It’s interesting to note that the Australian Defence Force is in the process of upgrading their M113 fleet.
Oh no, some misinformed individual is using the “G” word while referring to the M113 family of APCs. He must have stumbled across the bastion of misinformation on the internet known as Combat Reform. That site and its owner think the M113 is the end-all, be-all of armored vehicles.
I think it is a highly capable, versitile vehicle that will be in use for many years after I leave my beloved Army, but I don’t think it is the panacea that will be the solution for all our operational needs. These “Legacy Systems” (the Abrams/Bradley/M113 FOV) will be in place for many more years, but the folks we have working on Furture Combat Systems are looking for solutions in areas that will be better than the current armored vehicle technology.
That’s true! The next ‘big’ thing that is coming down the track will be completely automated, remotely piloted armored vehicles, sort of along the lines of the Predator. It just makes too much sense, since without a crew to worry about, you can make the whole thing smaller, lighter, more deployable, more survivable, and a lot more deadly… That said, it is important to remember the lesson of the old Soviet T-72 and its ilk. These tanks were/are equipped with an autoloader on a carousel, and all you have to do is press a button, and the autoloader selects the right shell and loads it for you (that is, if the autoloader hasn’t seized your leg and stuffed that into the breach by mistake!). Sounds good! But they never figured on the ‘adrenalin’ factor of a hand-loaded weapon, such as is found in an Abrams. It turned out that a ‘properly motivated’ human loader can load and fire the main gun of the Abrams almost TWICE as fast as the T-72 and its autoloader, and no legs lost either… I expect similar ‘issues’ will arise such time as the fully automated armored vehicle finally arrives on the scene…
High Tech…Hummm I remember saying that about the Bradley and Abrams…Rob you are almost a generation behind me and I agree the next generation will continue to see leaps and bounds in technology.
When I entered the Army, ballistic calculations for artillery were done by hand on slide rules and charts. By time I left we went past FADAC, past TACFIRE, past calculators, past the BCS and were fielding laptops and on board calculations when I retired. Now the gun does the ballistics on board. That was in one carreer. Who knows what the next generation will see.
PS…Rob, what is this talk about leaving…you have a while yet before the silver oak leaf turns into a star!![swg] You still have plenty to see!!
Rounds Complete!!
My first tank gunnery was on an M48A5, complete with coincidence range finder and even a stint as the searchlight tank. My last gunnery was on an M1A2 (non-SEP). With the exception of the M60A0, M60A1 and M60A2, I had a chance to do a gunnery on most of our Cold War tanks. I’m at 21 years and working for half pay. Those high paying civilian jobs are calling my name daily.
Certainly will, I know that I am eagerly waiting to see what the next generation of combat aircraft will look like.
I’m still arguing the guy, he seems like an opinionated jerk though. He advocates the M48 over the M1, which does not make much sense. Says the M48/60 is better suited to combat because it has a land line communications sytem, better gun, is able to go 24 hours without stopping, exhaust temperature is lower, etc. I don’t see how anyone could hold these opinions after the M1’s combat debut in the Gulf War.
He mentions band tracks a lot, and says that M113A3s and other tracked vehicles will be faster than wheeled vehicles because of them. I can’t see that being a useful advantage, because tracked vehicles aren’t built for going fast on roads. Wheeled vehicles are. There’s no reason to outfit a tracked vehicle to fight in an environment it is not built for when there is a vehicle already in service capable of doing the same job more efficiently.
Apparently tanks and tracks require less maintenance than on wheeled vehicles because the treads and powertrain have fewer moving parts, but I know from people who were in armored that this is not true. Tanks require more maintenance because they are more complex than most wheeled vehicles, and can’t travel great distances (100 miles plus) routinely (not during an armored advance or open warfare) without a lot of regular maintenance. Wheeled vehicles have no problem doing this trip daily.
He made a point about the Strykers needing to be transported by rail to a combat zone, but I don’t think that matters because tanks and all other armored vehicles are routinely transported this way to avoid straining the machinery.
A claim was made that the Army should use no vulnerable wheeled vehicles, not even transport trucks- we should use an M113 variant that can tow for that. That again makes no sense, because the trucks are vulnerable when they are not escorted. A suitable escort would be another wheeled vehicle…a Stryker or armed LAV.
Here’s his website
http://www.geocities.com/wheelsvstracks
Oh, and if I’m wrong on stuff feel free to call me on it, I’m still learning.
Rob
I feel your pain…Besides having fun playing with the Army’s neat stuff, which once you make field grade becomes infinitly less…The main think you miss is the people…But family is first.
Don’t want to hikack this thread but, at some point what does Rob want to do when Rob hangs up the pickel suit (besides find a house with a big model room)?
Rounds Complete!!
I think you must be right about the ‘jerk’ part! Obviously, he has never had to ‘pull track’ in the middle of a desert somewhere, check all those roadwheels, lube everything, clean it, lube it again, and then do it again! Not to mention all the fueling requirements, travel restrictions, damage to roads, etc, etc. Believe me, even though I am very fond of tanks and tracked vehicles, if you can find an equivalent system with wheels, the maintenance and logistics reduction is SIGNIFICANTLY less. M48??? Better than an M1??? He must be a complete loon!
I still remember very well the first (and only!) time I got to drive an Abrams shortly after the firts Gulf War. We were preparing a change of command ceremony for 1st ID in the middle of nowhere, which was going to involve a sort of armored ‘pass and review.’ There were a number of tanks and tankers about, and as there was not a lot to do out there at the time, we did some ‘hot-dogging’ in an Abrams! The thing to note was that that particular bit of desert featured lots of these small shrubs, sort of like mesquite. Each one had collected sand around the base over the years, which meant you had a mound about three feet high with a small shrub on top. In any case, these things were hell on my old M577 command track (‘Deuces Wild’) during the grand advance towards the Republican Guard battle at Wadi Al Batin, and we could barely go over 10-15 MPH for long stretches without threat of either tipping over, losing a track, or knocking everyones’ teeth out inside! What a difference in the Abrams!! Zooming along at about 30-40MPH, you hit these things, and the only thing I could compare it to was like going over a small manhole cover in a Cadillac Coupe De Ville… somewhere off in the distance you heard just the slightest thump, but no change in the ride at all! Now THAT’s off-road mobility! Then you add in that wonderfully stabilized 120mm main gun, Chobham armor and all the other goodies, not to mention how QUIET the Abrams is in operation (‘Whispering Death’) compared to a diesel M48 or M60, and quite frankly, it’s like comparing a Cadillac to a Model T Ford!
Heavy armored vehicles like the Abrams, etc, are ALWAYS transported by rail to the combat zone, if rail is available, and by lowboys if it is not, and this is specifically to reduce wear and tear. If a Stryker gets transported the same way, well ‘duh!!’ Same thing applies!!