How much less effective would a modernized M113 be over a Bradley?

How much less effective would a modernized M113 be over a Bradley? Assume you put some thermals and maybe a TOW over the m40 if you expected tanks. The difference in armor would be that the Bradley can resist autocannons, but how often are you going to face those? With ERA the m113 should shrug off weaker ATGMs, and stronger ones destroy everything anyway.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Mines

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Go to bed, Sparks.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Dumbass, Sparks thinks that the Gavin is better than the Bradley

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >With ERA the m113 should shrug off weaker ATGMs
    I thought ERA was a bad idea on thin skinned vehicles or am I misunderstanding the thickness of M113 armor

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The M113 is 38mm of 5083 aluminum alloy on the sides, and 44mm in the front.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >aluminum alloy

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So thick enough to protect the crew from the effects of ERA?
        >t. curious never served

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Realistically, how long would that hold up to MG fire? A 7.62 would take a long time to eat through it but I feel like if a .50 opened up it could work through the side pretty fast. 1.5” of aluminum isn’t stopping many if at all

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I know for a fact that the naked side of an M113A3 can withstand a full belt of .50 ball

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting. Apparently I’m underestimating the armor

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It's 1.5" of aluminium "alloy"
              Put it this way - bog-standard 0.50 BMG is supposed to have around 1 to 2" of penetration against Rhae steel
              Now, the US Army would have to be real morons if the armour alloy they used didn't give something like 1.5x the protection of steel plate, wouldn't they?

              anyway it was field-tested. that much I know.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Put it this way - bog-standard 0.50 BMG is supposed to have around 1 to 2" of penetration against Rhae steel
                That was the basis for my question
                >Now, the US Army would have to be real morons
                Well…about that

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Proper ERA for thin skinned vehicles have special tricks to not damage parent vehicle. Like buffers between ERA and hull made from plastics and reduced power of ERA modules that detonate not so violently (special explosives mix with big addition of passive materials)

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Grassy ass anon

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Do you mean an AMPV which is the M113 replacement? It's like looking at a 1950s car vs a 2020s car. Also, the AMPV is huge next to the M113 and has much more ground clearance.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What is all that crap on the top? The turret is a nice touch but there are so many antennae

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Every piece of equipment needs their own proprietary sensors and antenna's and whatever
        Meanwhile we have smart phones that do everything in one device
        They pay millions for that bullshit on top

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, but when your cellphone breaks, the whole thing is unusable. All those subsystems need to be separated so they don't bring the whole thing down.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Every piece of electronics in a cell phone could be seperated into different cases and made redundant too..

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              yes and then it wouldn’t be a small handheld device? I’m not sure what you’re getting at here

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Instead of all that, just put a nice thick turret shield for the gunner with a bulletproof port to see out of. Two gunners can spray .50 rounds and recoilless rifle rounds down range, and you can have a little radio inside the tank if you wanna talk. It would be super effective for COIN, and would mean that every line regiment can be mechanized at low cost

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Holy shit, anon.
          Cell phones have weak shitty antennas. The reason they appear to work so well is because of the absolute stupid comical frickton of infrastructure that's gone into servicing them.
          There is no such benefit in the middle of BFE, and when militaries are more reliant on comms and networking than ever, you need to be able to send and receive, quickly, over much longer distances than a cell phone can even think about doing, be able to resist jamming, and ideally, do all of that with redundancies so one random improvised mortar doesn't leave you without eyes, ears, or comms.
          You were gifted with a brain, put it to use.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Here’s the standard, the one you’re referencing is the command post configuration. You would hope it has a shit ton of antenna.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Each unit costs more than an MBT, what kind of garbage is this? It should cost no more than 300k USD

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      gotta keep up with the expanding mass of soldiers lmao got em

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >It's like looking at a 1950s car vs a 2020s car.
      Does someone has meme pic "average car in 2020"? Car is huge and blown up like bubble fish with narrow narrow windows and driver is barely able to look over hood.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        God, I hate modern cars.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      How come the M113 was able to fit 11 passengers while Bradley fits 7?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        passengers got bigger

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >everything's a metal bawks
        turns out a turret and ammo and sensors and shit takes up space, who knew

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the Israelis pretty much did everything you suggested but still faced massive issues with their M113s. specifically, the APC remains very vulnerable to IEDs, mines, and RPGs even with ERA modules. even by the 1982 invasion of Lebanon the Israelis realized that the thing was just useless for protecting troops on the frontlines and used it basically only as a troop ferry or supply delivery platform in that war, always stopping just before they entered the frontline.

    when the Israelis used the M113 in the 21st century it was always a headache. during the 2nd intifada they were ridiculously vulnerable to RPG and IED strikes. even with all the upgrades the Israelis applied to it, they could get entirely destroyed with relatively basic weaponry. for example, an RPG-29 rocket completely ravaged an Israeli M113 and killed all of its passengers during Op. Protective Edge in Gaza 2014. basically every military force has a tandem warhead anti tank weapon like the RPG-29 in significant quantities, which means the M113 does frick all for protection.

    that's why Israel is dropping the M113 in favor of the Namer and Eitan APCs, while all the NATO countries still using them are sending them to Ukraine and looking to buy something else.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Noooooo
      Why do overpriced lobbied tenders always win? Why can’t we just have simple and effective solutions to things?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Go to bed, Pierre
        We just need someone to mention the F-20 for Boyd to be summoned and get the full bingo.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >He doubts the power of Ps
          Have fun getting shot down by Mig-21s in your F-4

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Forgot pic

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Of course an RPG-29 would kill a M113. It's designed to penetrate MBTs.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >even by the 1982 invasion of Lebanon the Israelis realized that the thing was just useless for protecting troops on the frontlines

      Yet the US military in Europe had thousands of them used in reconnaissance, antitank, infantry, engineer, and other roles during that same period.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >What is funding and army size and procurement for 500 alex.

        If you see a weapon system used by a first world country that has gotten a reputation by its own troops who use it as shit and their own studies (like the M113 in every post 1950's operation) its because of logistics to where it can't be replaced YET.

        And having a tracked platform you can mount shit onto is better than no tracked platform you can mount shit onto.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >even by the 1982 invasion of Lebanon the Israelis realized that the thing was just useless for protecting troops on the frontlines
      Yeah. No shit. That is the IDF being stupid problem. Not an M113 problem.
      >and used it basically only as a troop ferry or supply delivery platform in that war, always stopping just before they entered the frontline.
      Whoa. You mean using them as the Battle Taxi it was designed as? Not as an IFV? For realsies? Whoda thunk it?
      Israel used them again and again in some kind of assault role, even in urban areas, and got their shit pushed in. This is not a surprise to anyone. Also, if you do the same dumb shit with some big ass heavy APC they will get blown up too.
      It was a doctrine and training and employment problem. Not the vehicle. Israelis have been playing the blame game here for 40 years because they don't want to admit that their leadership fricked up.
      Don't drive your lightly armored and weakly armed shit directly at the enemy's prepared positions. You would think this would be common sense, but here we are.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Israelis have been playing the blame game here for 40 years because they don't want to admit that their leadership fricked up.
        Wait a bunch of israelites lying? Say it ain’t so

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >e difference in armor would be that the Bradley can resist autocannons
    The bradley can also resist HMGs. Those are really common. It can resist AP 7.62 as well. And of course, the area of vulnerability to artillery fragments is geometrically smaller.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    M113's protection is horribly obsolete. Where the Bradley has good protection against anything less then a 100mm gun, M113 can be penetrated by anti-materiel rifle rounds and there is wearable protection that will do more for you.
    And, as everyone else has said, it's hard to protect the floor, making it very vulnerable to mines.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Where the Bradley has good protection against anything less then a 100mm gun
      homie what.
      Bradley in it's original version was protected vs 14.5mm all round
      In the A2 it was protected vs 30mm AP round front and sides
      Reactive armor tiles protect it vs the non-tandem light AT (400-500mm HEAT)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      A 75mm shell will kill a Bradley easily

      https://i.imgur.com/mXetHpx.jpg

      How much less effective would a modernized M113 be over a Bradley? Assume you put some thermals and maybe a TOW over the m40 if you expected tanks. The difference in armor would be that the Bradley can resist autocannons, but how often are you going to face those? With ERA the m113 should shrug off weaker ATGMs, and stronger ones destroy everything anyway.

      >How much less effective would a modernized M113 be over a Bradley?
      At least three times less effective due to the lack of networking, which is the real special sauce modern NATO AFVs have
      >Assume you put some thermals and maybe a TOW
      TOW is outdated, it's Javelin now baby, and more usefully a remote turret such as the one the Israelis are using
      >The difference in armor would be that the Bradley can resist autocannons
      There isn't much effective difference in the protection of a Bradley and an M113A3's hull, and both can mount add-on modules

      The M113's motive system however would probably be overloaded by all these modifications, and if you change that as well, then you've basically Ship of Theseus'd a whole new IFV, so what the frick is the point really?

      An M113 that remains an M113 is always going to be "inferior armoured bawks" compared to a modern IFV.
      >what if we built a new armoured bawks
      That would be the AMPV, which is basically Bradley unturreted.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I've ridden in m113s a lot due to my conscription. I'd rather walk naked than get into that tin cofin.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There's a big doctrinal difference between an APC / battlefield taxi and an infantry fighting vehicle. Slapping ERA and an autocannon on won't make up the difference

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If Reformers had their way the US would have 20,000 of these instead of Bradleys

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      wtf is this real? what is it called? googling fscv turns up the wobblenator

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Reverse image search brings "M113 Stug", apparently a prototype that had a 105mm howitzer on it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://combatreform.org/popguns.htm
        Let me introduce you to Mike Sparks

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >'Sweats in Australian'

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    AMPV is literally just that. It's a Bradley with its turret taken off and more support shit slapped on. Why not go for it when the Bradley is going to be replaced eventually and you can convert those hulls into AMPV.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It shouldn't be an M113, but should definitely be more lightly armored. It's meant to be used in rear areas, it shouldn't weigh and cost as much as an old MBT. I think Iraq caused the army to autistically up-armor every vehicle instead of accepting the reality that we need to have specialized vehicles like MRAPs for occupations.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Armor is horrible, many of destroyed ones on pics have both gigantic entry and exit holes, way worse than modern mrap.
    Maybe two layers of ruskies tank bricks would help.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *