hey spare parts Army welcome back to
tasking purpose I'm your average
infantryman Chris Cappy over the past 60
years soldiers have been forced to use
the m113 armored personnel carrier in
offensive combat roles that it was never
originally designed for but commanders
continue to do so and use them
incorrectly like this because they have
no other option they're being used in
this makeshift infantry Fighting Vehicle
role that it was never meant for the
m113 has become the American military's
go-to vehicle to give away and sell as
part of foreign aid packages because
it's not too advanced to pose any real
threat on the modern Battlefield and its
equipment isn't too expensive to
maintain for any developing country in
2015 114 were given to the Philippine
Army to fight in urban cities against
the Abu sarif militant group the
vehicles are unprepared for incoming RPG
fire so they've ghetto rigged their own
side armor onto it fortunately for the
Philippine soldiers in the American 113
they were able to survive a direct hit
from an old RPG 2 here this was a part
of the intent five month long Siege in
the Battle of marwa in this case the
Philippine Army got lucky and was able
to make it out of the city safely with
no injuries this American APC should not
be used in these kinds of high-intensity
urban assaults the U.S Department of
Defense gave 200 of the unmodified m113
true carriers to Ukraine and they began
arriving in the middle of July 2020.
videos from the front lines in Ukraine
claim that they were already deployed in
combat Germany transferred 11 Spain sent
20 Portugal 14 Lithuania sent 20 m113s
preliminary video this week from the
front line shows that the Ukrainian
Army's counter-offensive and Garrison is
making use of many of these over 200
m113 armored personnel carriers that
were sent to them this American APC was
engineered to Ferry troops of the front
line dropped them off and get the heck
out of there some of the vehicles appear
to be still spray painted tan leftover
holdover look from its last mission in
Iraq and Afghanistan the list of
countries that the U.S has allowed to
sell the m113 is extensive compared to
the only two foreign Nations being sold
the M2 Bradley ifv which is Lebanon and
Saudi Arabia the main problem with using
this vehicle in Modern Combat is that
the armor is made out of the 5083
aluminum alloy and it's about 28 to 44
millimeters or about 1.7 inches thick
according to the US Army trade-off
records they claim that has all-around
protection against only 762 millimeter
ball rounds an artillery shell splinters
that means that armor-piercing Small
Arms rounds could penetrate it a 12.7
millimeter and 50 caliber machine gun
round would cut right through it except
possibly in the frontal Arc but don't
get me wrong it has an important role in
the armed forces even to this day
1026 were sold to Iraq as part of a
contract that cost 51 million dollars it
was expensive because 40 000 hours of
work had to be put into refurbishing the
old engines on the apcs colonel Sammy
Hargrove sentcom's Regional operations
director explained the situation best
when he said quote this was a win-win
situation for both the Iraqis and the
U.S because in the Iraqis case they went
from a non-existent armored capability
in 2010 to plans for six divisions for
the U.S we divested ourselves of 1026
m113s most of which were stored for
close to 20 years demilitarizing that
many vehicles can be cost prohibitive
using the FMS process ultimately saves
the US money so it saved the US military
an estimated 31 million dollars by not
having to store or destroy those
Vehicles it's more expensive to destroy
them than it is to sell them to
developing armies when used correctly
for protection against small arms and
artillery it can be an incredibly
effective command and support vehicle
when used incorrectly we'll see it can
be an absolute nightmare in order to
analyze how much of an effect on the
battlefield the m113 can have we need to
examine its Origins and combat
performance so far it has over 40
different variants and room for 12
soldiers in the back which is
practically twice the amount compared to
heavier armored infantry fighting
vehicles of that category it's still
popular around the world due to its low
cost and comparatively easier
maintenance compared to the Infantry
fighting Vehicles like the M2 Bradley
the m113 could be ideal for transporting
ammunition and anti-tank guided weapons
to the front lines while offering
protection against incoming artillery
rounds even though they would not be
able to go toe-to-toe with an enemy BTR
or BMP it could be used further behind
the front line to launch indirect mortar
fire down onto the enemy it's useful for
getting infantry near the front line
while being protected but the temptation
to use them as assault vehicles or
support for tanks in assault roles is
strong every time the n113 is used with
the wrong tactics we've seen multiple
instances where they've gotten destroyed
throughout history armored personnel
carriers or apcs have a long history in
militaries around the world World
typically apcs serve the role of an
armored taxi that's the doctrine that
it's supposed to be used with you can
point to Classic examples in World War
II like the British Universal carrier
and the German half tracks prior to the
m113 the U.S military actually had two
other apcs in their Arsenal including
the m75 in the M59 but they were both
lacking two specific abilities first of
all neither were amphibious and they
were both too heavy to be airlifted in
order to lower the weight on the m113
they made it out of this Ultra
lightweight aluminum hole it was the
first U.S military vehicle to be mass
produced out of this material this
lowered the cost while maintaining an
acceptable armor rating it could now be
loaded onto and parachuted out of the
C-130 cargo plane FMC corporation began
working on it and introduced two models
for initial testing one was a heavily
armored version made out of steel called
the t-117 but they also included a
lightweight APC called the t-113 a lot
of of the components on the t113
included aluminum Alloys common in the
Aerospace industry these Alloys were
actually more rigid than steel while
weighing less the t113 experimental
version would be adopted and renamed the
m113 in 1960. with a 275 horsepower
engine and a top speed of 42 miles per
hour it had space for a driver Gunner
and 11 Dismounts more than enough to fit
a full Squad that could leave out the
large ramp in the back while it might
technically be amphibious it doesn't
have Jets to allow to swim instead it
uses its tracks the Vietnam War saw the
blurring of front lines with troops
being unable to predict which direction
the anime would come from the 12-ton
armored m113 with a 50 caliber machine
gun on top was useful for protecting
casualties and getting them out of the
combat zone during medical evacuations
the A1 version had a gasoline engine
that was quickly replaced with a diesel
one it allowed units to fit their entire
platoon of 40 soldiers into four of
these the m113 got many nicknames of
over the years the Vietnamese call it
the green dragon the Israelis had
variants called cheetah and Zelda crews
in Vietnam grew to love those machines
giving them their own individual
nicknames like lead Salad King Cobra and
Easy Rider part of the reason for its
longevity is its ability to be modified
into covering different purposes the
m106 variant was a mortar carrier the
m132 had a flamethrower weapon attached
to it for overrunning entrenched enemy
positions in the jungle there was an
anti-tank missile launcher version as
well as an anti-air version the m113
would receive alterations after first
seeing combat in 1962 in South Vietnam
with the arvn or Army of the Republic of
Vietnam in the early days of the Vietnam
War the U.S sent a few of the m113s to
the South Vietnamese Army who ended up
using it more like an infantry Fighting
Vehicle instead of a taxi having the
vehicle stick around during combat this
is contrary to the U.S fighting Doctrine
the South Vietnamese were fighting using
the mounted machine guns and quickly
learned that their Gunners were too
exposed during the Battle of at-back in
1963 the South Vietnamese Army engaged
in heavy fighting against the VC with
two mechanized rifle companies about 30
of the m113 apcs were used as fire
support and the South Vietnamese lost 14
of their 50 caliber machine Gunners in
one day that's 50 percent of their heavy
weapons troops it was clear that the
m113 did not offer enough protection for
its Gunners during prolonged engagements
so I noticed there's this temptation
that we see over and over again
throughout military history where the
m113 is used with incorrect tactics
trying to use a screwdriver to hammer a
nail does not go well the South
Vietnamese arvn Ordnance divisions built
makeshift armor for the m113 machine
Gunners which U.S officials actually
berated them for U.S officials looked
down on the South Vietnamese for not
using the correct fighting Doctrine
devised by their planners the generals
wondered why aren't they just using
these armored vehicles to drop troops
off and then retreat but a couple of
years later once the US military started
deploying to Vietnam and got into fights
of their own they realized the
Temptation themselves the m113 was
inevitably pulled into combat and used
to protect Ground Forces because that's
the same thing that any infantry
Commander would do they would use their
armor instead of advancing unprotected
the correct battle Doctrine for it to
Ferry troops to the front and then the
vehicle is supposed to retreat and run
away runs counter to Common Sense
applications for armored vehicles and
that's been a problem for the m113 since
its invention the United States military
started producing their own armor add-on
kits to do the exact same thing that the
South Vietnamese were doing by adding an
up armored steel plate bolted to the
front of the vehicle these modifications
made them too heavy to be amphibious
which ruined the whole point of making
them lightweight in the first place but
you can understand why they thought this
in previous Wars armies would fight
battles with traditional front lines and
supplies would be brought in from the
rear in relative safety the Vietnam War
changed all of that for the first time
in history U.S troops faced an enemy
that could be anywhere and supply lines
were no longer safe the m113 was
obsolete in some ways before it was even
created because it was designed for a
time when the understanding of War
included traditional front lines away
from the enemy a common tactic used with
the m113 was to stand guard at
checkpoints along key supply routes in
Vietnam to help protect the convoys that
were frequently coming under attack this
is actually a tactic that was extended
to the Iraq War where troops would do
the exact same thing in 1983 the m113
performed so poorly in the Israeli
Defense Forces that they had to order
them to not be used in combat anymore
when they were again used by the IDF in
2004 they instantly had to remove them
again from the front lines because two
were destroyed in one month leaving 11
IDF soldiers Kia now the Philippine Army
has converted some of their m113s into
ifes with the 76 millimeter l23a1 guns
from the scorpion tank the Dutch pulled
a similar move with theirs creating a
modified version that has a 25
millimeter Auto Cannon tables support
the extra weight though thanks to a
stronger power pack with a Turbocharger
and a transmission fitted for heavier
components that's my one caveat here
there are some versions that have teeth
and slapped on extra armor but at that
point it's not the m113 that most
countries are operating I found a case
study in 2004 that tested the
feasibility of upgrading the m113 with
reactive armor the report made me see
the M13 In a Different Light the study
took into account how much it would cost
to upgrade the armor of the m113 if it
was possible to only add armor and if
the m113 needed an entirely new redesign
it was an investigation to see if
Congress should invest millions in the r
d to improve the m113 the study found
that in order to properly protect the
m113 you would have to add enough
reactive armor that would weigh an
additional 4 000 pounds and that would
be just too much weight for the 275
horsepower engine to handle keep in mind
that this vehicle already struggles to
keep bubbling convoys so you can either
upgrade the m113 with reactive armor and
upgrade the engine and suspension you
can make a new design damn moment 3 with
actual armor from the ground up or you
could do nothing the official
recommendation actually said that it
would be better to do nothing and that
they should instead use the funds to
give the M2 Bradley reactive armor
upgrades in 2005 the Army sent more than
700 m113a3 variants to Iraq as a stop
Gap measure because of the Humvee crisis
where U.S soldiers were being sent into
combat with Humvees that couldn't even
stop Small Arms fire in 2007 the U.S
stopped buying the m113 with only around
6 000 still in the inventory in both
Iraq and Afghanistan the m113 saw combat
but it took a back seat to the other
armored vehicles like the Bradley and
the striker all told the global war on
Tara did not bode well for the m113 just
like in Vietnam it struggled against
land mines according to the Washington
Post 64 of U.S debts in Iraq were due to
IEDs and the US military evolved while
fighting an Insurgency and an emphasis
was put on defeating roadside bombs by
the end of the global war on terror over
50 billion dollars had been spent on
developing the mine resistant ambush
protected vehicles or the mrap and by
2008 most mechanized infantry units had
moved away from the m113 unless they
absolutely had to use it the US military
had a dream to acquire the ground combat
vehicle which would replace the m113 and
the M2 Bradley it'd be an armored
personnel carrier or infantry Fighting
Vehicle it would also cost an estimated
37 billion dollars each unit will cost
an estimated 1.8 million dollars to
manufacture for this new vehicle a less
risky move was to find a more reasonable
replacement for the m113 called the
armored multi-purpose vehicle designed
by BAE Systems this would only cost 5
billion dollars according to the
government accountability office
estimates the Army's 2015 budget
proposal suggested canceling the ground
combat vehicle and instead moving the
money to the ampv the military
industrial complex has been working on
on a unicorn design where many different
Vehicles would share the same chassis in
common cutting down on production costs
and maintenance training while the m113
shared nothing in common with other
vehicles in the US military's Arsenal
its replacement the ampv does it uses
the same chassis as the M2 Bradley with
integrated digital Mission command
giving it increased digital Mission
command computer capabilities The
increased protection and power allow for
the ampv to have new protection systems
that the m113 could never run like the
anti-drone high energy laser systems the
ampv looks like an outstanding vehicle
to carry on the positive aspects of the
legacy of the m113 while addressing some
of the main problems that the vehicle
had during its long combat history that
stretched from the jungles of the
Vietnam War to the deserts of Iraq and
Afghanistan as long as the m113 is used
far away from the front lines it can
still be a useful armored vehicle for
traversing muddy terrain that wheeled
Vehicles would fell in and it can Ferry
troops and equipment near the front
lines with more protection than your
2004 Toyota Camry thanks so much for
watching if you found the video
interesting please hit the like And
subscribe button I really appreciate
your time if you have another minute
check out this video which I think
you'll like and many who is to you and
yours until then