Com-Central.net

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

okay, now i have lost it! the MC ranks the M113 as the "the greatest infantry fighting vehicle of all time"!!!
what the F!!! it is a refrigerator!! it is made out of aluminum!!!
it is a taxi!!

what is wrong with these people.... let alone the fact that the narrator cant properly pronounce any of the foreign vehicle names...
sr

toadmanstankpictures · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 704

Did Sparky write the script for the show?

Dontos · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

- SHAWN

okay, now i have lost it! the MC ranks the M113 as the "the greatest infantry fighting vehicle of all time"!!!
what the F!!! it is a refrigerator!! it is made out of aluminum!!!
it is a taxi!!

what is wrong with these people.... let alone the fact that the narrator cant properly pronounce any of the foreign vehicle names...
sr

Take a deep breath....

I've seen the show, and as I remember its presentation, it made sense.

Of course I make this statement, eventhough SPARKY's attempts to have the (unnamed) M113 placed on a pedistol and require all humanity to bow down to Lt Gen Gavins invention. (apoligies to the memory of Gen Gavin)

What do you expect from The History Channel? Besides those shows are quite dated, and the Abrams has been aquitted of its former declared non-relevance, the M113 (along with tons of add on armor) continues to serve a mission which no other vehicle is capable of doing due to its available quantity.

Very few Main Battle Tank's IN CURRENT SERVICE have endured the level of combat service that the Abrams has, and maintained its place as one of the Best in the modern era. The Challanger II is perhaps the only other to keep its name untarnished. Oh, and perhaps the Leo I can be considered too, most other MBT's are either un-tested in combat or have failed miserably.

JMHO
Don

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

- Dontos

- SHAWN

okay, now i have lost it! the MC ranks the M113 as the "the greatest infantry fighting vehicle of all time"!!!
what the F!!! it is a refrigerator!! it is made out of aluminum!!!
it is a taxi!!

what is wrong with these people.... let alone the fact that the narrator cant properly pronounce any of the foreign vehicle names...
sr

Take a deep breath....

I've seen the show, and as I remember its presentation, it made sense.

Of course I make this statement, eventhough SPARKY's attempts to have the (unnamed) M113 placed on a pedistol and require all humanity to bow down to Lt Gen Gavins invention. (apoligies to the memory of Gen Gavin)

What do you expect from The History Channel? Besides those shows are quite dated, and the Abrams has been aquitted of its former declared non-relevance, the M113 (along with tons of add on armor) continues to serve a mission which no other vehicle is capable of doing due to its available quantity.

Very few Main Battle Tank's IN CURRENT SERVICE have endured the level of combat service that the Abrams has, and maintained its place as one of the Best in the modern era. The Challanger II is perhaps the only other to keep its name untarnished. Oh, and perhaps the Leo I can be considered too, most other MBT's are either un-tested in combat or have failed miserably.

JMHO
Don

What Don said...and....

While the term "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" is a little broad, it has fulfilled that mission on occasion, and not done badly at it.

More importantly, I'd submit that with over 80,000 built, and with it built under license in numerous countries, been in service with many more countries, and filled so many roles in so many variants for so long that it's not at all a stretch to consider it as a "winner" in this context. Consider a vehicle in it's historical context, not what's the best on the market on the most recent date, that's the test of any item. It certainly isn't the best IFV today, but was that the question?

bsmart · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

What were the other vehicles in the Top 10? I'm curious where the BTR and BRDM series placed as well as the M-3 Halftrack and the SdKfz251 as well as the Stryker and the Bradley.

If that segment ran true to form they got points for longevity, combat power, innovation etc. Any multigenerational ranking is tough but I find myself comparing where x ranked compared to y when I see these shows

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

Yeah, despite the name, it was really top 10 APCs - considering IFVs as a "subclass" (which some do). Me and my friend Kevin had a big debate over IFV vs APC when the show first ran...

Neil

piney · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

where I have a disagreement with this series (Tanks, ships ,bombers, rifles, etc) is that it uses a quantity factor as the basis for deciding a quality factor. If an item is absolutely the best of it's kind, it is just that, whether they produced a single one or 15 million. By that criterion an old four stack, flush deck US destroyer is a greater warship that an Iowa class battleship. To me,the top ten should be the ten best qualativly not numericaly

my two cents

Jeff "Piney" Lewis

Sabot · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

I'd classify the 113 as an APC, not an IFV. Even the Bradley or BMP are truly "light tanks" that can carry infantry inside. While both series enable some fighting by infantrymen inside, their main purpose is to deliver the infantry to a point on the battlefield and then provide direct fire support to the dismounts.

bsmart · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

- piney

where I have a disagreement with this series (Tanks, ships ,bombers, rifles, etc) is that it uses a quantity factor as the basis for deciding a quality factor. If an item is absolutely the best of it's kind, it is just that, whether they produced a single one or 15 million. By that criterion an old four stack, flush deck US destroyer is a greater warship that an Iowa class battleship. To me,the top ten should be the ten best qualativly not numericaly

my two cents

Jeff "Piney" Lewis

I'm gpoing to disagree with you here. "Quantity has a quality all it's own"

Within a class of weapons the ability to deploy enough items so that it is effective is important. The Sherman/T34 v Panther is a very good example of this. While neither one can match the Panther one on one they were able to compete because both could be produced in volume and deployed and supported so that they were always available in useful quantities while Panthers were never available in enough quantity to keep the units up to strength

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

- bsmart

- piney

where I have a disagreement with this series (Tanks, ships ,bombers, rifles, etc) is that it uses a quantity factor as the basis for deciding a quality factor. If an item is absolutely the best of it's kind, it is just that, whether they produced a single one or 15 million. By that criterion an old four stack, flush deck US destroyer is a greater warship that an Iowa class battleship. To me,the top ten should be the ten best qualativly not numericaly

my two cents

Jeff "Piney" Lewis

I'm gpoing to disagree with you here. "Quantity has a quality all it's own"

Within a class of weapons the ability to deploy enough items so that it is effective is important. The Sherman/T34 v Panther is a very good example of this. While neither one can match the Panther one on one they were able to compete because both could be produced in volume and deployed and supported so that they were always available in useful quantities while Panthers were never available in enough quantity to keep the units up to strength

To add to Bob's point...
And how long were Panthers in service? With how many countries? Built under license where (whether in it's original designation or in a close copy with slight modification and a "name change")? Embraced by how many other services (voluntarily, as opposed to, say, some Warsaw Pact examples) for a variety of roles because of it's versatility and longevity?

Hellfish6 · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

IIRC this show is about the most 'successful' vehicles, not the best. In that sense, yeah - you could very easily argue that the M113 is the most successful APC. How many wars has it been in? How many countries use it? How many were made. It may be mediocre as an AFV, but it's still wildly successful.

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

yes dontos, thank you, take a deep breathe....
that is all just part of the generation of power before one exhales and puts your fist thru your opponents chest...

no, you are right. but as i had mentioned, it is a show for entertainment value above all else... still gets me aggravated (MHO aside).

i can agree the vehicle has had a very successful life and has done very well. it doesnt fit into the number 1 slot using their contradictory criteria for the basis of their show. the high marks they gave the BMP (survivability, striking power/armament, protection! easily produced) had the M113 beat from the get go... the BMP was like #6. the universal carrier was 7 or 8(?), the M3 halftrack 9(?)...

Hellfish6 · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

I'd never consider the BMP, especially the BMP-1 to be a successful AFV. Revolutionary, yes - to an extent. It's got a piss poor armament system - basically a 73mm RPG with terrible accuracy, an AT-3 system that hardly ever worked properly, let alone effectively, had fuel tanks in the door, magnesium armor... the list goes on. I certainly wouldn't call it an effective or successful vehicle. I bet if you go back in time and check out the kill/loss ratios for BMPs you'd find that they've died a whole lot more than they've killed, even discounting the hundreds that the US and UK have wrecked over time.

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

Hi Shawn! Hi Folks!

- SHAWN

okay, now i have lost it! the MC ranks the M113 as the "the greatest infantry fighting vehicle of all time"!!!
it is a refrigerator!!
it is made out of aluminum!!!
it is a taxi!!

It is a refrigerator? All amored vehicles without good heaters are refrigerators.

It is made out of aluminum? So what?
The aluminum is equal to a level of steel protection that the Army was looking for when that vehicle was developed.
They found that the aluminum vehicle was something like 600 pounds lighter that one made out of steel with an equal level of protection. Total weight was very important when that vehicle was layout.

It is a taxi? I would not call my ACAVs from Vietnam taxis. The term Infantry Fighting vehicle does fit that mission profile.

Taxi is a doctrine/mission on how a vehicle is used.

Would I rate the M113 as the world's best IFV? Maybe not, but it would be near the top if it was not number one.

My 2 cents,
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:38 am Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Shawn! Hi Folks!

- SHAWN

okay, now i have lost it! the MC ranks the M113 as the "the greatest infantry fighting vehicle of all time"!!!
it is a refrigerator!!
it is made out of aluminum!!!
it is a taxi!!

It is a refrigerator? All amored vehicles without good heaters are refrigerators.

It is made out of aluminum? So what?
The aluminum is equal to a level of steel protection that the Army was looking for when that vehicle was developed.
They found that the aluminum vehicle was something like 600 pounds lighter that one made out of steel with an equal level of protection. Total weight was very important when that vehicle was layout.

It is a taxi? I would not call my ACAVs from Vietnam taxis. The term Infantry Fighting vehicle does fit that mission profile.

Taxi is a doctrine/mission on how a vehicle is used.

Would I rate the M113 as the world's best IFV? Maybe not, but it would be near the top if it was not number one.
My 2 cents,
Sgt, Scouts Out!

What Roy said, but with emphasis on the part in bold, I'd amend/add to say it was all the more remarkable because it wasn't designed to be an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, but was adapted to be one in it's prime, and served that mission with distinction.

Yes, we have some some bias with that regard, but we have some personal experience on which to base it. If I'm not mistaken, Roy came to the M113 as a Cav Scout, but I came to it with the background of a tanker, which gave me even more grounds of skepticism, if you will. I was impressed with the way the vehicle fulfilled it's role and was completely comfortable with it (and I might point out that I was offered command of an M551 Sheridan when I reported to Phu Loi, but declined it in favor of an M113, though I'd never been on one before).

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big