Why can't they just field -113 with rubber tracks, up armour and with field kits for fit each mission? that way you don't need to build new Vehicle. M-113 is a moving armour box, making kits that fit on a box can't be easier can it?
@stahlwerke The armor of the M113 Gavin is actually Alluminium alloy 5083, which contains little magnesium to catch fire and it doesn't show "ductile brittle phenomenon". To have the ability to stop IEDs, to Gavins was able to outfitted with modularised armor packages . Ok what about carrying capacity? The M113 was able to transport 12 soldiers instead of 9 .
First, don't begin with that childish discusion about education,ok, we are talking about the M113.
M113 armor is made of aluminum, no complaints there, it was made like that to keep it light enough to be air transportable and etc. Melts to smithereens- about that- if i understand, you're trying to stay that it would get blown if hit- It has been up-armored, and i have served in a vehicle like that, it wouldn't.
About mine protection- belly would need more armor.
It can carry more troops than the stryker troop transport configuration, more troops than de bradley and other vehicles- it carries up to 11 troops, and you say it can't carry a full infantry squad, when a full infantry squad, in my country's standarts is between 8-13 troops, i don't know what it's like in the US.
Up-armored, it's about as resistant as the Stryker, a roadbomb or a IED, would completly devastate both vehicles, but i've seen cases where the crew stayed safe
Of course that we've got the matters about eras when the vehicles were made.
The m113 is a vehicle from the 60's, the Stryker is a vehicle from the 90's, on my criteria since it's based on LAV III.
Bothe vehicles do their Job OK, but we've to keep in mind that the stryker is a more recent vehicle, and in my opinion is superior, because of it's computers and comunications devices.
It now sports a 120mm gun inferior in power to the French Leclerc MBT
Oh, and by the way, it can only fire anti-tank rounds from the main gun, which means that its not very good against Al Quaeda. It's not very good against non-tank targets when fighting an enemy with tanks. When fighting an enemy with tanks, 95% of the targets the M1 would face would be the non-tank targets its not very good against.
The Abram (as with all other MBTs) can fire a variety of ammunition types; for instance, high explosive fragmentation rounds which are devastating against infantry units. In addition, the M1 is equipped with 2 machine guns.
So how is it not effective against non tank targets? you have played way too much C&C...
You'll see a video by a gentleman called blacktail defense.
This video will show you how the M1 is not nearly as effective as it could be (which do you think has the advantage? An M1 with 1/2 mile ranging machine guns attacking, or a AT14 spriggan team with a 3 mile range defending?) and is in fact just a great way of moving your money to corrupt pockets.
So essentially, u are arguing against "necessity" of armor units ? or the ineffectiveness of american armor ? Or are u making a stand against the weapon defense industry ? Just what is your point ?
My point is that the american defense industry is pulling a fast one on the tax payer. There is no way that M1 should have succeeded M60 (essentially a stand against the weapon defense industry and arguing for the inneffectiveness of american armour: the M1, those 2 points rolled into 1.).
Did you watch the video?
There is no way that a country which spends 2X as much on military as the rest of the world can justifiably field M1 and make it's troops buy their own armour.
You mean M-60 or XM1? Because, M1A1 - A2 has 120MM L-44 gun. First M1s built came with 105MM L-57 guns. O_o
Tyco200 11 months ago
@Tyco200 Abrams a1 and a2s have M256 guns.
Icarus854 8 months ago
porno !!!!!!
socomsix19 11 months ago
The Stryker is definitely one versatile weapon.
MoneyMan8900 1 year ago
Why can't they just field -113 with rubber tracks, up armour and with field kits for fit each mission? that way you don't need to build new Vehicle. M-113 is a moving armour box, making kits that fit on a box can't be easier can it?
HMSBeagle200 1 year ago
@HMSBeagle200 M113 was aluminum. Melts to smithereens in a warzone like Iraq.
Not roadbomb resistant. Very slow. Not large enough to carry a full infantry squad.
stahlwerke 1 year ago
@stahlwerke The armor of the M113 Gavin is actually Alluminium alloy 5083, which contains little magnesium to catch fire and it doesn't show "ductile brittle phenomenon". To have the ability to stop IEDs, to Gavins was able to outfitted with modularised armor packages . Ok what about carrying capacity? The M113 was able to transport 12 soldiers instead of 9 .
ReviveHF 1 year ago
@ReviveHF Well they got blasted by RPG's anyway up to the point that politicians had to take action.
stahlwerke 7 months ago
@stahlwerke
Allot of M113s have been fitted with heavier armour.
Sismiques 1 year ago
@stahlwerke
Educate yourself son, please.
Any complaints?
been serving my country's Army since 2000
Antunez99 7 months ago
@Antunez99 Even your masters agree that those wars were wrong.
small dude.
stahlwerke 7 months ago
@Antunez99 Tell me about your education ans i'll tell you about mine.
stahlwerke 7 months ago
@stahlwerke
First, don't begin with that childish discusion about education,ok, we are talking about the M113.
M113 armor is made of aluminum, no complaints there, it was made like that to keep it light enough to be air transportable and etc. Melts to smithereens- about that- if i understand, you're trying to stay that it would get blown if hit- It has been up-armored, and i have served in a vehicle like that, it wouldn't.
About mine protection- belly would need more armor.
i will write part II
Antunez99 7 months ago
@stahlwerke
Part II
It can carry more troops than the stryker troop transport configuration, more troops than de bradley and other vehicles- it carries up to 11 troops, and you say it can't carry a full infantry squad, when a full infantry squad, in my country's standarts is between 8-13 troops, i don't know what it's like in the US.
Up-armored, it's about as resistant as the Stryker, a roadbomb or a IED, would completly devastate both vehicles, but i've seen cases where the crew stayed safe
Antunez99 7 months ago
@stahlwerke
In both vehicles.
Of course that we've got the matters about eras when the vehicles were made.
The m113 is a vehicle from the 60's, the Stryker is a vehicle from the 90's, on my criteria since it's based on LAV III.
Bothe vehicles do their Job OK, but we've to keep in mind that the stryker is a more recent vehicle, and in my opinion is superior, because of it's computers and comunications devices.
cheers
Antunez99 7 months ago
Correction: the Abram has 3 machine guns, not 2...
melvinthedeathless 1 year ago
Doesn't the M1 Abrahams have a 122mm gun, not a 105mm gun?
Snipe4261 1 year ago
@Snipe4261
It was introduced with a 105mm gun
It now sports a 120mm gun inferior in power to the French Leclerc MBT
Oh, and by the way, it can only fire anti-tank rounds from the main gun, which means that its not very good against Al Quaeda. It's not very good against non-tank targets when fighting an enemy with tanks. When fighting an enemy with tanks, 95% of the targets the M1 would face would be the non-tank targets its not very good against.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Well, that was thorough. Thanks for clearing that up.
Snipe4261 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s
You got to be kidding, me...
The Abram (as with all other MBTs) can fire a variety of ammunition types; for instance, high explosive fragmentation rounds which are devastating against infantry units. In addition, the M1 is equipped with 2 machine guns.
So how is it not effective against non tank targets? you have played way too much C&C...
melvinthedeathless 1 year ago
@melvinthedeathless
And you have watched way too much propoganda.
Look up the real M1 Abrams on youtube.
You'll see a video by a gentleman called blacktail defense.
This video will show you how the M1 is not nearly as effective as it could be (which do you think has the advantage? An M1 with 1/2 mile ranging machine guns attacking, or a AT14 spriggan team with a 3 mile range defending?) and is in fact just a great way of moving your money to corrupt pockets.
Watch it.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s
So essentially, u are arguing against "necessity" of armor units ? or the ineffectiveness of american armor ? Or are u making a stand against the weapon defense industry ? Just what is your point ?
melvinthedeathless 1 year ago
@melvinthedeathless
My point is that the american defense industry is pulling a fast one on the tax payer. There is no way that M1 should have succeeded M60 (essentially a stand against the weapon defense industry and arguing for the inneffectiveness of american armour: the M1, those 2 points rolled into 1.).
Did you watch the video?
There is no way that a country which spends 2X as much on military as the rest of the world can justifiably field M1 and make it's troops buy their own armour.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
Lol, I heard a grammatical error: "roded". Anyway, thanks for uploading!
Calaminh 1 year ago