it a 'battle taxi' and even the apc role for frontline delivery it's a bit lacking.
The uparmoured version however should be proof against most things besides dedicated anti-armour weapons or very close artillery hits. In my opinion that's an important protection level to have since it most you'll survive most attacks, and more protection still would require MBT levels of protection. It sure felt safe enough with those in Afghanistan as they're supposed to be proof against most RPGs even.
Ukraine has been using the YPR765 as both an APC and IFV, mainly the machinegun versions. They feature in a lot of assaults to Russian positions riding just behind a tank or simply rapidly delivering troops to a trench system. Lost versions of the YPR feature both in Bachmut and around Cherson.
Doctrinally I question the IFV use if I'm completely honest, firing mobile machineguns at a line doesn't seem effective to me, but Ukraine probably has more knowledge on how to fight a peer-level conflict than we do. We're also supposed to have supplied (or are supplying) the cannon-armed variety, but I've not seen those on war videos yet.
i still prefer my Canadian Kangaroo APC. Those were classics i'll tell ya
I just got close to one last week i was so surprised how short it was compared to me (im over 1.8m) i would be dying cramped if i was riding in them.
its called a one, one three get with the program. it is a comfy ride like a roller coaster. would you rather walk? Also Beggers can't be choosey. Yes i spent some time in them. Very reliable. i cant remember having maintenance issues..
He's Austrian. We're lucky he's not going; "Einhundertunddreizehn!"
"Like a roller-coaster" Yeah, that's my experience exactly.
Weird how a company that canned meats designed such a good can for holding meats
The only amphibious versions are the original M113-most or all of these donated to the ARVN-which has a petrol engine; and the M113A1 which has a 6V53 Detroit Diesel engine. The M113A2 has the 6V53 engine and two external fuel tanks protruding rearward on each side of the ramp door, instead of one fuel tank at the left rear of the passenger compartment. The M113A2 is heavier and non-amphibious. Subsequent production/updated vehicles all have the external fuel tanks and are non-amphibious.
As a former driver of both A2 and A3 versions...I find your claims to be false. I have personally done river crossings in both versions and they float just fine.
@@yolandria Okay, bad info. I retract my assertion in regard to amphibious capabilities. Obviously A4 onwards. Having said that, if someone forgets the bung, they sink quite nicely🙂.
My first ride in an M-113 was at Tempelhof airport during an open house by the US military during the Cold War. A few years later I actually took the light track course (M-113 family of vehicles) with the Canadian military. I thought it was a bit unfair that Canada had these, while our West German allies had the superior Marder. Still, as a straightforward “battlefield taxi” to get you near the front lines, it is a much better option than an unarmoured truck. Same for ambulances, which aren’t supposed to be targeted, but somehow still are.
if it can carry stuff from a to b its already doing most of its job
As someone that have driven a Danish M113, the description sounds pretty spot on, although its some of the best sleep I have ever gotten xD
"You can't ride on the roof!!"
You think that maybe the designers of an Armoured Personnel Carrier might be assuming the personnel would be inside the armour?
Was common for US troops in vietnam to ride on the roof for safety from minefields.
You have to understand, the 113 very lightly armored.
@@danielboatright8887 cheers dits, my first job was working on 432s which are even more lightly armoured than 113s, so no, I don't need to "understand" anything.
I wonder how the M 113 compares to its British counterpart, the FV 432 ?
Maybe Australia's refurbished M113s are unique enough to deserve a video?
* We took 2x M113s, cut them in half & made 1x long wheel base 'new' M113.
* These are almost a separate M113 species they are so modified throughout.
Currently serving alongside our Bushmaster in Ukraine. Cheers from Canberra.
We stuck the turret and guns from the Scorpion on a versions called the FSV here in Australia. Interesting that your video showed the Australian AS4 variant. It is probably the most upgraded version in service still. Better armour, remote weapon station and better ride comfort. Though Russia have taken out a couple of AS4’s.
Can they not just modernized M11A3? Fitted with 25mm chain gun, dual ATGM and added protection from ERA and APS, its economical but efficient and effective IFV....
Is a vehicle that is damn easy to upgrade, even domestically, but then you don´t get politicians cashing their asses from newer, more expensive toys, simple as that. and quite honestly in times of war and homeland invasion those attitudes are pretty redundant to say the least...
Additionally, not all M113's are amphibious. Only the original M113, the A1, and the A2 are amphibious.
The up-armored M113A3 is NOT amphibious, and it is restricted to fording no more than 40 inches of water, because it does not float.
For the rest of the world, that fording limit is 101.6 cm, but for the sake of brevity you might as well just truncate it it 1m (I'm an auto mechanic in the US, and I play a lot of Kerbal Space Program, so I'm at least somewhat familiar with both measurement systems, and I do find it easier to physics problems in metric).
It also doesn't have the waterjets and the hull floatation of the MTLBs.
I never understood why the MTLBs were still in service until I saw videos of last year's Rasputitsa, where they were wallowing thru the mud, half driving half swimming. It was an "ah ha" moment. 113s would sink like a rock in the same situation.
You say it isn’t amphibious but then say it can ford 40 inches. Make up your mind.
Fully amphibious.
@@williamwilson6499 Amphibious means it floats. Uparmored M-113s won't float because the extra panels and the external fuel tanks makes it unbalanced, it doesn't have have enough freeboard to not flood into the hatches and sink.
@@williamwilson6499 40 inches isn't 20 feet. The M113, A1, and A2 can traverse ANY DEPTH of water, meaning that it can FLOAT. The M113A3 can not float, meaning it is restricted to fording 40 inches, because the modifications did not remove the seals that keep the water out, but if the engine's air intake goes underwater the thing can't move.
Ukraine uses what it has and unfortunately APCs like their "Purple Heart box" M2 halftrack ancestor in WWII were a mistake. All tracked combat vehicles should have been designed as AFV from the beginning for the very simple reason that "some" armor plus tracked mobility and low ground pressure COERCES APC use in AFV roles with deadly results. The US Army of course ignored this as did the USSR because their APCs were designed for a war no one has ever waged, tactical nuclear exchanges in Europe! An NBC and splinter shelter with tracks is not an IFV though there is no reason M113 could not be armored to Bradley levels.
Foreign users upgrade their 113 FOV much more than the US whose leaders simultaneously want something better but refused to agree on what that was for over half a century. US uniformed leadership frequently make costly mistakes but are not accountable for them and militarily illiterate public doesn't care until scandals like those which begat MRAP cost lives over time.
There is zero reason the US could not have easily fielded modern COMFORTABLE M113 FOV with proper modern suspension, a vee hull unpierced by torsion bars, Brad-thickness armors and modular armors and a suitable power pack but no one cared so that was that. Consider how many years it took to get the fuel tank out of the crew compartment and replace it with very simple armored external tanks that don't roast the crew when hit.
Pretty Vibey piece of History
Great Examples
Incredible Work
Beautiful Box
Glorious Holy Box
Had two times in an M113 neither combat FYI. First: I was trash in the back as Range Patrol in the winter time patching tank targets. Black and grey targets, Hole in grey use grey duct tape, ect, half and half get artsy! Not allowed to walk on the ground due to 80 years of unexploded crap in the ground, but we did. Frost 4 feet thick, it's solid and frozen. Best score from that job...50 Cal bullet that was shot and just laying there on the snow. Mint with rifling! Second: was Driving M113 Ambulance. Big red cross, most days those stretchers made the best 'Nap time beds"! Also hooked up with a Dentist truck in the Unit and got my teeth cleaned a filling replaced! They were just as bored. Canadian Military, be a Tanker, drive everything with 4,6,8 wheels or tracks but not Tanks. Get farmed out instead to other units in the 80's-90's. Zero complaints. I had a good time
As a little kid i always wondered why the USA built Pbv 302's didnt have a turreted 20mm canon, Now as an adult i understand that USA never built any Pbv 302's but i still cant fathom why they skipped the Turret for an open option.
Yeah, the m113 predates our pbv 302. FMV evaluated the m113 back in the early 1960ies iirc, concluded that they didn't like the aluminium armor, the armament or the inadequate snow handling.
They then noted what features they did like compared to the old and inadequate pbv 301, and incorporated that in the design work for the prototypes that eventually resulted in the pbv 302. An APC that was so close to an IFV that foreigners often misclassify it as such just like they missidentify the strv 103 as a tank destroyer instead of the turret less medium tank that it is.
M103 doesn't have a turret because its only meant to be an armored bus to get soldiers to the front lines. M2 Bradley is an IFV and has a turret
Great video, I'll just point out (ex-Australian Army). The Aussie and US M113 are different, The Australian Army updated them around 15 years ago (give or take some years). this included a whole bunch of stuff, but the main thing is that we extend it from 5 road wheels to 6 (easily spotted in this video). I believe they renamed them M113AS4, the Australian newer version and the American older ones. Not sure on the impact on logistics and they had different engines and drive trains.
#Curious -> What would be the Feasibility to use these as Mobile Bunkers in dug outs....
-> The Dirt & Berm would protect it... YET you would have use of Gadgets & Power as well as a Weapons system....
If the Armor is dated ... But the engine & systems are good...
Love the Aussie troop footage at the start, looks like my old Regiment/Squadron as I recognise the training ground. I was a M113AS4 Driver, same variant as seen at the start of the video. That thing has an 18 tonne braking system, when we roll with 14.5 tonne actual weight (unladen). Fair to say that the infantry boys got a ride and a half forward on stop drop procedures, oh and only their section commander is hooked into the internal vehicle comms so they best pay attention to him.
I loved my M113A1 and we swam it across the Main River in Germany, even at night. It had so much flotation that once I felt the front end bob up in a deep mud hole. Awesome simple maintainable lovable things. If an artillery round lands close, would you rather be in an F150 or one of these? Supply delivery, dash-in dash-out ambulance, glad it's getting a long life.
It seems they are unhappy it isn't a warrior or Bradley . . Well guess what it isn't. Like the similar FV432 it is a big metal box on tracks, cheap, multi purpose and a very useful item to have.
These are very tested in combat but they are definetly not infantry fighting vehicles.. they are battle taxi .
Drop you close than drive off while you walk in..
Israel loved them..
Just remember guys the M113 is better armored then any attack/transport helicopter helicopter. Which says a lot to how effective the armor on helicopters are.
M113s were not intended to be IFVs and even the ones with turrets were not meant to go directly into combat. Their armor was thin and made of aluminum so they could float.
That meant that the armor was intended to protect the crew and passengers from shell fragments and debris thrown up by explosions. It was not designed to stand up to even a light AT weapon. The first time I ever saw an M113 was in basic combat training. There was one parked in a training area. It had been used as a target for a M72 LAW to show what happened to the crew in a lightly armored vehicle that had been hit by one, and the dummy crew were riddled by the molten fragments of the HEAT jet.
The job of an M113 was to deliver troops to an area where they could dismount and walk to the battlefield. If it ever got shot at directly, then the crew had messed up badly. Even the versions of it that carried AT systems were meant to hide in defilade and not be seen.
That didn't mean they didn't get ambushed, though. Viet Cong guerillas used to do that, and because of the risk you see a lot of photos of US troops riding on the top of M113s instead of inside. That was because they knew all too well that the RPGs used by Charlie Cong would blow right through the vehicle and kill everyone in the passenger compartment.
The one you were standing next to was not the command vehicle. Those were much taller because they had an armored boxlike extension on the back so that people could stand up in it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M577_Command_Post_Carrier
Drove the M113 1981 in the german army. We swam in a river called Lahn like a mississippi strammer.
Regards from Germany
What I don't get is why dont they pop a few cameras on these vehicle and give a VR google to the driver. You could do the whole thing for the cost of single modern guided artillery shell. And the driver would suddenly have a complete 360 vision out of the vehicle while keeping all the existing visibility.
The M113 is not a combat vehicle, but a means of transport.
One of its decisive advantages is that, while being a box from the outside, it is also a box on the inside. A BMP, on the other hand, not only has an extremely cramped but also extremely jagged interior, which makes it practically unusable as a means of transport, n. b. a BMP is also practically unable to carry out effective fire fighting while on the move.
Compared with vehicles from the same era, such as the Hotchkiss, the M113 is by no means particularly loud or uncomfortable, quite the opposite. On the other hand, comparing the noise of the M113 to a Leopard for example, the noise of the Leopard may not be quieter, but it is more pleasant.
However, under no circumstances should you use the petrol version of the M113, as there were fatal accidents up until the 1980s.
And you should also make sure that the heating remains functional.
Never served have you
what is the modern replacement of the m113 ??
The more they talk about how dated the M113 is the more I think about how vulnerable the entire BMP line is.
"Do you have anything else to add?" "No!"
Germanics, lolz!