±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: freaknikz
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6598

People Online:
Members: 1
Visitors: 109
Total: 110
Who Is Where:
 Members:
01: Tanklord > Community Forums
 Visitors:
01: Photo Gallery
02: Member Screenshots
03: Community Forums
04: Member Screenshots
05: Photo Gallery
06: Photo Gallery
07: Home
08: Photo Gallery
09: Photo Gallery
10: Photo Gallery
11: Community Forums
12: Member Screenshots
13: Member Screenshots
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Home
22: Community Forums
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Home
27: Downloads
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Photo Gallery
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: Home
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Photo Gallery
39: Community Forums
40: Member Screenshots
41: Community Forums
42: Photo Gallery
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Photo Gallery
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Member Screenshots
53: Photo Gallery
54: Community Forums
55: Photo Gallery
56: Member Screenshots
57: Photo Gallery
58: Member Screenshots
59: Member Screenshots
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Home
65: Member Screenshots
66: Photo Gallery
67: Community Forums
68: Home
69: Community Forums
70: Member Screenshots
71: Community Forums
72: Home
73: Photo Gallery
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Community Forums
78: Community Forums
79: Member Screenshots
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Member Screenshots
87: Photo Gallery
88: Member Screenshots
89: Community Forums
90: Photo Gallery
91: Photo Gallery
92: Statistics
93: Photo Gallery
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Downloads
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Member Screenshots
102: Photo Gallery
103: Member Screenshots
104: Community Forums
105: Photo Gallery
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: Community Forums
109: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
XM-734 in Vietnam
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MarkHolloway
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Apr 07, 2006
Posts: 2054
Location: Beatty, Nevada
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:34 pm
Post subject: XM-734 in Vietnam

XM734 ~ 1/5th Infantry "Bobcats" 25th Infantry Division "Tropic Lightning"
Track "C-35" , probably operation "Cedar Falls" , January 1967 /Robert C.Lafoon collection/.


_________________
"TUMBLEWEED"
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 4632
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:50 pm
Post subject: Re: XM-734 in Vietnam

Never actually seen a pic of one of those there. Then again, I notice everybody is operating on or out the top and none of the ports are open, so it's being used just like any other ACAV there, but without the M60's. A lot of infantry unit M113's didn't have the full ACAV kit anyway (like the one just in front of it).

Looks like a case of "we have it and need to test it, so let's send it" regardless of actual utility in the theater to which it's been sent. (Recall that there was a proposal to send Sheridan's without main gun ammo in the beginning, but that idea was dropped)
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:07 am
Post subject: Re: XM-734 in Vietnam

Hi Folks!

My first post Vietnam era unit at Hunter Ligget had ten of those vehicles. The word was they had been used over there and had been judged a failure. Like Doug noted the troops are up in the cargo hatch or on top. During my time, the major problem was land mines (now called IED's). The only troops who were inside were the drivers. The TC needed to kept all of his body above the turret ring. Those cupolas where known to pop off when a vehicle hit a mine.

Somehow the Army went from the gun port of the XM-734 which was made for the M-14 to poke out of, to the gun ports of the M2 Bradley IFV with it's Port Firing weapon.

In the end, it was all a waste of time after the Army up armored the Bradleys and covered over the firing ports.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
MarkHolloway
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Apr 07, 2006
Posts: 2054
Location: Beatty, Nevada
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:36 am
Post subject: Re: XM-734 in Vietnam

There is a pretty good collection of Vietnam photos on Flickr at:

www.flickr.com/search/...3895%40N04

_________________
"TUMBLEWEED"
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Photo Gallery
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:54 pm
Post subject: Re: XM-734 in Vietnam

- Roy_A_Lingle
Hi Folks!

My first post Vietnam era unit at Hunter Ligget had ten of those vehicles. The word was they had been used over there and had been judged a failure. Like Doug noted the troops are up in the cargo hatch or on top. During my time, the major problem was land mines (now called IED's). The only troops who were inside were the drivers. The TC needed to kept all of his body above the turret ring. Those cupolas where known to pop off when a vehicle hit a mine.

Somehow the Army went from the gun port of the XM-734 which was made for the M-14 to poke out of, to the gun ports of the M2 Bradley IFV with it's Port Firing weapon.

In the end, it was all a waste of time after the Army up armored the Bradleys and covered over the firing ports.

Sgt, Scouts Out!


Hi,

It's all a case of PC-envy. In the early 60's, the Soviets rocked the military world by introducing the BMP, which had firing ports and was now considered an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Partly fueled by the armaments companies and partly by Cold War me-too-ism, the military world was quickly infatuated with the idea of infantry being able to fight from under armor on a nuclear battlefield. Like so many of this sort of idea, no one ever actually conducted honest tests to determine if this was even practical. All the tests that were conducted, were biased to show how great the capability was. The voices that said it wasn't that great an idea were either ignored or silenced.

The Army went through a series of vehicles (XM-734 was one of them) trying to incorporate firing ports into existing APCs. Fortunately, budget constraints and obvious shortcomings prevented large-scale adoption of any of them. After all of the programs were stone-dead, the money became available to develop the Bradley IFV from scratch, while trying to incorporate the lessons from the earlier program. Sadly, one of those lessons didn't include the futility of infantry fighting from within the vehicle. That lesson wasn't learned until the Bradley was widely fielded and everyone finally had to face the fact that the firing ports were useless for anything but wasting ammunition. Oddly enough the Soviets had quietly learned that lesson years before, but continued to use the feature to sell BMPs around the world!

Nothing new, but still a disheartening look into how wacky the acquisition of military vehicles can be.

What is funny is that for years after the Bradley showed up, commanders had to sign and re-sign for hundreds of the special Firing Port Weapons. In most cases the weapons sat locked in racks for the entire time they were in the possession of unit. Most Commanders and Senior NCOs considered that maintaining positive control of a single M16 was only barely within the abilities of most Soldiers, and had no desire to issue them a second weapon. I also know one former Company Commander who was signed for several hundred weapons for his entire command tour, two years after the unit had turned in it's last Bradley that still had firing ports.

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 4632
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:31 pm
Post subject: Re: XM-734 in Vietnam

- C_Sherman


Hi,

It's all a case of PC-envy. In the early 60's, the Soviets rocked the military world by introducing the BMP, which had firing ports and was now considered an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Partly fueled by the armaments companies and partly by Cold War me-too-ism, the military world was quickly infatuated with the idea of infantry being able to fight from under armor on a nuclear battlefield. Like so many of this sort of idea, no one ever actually conducted honest tests to determine if this was even practical. All the tests that were conducted, were biased to show how great the capability was. The voices that said it wasn't that great an idea were either ignored or silenced.

The Army went through a series of vehicles (XM-734 was one of them) trying to incorporate firing ports into existing APCs.
C


Chuck,

The FMC proposed M765 and "Product Improved M113A1" also envisioned the inclusion of firing ports and an M139 20mm gun to make it even more BMP/IFV like (both had a reduced rear hull rather like the "M113 1/2 C&R" vehicle).

The "me too" think that imposed stuff like this (and the "swim ability") of the M551 Sheridan was not a proud era in U.S. AFV design.

Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:20 am
Post subject: Re: XM-734 in Vietnam

Hi,

Doug, that Product Improved M113 lives on today! The AIFV, still in service (and maybe production, too!) in a number of nations outside of the US, is externally almost identical to the advertising you posted. I'm sure that it has been updated internally since 1970. I've seen it in Dutch and Turkish service, and I'm sure I've seen it other places too.

I had the privilege of touring the FMC-licensed production facility outside of Ankara, Turkey in 2003. I was startled by the depth of the commonality with the M113-series vehicles I was familiar with. Up to about 1 meter off of the ground, it's almost indistinguishable. The M113 lives on, much more than we realize here in the US.

However, I did notice that the whole firing-port infatuation has faded. Some (all?) of the AIFVs I've seen...didn't have the firing ports anymore!

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 4632
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:59 am
Post subject: Re: XM-734 in Vietnam

- C_Sherman
Hi,

Doug, that Product Improved M113 lives on today! The AIFV, still in service (and maybe production, too!) in a number of nations outside of the US, is externally almost identical to the advertising you posted. I'm sure that it has been updated internally since 1970. I've seen it in Dutch and Turkish service, and I'm sure I've seen it other places too.

C


Chuck,
In Dutch service, it even lived on with the model number, but re-designated "YPR 765".

D.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum