User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 10:47:05 PM EDT
who has experience in a M113 APC? why are there not hundreds of them over in iraq by now!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:02:57 PM EDT
[#1]
Because they suck too, just like half-tracks. The bullets dont fully penetrate the vehicles, the bullets just go in one side and rattle around a bit. Ask any Vietnam Vet about how little protection the APCs actually gave, adn how they had to put sandbags on the bottom to protect against mines.
Anything short of a Bradley will not be fully protective enough for our soldiers. Until we come up with personal forcefields from Star Trek, it will be one of the risks of battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:05:39 PM EDT
[#2]
I have about 6 years in one... Does that count? I would honestly have to say it is a toss up... BTW, Im sure there are hundreds in Iraq right now. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:10:43 PM EDT
[#3]
what do we have for the troops that actually defeats the threat of a battlefield?! corporate america gets fined and shut down for much less than killing people thru negligence!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:12:39 PM EDT
[#4]
  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:16:49 PM EDT
[#5]
I've got 3 for sale right now. Check Ebay. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:27:45 PM EDT
[#6]
It all start's the day a young man or woman gets off the bus at any number of Basic Training centers across the USA. It is followed up by dedicated men and women called Drill Sgt's or DI's. When a Drill turns out a Soldier, you have the most powerful weapon right there. Make no mistake the Military is not Corporate America. The Military is made to back up policy. The military is very safety minded, and I have found that Safety is always first, But there will be times where the Mission dictates a little more. That is what Soldiers/Marines/Sailors/Airmen are trained for. And training is what makes the situation safer. All the firearms,bombs,Body Armor just help add to the equasion... The most powerfull weapon a Troop has is between their ears!. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:28:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Tanks aren't impervious to man-portable AT weapons, or mines. Why should HMMV's be any different? I'm sure we could add armor, weapons, ERA etc. The only problem is they wouldn't move. HMMV's are for more mobile than 113's, and far more transportable. M113's requires many times more fuel to go the same distance as an HMMV. Tires last far longer than tracks too. HMMV's can get out of places, with speed, that would be death traps for 113's. HMMV's also don't give off near as much noise, to give the "reception committee" time to set up, as an M113 does. The problem I see with HMMV's, they should have solid rear doors when used as "gun jeeps" and M3 .50 cals, or twin M240's should get installed, with 360 degree gun shields, and ammo chutes to feed off large bins shielded inside the vehicle body. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:36:27 PM EDT
[#8]
amen! the problem i found was when i enlisted my recruiter steered me away from a certain MOS because i would be a sitting duck. if we know the shell around us is inadequate, the multi-million dollar shell can be defeated by an illiterate fool with a $300 weapon and 2 weeks training, then why do we go in with unarmored humvees and no one is held accountable?!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:36:58 PM EDT
[#9]
I am willing to bet many ideas have came across some ones desk, but it comes down to one thing COST. Like it or not our goverment would rather risk the lifes of 1000's to save a billion. But than again we will gladly support other countrys welfare's. Go figure
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:43:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Humvees were never meant to be anything other than a modern version of a jeep.
Armor is/was an afterthought. It's a military 'car'. I don't know enough about the M113 logistics and armor to comment. A battlefield with no 'battlelines' is still relatively new to the United States. We're catching up.. but it's going to take time. Humvees are easy targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:44:06 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:48:15 PM EDT
[#12]
 Now how about some of these? HAHAHA |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:48:50 PM EDT
[#13]
+1 You called that one right. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:55:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Heh heh heh...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 12:39:20 AM EDT
[#15]
+1 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:51:45 AM EDT
[#16]
AGNTSA.
We fight this one every fricken week, M113s have aluminum armor, are noisy as hell, band tracks go down if one shot hits the hydraulic line and they're slow. Give me a Stryker over an M113 any day. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:57:34 AM EDT
[#17]
From what I hear, M113s are very unreliable. In our Army anyway
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 3:09:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Beats the hell out of walking (which is what we would be doing without the humvees).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 4:51:39 AM EDT
[#19]
Don't forget the M113s are loud and slow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 4:57:18 AM EDT
[#20]
No Shinola. War is dangerous, the safest place is in a steel reinforced concrete bunker, but you can't accomplish a mission sitting in one. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 7:01:35 AM EDT
[#21]
We are not using band tracks in the US yet, and the reason you psoted os one reason why I hope we never do. They are OK for a vehicle like the DV100 DEUCE that is not designed to protect its occupants or be exposed to direct firem but on a 113 I don't like the idea one bit. The logistics issue alone is enough reason. 90% of these units don't have 113's, and therfore have no support capability for them. Namely track mechanics, tracked recovery vehicles, adn the various special tools and equipment needed to maintain these vehicles. So what do you do? You can't just steal em from other units as there are not enough to go around, and simply running them through a crash course may work for somethings but doesn't work for this, where the MOS is not learned in AIT (the very basics only) but by on the job experience. Add to that finding enough recovery vehicles to outfit these units, on and one. Then repeat this every 10-12 months. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 7:08:44 AM EDT
[#22]
Hell, if the hummvee is so bad, let's just go back to the M151A1 Jeep.
 When we transitioned from jeep to hummvee in the 82nd, it was great. No matter what vehicle you end up with, enough explosives can be used to disable or destroy it. That's just a fact of life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 7:12:14 AM EDT
[#23]
H1 good.
H2 Sux. H3 ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 7:19:28 AM EDT
[#24]
I have some experiance with M-113s and un-reliable is not a word I would ever use to discribe one.It is a unit that has been in continous production for over 40 years.The mechanical bugs got worked out long ago.It is what it is.I want one of my own.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 7:19:33 AM EDT
[#25]
You'd think that some guy who sits on his ass and surfs the net and watches the fair and balanced media would know more about military tactics than twenty to thirty thousand guys in reseach and development with advance degrees in engineering, electronics, and history of warfare and hundreds of thousands of years of experence wouldn't you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 7:21:58 AM EDT
[#26]
Garand_Shooter;
I mentioned the band tracks because the M113 advocates usually come out and say "If they only had band tracks blah blah". Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 7:23:13 AM EDT
[#27]
I'm waiting to see what the H4 is like...when they go after the Wrangler. Supposedly the new Wrangler will be a Liberty_lite...so that is no good... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 8:54:51 AM EDT
[#28]
Should have been around when the 113s ran on gasoline. Had a 283 GM motor in them,
rk |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 9:11:25 AM EDT
[#29]
If all units used Bradleys and Abrams, it would be a little tough to fight a fluid war where agility is important. A HMMWV is a great vehicle, it is not a tank or an APC, it serves a different role. If there was a large problem with the use of the HMMWV the military would be looking at a replacement.
I have driven plenty of unarmored HMMWVs, and while they are not the perfect vehicle for every occasion they are far more verstaile than the Jeeps and Gamma Goats that they replaced. If you want to see the very definition of a POS look up a picture of a Gamma Goat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 9:40:10 AM EDT
[#30]
I never could figure out the purpose of the Gamma Goat,other than to make everyone deaf and pissed off at one. We always went and got a CUTV(Blazer,K-Chevy,or the ol'Dodge 880),BTW,we had some good troops who went to Ft.Smith Ar.to party(we were doing the summer deal at Ft.Chaffee),in the back,barely covered by a tarp,in the back of a Gamma Goat,was a fully loaded with blanks,an M-60 MG.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:21:35 AM EDT
[#31]
Fixed it for ya.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:21:57 AM EDT
[#32]
AGNTSA.
Another advocate of the "every soldier an M1 tanker" Army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 5:53:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Gotcha |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
