Both vehicles are still commonly used by the various US military services. Other than there being so many still available, is there any benefit of using the M113a3 over the Bradley types? Just wondered.

M113's:
Loads of them about, Cheap(er), upgradable, flexible, used by 2nd line & support troops, relatively small & light, seats loads of grunts, etc, etc.

Bradleys:
Expensive, Built to keep up with M1 Abrams, Expensive!, M2 or M3 ie, not flexible, seats 5 to 9-ish infantry ( ?) Big, Heavy, Expensive, etc...

to be continued?

A Bradley is basically a light tank that can carry a limited amount of infantrymen. It is good when you need the fire support that a light tank brings to the battle.

The A3 is basically what the entire M113 FOV was and continues to be, a battlefield taxi. Very versitile, lots of space to carry stuff or people and it is a very dependable vehicle that rarely breaks down. There are also plenty of missions the M113 excells at that the Brad can't do.

For instance, an armored ambulance or a maintenance contact vehicle. A Bradley can't be an ambulance because of its armament and as a maintenance vehicle, it increases the crew requirements.

An M113A3 as a maintenance vehicle has a 2 man crew, driver & TC, both of which are mechanics. They have a resonable amount of onboard storage space to carry their tools, some spare parts and personal gear. They can roll up to a minor disabled AFV, replace the Flux Capacitor and the Mr. Fusion and be on their way. Or they can do a quick diagnosis and radio for additional parts or a recovery vehicle.

There are other support missions that they can do for other branches of the Army that using a Bradley would be a waste of resources.

im awaiting Mike Sparks aka "sparky" to chime in on this one...
http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html