Com-Central.net

Apart from having a high CG , any other adverse effects from mounting the Saladin turret on the M113 ?

Thanks

Dirk

I bet the extra weight requires the suspension to be locked into place like the old M163 Vulcan ADA version. Makes for a bumpier ride.

If the suspension was locked in place it's not mentioned in Military Briefs vol 1 Australian Fire Support Vehicles by John Myszka. I don't think it was, some of the replacement MRVs even had a handhold welded to the back of the turret for the instructors to hang on to as the vehicle rocked due to recoil. The book only says the additional weight reduced the suspension life, reduced freeboard when swimming. In at least one of the photos looks to me like the suspension is deflected. Mind you, with regard to weight, all the hulls for the conversion to an FSV were bought specifically for that purpose, all seem to have the attachment bolts for the addional belly armour, none of the seem to have it fitted, it weighed around 680kg. There was also an extension added to the trim vane to prevent the higher CG from causing the vehicle to "dig in" to the water.

Also mentioned was the difficultly in getting the American and British eletrical systems to work together.

Ultimately in Vietnam they proved reliable and quick to respond when required.

Hi Sabot! Hi Folks!

- Sabot

I bet the extra weight requires the suspension to be locked into place like the old M163 Vulcan ADA version. Makes for a bumpier ride.

That lock out system didn't work that way. It was only locked when the vehicle was stopped. Moving the vehicle with the locks extended would damage the system.

When I was stationed at Hunter Liggett Military Reservation I was in a TDA armored company which conducted all kinds of different tests. One of the tests was for a ground based lazer target designator system for Hellfire missiles. The target unit encluded four Vulcan SPs. During one of the tests, a driver forgot to unlock the suspension after an engagement. That vehicle ended up dead lined until ever road arm and every lock out pin housing assemble was removed. I don't know just what parts were damaged and had to be replaced, but that vehicle sat in our motor pool for a couple of weeks with nothing but sprockets and idler wheels on the hull.

During the day, that lazer system was great. However when we tried the same sets of tests during the night, any IR scope or Starlight scope could pick up the light beam and the OpFor units would know where the lazer team was set up.

Some of my very old history.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

That TDA Armored Company had
five platoons of five M-60A1 tanks per, with only three man crews.
one scout platoon with 12xM-113A1s with only two men per vehicle.
The recovery section had three M-88 VTRs.
The unit was formed by combining an Armored Cav Troop with a tank company, that is how we ended up with three M-88s.
Not counting the machine guns for the tanks and APCs, the only other weapons in the company arms room were two .45 cal pistols. One for the payroll officer and one for his guard.

Hi Coldsteel! Hi Folks!

- Coldsteel

There was also an extension added to the trim vane to prevent the higher CG from causing the vehicle to "dig in" to the water.

That extension on the top of the trim vane was part of the A1 upgrade to the basic vehicle.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Dirk

While the M113 FSV was still 'amphibious' with the extended trim vane (only fitted to FSVs and not other M113A1s), rotating the turret while afloat caused a trials vehicle to literally turn turtle.

David

Hi David! Hi Folks!

- David_Clark

While the M113 FSV was still 'amphibious' with the extended trim vane (only fitted to FSVs and not other M113A1s), rotating the turret while afloat caused a trials vehicle to literally turn turtle.
David

Right you are Sir!

I am not sure that "extended" addition would be classified as an extention. After searching around for some photos of a FSV, I saw what you all were talking about. What I though was called a floatation pod.

www.armouredengineer.f...113mrv.htm

On the original M113, the top edge of the trim vane had a metal edge that extended about one inch above the edge of the plywood. One the A1's that extention was extended to about four inchs above the top edge of the plywood. That was the item I was thinking about when I read the term 'extended trim vane'.

This was another 'alartness test' to see if any one was paying attention to my flub up.
David passed the test!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Thanks all for the input.

The Tamiya M113 FSV kit looks appealling ..................

How can one say no to a Tamiya and a M113 kit

Almost have all the 1/35 M113 kits .. Now to start building them

Cheers & again thanks

Dirk

- Dirk

Almost have all the 1/35 M113 kits .. Now to start building them
Dirk

Ah But are you going to build all 287 variants of the M113?

- JimWeb

- Dirk

Almost have all the 1/35 M113 kits .. Now to start building them
Dirk

Ah But are you going to build all 287 variants of the M113?

...plus the "Gavin" variants with particle beam weapons, "Davey Crocketts", rail guns, and Phase Plasma Rifles in the 40W range?

- JG300-Ascout

...plus the "Gavin" variants with particle beam weapons, "Davey Crocketts", rail guns, and Phase Plasma Rifles in the 40W range?

I see SOMEONE is more than familiar with Terminator...

" AH-LLL BE BACH "!!

Don

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi David! Hi Folks!
I am not sure that "extended" addition would be classified as an extention. After searching around for some photos of a FSV, I saw what you all were talking about. What I though was called a floatation pod.

www.armouredengineer.f...113mrv.htm

On the original M113, the top edge of the trim vane had a metal edge that extended about one inch above the edge of the plywood. One the A1's that extention was extended to about four inchs above the top edge of the plywood. That was the item I was thinking about when I read the term 'extended trim vane'.

Actually you might still be right, that link shows pictures of the FSV replacement, the Scorpion turreted Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle. The FSV has a Saladin turret and no flotation pods.

I can't find any pictures on the net that show the FSV with the proper vane on it. It looks like a standard M113 vane with the hollow metal extension and on top of that a seperate hinged section that doesn't run the full length of the vane in order to clear the left hand head light group. I've no idea is this is the A1 modification you mentioned, but as far as Australian M113s go seems to be FSV specific.

- Roy_A_Lingle

After searching around for some photos of a FSV, I saw what you all were talking about. What I though was called a floatation pod.

Roy

The M113 FSVs had a hinged extension across the top of the trim vane (except for the left side where it would have fouled the light assembly).

The M113 MRV (Scorpion turret) used the floatation pods that I think were used on heavier M113 variants.

There's examples of both at the RAAC museum but the online photographs don't show the trim vane on the FSV:

www.armytankmuseum.com.au/i-vd.htm

The best I can do at short notice is a photo of a model of a M113 FSV on the Sentinel site:

www.mheaust.com.au/Aus.../fsvb6.jpg

By the way, and coming back to the original question, the RAAC museum description of the FSV states: "The FSV concept was a success but it was not without problems. The extra weight of the Turret detracted from the amphibious performance, led to a slight decrease in the vehicle's performance generally, and reduced the life on some suspension components."

Regards

David

Hi David! Hi Folks!

- David_Clark

The M113 FSVs had a hinged extension across the top of the trim vane (except for the left side where it would have fouled the light assembly).

OK, now that I am on the CORRECT vehicle, I see what your are talking about.

www.armouredengineer.f...113fsv.htm

In the top photo, I can see the extention your have been trying to tell me about. That is an extention mounted on top of the 'A1' extention that I was confused over. I have never noticed the second extention before.

- David_Clark

"The FSV concept was a success but it was not without problems. The extra weight of the Turret detracted from the amphibious performance, led to a slight decrease in the vehicle's performance generally, and reduced the life on some suspension components."

The reduced life of some suspension items doesn't suprise me. If I remember right, the cargo capacity of a M113A1 was some where between 1,200 to 1,500 pounds. I don't know the weight of a Saladin turret, but I would bet that with a load of ammo, the FSV was over the limit. Then what we did in Vietnam was way passed the limit and the vehicle did just fine. I remember I tried to add up all the weight I had inside Boom-Boom. I don't remember the total. I do remember however that the weight of .50 cal ammo alone was over the limit. Then on top of that we would tow a Sheridan with a tow hook that was rated at 7.5 tons!

Sorry about the confuzion!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

- JG300-Ascout

...plus the "Gavin" variants with particle beam weapons, "Davey Crocketts", rail guns, and Phase Plasma Rifles in the 40W range?

Not forgetting the Airborne Gavin and also the Gavin with the 8 inch gun .....

Dirk