There has been much print and at least one posting on this site on the lack of performance of the HMMWV and other wheeled vehicles in Iraq in light of the increased insurgency and bombings. The "answer" in the opinion of some would be the reintroduction of a version of the venerable M-113 - now dubbed the Gavin.

These "experts" state that the M-113 could be up armored, it has tracks, an ACAV gun tub and be placed on it - -blah, blah blah...

The M-113 is made from Aluminum! I've seen Bradley’s and M1's knocked out and destroyed by mines and IMDs - do these armchair generals really think the 113 will stand up better than the aforementioned AFVs?

This is a different type of war. A war fought by people who think nothing of blowing up their own so long as it furthers their agenda of hate and Jihad.

I know some of you have experience in both the 113 and HMMWVs. Some of you have had the experience of combat in one, the other of both. In your opinion would the reintroduction of the M-113 really be a boon for the military or should the emphasis be centered on up-armoring what is there-now...

Frank-- I would be in the corner that would have the Army go away from the armored Humvees and go back to improving the 113s. As for putting a main gun on her-- over kill in my opinion. Will she take a mine or RPG...no way! We did a million things to make the 113 more survivable in Vietnam with limited success. However, I believe, she is more survivable than a Humvee in most circumstances. I am interested in how the Strykers are fairing in Iraq and would appreciate any information folks can share on the subject.
My two cents
DJ

hey there,

I wont go into the various extra armour upgrades made to the M-113, but at the end it prooved numerous times it's vulnerability to IEDs and RPG shots (last May two were blown up without leaving any survivors) and the IDF tries to minimize the use of 113s in favour of the Nagmachon and Achzarit APCs which are based on tank hulls but are much fewer in numbers within the IDF and cost an aweful lot of money per running hour than the M-113.

I belive the US armed forces should learn from the 20+ years of Israeli experience in Lebannon and the occupied terrtiories and introduce turretless tank APCs instead of soft skin vehicle modifications.

As the choice is HUMMVs or M113s and having experience in both, but not in combat, I would have to go with improved M113s.

M113s, as far as tracked vehicles go is one of the most mature systems in the world, it is also used around the world and I believe it is now the most produced armored vehicle in history . I am slightly biased!!

That being said - as DJ stated, numerous modifications were made during the Vietnam War - Added belly armor, sand bags under the floor plates, flak jackets around the drivers compartment, ACAV kits, etc.

Some recommended changes - (1) Turbo charged engine like that in the old M551 (both vehicles use the same Detroit Diesel) to carry more weight; (2) additonal belly and side armor - spaced to help against mines and RPGs (3) Some armament additions as carried on the HUMMV - Mk 19, smoke grenade launchers on corners, the armored glass block armor for the cargo hatch gunners (Israeli system) (4) air conditioning - those that have ever ridden inside a M113 will understand!

The HUMMV will never be able to carry enough armor on current suspension without greatly shortening life fo drive train, plus engine is very vulnerable - Take out the engine and you have a sitting-duck

As far as the Stryker, I will have to ask my brother. He works for General Dynamics Logisitics - previously on the M1A2. but he has now moved onto the Sryker.