- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
Bzzliteyr said:
Which we did... Upgraded M113 = T-LAV/MTVL FOV
The perfect platform for the Canadian Military.
- Thread starter McBrush
- Start date
Which we did... Upgraded M113 = T-LAV/MTVL FOV
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
And they can't swim? Or they "can't swim"? I always wonder why we eliminated that ability from our forces? Just cause we hadn't done it in a long time doesn't mean we can't forsee doing it in the future.
While I am here: what about the Wiesel? There's a nice surveillance version? I see those as very flexible vehicles with mulitple platforms up to TOW variant and probably more. The crew size reduction plays a small factor but they are nice little trucks.
While I am here: what about the Wiesel? There's a nice surveillance version? I see those as very flexible vehicles with mulitple platforms up to TOW variant and probably more. The crew size reduction plays a small factor but they are nice little trucks.
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
MTVL/T-LAV FOV have no trim viens or props or shoruds over the tracks... but it does have the grizzly turret......
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
MTVL FOV Weight, max GVW 40,000 lb (18,140 kg)
M113-A3 Maximum weight 31,000 lb. (14,061 kg)
Not sure but I think the weight difference might be enough to say they can't swim... besides wasn't the water up to the top of the haul when the M113-A2's where swimming?
M113-A3 Maximum weight 31,000 lb. (14,061 kg)
Not sure but I think the weight difference might be enough to say they can't swim... besides wasn't the water up to the top of the haul when the M113-A2's where swimming?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,225
- Points
- 1,160
Being in a swimming M113 was conducive to becoming religious. That being said the Italian marines have a version designed for beach landings. A 2" layer of dense foam glued to the sides would work, but would also burn nicely.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,225
- Points
- 1,160
Yep a foam and metal fire, how nice....
I wonder how much a tank say 2" thick welded onto the sides would weigh, the outer skin would not need to be to thick, the tank could have ribs making watertight compartments and cover the sides. By my guesstimate that would add 511 pounds of buoyancy on each side.
I wonder how much a tank say 2" thick welded onto the sides would weigh, the outer skin would not need to be to thick, the tank could have ribs making watertight compartments and cover the sides. By my guesstimate that would add 511 pounds of buoyancy on each side.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Are they even making the 113 any more? Or are they overhauling old chassis for new systems and variants?
Once the American plan to phase it's fleet out in 2018, I suspect that there won't be any new units being made, if they are indeed still in "brand new" production.
It would be an interesting engineering exercise to take the same basic platform design and update it with current era power plants, drive train, armor and so forth, and equip it with current weapon systems.
Once the American plan to phase it's fleet out in 2018, I suspect that there won't be any new units being made, if they are indeed still in "brand new" production.
It would be an interesting engineering exercise to take the same basic platform design and update it with current era power plants, drive train, armor and so forth, and equip it with current weapon systems.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The M-113 was a great vehicle for its time and role (battle taxi), and the design was very robust and flexible, so you could make all kinds of variants. The British came up with a somewhat similar (if a lot smaller) solution with the CVR(T) family, the Russians had the MT-LB and the Swedish CV-90 is perhaps the latest go round of that idea.
There are some roles where specialization does not hurt; if I was Generalissimo and had unlimited funds I would increase the Leopard 2 fleet of tanks in preference to the CV90-120 (and with the financial situation in Greece and Spain, that idea might be doable now!). Working in the Arctic and difficult terrain isn't feasible with conventional vehicles; something along the lines of a BV-206 or the STK Bronco would be needed if we were to start operating in large numbers in the Arctic. Even the logistical truck fleet would not be based around one type of truck (OTOH, any type of truck would have to be milspec so you actually could drive off the hardpack), but again, a family fleet of trucks with some commonality in training, logistics and support would go a long way to stretching the defense dollar.
The example of the BV-206 also shows how starting assumptions change the outcome. If we are truly committed to the Canada First policy as initially articulated by the Conservative Government, then buying tanks and CCV's should actually be a much lower priority than buying vehicles capable of operating in the arctic and various sorts of logistical and engineering vehicles optimized for DOMOPS missions. We would also be considering what sorts of platforms require minimal maintenance so Reserve units could simply pack up and drive out to meet DOMOPS missions without absorbing a lot of logistical overhead.
So there is no "perfect" platform; there is however a sensible way of looking at vehicle purchases which includes "families" for lower unit prices, common logistics and support, and ensuring that you identify all the verious pieces before you put pen to paper and end up forgetting or foregoing the various support verions of the vehicles you intend to use.
There are some roles where specialization does not hurt; if I was Generalissimo and had unlimited funds I would increase the Leopard 2 fleet of tanks in preference to the CV90-120 (and with the financial situation in Greece and Spain, that idea might be doable now!). Working in the Arctic and difficult terrain isn't feasible with conventional vehicles; something along the lines of a BV-206 or the STK Bronco would be needed if we were to start operating in large numbers in the Arctic. Even the logistical truck fleet would not be based around one type of truck (OTOH, any type of truck would have to be milspec so you actually could drive off the hardpack), but again, a family fleet of trucks with some commonality in training, logistics and support would go a long way to stretching the defense dollar.
The example of the BV-206 also shows how starting assumptions change the outcome. If we are truly committed to the Canada First policy as initially articulated by the Conservative Government, then buying tanks and CCV's should actually be a much lower priority than buying vehicles capable of operating in the arctic and various sorts of logistical and engineering vehicles optimized for DOMOPS missions. We would also be considering what sorts of platforms require minimal maintenance so Reserve units could simply pack up and drive out to meet DOMOPS missions without absorbing a lot of logistical overhead.
So there is no "perfect" platform; there is however a sensible way of looking at vehicle purchases which includes "families" for lower unit prices, common logistics and support, and ensuring that you identify all the verious pieces before you put pen to paper and end up forgetting or foregoing the various support verions of the vehicles you intend to use.
Similar threads
