How Bad Is The M113 APC?

[@dogman9223]

M113 best aircraft

[@Stlaind]

Aerogavin!

[@whybndsu]

Truly Mike Sparks was ahead of us all

[@enkilav2472]

Can't wait to send M113s in space

[@xRazProductions]

A E R O G A V I N

[@WoRstVoRt3x]

Gaijins next Premium

[@frankfreeman1444]

Good sir: My name is Frank Freeman. At the end of 1967 or very beginning of 1968 (old fart disease, I really can't remember), I was an Air Force radio maintenance technician, Ssgt., assigned to the 601st Tactical Control Maintenance Squadron at Sembach, Germany. We were Depot level maintenance, which means we fixed the radios that the techs at the squadrons couldn't fix. The Air Force had recently introduced the MRC-107 jeep-mounted radio system for use by forward air controllers in support of the Army. That was one of the two systems I was personally responsible for. It had HF, VHF and UHF radios all mounted on a pallet where the back seat of the jeep was supposed to be. We had just figured out that in the field, the jeep could not always stay with the tracked vehicles, which limited it's effectiveness as air support provider. They decided to try to fit the radio system of the 107 to an APC, but the Army insisted that it had to be done with no changes to the M-113. Some way that would allow the radio pallet and antennas to be transferred quickly into the 113, and then back, if necessary. I drew the assignment to make that happen. They dropped a 113, I don't know which version, off at my Squadron, and I personally and single handedly figured out how to do it. I got it working and it was field tested and worked well. I removed the system and they took the APC back. Of course I drove it a couple of times, because I was strictly ordered not to! Anyway, I left the Air Force after Vietnam, so I never really heard what they did with the system. But I was watching TV news at the start of the drive in Desert Storm, and I actually saw a 113 with my antenna configuration, streaking across the desert, and felt really proud. Thank you for your time if you read this!

[@ShadowsOfTheSky]

I talked to my grandpa, who lost his leg in Vietnam while walking with an armored division including M113s, a few weeks ago. He said that the M113 would’ve obviously been useless against a tank, but were like a mobile fortress against the under equipped enemies. Able to provide adequate mobile protection for a number of soldiers and provide good supporting fire from the .50 cals, everybody felt much better when one was around. Able to hit decent highways speeds, the ability to carry so many infantry safely right into the heat of battle is a massive tactical advantage. Obviously, the vehicle isn’t perfect, but it was quite well suited to the strange conditions of Vietnam.

[@joeojeda4651]

Proper tools for a specific job

[@YoRHaUnit2Babe]

thank god for the Bradleys and other IFVs to exist

[@richardhill286]

average youtube comment try not to lie challenge (impossible)

[@ret7army]

@@richardhill286 troll much? The M113 was a battlefield taxi, good enough for its time, The M577 command track variant was/is also good enough had I the money I wouldn't mind buying 1 or 3 ... guess I'll have to play the lottery ;)

[@richardhill286]

@@ret7army no bro i just don’t really care enough to memorize every detail of vehicles

[@MrArgus11111]

I think it's harder to find APCs that infantrymen do NOT call "deathtraps" in some form or another.

[@piedpiper1172]

👆 Everything’s a death trap if you hit it hard enough.

[@fireknightofficial1340]

how about sisu xa-apc

[@Shinno.-.]

Had a Sgt that called AAV-7s "Floating coffins"

[@Jumpulaaa]

@@fireknightofficial1340 **laughs in Finnish conscript** Wanna guess again?

[@Sabrowsky]

As it turns out, if you drive metal boxes into a warzone with rocket propelled grenades, ATGMs and copious amounts of gunfire, a good number of them tend to get blown up. I know its a significant event for those caught inside it, but like, *who'da fucking thunk*

[@whybndsu]

People forget what the M113 is for, it's a battle taxi and the modern incarnation of the Bren carrier. It's lightly armored but can be airlifted, is moderately amphibious, can transport men and material across various kinds of terrain and can mount various weapons from MGs to mortars to autocannons. Lastly, it can also become the ultimate weapon if you put wings and an engine on it and arm it with AIM-9 Sidewinders in the form of the Aerogavin

[@eddiestray4870]

Yup! it's original intent was to take troops and gear to the front lines and GTFO before geting shot. Sadly, for it's reputation, Vietnan war torn to pieces the concept of frontlines... Yet to this date, the M113 is a great logistical asset Also, you forgot that the AIM-9s should be mounted into the 360° arc turret with an autoloader to make better use of it's cargo hull.

[@drrocketman7794]

😆 🤣 😂

[@ret7army]

@@eddiestray4870 LOL

[@Sk0lzky]

Battle taxi? My man, I've seen an actual taxi driving through a street under fire from both sides and it had less losses than M113s in vietnam! (1 out of 1 surviving means 0% losses that's an achievement, no clue about the driver though, middle eastern taxi drivers are tough however! )

[@whybndsu]

@@eddiestray4870 Mike Sparks is truly one of the soldiers to ever exist.

[@higgs923]

Served with the USN in Vietnam's Mekong Delta 20 klicks upriver from Can Tho. The M113 was the only armored unit that the Army could reliably deploy in that area due to the water table being so close to the surface of the ground. Tanks were vulnerable to getting stuck in the dry season, hopeless when it rained.

[@Orangefan77]

I love how the opening of the video is the M113 climbing like a 1* grade, something which is impossible for it to do in War Thunder

[@PAcifisti]

Warthunder is planes first and barebones&nothing for tanks. We still also got the incredibly poor modeled tracks that only give traction at the very front and back of it. None around the middle or in the parts of the track not touching ground.

[@Super_Tristan1005]

@@PAcifisti poor modeling aside, the traction problems are also because the devs are too lazy to balance the maps properly. so they just made tanks slip down hills instead fixing map exploits

[@vanillaghillie8912]

The traction used to be good but people kept mountain goating and climbing around gaijins broken maps and sniping people from impossible areas. Rather than fix their broken maps, they just added teflon to all the tank tracks and called it a day

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

@@Super_Tristan1005 They did a mobility nerf years back that fucked up just about every vehicle because they couldn't be bothered to work on their game. We have the same shitty map scope and incessant modes, but worse, that we had back when. We even lost the D point. Planes coming first is such a poster child common modern trash bin non-sequitur excuse for pussy player bases accepting dogshit as if a treat from bad people.

[@Christian---]

The BT-42 can go up basically a flat wall when you do it at an angle lol

[@sixgunsymphony7408]

Critics of the M-113 want it to be a tank. They dont grasp the role of an APC.

[@gunnerpup7288]

Or the role of a support vehicle in general. I was in a unit that was still using these in 2019/2020 as a support vehicle or what some would call a “command” vehicle. For the most part, they were great. The only time you would ever really have an issue with them was with the onboard generator for the additional systems (or any time you let that new joe drive and they threw track, but that’s when we got to have a fun little party of teaching them how to put tracks back on), and that’s not an issue with the M113, that’s a generator issue cause we ran them like hell. People watch one shitty movie about an air force officer in the pentagon Who hated this thing because he had such an axe to grind because he didn’t get his way about his design for an aircraft, and they get all of their history from that one shitty movie. This isn’t to say that the movie isn’t necessarily bad, but I am so tired of everyone getting all of their information from that one movie. That man was absolutely pissed off And wasting taxpayer dollars. That’s it. Unfortunately, more recently, the same thing has been happening since the release of the movie “Tread” About the “Killdozer and Marvin Heemeyer. I’m not saying that what he did was right, but ever since that movie came out, people have been quoting it like we can’t get any of our information from anywhere anywhere else, and that the movie doesn’t conflict with anything at all. I’m not saying that the three people involved in the movie lied to you, But their story and Marvin’s tapes don’t match. You also see this with people who get all of their information about Erwin Rommel from his diary, trying to paint him out to be such an amazing man. He was not, and had he survived the war. He would’ve been dried as a war criminal. The man had an entire propaganda team with him in North Africa. I promise you everything in that man’s diary is catered to make him look better. All that to say, most people will not really do very much digging into the reality of a vehicle, or a topic, or a person even if it’s something that they’re really interested in. They will 99% of the time Take the first thing that they hear and run with it. And since the M113 Is an “armored” vehicle according to these people, it has to fit what their idea of an armored vehicle is. And since it doesn’t do the things that their favorite armored vehicle does very well it must be “bad”. In my opinion, I would have to agree with what was said in the video that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this vehicle being what it is today a support vehicle. It does its job excellently, and when the vehicle came out, it was par for the course. Does it need an upgrade? Absolutely not. Not in the role that it’s currently being used in. Because a lot of people tend to forget US doctrine when it comes to these vehicles. Vehicle is rolling around, 99% of the time, it’s not alone. It probably is attached to a mechanized unit that definitely has heavier armor, or something to knock out heavier armor. I know a lot of people like to think that infantry are out there like they were in Vietnam with these things, but they are not. From what I can understand (again, not infantry, nor was attached to one, but had friends attached to them and who were) If you’re not walking somewhere, you’re not taking mechanized you’re probably taking a wheel vehicle. Now heavier, infantry, like mechanized infantry, those guys might have a couple of these things, and typically they aren’t just riding around in them everywhere. They still get to get treated like infantry anyway. These things are usually just a shorten the distance, or more for carrying the guys with the big weapons like the stuff to take out, heavier, armor, or so this way you can keep up with the tank that you’re probably trying to keep up with and Support.

[@whoareyouyouareclearlylost323]

​@@gunnerpup7288I am not reading all of that.

[@jasonxd5738]

Having driven one of these in real life, they're slow, but not nearly as slow as WT makes them. Believe it or not they CAN climb hills with relatively little trouble. That's my biggest gripe with how they are portrayed in game

[@alehop333]

Don't leak classified documents about it btw

[@TheBananamonger]

DO leak classified documents about it

[@kane-111]

@@TheBananamonger lmfao

[@ancaplanaoriginal5303]

@@alehop333 I don't think there is much classified about what's basically a tracked fridge

[@ashleystewart9428]

its been a year since ive played this shit game, but are slopes still covered in oil and shit to climb in general? lol

[@MacMcNurgle]

Was a trooper in the mid 80's. B Squadron. First year driving for a Lance Corporal. Named my 113 'Beast' and stencilled it in black on the side. Tore that sucker a-part. Even today I can tell you the ground pressure, ground clearance and max slope angle. Next year I drove for the Serge. I knew how to do daily AND weekly maintenance when in the bush; as well brew good coffee. That 113 was 'Behemoth' and I stripped her down to the rubber seal on the inspection plate on the bottom of the hull. Good thing too, as I was first to drive off the Tobruk while 200m off the beach. Serge made sure my boots were not laced up. Just in case. We didn't sink. But when we tested the bus prior to the real thing, we were in a man-made concrete culvert that was on base. Full of stinky water. Serge and I drove into this test ditch and the next thing I see Serge walking next to me. Big grin on his face. You know that grin. It means someone's having fun. Probably not you. He had abandoned the sinking, stinking ship. So much for being a 'float' test. He smiles some more and says - you better speed it up before she gets too heavy. The seals were bad and I could only drive up the ramp out of the float test bay by lowering the ramp and letting the water out. I checked every vehicle in the Squadron after that. Replaced every seal. Float tested every machine. Last year in I had developed good radio skills and most importantly, knew the secret of making an excellent jaffle; so I drove the Captain on the Cooktown to Cohen jaunt that year. Yanks and SAS were Blue Force. On the third radio I heard someone describe the show as a 'cluster f$%k' and I laughed hard. The RSM was not so happy. After a while we were getting close to Cohen and there was a long straight track with a cross roads about half a click off. Cap said - Driver, cross that dirt road. I said - are you sure, Blue Force are ... Yes, was the smiling reply. About thirty seconds later a referee jogs over to tell us that an RPG just wiped us out. Cap says - oh well then, 24 hours till we are back as reserves. Lets drive back to RHQ. Nice. We got a rest and the LT got to run the show for a while. Get some experience leading for a bit. Cap, he was a good man. Not happy about the stock market crash that hit while he was in the bush. Little servo on the track North to Nowheresville knew we were coming. Had t-shirts printed, cold drinks, porno mags and a metric ton of coins for the pay phone. Ha! That dates it. Cap saw the three day old paper and immediately got $20 in coins for the phone. He called his broker in Sydney and tried to sell everything but it was too late. In a funk after that, Cap tried to order in some ice cream through stores. And an actual bathtub. Not a canvas one. A real one. Everything the army has, has a number. That number is is in a book. He had a book. The Quarter Master was not well pleased. Funny. But the next lot of ration boxes delivered were older than me. Hmmm. There's rank, there's position and then there's power. Lesson learnt. Wasn't allowed to name the old girl as we were 'in polite company' on that run. But I called her 'Brutal'. It was the best job I ever had and the worst job I ever had.

[@justin1669]

The M1113 is more than 60 years old, and still in service with many armies around the world - currently in combat in the Middle East and Ukraine. That fact alone tells you something. This clever, reliable, low-maintenance, and easy to operate light AFV is the ‘Volkswagen’ of the AFV world. It’s a very capable battle-taxi, a platform for a wide variety of weapon systems, and offers much better protection than a Green shirt ! It is NOT a tank, but remains a valued ‘all-rounder’ in many armies decades after it was first conceived. Like the B52, it will be around for many years to come.

[@1337flite]

3/4 Cav? My favourite radio story was the brand new spanner that marched into Bsqn 2Cav in I think 1990. He got the intercom and radio leads on his head set crossed. While he thought he was talking on the intercome to his crewy - he was actually broadcasting "that OC bloke is a real fuckhead isn't he" over the squadron net. Next thing on the net "All callsigns this is two niner say again call sign"...

[@pinkycatcher]

My Uncle was in an M113 in Vietname when it was hit by an RPG, he was the radio guy and made it out alive. They can take some damage and keep the people inside (mostly) alive. If you search for "The Battle for Buttons", he was in Lt. Andrews ACAV. There's a paper one of the guys involved wrote about it, and has some very dramatic pictures. Also there's a note in there about the crews doing unauthorized "mine plate" upgrades to protect against mines

[@cheesytacos6498]

My neighbor told me that he bought chain licked fences about 10 feet far from the APC and they would stop an RPG before it could hit the M113

[@johnnyringo4463]

Its only unauthorized if you get caught. 🤣🤣 Even then, its only unauthorized if a Fobbit or REMF sees it. I havent had a field grunt officer tell an enlisted guy something is unauthorized. Only thing I can recall is when the desert tan blackhawk boots 1st came out. Way more comfortable. Just about every enlisted started buying them. the only ones that had a problem were the non-combatants. They even got so anal about having to through every lace eyelet in the boots and started writing up soldiers for being out of uniform. With officers like that, who needs enemies? 🤣🤣.

[@seanmurphy7011]

That's because the back of the vehicle is essentially empty.

[@shawnmiller4781]

@@cheesytacos6498 I read a story from a tanker who said they put the same chick wire up in front of their M551’s for the same purpose

[@richsmith7200]

In the seventies one of my dad's employees was a vet that lost his lower leg when their 113 was hit an rpg. He was the only survivor as he was standing in the cupola. He was a great guy, but always struggled with 'survivor's guilt'.

[@FlightSimHistorian]

My grandpa got his 3rd Purple Heart while riding on top of a 113 in Vietnam. He got his helmet clipped by an enemy sniper shot. If he'd been wearing his helmet correctly, the bullet would likely have killed him. As it happened, his helmet strap was undone, so the bullet glanced off, spinning his helmet around, causing a severe burn due to the helmet liner. He had a scar running all the way around his head.

[@dragonace119]

3rd one? Hot damn he was just built different and incredibly lucky.

[@Juel92]

Wow that's the kind of crazy injury one would call unrealistic if it happened in a movie xD

[@JoshuaC923]

That's badass

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

I have heard this kind of "thankfully the helmet was unstrapped" stories but all I can find in the official and medical literature is not strapping helmets lead to more and worse injuries. My guess is that he was lucky it was a glancing blow and the strap had little to do with the thankfully good outcome.

[@bobisbell1837]

I was a scout and drove the 113 and tc'd them. They served well in a scout role and an anti armor role. It wasn't meant to take more than 7.62mm small arms fire. Easy to maintain and mobility was great

[@nelsoj11]

Yeah I thought it was great while we had them. It’s basically the Toyota Camery of armored vehicles.

[@jewelltuber]

@@nelsoj11 Best comparison I have ever heard, I'm gonna adopt that :)

[@miguelnavarrete7555]

plus they weren't bad to sleep on

[@Robertlynschultz]

I was a Combat Engineer in the cool-azz 1980s…. Our squad vehicle was a overloaded M113 pulling and equally overloaded trailer in every freaking unit I served with… found sleep in every available cubic inch of that thing.😅

[@dankmazzi2376]

Cav scout 1970s, our m113 was a very good vehicle in Germany we didn't have a heater like the tankers but we survived.

[@able34bravo37]

We had M113s with RPG cages and an extra 1/4 inch or so of steel on the sides (Ramadi, 2007). They were loud, but they were terrific for moving troops around, and made amazing CASEVAC vehicles. The mortar carriers in particular were great for CASEVAC because the compartments for round stowage were also perfect for medical supplies. We usually didn't bring them on raids, but that was primarily due to their size with the cages attached, but they made great OPs, gates for outposts, CASEVAC like I said, you could move half of the platoon with one (we were at 60% strength). They were great for what we used them for. We did have one roll over a mine, though, and that aluminum floor ripped open like a banana peel. Like it literally ripped open and bent upwards. It made hamburger out of the medic, and the driver was literally cut in half. The TC was found about 20 feet away. He'd been blown clear and knocked unconscious. Dude was confused AF but otherwise fine.

[@hagamapama]

Still doing CASEVAC in Ukraine to this day.

[@ΔημιουργίαΞανάΚαλαμάτας]

​@@hagamapamait is used in every role in Ukraine with varying success.... But they are mostly moving coffins

[@scernefhaal]

Btw I extremely love this new type of voiceover that you have in your later videos: the one where you are talking more live-is, without just constantly reading a script. It makes your videos feel a lot more alive, as well as it is better to get your point based in emotional factor of the voice line

[@beeno3487]

Agreed

[@dodobird679]

Spookston's mention of the Grim reaper M48 made me look it up by my count, that's 6 machineguns in total, four of them were .50 cals, three of which were on tripods welded to the tank. There was the coax .30 cal, and then one final M60 in the bustle rack tank also mounted a Minigun ripped from a cobra, and a M79 grenade launcher in the ready rack, along with a folding stock m14 and a few other rifles Some real rpg protagonist moments there

[@g.williams2047]

Would be a fantastic premium/event vehicle for in-game.

[@brothergrimaldus3836]

Was in one version, FiST-V, for years. It did its job. It's just the like TOW launcher you're using in the game, but without the missiles. It was just to house our LDR and thermal scope. B-FiST (Bradley FiST) was coming in just as I was getting out.

[@gattonero2915]

Ah yes, the FISTV, a vehicle that can destroy tanks without firing a single shot itself, but relying on its laser rangefinder-designator to guide the 155mm Howitzer gun-fired Copperhead anti-tank missile and Air-dropped JDAM to destroy whatever this thing is pointing its laser at lol

[@calebbroz6843]

Glad we have the Bfist, I see the mortar tracks and 1068s always broke down. Not thst the brads are much better here

[@abitofapickle6255]

We had FISTERS with the Bradley. Cool dudes

[@bunkphenomenon]

Were you guys able to keep up with the M1s and Bradleys in the field? I was on a Vulcan and they would leave us in the dust.

[@Panzermech]

GLLD, ground laser locator designator and the North Seeking Gyro. Old tech that predates and independent of GPS.

Nice Video. Recently many of us saw a Video in which an M113 performed a med evav in Soledar or Bakmut. Thats exactly what the M113 is good for. Just beeing a mobile armoured box, full of ways to use it in different ways.

[@hagamapama]

Yep. She's still getting it done all these years later. Excellent bit of kit. I seem to recall video of some enterprising Ukrainians having turned an M113 into a field kitchen to deliver hot meals right at the front. Incredibly resourceful people.

[@briansmithwins]

The armor is good enough to keep out most artillery & mortar fragments which have been the biggest killer of infantry since WWI. It's not perfect but it was a pretty good product for its time.

[@SavageTactical]

True, I think it got an unfair reputation in Vietnam where there wasn’t much artillery or mortars and mines would destroy them pretty easily.

[@strategicperson95]

@@SavageTactical I think Vietnam has done a lot of damage with lots of Myths that don't really stand up to scrutiny. But because many of these myths lineup with a lot of agendas, good luck getting people to view it objectively.

[@Crosshair84]

People keep forgetting this because the West has spent 50+ years fighting goat herders and rice farmers. The M113 is effectively immune to any artillery that isn't a direct hit. It's cheap to produce and easy to support logistically, so you can effectively hand them out to everyone. Rather than have a few super APCs and everyone else has to ride in the back of an unarmored truck.

[@samsniper2000]

out of curiosity do you feel the same about BMP-1s?

[@Tinfoil_Hardhat]

@@SavageTactical Part of that reputation is partially a misuse of what it was intended for, as commanders tended to use them more like IFVs than battlefield taxis.

[@Dhannibal01]

At 19, after my AIT at Ft Knox, Ky in Dec '71 in M-60s I was diverted from my first PCS to APC drivers school for two weeks in Jan '72, I thought my young world had ended, boy was I surprised when I first got behind the laterals of a 113-A1! I fell in love with it, it was so much fun to drive! Unfortunately?? after my drivers school never got to use or ride in one again, when I PCSd to West Germany I was back in M-60s again for the rest of my tour. Did have an interesting side not during my drivers school, I was at the top of a slope when I lost completete directional control, laterals failed and we just rolled down the hill until we lost momentum, they opened the engine compartment and determined that someone had failed to use lacing wire on the connections to drive box and the U-joints came unbolted and flailed around and cracked the case housing.

[@Volvotryggve]

I think this may be one of your best vehicle history videos you have made to date just because of how in depth you go and that you atleast somewhat go over all the prototypes preceeding it.

[@JMAN-pg4tg]

As someone who’s spent a lot of time driving, commanding, and riding in a M113 during my army career, I really liked the vehicle. The only real gripe we had was there was no A/C…

[@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606]

You’d think at this point they’d give crews those liquid cooled vests to wear if they aren’t going to put A/C in

[@JMAN-pg4tg]

@@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606 it would be a lot easier just to put a/c in the thing lol

[@victoria19853]

The commanding m113s have ac because they got to keep the computers cool.

[@JMAN-pg4tg]

@@victoria19853 ah yes, the 1068. The problem with those is they’re always full of senior NCOs and junior officers

[@victoria19853]

@@JMAN-pg4tg I don’t see that as a problem 😎.

[@RavenholdIV]

I used to drive them quite a bit. Great fun! They were able to climb almost any slope that was on offer. I don't think I ever saw one slide off something, but we were in the desert so the ground was pretty good for tracks. It makes me hate the warthunder olive oil nerfs everything got. I have personally climbed mountains in the damn thing, I know just how effective tracked vehicles are. Riding up and down the waddis at a crawl was pretty spicy, especially when the sides were approaching 45 degrees, but the only thing that ever flipped was the Strykers. Still made me sweat lol. Gotta be so ginger with those brakes or you could flip the whole thing over it's nose.

[@ret7army]

I damn near did flip my 577 track ... scary as ... but yeah

[@charleslennon1]

Me too. I was an Evac Medic [1st ID HHC 1-16 Infantry Medical Platoon Evac Section] circa 1992-1996. She was a b*&^% to maintain, but she was my baby.

[@jaakko222]

But the tracks seem pretty narrow to me… i drove a MT-LB/v in the army for a year and that thing could drive on a swamp without sinking…. 0,28bar ground pressure….

[@RavenholdIV]

@@jaakko222 like I said, the desert was pretty good for tracks. I've never had to dig it out of a bog, almost certainly because they've never seen a bog.

[@jewelltuber]

I was in an M113 at night in blackout drive that was going up the side of a ravine and broke traction and slid backwards. The driver was smart enough to keep it pointed uphill and it was quite the ride in the dark until eventually we slid to the bottom, the diesel drowned out our sighs of relief but dammed if he didn't just drive along the bottom a bit and picked another line and powered up it that time. That was greasy German dirt though.

[@UkrainianPaulie]

I was an 11C. In West Berlin we had the 4.2 inch Mortar Carrier version the M106A2. It was reliable and rarely broke down. I liked it.

[@kolinmartz]

You should see the interim m113s the Philippines is using as they’re trying to modernize their mechanized infantry. That thing got a remote controlled auto canon up top. 😊

[@abnerdoon4902]

Soon enought, the Filipinos will have m113s for every combat role.

[@koimeme]

@@abnerdoon4902 mike sparks has now moved to the Philippines

[@usslexingtoncva-1639]

@@koimeme well we have an IFV, APC and Fire Supporr Versions XD

[@dwwolf4636]

Thr Dutch YPR765 had an open turret with a 25mm cannon

[@RedGurillia]

@@dwwolf4636 later on it had an fully enclosed one too (i don't know how many were actually upgraded) but they almost all got sold to egypt, and the few left over are now in the Ukraine

[@exoticdachoo007]

A man saying "Sure you have to ignore that it has the aerodynamic qualities of a brick" in the most dead voice kills me

[@713devereux]

I personally like the M-113, I used one these in the late 80s when was in a scout platoon. Its basically a battle taxi. The M-113 is fairly quick vehicle and great option for transporting infantry troops to battle. The M-113 was never designed to go head to head with Russian tanks.

[@Sabre22]

I drove one for a couple of years in the 70's . During the Carter years we could not get spare parts. So outr top speed on tank trails at Fort Carson was less than 20 MPH. When our unit was shipped to Germany. in 1976 we got issued almost new ones top speed there was 40-=45MPH. One thing I did not understansd was why was the fuel bladder in the crew compartment. It was sure fun to drive though.

[@andrewstrongman305]

I served with an Australian APC regiment, and we had a lot of respect for our M113's. At the Battle of Long Tan, a troop of 10 M113's were sent to relieve 109 Australian soldiers pinned down by over a thousand VC and NVA fighters. They broke up an attempt to encircle the Australian troops, despite the enemy being equipped with RPG's. They then pushed through to where the initial action had taken place, ensuring the recovery of the fallen. In this battle, the M113 was used as an IFV, pushing through enemy regiments unsupported by infantry. None were lost.

[@MrAcuta73]

One major weakness of the M113 chassis was the torsion bar suspension. Didn't like sub-zero temps. When I was stationed in Korea, could sit in the guard shack at the motor pool and listen to a few of them explode every night. And that was just sitting there, not moving. It was a good platform because it was relatively cheap, did the job well enough, and was absurdly versatile. I had an M577 not long before I got out as our TacOps vehicle.

[@Xenophon1]

I was a Cav Scout in the 1980's. I trained on the M113, the M557 Command M113, and the M901 Improved TOW vehicle (M113 with TOW "hammerhead" turret). They were all fine APC type vehicles for the time.

[@LibertyOrDeath556]

I drove one of these (M1068A3) as an XO’s driver and it was a nightmare. Went into the maintenance bay and had the pack pulled four separate times to find an oil leak, which was never found. It was worked on for a month at NTC by four mechanics and was operational only two days before we left. Driving back to the motor pool, we lost all brakes, pedal straight to the floor. The ramp was deadfall with no hydraulic pressure, and it nearly threw track every time we drove it. I followed the PMCS by the book and did exactly what the mechanics said but it never helped. I would like to think that one in particular was just cursed.

[@awf6554]

During the battle of Long Tan M113s assaulted through the VC/NVA troops attacking Australian infantry. Surprise and speed combined to make a very effective shock attack.

[@jeffstone7912]

I used the M113A3 when I served in the military. It is not a tank. It is a personal carrier. I was a Medic. It is a good ambulance. It’s off road ability is extremely good. It can drive reasonably fast on roads. About 30-35 mph with no stress. It can go faster if you push it 40 mph. When used properly it’s a great vehicle. It give some projection from small arms fire. It can swim. When used as a personnel carrier it can carry quite a few troops. If you look at the Russian counterparts they are more cramped and because the doors are smaller are obviously more difficult to dismount troops. Especially American troops are taller than most people around the world. The large door in the back makes the vehicle easy to enter and exit. Also very easy to load cargo when this vehicle is used to haul supplies. There is a version that is a mortar vehicle. There also was a version that carried a Vulcan anti-aircraft Gatling gun. The m577 was the command vehicle or communication vehicle. Only a bunch of kids that play video games have a negative views of what this is. The M113 gives a lot better protection for troops being transported then a 2 1/2 ton truck.

[@amhedgehog]

these types of history videos that you make are amazing, i could watch these for hours please do more!!

[@PamelaContiGlass]

I was a Lance Missile Section commander (2nd LT) and among other vehicles, we had one or two M113. While I didn't love it for fording rivers while scouting (another unit had theirs turtle and almost killed the crew) it was by far our most useful vehicle. Eventually, I discovered that both our missile launcher and loader were modified M113, without a roof and a pop out driver nest. That didn't float (or no one tried to my knowledge) because the missile, ramp and various bits and bobs, made it very top heavy. Nevertheless, back in the day (1980) the M113 was a versatile platform. Great for recon, and it could go almost anywhere in the right hands.

[@nooblangpoo]

I like the M113, it's a workhorse that can do troop logistics and support while still being immune to most light gunfire. Nowadays M113s are being upgraded to have more modern powerplants, transmissions, suspensions, armor, and armaments but it still is keeping it's role as a battlefield taxi, logisctics carrier and infantry support vehicle. In the Battle of Marawi, they used a local variant of the M113 (M113FSV-F101, yes it's a M113 with a FV101 Scorpion turret) and it was just right against rifle gunfire to push and do troop recoveries.

[@jewelltuber]

Having served as a rifleman in M113's in a mechanized battallion I have a little experience with them. Armoured personnel carriers, APCs, or as we called them, tracks, were meant to carry infantry through a beaten zone of shrapnel and light calber bullets at sufficient speed and over difficult terrain to accompany tanks. The infantry section would dismount well prior to closing on the enemy, one soldier would stay and replace the section commander on the .50 cal and the track would become a support weapon or retire to cover. The infantry would directly support the tanks in the assault and after overunning the the enemy ( we were optimists ) the tracks would be brought forward through the position to continue the advance all the way to Moscow :) A lot of thought went into the M113 and it showed. They were tough, fast, difficult to get stuck, roomy, easy to drive and reqiured only a minimum of daily maintenance. There are a lot of misconceptions about being mechanized infantry. The first is although the track might haul you and your stuff everywhere, as soon as it stopped you got out and away from the tempting target of the big square box, only the driver lived with the vehicle. You also don't need to fully stop to dismount, just slow down and have the ramp down low enough so you can work on your combat roll and we would also practice remounting that way in case of a quick departure, bayonet optional. We never really practiced fighting from inside of them, standing on the benches was better at making you a target than providing a stable shooting position when the track was stopped let alone in motion. And lastly, speaking of motion, the vibration of riding in a M113 at speed on roads gave rise to an erectile phenomena that we dubbed "carrier cock" and made for some embarassing dismounts:)

[@ReviveHF]

M113 is actually good for infantry carrying role, but the Bradley is better for the tank destroyer role.

[@dogman9223]

Makes sense, given each’s role.

[@jasonxd5738]

If they just made a Bradley with no turret the US could phase out the 113 entirely. The Bradley is ridiculously large IRL and the turret is most of that space

[@dogman9223]

@@jasonxd5738given what spook said I think they did

[@jasonxd5738]

@@dogman9223 There is a few Bradley variants tried like the ADATS but I'm not aware of any that have actually entered service anywhere

[@cynicalmedic252]

@@jasonxd5738 It took the Army the better of a decade to start rolling them off the production line but that's what the new AMPVs are. If I'm lucky maybe I'll see it replace my M113 before I leave 😂

[@jwf1964]

I was a M113 platoon leader. We trained to use it as a battlefield taxi. It was not an IFV. It was an APC. We had Dragon mounts to give it AT capability, but never used them. If you've ever shot a Dragon, you'll know why. We learned to drive them hugging terrain, and keeping dirt between us and potential enemies. It was reliable and meant to protect us from artillery. My M113 fought in Vietnam. Had a hole patched in it and carried original 25th ID patch. Arming it up tempts you to fight with it. Mistake. All you need are the .50 cals and functioning radios to call for fire.

[@vaclavjebavy5118]

The South Vietnamese successfully used M113's as Cavalry vehicles when they first received them, despite recommendations to do the opposite by US advisors.

[@xtr1442]

I commanded a M113 during the invasion of Iraq. I was part of a mechanized infantry battalion and my track was a ambulance. I was a combat medic. I loved my M113 and it was made in 1972. It was great. It never had mechanical issues. It could take small arms fire. It handled well and was reasonably fast for its age. I never felt I was in danger. Even though I'm sure I was. I rode in and lived in that track all the way from Kuwait to Baghdad and on to Fallujah. I was honestly slightly sad to see my M113 go when I turned in my M113 in Kuwait during our redeployment home to Georgia. It was bitter sweet day. M113s are a tough and rugged little track and shouldn't be put down. My battalion also had the mortar variant for our mortar platoon, and command variant.

[@gordonlandreth9550]

Great story - I worked for FMC from 82 to 92 on the M - 113 , Bradley , and Marine Corps Amphibious Tractor assembly line . In the Army , I drove one when I was with the First Cav in 1975 .

[@AVerySickDeer]

As an Armor Officer, I work with M113s and M1068s quite often . We primarily use them to transport medics and mortars or as C2 vehicles that follow a few miles behind the front line in a combat setting. I have never seen an M113 go faster than 25mph without severely damaging itself. They are prone to engine fires and the mortar versions usually have hydrolic issues as well. It is possible that the fleet is just so old that they can't keep up with the maintenance anymore, but regardless I don't think they belong on the modern battlefield.

[@ret7army]

agreed sir, the M113 fleet is just too old. Take a bit of TLC to keep them running as they should. I think that it'll still get to 35mph but....

[@samlewis4670]

I was assigned to drive one in ’74. Great vehicle for its time. Fast, easily maintained, cheap. If used per the doctrine of the time (battle taxi), then it was unparalleled.

[@gordonlandreth9550]

Couldn't have said it better .I learned a lot about sockets and wrenches by my time as a M - 113 driver at Ft. Hood , Texas and in Germany .

[@jamesozechoski8254]

Worked on the M113 while stationed in Germany with the 1st AD. Very quick.agile.very dependable.multi use.tow.mortor.command track. Still in use today with various upgrades.

[@sethl6626]

Bradley crewman here, we still tote 113s around for the time being (until they’re replaced by the AMPV), and they do their jobs well. Plus they can usually keep up with our Bradleys unless we’re driving flat-out. WT doesn’t represent the 113 as well as it could.

[@gordonlandreth9550]

Very interesting hearing comments from a Bradley crewman about the M - 113 , they are so different but do almost the same job . I worked at FMC in San Jose and drove a M - 113 in the Army during the mid - 70's . Even back then there was talk about the " new " APC , but it didn't show up until 1983 . A case could be made for calling the Bradley the Army's favorite vehicle. 40 years and still going strong . When I got to the factory , vehicle # 14 was on the assembly line . Only 5,986 more to go .

[@c.seanreilly5145]

I was a Professional Solder E-6 to 0-3 14 years AD. from 1972-1988. In 1973 korea I was in the 1/17th (M) Infantry .Rode around in them all year finally rolling over a 125 ft cliff that killed one injured seven including me the medic. Later I was in the 1/7th Cav Finally As a ATV Platoon Leader..The Track is useful to this day as you know all around the World.

[@hiphip4808]

I’ve been on the M106 Mortar carrier and even though that thing gets no maintenance, last time it was maintained was about 20 years ago it still runs smoothly. I think that speaks a lot to its reliability.

[@cavtastic5691]

At a minimum you do services twice a year. It gets maintenance

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

@@cavtastic5691 You have to admit, even with "required" maintenance assumed, these things get treated like mullet Camaros. For the abuse and stretching, it's seen a lot for some child to come along decades later and neg it for rather plastic reasons, which may or may not be his fault.

[@gordonlandreth9550]

@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 Right Mr. Dogmatix - some non - mech infantry gameboy ripping a vehicle he never rode in , drove , worked on ect . This vehicle is COMBAT PROVEN ! Maybe I am biased , I worked at FMC in San Jose and served in First Battalion , Twelfth Cavalry , ( Mech ) 1st Cav Division during the mid seventies .

[@idrathernot_2]

When you need a coffin big enough for a mass grave made out of recycled beer cans

[@baconcandy000]

Hi, I am currently operating a MEDEVAC M113A3 and wanted to say that yes the vehicle isn't that bad on paper, however and this is a big however, This vehicle, its engine, and transmission gets hot very quickly and is prone to breaking down. I believe it's a mix of issues such as poor PMCS practices, the fact we only have like 2-3 91H left, and most importantly the age of the vehicle and its parts. I take very good care of the vehicle that I am assigned to and don't have that many issues, but whenever we go out on movements and stuff after 3 hours it is on the verge of catching fire and the amount of POL fluids it burns through is ridiculous. Another track that I was driving nearly killed me with an exhaust leak and after returning to the TCP it started leaking every fluid in the track plus the steering went out, that started after 48 hrs of use. I personally can't wait for the AMVP as although it's a new system to learn, these 113 are just unreliable at this point and if I have a patient in the back I will be at a loss on what to do beyond calling it up due to how we operate.

[@p99guy]

The main issue at this point is age and wear…. No matter how good something is when brand new, when its 35+ years old, run hard and stored outside every day of its existence, its going to give a trooper a totally different experience,and general opinion of the unit, than the first several crews that vehicle had over its life. Small arms are much the same… once you get issued a twice rebuild 30+ yr old gun with failing springs Of course your going to think its a lump of crap ( M9 is a good example, a Beretta M92 was/ a great gun if you purchased a new one, and took care of it, and didn’t use govt contract check mate magazines that had a rough interior that held onto talcum powder sand, and springs that were sub par) leading young soldiers to hate the M9…. While I carried them several years, 3 different ones… without a single malfunction and shot expert. The difference was I wasn’t saddled with worn out ones that was used by 150 people before me.

[@jewelltuber]

Clapped out isn't a fair comparison, I used them in the late 1970s and had none of that. There is a rebuild interval for all of that kit and I'm sure yours is well passed it.

[@EricDaMAJ]

I drove on in the Cold War. I loved it. It was rugged and dependable and reasonably easy to maintain. Yes, it’s long in the tooth now and I can see why people would be haters. But as long as it’s used as a “battle taxi” to bring grunts no farther than 6k behind the FLOT it’s still perfectly fine. The aluminum armor will easily shrug off random small arms and shrapnel. Maybe you can even do a little light fire support with the .50 cal in open terrain if you know the enemy hasn’t anything heavy to throw at it. But if you try to ride one into battle besides or right behind the tanks it’s a death trap. And always has been.

[@apPaulpie]

In the Philippines M113's is basically a main staple of the armored units, they even had a modified M113 that had a FV101 turret in it and also a 25mm weapon station kinda acts like an IFV.

[@jakaphobia]

I’m enjoying the humor you’re injecting into these videos. The line about the Hawaiian roll made me chuckle

[@teddy268]

2:17 This is really reminding me of the LVTP-5 the predecessor of the AAV, this is monstrous having gotten to stand in one, and the damn thing is still in service over seas last i checked. They even put like a damn 105 on the thing, and enough rounds to make me laugh when hearing it.

[@connorgodchaux8475]

i worked and operated the shit out of m113a3s while I was in the army and i absolutely love them. they are an incredibly capable transport and mechanics vehicle which i used mine as. the biggest issue they had was the motors which could easily be fixed with a modernization program

[@cowboyx9380]

I started in the old 113…stick+detroit deisel….then when we got the A3s….Weeeeeeee it was like joyriding a stolen car! 2 years later the CFV replaced them. They were a true workhorse.

[@gordonwiessner6327]

M113 was a good reliable vehicle. One problem were drivers. I had a butter bar who constantly complained about his track. Took him out on a test run and he had to change clothes after the run. They were fast, easy to maintain and versatile. Running a convoy with M-42 Dusters or gun trucks or MG gun jeeps, speed and fire power combo was great. Used to haul extra ammo (40mm) for Dusters it served it's purpose. Field modifications made by individual units increased it's effectiveness. This vehicle, the 3/4 ton Dodge truck, the M151 jeep (without emissions control b.s.) and the 2 1/2 ton truck were all excellent military vehicles. Everytime a certain vehicle is developed to its full potential some hack with brass comes up with the great idea to replace it with something over engineered, highly expensive and a bitch to field maintain. It all comes down to money and profits, problematic of all military development and procurement. Just like the A-10 some hack upstairs with no field experience making decisions on its future. Just because something costing ten times as much doesn't make it a better replacement.

[@homefront1999]

Can you see about doing some Helicopter stuff? I would love to see videos on something like the H-34, MI-4, Hind, or the Huey series. Would love to hear some facts about these things. Especially some of the older Heli's like the H-34, showing the original designs for them.

[@beanonfire5323]

Yes that would be awesome.

[@sampackman69]

I would love Spookston to play the Lynx I like the Huey because of the Vietnam memes, and I like the Apache and Mi-24 because they are beefy, but for some reason the Lynx for me is just brilliant

[@Malistrix]

Former 11M here. Trained on the A2 and A3 versions as a driver/tc. Laterals were way more fun than the wheel. Even had 2 smaller laterals for quick turning in place. A.k.a Motion sickness handles. I eventually moved up thru the vehicle evolution from Bradley's to the Strykers in Iraq. M113 holds a special place and definitely fits the roles they are put in.

[@19chevelle72]

I had some odd duties on the M113 when I was in the Army. I think I was on the A2 version with the laterals first. It could not keep up with M1A2 SEP tanks and was used for the HQ company. Then we got the A3 version which was turbo charged and had a steering yoke, that thing was fucken fast. Also - M one one three, no thirteen.

[@derekburge5294]

I'm just thrilled you mentioned the air superiority variant. It's my favorite. Because it's so sensible.

[@TheWizardGamez]

A good way of thinking about the m113 is like a tracked humvee. You wouldn’t want to have it anywhere near anti-armored weapons. But you also have to move your troops in fast. It’s not bad. It just isn’t the best thing ever.

[@TheJewishAzovMember]

I think you mean the Gavin, not the m113

[@matthewjones39]

@@TheJewishAzovMemberwhat?

[@TheJewishAzovMember]

@matthewjones39 It's an extremely niche joke about the m113.

[@hagamapama]

It was really really good when it was new. Now it's like 70 years old it's impressive that it can still find a battlefield role for itself. It's not that the M113 is a wonderful machine. What's wonderful is that sooooooooo long after it first entered the battlefield, it's still making itself useful.

[@knightflyer909]

Great video and I agree with your analysis. I served in the XM-163 air defense variant. It had a 20mm gatling gun that fired 3000 rounds per minute. It wasn't great as an air defense system -- it could be devastating against helicopters but more or less usless against jets. It was outstanding against ground targets. I swam it and I could take it places our duce-and-halfs could not follow. I felt it was a great vehicle.

[@philfree286]

It’s a box, but a good box for it’s time Also, can you play the CV90105 ? It got buffed with a new turret in the previous update and it’s now 9.7

[@klaustan1817]

9.7*

[@philfree286]

Oh my bad thanks for the correction

[@klaustan1817]

@@philfree286 np

[@AHappyCub]

XC-8 is not the same as the TML

[@philfree286]

Never said it was the same tho

[@desertdawg1991]

I drove the M577 (M113 Command Vehicle) in Desert Storm. Very reliable, but forget about surviving anything bigger than a 7.62 mm round. Glad to see them replace them, although they were never meant for anything more than a troop taxi and where to be behind something bigger and deadlier.

[@jonasprusek4511]

To this day, AF still flies B-52. There always be use case where you need to carry something heavy, somewhere far. M113 can carry quite a lot through much worsel terrain than wheeled vehicle...

[@hagamapama]

Heard stories in Ukraine of M113s being set up as mobile field kitchens to deliver hot meals to the trenches.

[@intensenarwhal3688]

I drive these all the time. They get a lot of hate and ppl blow the engine up. They are loud. But I’ve always enjoyed them. They provide the medics with a nice home. And can handle tough roads.

[@01Eldar]

My M901 ITV version did everything I asked of her. Hell, the heater even worked occasionally...

[@jameshale4243]

My dad served in late 80s into the early 90s on the DMZ as a driver for the A1-3 generation of the m113. He talks about home much he loved it how fun it was, as for the speed thing you mentioned, m113s went a lot faster than what the army says it does. I remember the conversation I had with him about, "but it says 42mph" "I drove the damn thing, this thig was quick until the big gun Abrams tanks came out and Bradley's started taking the field. But it could out run the M60." On a side note that yall might find interesting, my dad was one of the first drivers for the m113 in the Bradley competition to show what the Bradley could do in testing, they had to pull my dad because he was doing better in the m113 lol.

[@gordonlandreth9550]

Way to go Dad ! Yeah , it is hard to compare the M - 113 to a Bradley , they are quite different vehicles . I crewed on one , and helped build the other at the FMC factory in San Jose .

[@rileyfitzsimons8875]

Spook, please try out the British Striker! I think you will love how much the missles can turn

[@Crosshair84]

4:25 One reason for the significant weight savings is that steel armor for an APC typically isn't rigid enough to serve as the vehicles chassis. So you need to spend weight on having a structure for that armor. Aluminum armor is superior to steel armor by weight, but the more important thing is that those thick aluminum plates are rigid enough to serve as the chassis. So you save a LOT of weight by using aluminum. 6:35 From what I have read and been told, often troops rode on top of the M113 because the interior was stuffed with supplies. Nobody is combat effective for any length of time with a 100 pound pack on them. Troops kept the bare minimum on them and everything else was inside the M113, serving as a self-propelled supply depo. The other reason is that Vietnam was hot and muggy.

[@luskvideoproductions869]

My HS friend that served 2 tours in Afghanistan and 1 tour in Iraq said they were STILL using upgraded M113s...but mainly as armored ambulances, they would literally be the main means of evacuating injuryed military personnel give the high number of IEDs being used. Their relatively large interiors made them pretty well suited for that purpose, and were armored "enough" to protect the injured and the crew.

[@vintageandfilms8881]

My experience with M113s Track recovery operator on a m88. Had to tow M113 from the tank trail because it broke. Bring it back so the mechanics can fix it. Getting ready to leave for the day only to get called back to recover same M113. Made it 1/2 a mile from motorpool. Tow it back to ger fixed only to break again. Repeat 4 more times throughout the night. Command wanted that M113 out in the field, no matter the issue. Edit: I'm in the army because I can't tell the difference between brake and break, but I drive very well.

[@AussieStandsWithRussia]

Depends who you ask. In Australia we used them in Vietnam but you'll notice that most of the footage and photos showed men riding on top of the M113 instead of inside it. The reason being was to make the vehicle strong but lightweight they made the hulls out of magnesium. For any pyro heads here you'll know that when magnesium is ignited by I high explosion or extreme heat from an anti tank mine it starts a thermatic reaction. This means when an rpg7 copper shaped charge or anti tank mine hit the vehicle it would turn into a small sun so bright you couldn't look at it at around 18000 degrees.Anyone unlucky enough to be inside would turn to ash. They never tell you the real stories. Always the rumours

[@vaclavjebavy5118]

Funnily enough the Australians were the ones to get a better belly armor kit than the US for their M113s.

[@personalaccount8914]

The hulls were aluminum not magnesium, but aluminum also has burn problems

[@AussieStandsWithRussia]

@personalaccount8914 later on yes. Check the early models. The wheels were also magnesium. Similar to car "mags" they called that because they still make them out of magnesium.

[@The_Viscount]

Back in the 80s, my dad spent a few years as head of the Armor School at Fort Knox. His view is that the 113 was an excellent combat transport, and that made it a great vehicle. It was reliable, mobile, easy to keep running, and easily modified. Mortar carriers, atgm carriers, spaag mounts, scout vehicles, command vehicles...if it wasn't good, it wouldn't have been used like that for so long. He was glad to see the Bradley's begin production to fill a gap in capability. But for what it was, the 113 was excellent. Now Dad was a tanker. When I asked, he did joke that he'd choose being an M60 commander over a 113 ant day, but for a glorified taxi, he liked it. Aside from how much his ass would hurt from the suspension. It was rugged not comfortable.

[@214TwoOneFo]

My dad who fought in Vietnam said the M113 was like butter and an RPG-7 was the hot knife. Used to just kill everyone inside. Said it was the most useless vehicle there was and he’d never be caught in one

[@bunkphenomenon]

I was a M163 Vulcan crewmember. I hated the fact that we could not keep up with M1s and Bradleys. The M113 was slow, but even slower with a multi-ton Gatling gun mounted on it.

[@vaclavjebavy5118]

Looking at statistics, the M113's speed looks roughly equal to the Bradley, and that's with the early Bradleys being quite lighter than their immediate upgrades.

[@honzapivovar591]

M113 was a alumunium box But that box was the box what could be used more ways than any other tank and was good for its purpose Italy made (i think) its own version called vcc-1 and made a second version of a nightmare m901

[@jaakko222]

I think the MTLB playtform could also be considered as a box that could be used for more ways than any other tank…

[@713devereux]

The M-901 is the TOW missile carrier version of the M-113, like in the video. I was in a scout platoon back in the late 80's. We had three M-113 and three M-901 in our platoon. Personally I loved them.

[@jewelltuber]

APC or track but not a tank.....

[@honzapivovar591]

@@jewelltuber yes mr correct

[@bharn253]

I joined the army in 1979. I was a 19D Cavalry Scout. I served on M113s, M901s, M3s, M3A1s, HUMMWVs and UpArmored HUMMWVs. In my opinion the M113 was one of the best Reconnaissance vehicles in the Army. It could go virtually anywhere including amphibious without preparation. It could carry enough supplies for its scout crew to stay out forever. It's greatest weakness was the lack of a thermal sight. It had better armor and mobility than the HUMMWV. The M3 Braddley was basically a baby tank. It was big and loud and the army's gunnery training taught you to shoot first and scout later and if enemy tanks shot back you'd probably lose. It was designed to beat the soviet BMP and it did do that well at least until the soviets came out with the BMP 2 which had a chain gun like the Bradley. Then it was who saw first and shot first. I really did love the M113 for scouting and the M113A3 was pretty fast. 8:56

[@badrmoroccogothacked9017]

day of 18 of asking spookston to play the T-44-100

[@dylanlin9079]

My dad used to be a mechanized infantry. He said that during an exercise, everyone would sleep in the vehicle while normal infantry had to walk on foot

[@arthursola2514]

As far as I know the earliest example of an APC was the "VBCP" based on the lorraine 39l chassis in 1940 It was still in developpement during the battle of france Its goal was to carry a squad of infantry known as "dragons portés" (mounted dragoons) and follow light tanks and reconnaissance vehicules

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

British MkIX tank*

[@benlex5672]

Back in Taiwan we have over 2000 of M113s and CM21 (our version of the M113), and I must say it is a live saver during exercises. While wheeled IFVs and APCs are way more useful, second-line conscript units like the one I served in relied on Trucks and Jeeps to transport everything. M113 can do everything a Jeep does and more with some protection makes it so valuable, especially when you have an abundant of them. The simple fact we can fire an 120mm mortar directly from an unmodified M113 shows

[@commanderkei9537]

"It wasnt produced very much at all" "About 6,000 were made" It is mind boggling just how gigantic the military industrial complex is that 6,000 is considered a small amount of a probably pretty expensive vehicle.

[@honkhonk8009]

Compare that with other industry grade equipment and itl put into perspective just how small that number really is. Like compare it with tractors, construction equipment, trains, and all sorts of shit. The "military industrial complex" should be renamed to "government contractual complex". Because in reality, the same companies that participate in military type shit, are the same companies that participate in other contracts aswell. Its just regular corporations doing corporation type shit. Mitsubishi wouldnt come across as a your average defence contractor, but they are since their an engineering firm. Same story with chrysler and boeing. Same story with even SpaceX

[@commanderkei9537]

@@honkhonk8009 yeah but think of the huge demand for tractors, or really any other industrial machine. Now think of the demand for APCs. Is 6,000 really a low number? Let’s say you want to equip a mechanized division of the US army. Would it need over 600 APCs? And let’s say you keep 400 as spares and training vehicles per division. Thats six whole mechanized divisions. That seems like a pretty sizable amount. Compare that to some other WW2 vehicles, where sometimes the number was in the hundreds or even the dozens

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Over 150 000 cars are produced *every day*. 6000 is small by industrial production standards, bit just military.

[@drmaulana2600]

no, its a small number even in civilian world, toyota probably produced 6k of trucks every year.

[@commanderkei9537]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 150,000 cars everyday for the 6.7 billion adults in the world. Again, I’m not saying it’s a technical feat to make 6,000 APCs, I’m saying that’s a pretty large number for something that has a relatively niche application. It’s not a jeep. It’s not a truck. It’s a purpose built APC.

[@giuseppe4909]

I was a track (M113) commander in the 1980’s in Germany. I named mine “Sagger Bait” 👍 It was a good taxi for us crunchies, was pretty reliable and I loved rockin’ my Ma Deuce.

[@hagamapama]

Can you get more Murica than tooling around the battlefield in a Gavin drinking a Coke and blasting with Mama Deuce?

[@maxgomez164]

3rd time asking finally got here in time to comment so you can see it. 1st thing though I love your stuff you are my favorite warthunder KZbinr and was wondering if you could play the is-6 it’s my favorite tank I know you like light tanks but it would mean a lot if you played it

[@Marc-vc1wo]

I was an officer in the U.S. Army from 88-98; my first unit, the 2-36 IN, (an Infantry Bn north of Frankfurt, Germany), transitioned from the M113A3 to the BFV. I've never heard the M113 called the "M one thirteen"; we always called it the "M-one-one-three".

[@alangordon3283]

It isn’t bad .

[@KARLMARX56]

I drove one for 8 months in the 2nd Armoured Division. They are super reliable, easy to drive, and had plenty of flat spots to sleep on (very important). Kinda cramped. ✌️🍀

[@dankuser8303]

its better as a flying APC, the aerogavin

[@jbeverley67]

Noncredibledefence is leaking

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

“but that’s an area Sparks is familiar with.” Oof, that’s a vicious burn.

[@EJY1790]

Its actually quite amazing how the battle box and TOW launcher are both from 60s and still widely used, though obviously they have been updated over time

[@shadowraven3253]

*looks at M2 50. cal* timeless classics

[@otrofymov]

For Ukraine M113 is one of the most needed vehicles on the battlefield, it grants protection, it's relatively easy to maintain and it's available in large quantities. Also since US is planning on replacing them with AMPV it means most of US stock is available(around 5000 vehicles at this time)

[@512TheWolf512]

The fact that Ukraine doesn't ask to stop sending them and start sending something better instead, tells you the truth about quality already

[@maksuthesunpraiser4821]

Lol, no

[@davidty2006]

Though quite a few have been destroyed already they keep asking for more. Also they operate the MT-LB as well and have made serveral modifications them from heli rocket pods to anti tank cannons for indirect fire role.

[@jewelltuber]

@@maksuthesunpraiser4821 Lol, beats walking.........

[@nicgur_6981]

@@davidty2006 Fun fact: BMPs even now lack a hydraulic door mechanism. If you park one on a slope, it is nearly impossible to close the door from the inside.

[@Revencher]

As a former dismount, driver and Track Commander of an M113. 1st It's name is pronounced M 1 1 3 not M 1 thirteen. 2nd It was a POS. It was better then walking but that was about it. The inside was cramped with equipment and people. Any turn or stop from top speed (around 35mph) sent everyone and everything not tied down flying to the other side of the cabin where it slammed into the the other half of the sqd. Then of course their was the constant shaking, noise, constant breakdowns and we couldn't keep up with anyone because we were so fn slow But it was better than walking

[@d.b.5070]

It pains me to hear “m one thirteen” instead of “one one three”

[@gilibran]

It was a battlefield taxi designed for the cold war and most important factor, it was NBC proof, perhaps the most important factor for a cold war vehicle being able to carry troops and keep up but staying behind MBT's and only engage the leftover groundtroops after the MBT's passed through.

[@mikilogaming1924]

The Waffle House Has found its new host

[@GR-cf4qh]

I drove, commanded and crewed them for six years and they were excellent for their original intended purpose. By the time I was in, in the late 80's, they were already pretty obsolete and were being replaced by Bradleys. The worst thing about driving one was the splitting headaches you would get when doing night marches with night vision goggles on. That and the fact that your mouth was inches away from the edge of the metal hatch and you were often driving it off-road. That combined with the fact that it used laterals for steering always made me feel like I was one big bump away from having my teeth knocked out.

[@FirstAlarm59]

At 5’5,” to keep my face away from the driver’s hatch, I would sit on the first aid kit, to raise myself higher. Lol

[@stephengordon576]

The M113 was designed to fill a purpose and it fills its purpose well. Like with most military equipment, when not used in accordance with the doctrine developed for it it will fail to achieve a desired outcome. In open terrain, without armor support, counter battery artillery support, close air support, and at least contested air superiority it’s a rolling metal coffin. But used as a battle taxi in a combined arms operation it will get rifles on and off the battlefield. Which is its purpose.

[@leeprice2849]

As an infantry fighting vehicle against a modern opponent it's not much use. But it was never intended to be an infantry fighting vehicle. It's an Armoured taxi to get troops into the battle area and then leave.

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

An M48 tanker once told me he watched more than one of those go up like a tinderbox when they got hit by RPG’s in Vietnam.