Talk:M113 armored personnel carrier/Archive 2

Userbox

Just for those without enough userboxes: --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This user commanded an M113 in the United States Army

Clarification of Unofficial Nickname "Gavin"

The below comments were returned to their state before improper editing that occurred on Oct. 10 and 11. Vstr (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The M113 has never had an official or unofficial nickname in common use with any branch of the United States Armed Forces. The nickname "Gavin" is the project of Michael Sparks. Mr. Sparks routinely posts on public forums across the internet in an attempt to gain support for his cause of attaching the moniker "Gavin" to the M113. I am a senior non-commissioned officer with 19 years of active service to date. All of this service has been with armor/tank or Stryker units. Armor units are equipped with M113s. Never in 19 years have I ever heard anyone, aside from Mr. Sparks and his associates refer to the M113 as a "Gavin". There are no Department of the Army (DA) or Department of Defense (DoD) publications that refer to the vehicle as a "Gavin". In the interest of providing correct information, the main article should be changed to remove the reference to the "Gavin" nickname. Tankguy 14:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1LT Sparks is an infantry officer in the USAR--which is not unusual for someone transferring from the National Guard. "Tankguy" is attempting to libel him out of emotional jealousy sans facts. Sparks actually works with the Army directly on M113 projects and is in the actual know of what is going on, not a lowly NCO like "tankguy" says he is. "Tankguy" is also hiding behind the internet to make his libelous insults whereas Sparks stands on his statements in public. If "tankguy" were to reveal his name he would be subject to UCMJ and legal action for slander (surely he is gossiping, too) libel and conduct unbecoming.

LTG Gavin was directly behind the development of the M113 and should be named after it.

I take it you are referring to the single sentence in the article: "Some sources have referred to the M113 as the "Gavin" in an allusion to Gen. Gavin, but U.S. forces have never used the name." Which part of this is incorrect? We redacted quite a bit of Gavin and Sparks references a long time ago as being POV- this was noted in the archived discussion. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the line that I referenced. It is not a huge issue, just an attempt at providing the most accurate information possible. Tankguy 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The only source that has ever called it the Gavin is Mike Sparks and his fanboys. Jtrainor (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I see Sparks is claiming to be an Infantry Officer in the USAR again. Last time I checked, he was in a support unit, not a combat arms unit. Typical. A guy with absolutely no experience in the field he is claiming expert knowledge.--Tankguy (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No reliable sources name the M113 as the "Gavin," so the reference has been removed. Rogue 9 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that the referenced statement that "Gavin" is not used by the U.S. has been removed, content indicating that it is used is creeping back in.

"Some sources have referred to the M113 as the "Gavin" in an allusion to Gen. Gavin, but U.S. forces have never used the name."

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The above was fixed by Vstr (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest at least some reference to the name 'Gavin' remain, describing the origin of it and why it's wrong? It's fairly common to hear it used (usually to point out it's wrong or attack the quality of sites that use it), and I don't think it's encyclopedic to exclude it. "M113 Gavin" gets 5,230 Google hits even with the quote marks.

Also, how on earth did Globalsecurity end up using the term here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-iav.htm ? Herr Gruber (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, 5,230 Google hits is fairly insignificant compared to 625,000 hits for "M113". As Tankguy mentioned at the beginning of this section, Mr. Sparks has been at this for awhile. His antics have been the topic of discussion on many military threads. Even talking about him will produce Google hits as you can't really talk about Mr. Sparks without mentioning "Gavin" a couple of times. (I imagine that this Wikipedia page shows up in your list.)

As for the global security article, check out this other one at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-iraq.htm. It relates to the use of the M113 in Iraq. This article does not include the use the term "Gavin", including quoting congressman Skelton (D-MO) who was writing in support of using M113s instead of HMMWVs. What you have is a leftover from Mr. Sparks' peak of activity.

The only noteworthy item from calling the M113 a "Gavin" would be a fact that Mr. Sparks has an ongoing petition for it. And, quite frankly, I don't see that as appropriate for Wikipedia. It will open them up as a source to advertise all sorts of petitions. - This paragraph was returned by Vstr (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I disagree as it would give in to the old addage, "tell a lie often enough, and it eventually becomes the truth."Vstr (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but when Globalsecurity itself actually has the name mentioned in the main M113 page: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113.htm where feels the need to debunk the idea that the M113 is called the Gavin, I think it's certainly a noteworthy meme / hoax / whatever you feel like calling it. While it would indeed give extra google hits to Sparky, I don't think a solid debunking would really benefit his 'cause' overmuch. If the article doesn't mention it at all, how are people supposed to know it's a hoax? Herr Gruber (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC) This note was returned by Vstr (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. So, how do you propose to word such a statement? Vstr (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell is "tankguy"?

Life is not over on Planet Earth. So who is he to say "never" when M113 Gavins are already so named unofficially by THOUSANDS of people?

Do the google search.

In my 3 decades of U.S. military service I have heard dozens of Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines refer to the M113 Gavin. Let's pretend tankguy is who he claims to be, the armor units he lists are only a decreasing fraction of what the U.S. Army, and the rest of the U.S. military is composed of. If he's a lower-ranking enlistedman he is also not informed about what the officers who actually run the military are thinking or doing. In short, he is no authority on the subject, especially if he's a moral coward unwilling to identify himself so we can verify his claims.

Tankguy is a liar and a lemming to the bureaucracy who is envious that others with more initiative than him have successfully accomplished something to make America's Army better.

In the interest of factual clarity, the Wiki article should ignore envy-driven, non-factual comments and stop contradicting the obvious reality that the M113 Gavin is the unofficial nickname for this outstanding vehicle in use by THOUSANDS of people. Sour grapes are not the basis of anything--but an individual who scorns the truth.

This is Wikipedia--not WikiEnvy or WikiGossip.

98.88.212.229 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I call it the Gavin as well. And it is not the only vehicle to receive an "unofficial nickname" -- indeed this is the very nature and core concept of nicknames: being unofficial ! Nicknames need no government bureaucracy to assign them to anything or anybody. Take the A-10 Thunderbolt II as an example - its "official nickname" is Thunderbolt II, but everybody just calls it the warthog. That's a completely unofficial name, neither the US Army/Air Force nor the manufacturer refer to the plane as the "warthog". It's a nickname. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, to paraphrase the poster, "Who the hell is 98.88.212.229?" Why should we believe you when you call him a liar?

Second, the A-10 Thunderbolt II page does say that "Warthog" is an unofficial nickname, just like this page says that "Gavin" is the M113's. Also, the original manufacturer of the A-10 is out of business. The company that took over doesn't mention that plane, at all.Vstr (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

M113 Gavin

I'm waiting. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a Gavin section above. It does not look like a consensus to remove was reached though. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:M113 Armored Personnel Carrier/Archive 1#Gavin Advocacy. Someone removed the Gavin name altogether, leading of course to its insertion again.

It is difficult to disprove the use of something like a nickname, but you will not find "Gavin" used in any official U.S. Army or FMC/BAE sources. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea why I have this watchpaged, but anyway :) The FAS source does give the informal nickname, but if there are no other WP:RS that refer to it that way, then I doubt it should be in the article. Skinny87 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, on further viewwing, Google Book search for 'M113 Gavin' seems to support Wallie's inclusion. [1]. The 'Asia-Defence Reporter', the 'Fighting 69th' and 'Air Mech Strike' all seem to point to the M113 being referred to as the 'M113 Gavin'. Skinny87 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Skinny. All I am saying is that it is known as the M113 Gavin sometimes. It is also known as the APC. By the way, the US is not the only army which uses the M113. Wallie (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had bothered to actually read the previous discussions you'd find that nobody has suggested that - at all. SJSA 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Working off of Google Book Search, we get 3 hits for "M113 Gavin", but we get 2,250 hits for "M113". One of the 'Gavin' hits was co-authored by Mike Sparks. Google does not have the 'Asia-Defense Reporter' on-line to properly review. 'Fighting 69th', which is on-line, had only one reference to "M113 Gavin" and had four more references to just "M113". (The vehicle is treated with a rather low regard in this book, just based on the hits I listed here.)Vstr (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No one in the US Army calls the 113 a 'Gavin'. I support keeping it in there *only* as a refutation of a myth. DMorpheus (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Gavin is uncommon, only a mention in the Nicknames section would be fitting. Present in whichever manner supported by valid references. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC) This comment was returned by Vstr (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't uncommon, more precisely, it is a myth being pushed by one guy. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well in any event usage appears uncommon in print given only a couple relevant hits in the google book search linked above. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wallie is a pest, but saying he's pushing a myth is a tad harsh, given the sources in Google Books; they might not be common, but they don't look like SPS sources or unreliable, even if in the minority. Skinny87 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again don't ignore the previous ongoing discussions, above this one, and archived. The matter at hand seems to be to 'refute the myth' as DMorpheus put it. SJSA 22:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to give it a shot. The following is my attempt at a new paragraph to be placed at the end of the Nicknames section.

"Starting around 2000, there has been an on-line attempt to get the US Army to assign the M113 an official name. The proposed name is 'Gavin', after Gen James M. Gavin. While the use has started occasionally appear, this attempt has not been successful. Due to plans announced by the US Army to eventually remove the vehicle from service, it is doubtful that this attempt will succeed."

PS: I have read Gen. Gavin's career. He is definitely an officer that should be honored. Naming any vehicle after him would be one such method. However, I heartily disagree that we should do this so late in this particular vehicle's career. Vstr (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has commented on my attempt, I made a couple of tweaks and entered in an update.Vstr (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but it still needs to be referenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I will correct you're change. BTW, the British firm BAE is either the producer for or involved in the following current US Army vehicles: M113, M2 Bradley, M109 Paladin, MRAP, JLTV, and FCS.Vstr (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I don't think it matters much to list where BAE Systems is based. The company has expanded into the US in recent years. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's an article on the web with the title "Don't call it a Gavin", which indicates that while some people dispute the use of the term, they do acknowledge that SOME people have used the term, and while one fellow has been identified as pushing that term, there are a number of other people who have adopted that term. It's certainly a nickname with better references that prove its use than some of the nicknames mentioned on military equipment articles such as "hooter" for the S-3 for example. Bachcell (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-org

They're too many topics on this page dealing with "Gavin". There should only be one the following sub-topics were once separate topics that I pulled into this one. Nothing was deleted or otherwise edited. Vstr (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

M113 Gavin

This has still not been resolved. Most people seem to be in favor of using M113 Gavin as a way to name this vehicle. There is plenty of evidence that the name is widely used. There seems to be a very energetic few who want to not have this under any circumstances. Let's hear it, folks. :) Wallie (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Usage of this name seems to be patchy in US publications and I've never seen the name 'Gavin' used in Australian publications (Australia operates 700 M-113s) and I suspect that the same is the case for the other non-US operators. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

700 is not many out of 80,000. Other countries use the correct name, the M113 Gavin. I would hate to think what Australia calls it - the M113 Bruce? Wallie (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Which 'other countries' use the name 'Gavin'? The many Australian variants of the M113 have been called ...M113s. Even the current M113AS3 and M11SAS4 project, which has involved rebuilding and extensively modifying about 450 of the the Australian Army's M113s hasn't led to the vehicles gaining any kind of official name (see: [2]). Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with Nick; research seems to indicate this wasn't a widely-used or well-known nickname used by any nation. Sources also fail to support it. Skinny87 (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Two years ago, I added the naming section, including:

Some sources have referred to the M113 as the "Gavin" in an allusion to Gen. Gavin, but U.S. forces have never used the name.

This was referenced to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113.htm, which states:

Some advocates have indicated that the M113 is also nicknamed the "Gavin", after an Army general who was influential in the development of the M113 in the 1950s. This is not however, an official designation, and there is some question about the extent to which actual users of the system use this name.

Someone went on an anti-Gavin streak and removed this, which of course led to Gavin being added and removed.

The bottom line: are there any reliable sources the explicitly state that Gavin is the name of the M113? Are there any that state that Gavin is used as a nickname? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. There does seem to be violent opposition to the "Gavin". Gavin is not THE name, but a commonly used name. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Wallie (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from FAS, none of those are reliable sources, Wallie. And I'm not even sure about FAS. Skinny87 (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. Let's go with the FAS reference then. Wallie (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A single source does not mean we can call it the Gavin, especially when the other RSs don't use that name. Skinny87 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that it is a realiable source and does use the name M113 Gavin. We are not calling it the M113 Gavin, but using M113 Gavin as an alternate name. The name M113 Armored Personnel Carrier is being used as the main name. I would like to know why you and others are so vehemently opposed to Gavin, when it is vety clearly used to name the vehicle. Wallie (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So, we have a reasonably reliable source to show that the M113 is often called the M113 Gavin. Reliable reference supporting the M113 Gavin. If there are no objections, I will add this to the article, showing the M113 Gavin as one of the alternative names for the M113, which it clearly is. Thank you. :) Wallie (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wallie, a single source - which may not even be reliable for all I know, is not enough to put this in the article - it would be giving undue WP:WEIGHT to the idea that it's called the Gavin. Skinny87 (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The M113 is not called Gavin - and has never been called Gavin by any users. The M113 and other similar vehicles are frequently called "Tanks" by journalists who don't know better - That doesn't mean we rename the article M113 Tank or say that the M113 is a Tank.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reading this again, I guess it is a proposal to rename the article. The U.S. Army, FMC and BAE have never used this name. I have a full set of manuals and Gavin is never used. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is NO WAY the article should be renamed. NO ONE uses this name in the real world. If we re-name the article we are falling for the worst sort of internet myth-making. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of scare mongering I hate. It is like a double whammy. The first person says "this might be happening". The second says "this is really happening and it is terrible".

No one has suggested we rename the article at all. No one. No one at all, least of all me. I am merely suggest that the name M113 Gavin be added to the article. The name is used, in addition to other names. Wallie (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But Wallie, it isn't used by the US Army, any other military force using it, or by its producers; and you only have one (possibly) reliable source that gives the name. So it shouldn't be added to the article. Can you find any Reliable Sources that point to it being called the M113 Gavin? Skinny87 (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have already added that there is an ongoing attempt to name it. Nothing more needs to be added.

As for why the anger at Gavin? Simple:

• Its a recent push. The M113 had a good 40-year run without a name, or an attempt at a formal name. Trying to change that alters tradition. And soldiers hold their traditions dear.
• Why does it have to have a name? A historic veteran of WW2, the US M3 Halftrack never had an official name.
• Mike Sparks. Read his website at combatreform.com, or check out one of his youtube videos. His ranting and insults far exceed anything that I have personally encountered on the web.

Vstr (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Heres me thinking that it is the old 101st rivalry with the 82nd yet again. Wallie (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not the official name. Already has a redirect to handle anyone searching for it using Gavin. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I think I've heard the Gavin nickname used once, and that was in a recounting in one of the books by something like Squadron Signal publications or Osprey or something similiar. However, it's the only time I've heard it. If there's a nickname for the M113 that is more common it is Zelda and that only applies to specific Israeli variants. I can't say i've heard the Gavin name in popular useage. Compare it to nicknames that have been used in military hardware before. For instance, the A-10 Warthog or similiar. This name if it really does exists is far from common. Douglasnicol (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I hear you all loud and clear. Wallie (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"using M113 Gavin as a way to name this vehicle" If you wanted to rename the article, then I think there is clear opposition. If you want to include content on the use of Gavin as a name, then I would say yes, Gavin should be noted as a name, but not given undue weight. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I never ever wanted to rename the article. Some people have been propagating this myth. People here are objecting (quite violently) to even mentioning the name Gavin in the article. The way all the opposes are coming up, you would think I was trying to introduce the name M113 Obama! Wallie (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be YOU my friend: "Most people seem to be in favor of using M113 Gavin as a way to name this vehicle. Wallie (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)" This post may have been misinterpreted as a desire to change the article name - I know I read it that way. Glad I was wrong about your intentions. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gadget. That is what I wanted. It seems though that we are outnumbered. I don't think Gavin is too popular with some people. I should bow out anyway from this. I still think Gavin was a great guy. I am in the minority, though. :( Wallie (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it doesn't matter what you, or I, or any Wikipedia editor thinks of General Gavin, nor does it matter if we think the M113 should or should not be named after him. The only thing that matters is whether or not that is already the case, and it is clearly not. Wikipedia is not a place for advancing your own ideas and opinions on a subject, its for cataloging facts. SJSA 15:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of people call it the gavin and it should be mentioned in the article, like it already is.--92.251.245.188 (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to tell it like it is, why not say something akin to "There is a small, but highly controversial amongst the general populace, movement which for no rational reason in the last decade or so has decided that the M113 needs a name, and has selected 'Gavin' to be that name. This movement has gained no traction in either the US Army's official organs, the manufacturer, or the users." Plenty of people think the Space Lizards will come down to enslave us within 30 years, I don't believe saying 'plenty of people' is a supportable phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.185.244 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• OpposeI entered the Army in November 1983 and served until March 1988 as a 19D Cavalry Scout. During my time with C 6th Cav at Ft Knox KY from Nov 83 to Apr 84 in Basic/OSUT, NO ONE, no recruit, no permanent party, no drill sergeant EVER referred to the M113 as anything other than an "M113" or "track" or "apc"...

Same when I was stationed in E Trp, 2/6 Cav at Ft Knox,KY from Apr 85 to Sep 85, no one, out of the hundreds of fellow soldiers, NCO's, and officers and armor school students EVER referred to the M113 except as a "M113", "apc", or "track".

When I was stationed in Germany from Sept 85 to Mar 88 when I ETS'd and finished my tour of enlistment with an honorable discharge and having made E5 within my first enlistment (very rare), out of the hundreds of fellow soldiers, NCO's, and officers I served with in E trp, 2/2 ACR, no one EVER referred to the M113 except as a "M113", "apc", or "track"....

So to sum up I served almost half a decade both stateside and in Germany and out of thousands of fellow soldiers, NCOs, and officers, the M113 was only ever referred to as a "M113", "apc", or "track".

It is what it is, regardless of the revisionist history some individuals might desire...

Roy Franklin Waugh III, 19D20, SGT/E-5, E Trp, 2nd Sqdn, 2nd ACR (Sep 85-Mar88) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B20F:91B9:C1C3:E776:B292:412B (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

comment on the Gavin thing

Anyone who thinks the Army would name a land combat vehicle after an Airborne general is pretty dumb. Jtrainor (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not, it's not like the army is that divided. The M551 Sheridan was named after a land general. Creighton Abrams was one of the pioneers of air assault (i.e. helicopter borne) operations and they named a main battle tank after him.--92.251.245.188 (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's the core of the whole Gavin controversy: It's an Army vs. Air Force thing - the Army brass (not the common soldier, just the brass heads) cannot allow a vehicle to be named after an Air Force general. It would hurt their volatile egos. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Do some basic research! Go to the James M. Gavin page for crying out loud! Gen. Gavin was never in the Air Force. He was a paratrooper. US Army all the way. And don't go try telling me that the US Army brass have a thing against paratroopers. The Stryker is named after two NCO paratroopers.Vstr (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So what ? The Army doesn't like flying things. Content now ? The M113 was designed to be a paratrooper vehicle, it is fully airdroppable and contrary to a Stryker it fits in any C-130 without preparations or modifications, and in many other US Army and Air Force planes, fully rigged up with platform and parachutes and fuel and ammo and a complement of driver, commander and 11 soldiers. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply: General Sheridan was a US Cavalry officer; General Abrams was a US Armor officer (Tank Officer). Tanks officially replaced horses in the US Army in 1942 when Congress deactivated the US Horse Cavalry. The US Armored Forces were created in 1940. Consequently, it is appropiate for tanks or Sheridans (Armored Airborne Reconnaissance Assault Vehicles) to be named Sheridan or Abrams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.32.38 (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Gavin

Under the rules of WP:BURDEN and WP:V please provide a reliable source that One individual began an online campaign in 1995 to have the U.S. Army assign the name "Gavin" to the M113, named after General James M. Gavin. Currently this material is primary sourced to a sidenote in a magazine article; this is insufficient. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded it to remove WP:BLP concerns. Instead of making sideways aspersians against the author of the cited article, I changed it to merely report the facts which can be confirmed by the cited source. I have no particular opinion in this case; I have no clue what this vehicle is or what it does, but it seems clear that this is part of a larger dispute, and letting that dispute spill into the article text seems unwise. --Jayron32 15:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good move, Jayron. For whatever reason there is a huge crowd of people who vehemently deny that many US soldiers, army personnel and civilians, refer to the M113 as the "Gavin", since General Gavin played a decisive role in the development of this vehicle. For those deniers, it's like a religion, they are absolutely mad about it and do not tolerate the mere notion that there are people who call the M113 "Gavin." I personally know three such US soldiers. I don't know what the anti-Gavin crowd is motivated by, I can only speculate that it might have something to do with the "Stryker", another US army vehicle, but a wheeled one. It cannot be the often-heard pretense, at any rate, that the nickname "Gavin" was "unofficial", since nicknames are almost always unofficial by nature and definition. Many other vehicles and planes of the US armed forces got unofficial nicknames, too, which are not used by either manufacturer or the armed forces nomenclature, but only by the troops and civilians - examples include the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark, which was only named so officially after its retirement, or the Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, which is only called "Warthog" by the pilots and plane aficionados. Anyway, to cut a long story short: The current wording is the bare minimum in my opinion. It is not only this one source which refers to the M113 as the "Gavin" - just do a quick google search "M113 Gavin" (without the " "), and you'll find articles on rense.com ( http://www.rense.com/general26/gavin.htm ), fas.org ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm ), globalsecurity.com ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-iav.htm ), and many other reputable websites dealing with military stuff. So there is more than just one source referring to the M113 as "Gavin". -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem, which has been explained several times, is that the phrasing used (and removed) wasn't supported by the references given. It's that simple. (Hohum ^@) 01:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a small tweak, to say "some". All we can establish positively is that some people use the term Gavin. There is no evidence in reliable sources to claim more than that regarding the name. Reviewing the sources that Alexey Topol has provided, the first looks like a self-published webpage; very amaturish and doesn't look to be part of any organization which has a reputation for reliability, per WP:RS. The second, fas.org, looks OKish; it looks like a subpage of something called the Federation of American Scientists, and looks more professionally done; but professional appearence isn't necessarily a hallmark of reliability. The third source, globalsecurity.org, spambombed my webbrowser when I opened it, and my antivirus and antispam software freaked out. No way that is a good source. Reliable sources don't do that sort of stuff. It seems noncontroversial to mention the sometimes used nickname once. Giving it more prominence than that doesn't seem to be wise, given the lack of reliable sources to verify it. --Jayron32 03:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Call me utterly unconvinced I'm afraid. I am unable to find a source that identifies this as a nickname in any sort of common use, it seems to be something of an internet based meme and not really relevant. I can't find a source suggesting any significant number of people in the army refer to the vehicle in this way. None of the above provided sources explain the origin of the name or its use, and none seem reliable --Errant ^(chat!) 09:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org is one of the most recognized military and defence websites on the net. It doesn't get any more reputable than that. They got rave reviews and recommendations from all over the world, incl. NPR, The New York Times, The Times, and USA Today. See here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm ... Your claim that the site spammed you and gave you virus alerts is totally ridiculous and obviously false, I get no such alerts and my system is very well protected. You are obviously trying to discredit a reputable source here. Given the praise the site received from some of the most respected newspapers in the world, I will put that link into the article as soon as I find the time. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this source exists which we might be able to do something with. The link you posted is useless because it refers to Gavin once, in the title, with no information about that... Global Security, with some digging (praise for them is irrelevant) appears to have named staff and an editorial process, so we'll run with it as reliable --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I nailed it. As best I can tell this is a "meme" with little adoption and treated as a hoax by most (including Global Security ;)). So hopefully I dealt with that neutrally in the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I think it can't get any more neutral than it now appears in the article - though I strongly disagree with the notion of the Gavin nickname being a hoax. You can easily put it to the test and ask a couple of US soldiers if they know a vehicle known as Gavin. Any bet that more than half of them will identify it as the M113. I also support the removal of the sentence referring to the US manufacturers nomenclature, since this is really redundant and self-evident without expressly stating it. Good job. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, Alexey---I spent 22 years in the US Army and still have a SF346 (military driver's license) with "M113 all variants" on the endorsement list.

No one---that's NO ONE---in the US Army calls the M113 the "Gavin." Never have, never will.

It's always been the "113" or the "track" or the "APC."

The ONLY source of this Gavin bullshit is that schizophrenic asshole Mike Sparks, who couldn't hack the Marine Corps RESERVE and got kicked out of the Army RESERVE. Google his name and you'll find the facts about this "Gavin" crap.

My praise was for your previous version. We should not engage in discussions as to the extent of use of certain nicknames here, since this would lead to endless contradicting testimonies and speculations, and not be limited to the Gavin nickname, either. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

.As we are treating GS as a reliable source I am going purely on their summary - which is that some people call it a Gavin but that it is not common within the armed forces I know a total of 6 US soldiers. 5 of them had no idea what I was on about, the 6th called it an "urban myth". But that is irrelevant; I did it to get a sense of the extent of use --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok I reverted. It is entirely innacurate what was written. We must get across two things; a) that this is not an official designation and b) that it does not seem to be widely adopted. This is what the source you suggested says :) Please try to accurately reflect sources and do not work in dis-information --Errant ^(chat!) 10:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I do, ErrantX. We also established fas.org as a reliable source, and they write in their introductory sentence on the M113: "The M113A1, informally known as the Gavin, is a lightly armoured full tracked air transportable personnel carrier ..." - see here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm . So they acknowledge "Gavin" as a nickname, and globalsecurity.org addresses it, too, and in a somewhat contradictorial way, by giving that isolated testimony of a single soldier on the one hand, and calling it Gavin themselves in another article. So let's keep the wording neutral in the wiki article, and not make up usage speculations. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FAS is not a reliable source I am afraid, at least as far as I can make out. Also; it only deals with the name in brief, confirming what we know so far. No need to avoid the detail in GS and suggesting that this is a widespread nickname is dis-information, to do so is very pointy. I'd point out that it is not speculation by the source, and it is not your place to critique which parts are "the truth" or cherry pick what you want to have in the article. This is a weird campaign to have it recognised as a widespread nickname :P funny what matters to some! Can we source that campaign? It would be interesting content. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah reverted again.... genius... This is getting extremely silly and pointed. Acurracy is important pushing your point is silly and teditious. stop now --Errant ^(chat!) 11:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can judge, fas.org (Federation of American Scientists) is as reliable a source as it gets. You will never find any in-depth articles on nicknames or their use, by the way - and this applies to all nicknames. You might as well delete all the other nicknames, excluding thos of the IDF, which are official names actually. Fact is, we have two sources calling the M113 the Gavin. Just state it as it is. The section is for the mention of nicknames, not the in-depth analysis of their value or use. We got two sources connecting the M113 with the nickname Gavin, and that's all we need. -- Alexey Topol (talk)

Nope. It fails RS on a number of points. Also; that there is no info on the other nicknames is irrelevant. We have deeper info on this one, so it is sensible to include it. But of course attempts to do that were "vandalism", right? I get fed up of fucking stupid stuff like this, it's hardly the end of the world if people don't really use the nickname. is it? ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

> please provide a reliable source that One individual began an online campaign in 1995 to have the U.S. Army assign the name "Gavin" to the M113

Better late than never. I wish Internet Archive went back further and/or it's search worked. But here is a link to an archive of some of Mr. Sparks' original websites, they don't establish earliest dates, but they are representative (reocities is an archive of what once was on geocities):

http://www.reocities.com/air_mech_strike/

And specifically ones where he is the proponent of trying to change the name (beware the one image of a letter from someone in Washington in reply back to him, obviously the staffer of the Representative just used the same terminology as Mr. Sparks used in the original letter to him, note how much emphasis Mr. Sparks places on the simple fact that the name was even used in any type of correspondence on official letterhead):

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/afv.html

http://www.reocities.com/gavinpetition/

And an extremely long thread in 2001 where he argues with a huge forum of military users (note that his username is DynamicPara):

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/us.military.army/m113$20gavin/us.military.army/0McoA_GdQRc/ttBOyzoAfiYJ

And the very first thread ever on Usenet (well, as far as google groups search shows) in 1998 with the word Gavin -- one with Mr. Sparks:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.folklore.military/-cxeAMTTCGc

Mr. Sparks is the sole source of the term Gavin with regards to this vehicle. He is enormously prodigious in the amount of raw material he has put on the net in the past 15 years, the main page alone on his current website is 50+MB in size, that's raw text and simple images. If anyone associates the term with the vehicle, it is solely due to his efforts. If someone at FAS or in reply to letters that he himself has written to them has re-used the term, it's solely due to his influence.

> This is utterly rediculous

I think many people feel that it's important that one zealot not be able to single handedly do something like this against everyone else's wishes, especially considering just how "out there" all of his stuff is.

CraigWyllie (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Mr" Sparks is the proper term of address. Although he continues to pass himself off as a US Army officer, the fact is that he has not been affiliated with the US armed forces for years. It's a simple matter to search for his name in the AKO directory if one has access to it, and such a search turns up no one of that name who is a member of the unit he claims to be a member of, nor of any other unit in the vicinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.254.164 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Note from protecting admin

I have a couple things to say:

• This article is protected for one month. In that interval, you can either agree to unprotect it early, or agree on edits to be made via the {{editrequest}} tag, and either I or another administrator will make the edits.
• A personal note: I used to work for the US Department of Defense, and more recently as a defense contractor. I can tell you that we considered fas.org to be a reliable source — at times too reliable for comfort, because they published information that wasn't approved for public release, information they got from documents mistakenly posted in public or leaked. In the government circles I lived in, that site was considered a good reference, a good source of intelligence-gathering for military information worldwide.

Your move, guys. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The protection was a little quickly placed to be honest (although, someone else did jump in and do a revert w/o discussion), of course, it ended up at a version I support so don't expect me to moan too loudly. :) I did some digging too on fas.org, yes it seems reliable enough. But it didn't really support the assertions made in the above thread; thanks for the input though, perhaps FAS could be added as a source at some point --Errant ^(chat!) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Gavin"? - This is utterly rediculous

What the hell? Who would waste so much of their life advocating something be called "Gavin" when it has never ever been called "Gavin" in real life by anyone in the Army - USA or foreign armies.

The sad individuals advocating this "Gavin thing should really get a life. Nobody calls it the "Gavin". Period.

Signed: AUSTRALIAN CAV Troop Commander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.70.27 (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Folks, I was requested by another editor if I had any information about this issue. The name "Gavin" was a marketing ploy on an improved M-113 by the then defence firm FMC during the competition in the 1990s for a family of vehicles for the lighter medium division won by the Canadian LAV III -- ie the Stryker. It was a very bitter dispute with hundreds of letters in military publications (especially the Army Times), lobbying in Congress, etc. I got a brochure some where in my touch and find file system, which I will post one of these days or years. The name was used by FMC, never the US Army as far as I can remember.JackJackehammond (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sparky's sites are hardly reliable sources on this issue. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, claification on "Gavin"

The recent posting of a link to an Army War College document, surprisingly, cannot be taken as a reliable source. On page 173 of the document, the authors specify that they are taking the information from the book, Air-Mech Strike, which was co-authored by Mike Sparks. (Mr. Sparks is given credit for his contribution in the War College document.) The authors of the War College document admit that they read the book, consider the ideas interesting, and recommend further study. All the authors are doing, by their own admission, is "parroting" the book's statements. Thus, this is not a reliable source.

While the list of authors on the War College document looks impressive, I'm sad to see that they obviously did not perform any in depth research on "Air-Mech Strike". This can be seen by claiming the M8 Armored Gun System was based on the Wiesel AWC. Nothing could be further from the truth. The M8 has some similar components to the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, though.Vstr (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames error

Hi Folks!

While review this article today I notice a statement that is incorrect.

In the Nicknames section there is the following:

"(another nickname is "Zippo" after the brand of lighters, as the M113 tends to combust when hit by anti-tank weapons)."

The first part is correct, the second part which by it's self is correct however the parts together are not related and is an error.

The name "Zippo" was used when troops were talking about the M-132 Flame Thrower version of the M-113 family.

As for combusting when hit, that was do to all the personel gear and small arms ammo we carried. The small arms ammo would get blasted open spilling gun power all over the personel gear which had been set on fire by the blast. One thing fed the other until the fuel tank would cook off. Once a fire got started, do to the amount of ammo carried and a lack of fire fighting equipment, the vehicle was left to burn until the fire when out on it's own.

Sgt, Scouts Out! RoySgtscoutsout (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow up, please review the following link for the correct use of the name "Zippo"

http://www.ichiban1.org/html/cs_flame.htm

Zippo was/is the nickname for the M-132 Flame Thrower version of the M-113 FOV's. Roy Sgtscoutsout (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed it SJSA 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJSA (talk • contribs)

Also, 'jævla møkka vogn' does not translate as 'fridge'. 'Jævla' means 'damned' and 'vogn' means 'car'. I don't know what 'møkka' means, but it sounds dirty. In Faroeish, 'mokka' means 'fuck', so let's take a wild guess... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.5.235 (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Google translate says it's norwegian for "fucking shit wagon". Hmm. (Hohum ^@) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the unreferenced nicknames, they were unreferenced anyway. (Hohum ^@) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph false, subjective and POV

The relevant phrases read:

"Although not a tank, or even designed as a fighting vehicle, the M113 was the most-used armored vehicle of the Vietnam War[citation needed]."

Anything that is tracked and armored is a tank by definition. And of course the M113 was designed from the outset - the vision of General Gavin - to be a fighting vehicle for the infantery.

"It inspired newer generations of more heavily armored and armed infantry fighting vehicles. Yet it remains in front-line service and production in the 21st century, and the M113 was recently declared the best in a television comparison of "top 10" armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.[2]"

Whether some entertainment TV-show declared it to be the "best tank ever" or not is completely irrelevant. This should be purged off the article completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.141.18 (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Note-During the Vietnam era, in the US Army, the fire command from the TC for "any tracked vehicle" was (example): "...Gunner! Heat! (loader yelled "UP!") Tank! (Gunner replied "Identified!") FIRE!" For fire commands, "tracked and armored" vehicles are tanks. By definition however, a tank is GUN & ARMOR. No armor, is a self propelled gun. No gun, is a personnel carrier. Add the two together, GUN & ARMOR=tank.

It's gun+armour+turret that equals a tank. Self-propelled guns can be armoured too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.5.235 (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The fire command for a non-tank (soft skinned vehicle) would be (during the Vietnam era, US Army (Marines may have been different): "...Gunner! HE (High Explosive-Loader yells up!)Truck (Gunner yells "Identified!") FIRE!" We had to yell in those days, even with the CVC (Combat Vehicle Crewman) helmet on. Background noise from the intercom, over the net, engine noise, turret power noise, machine gun noise, and normal verbal crewmen yelling...added to other combat noises...helicopters/jets/artillery/mortars, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.0.105 (talk • contribs)

Number built conflict

The article has conflicting information, saying "About 100,000 M113s of all types have been produced worldwide" and listing "Number built ~80,000 (all variants)".

Which is the preferred number? Alvis (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you count all variants and also take into account that the M113 remains in production even today, it's a safe bet that more than 100,000 vehicles have been produced thus far. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a source that someone is building new M113s. Any current production is probably a rebuild or a refurbish. (As a side note - the US has not built a new Abrams since the mid-80s, either. Yet, the tank plant at Lima still has them rolling off the production line. Its all upgrades and refreshes, though.) How many of the variants were rebuilds, and not new? There's to many questions to make an assumption. Please provide source data.Vstr (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Go look it up yourself vstr. Stop giving orders ya lazy soandso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.34.105 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Design and Development

In spite of supposedly major recent revamp, this section is still in need of rewrite. There are only three or four paragraphs dealing with the design and development, separated by a vast area which largely duplicates the information in the "Combat History - Vietnam" section, or which belongs in the "Variants" section. HLGallon (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I began copyediting it, but a true rewrite is needed. DMorpheus (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest rearrange text to put in more fitting sections to start. I'll see what I can do on this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern rifle AP amunition can defeat it

The article writes:"The M113 introduced new aluminum armor that made the vehicle much lighter and stiffer than earlier vehicles. This protected the crew and passengers against much of the small arms fire available to enemy infantry." Well aluminum alloys aren't better than steel to defeat bullets.Modern AP .308 Winchester can defeat this kind of armor easily.See this site: http://club.guns.ru/eng/barnaul.html Agre22 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)agre22

• 'Much of the small arms available to infantry' does not translate to 'high powered rifles firing armour piercing ammunition,' you'll find. Most infantry don't have those. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

.308 winchester equals 7.62mm NATO which is a fairly common caliber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.71.165 (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The above is FALSE because the M113 was always meant to have applique' armor added to it to increase protection beyond 7.62mm AP. The M113A3 Super Gavins with high hardness steel are far more protected than rifle AP ammunition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.30.143 (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• The problem with your claim, 74.190.30.143 (please get a real log-in name), is that the listed vehicle performance (speed, weight, air-portability, etc.) are set without any applique armor. Note that this is typical for every other military vehicle in the world.Vstr (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

M113 designation

In the introduction paragraph is says

The Military Channel's "Top Ten" series named the M113 the most significant infantry fighting vehicle in history

However, the M113 is not classed as an infantry fighting vehicle in its base configuration by any armed force I know of. The Military Channel is not an appropriate source for reclassifying of the M113as an IFV IMHO.--60.229.48.79 (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The M113 was officially called and used as ACAV (Armored Cavalry Fighting Vehicle) by the US Army during Vietnam - it was not limited to the role of "personnel carrier", but accompanied tanks and convois, beat thru the bush and patrolled cities much like today the Bradley does. So it actually was classed as an infantry fighting vehicle even by the US Army. Needless to say that even today, many other armies who use the M113 do class and use it as a fighting vehicle as well, incl. Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and Singapore. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is imo due to be removed, it doesn't have any encyclopedic value. --Tim.vogt (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

the land mine thing

I noticed that nobody commented on how many people used to ride on the OUTSIDE of these. My father was a mechanic in Vietnam and always used to tell us stories about how most people in his outfit would sit on the outside during transport in the field. Apparently, land mines were a much bigger risk than anything else. One account still haunts me to this day about how he peaked into one that had a few guys in it after a land mine went off. He said that it looked just like somebody spackled the entire inside with burnt hamburger. Apparently, the majority of the ones that he worked on came in due to the road wheels being blown off from mines. So I guess that the armor was effective while sitting stationary but pretty much useless during transit. Anywho... 76.3.151.73 (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: US Army Mechanized Infantry battalions are listed in the article; which battalion was your father assigned to? Additionally the three armor battalions; 2/34th, 1/69th, and the 1/77th Armor had M113s assigned to the HQ company; in addition all US Armored Cav squadrons and the 11th ACR (the 11th consisted of at least 3 full squadrons) had MANY M113s; in fact the Armored Cav consisted of only M551 Sheridans and M113 ACAVs from '69 onward-except for the 11thACR which retained a Patton tank company in each sqd. Men stood in the cargo hatches as they rode; or sat on top if it was a long journey. 4 to 5 men to a track plus TC/.50 gunner & driver; scouts, grunts, mechanics, mortarmen, medics, etc. all rode the ACAV. Rode OUTSIDE because all the gear was piled up inside the track...like a pick-up truck or camper or RV. The whole floor-board consisted of M60 and .50 cal steel ammo cans...narrow cans were the M60 boxes which contained 200 rounds and fifty cans which consisted of 100 rounds (today they might only contain 85 rds) were the usual ones you find at the surplus stores. When a track hit a mine, you had to Un-A-- the vehicle ASAP. They burned and the ammo described above, went off, etc. In addition, the fighting ACAV belonging to the grunts (Mech Inf) or the CAV contained claymore mines (which are packed with C4), Bangalore torpedos, frag & smoke grenades, trip flares, and diesel fuel (not to mention all that ammo). Riding atop the tracks allowed easy on and off access, more room for the ash & trash, and getting blown off rather than concussioned to death (from being inside) seem to be a preferred chance to take. Last, but not least, riding on top was like riding a motorcycle with the breeze in your hair on a nice sunny day...a year's a long time...saw alot of wild countrysides riding atop ACAVs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.62.58 (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comments about the joy of riding atop instead of inside, Anonymous. That was certainly a factor, too. The M113 and M113A1 versions used in Vietnam still had inside fuel tanks on the floor, which indeed endangered the troops if hit by a mine or RPG. Those tanks were later removed and replaced by outside fuel tanks on the rear left and right from the exit hatch, starting with the M113A2, which eliminated the danger of fire in the crew compartment. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The fuel tank was not on the floor, it was on the LHS at the rear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.187.67 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The article has this, "and "belly armor"—steel armor bolted from the front bottom extending 1/2 to 2/3 of the way towards the bottom rear of the M113", but no mention why. Mines should be mentioned in the article.

M58?

not sure if M58 is proper vehicle nominclature, since that would predate the M59. I suspect M58 is the name of the smoke generator itself. kinda of like the M7 of WWII fame. theres a lot of confusion like this with M- numbers. Brian in denver (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

M58 is correct— it is included in the operator and service manuals. See User:Gadget850/M113 bibliography and http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m58.htm. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• rereading the article I see its a SYSTEM number. systems are there own M-series and are usually perty hard to nail down. like whats an M57 system? Brian in denver (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Its the designation for the complete system, which includes the M113 as the carrier vehicle from what I can tell. M163 is also a complete system designation. The carrier vehicle there is a variant of the M113, the M741. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed false claims

I removed the following from the article:

"Even with the ACAV version of the vehicle, the mounted troops had reduced ability to add to the fight, and were left closed-up inside. In many engagements they had no role in combat, unable to exit the vehicle while under fire."

This is factually wrong (and of course it lacks citation, too, but that's not what I focus on). The M113 did not get its nickname "Green Dragon" from the Vietcong for being useless in fights and having "no role in combat," as you can imagine. The South Vietnamese army quickly discovered their usefulness as true fighting vehicles, they developped the legendary ACAV configuration (it was no American invention !), and they used the M113 to go thru rice paddies and the thickets of the jungle, where foot infantry could only move slowly or not at all. And of course it was used in heavy combat. The US Army soon copied the ACAV configuration and tactics of the South Vietnamese, to great effect. After the Vietnam War, however, the US Army abandoned the highly effective and at the same time very cheap and simple ACAV configuration, for unknown reasons. Probably to obtain money for more fancy toys like the expensive Bradley. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for the “green dragon” nickname? That name doesn’t sound Vietnamese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.84.192 (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Added M113A4 section

I just added an M113A4 section. Though this generation never entered service in the US Army, it is used and built in many nations around the world, in numerous variants. This section is not intended to be complete or exhaustive, since many M113A4 variants got their own wiki pages, but it is necessary in order to show the reader that development and production of the M113 did not cease with the A3 model. Even in the US, the M113A4 is still being developped and manufactured by its original inventor or the company which bought FMC - namely BAE Systems. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Talha and Talha-based variants

The Talha should not be included in this page unless it's as a discussion of M113 clones/successors. While very similar to, and sharing a number of common elements with the M113, it also has a number of differences. It's like saying any box on tracks developed after 1960 is an 'M113'. It's like saying that the Tosan is an FV101 Scorpion. Just because Vehicle A is based on Vehicle B it does not mean Vehicle A = Vehicle B. - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's proposing its inclusion here ? Certainly not me, esp. since other, more important variants are not featured on this article, either. What's more, most of those variants do have their own articles, so they do not need to be treated in depth on the main M113 article. That doesn't change the fact that the Talha is a variant/copy/clone/off-shoot of the M113, whatever you want to call it, and I specifically named three subversions of it just to illustrate the diversity of the currently existing M113A4 variants. Why you take offence on that is beyond me. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, you are? The Saad and Al-Hadeed are variants of the Talha, not the M113. The Talha is not a variant or copy of the M113. At best it's a clone or offshoot, and I don't mind having a section for clones, successors, offshoots, whatever you wish to call them. The problem is that it is, in point of fact, not an M113, let alone an M113A4, which is where you've included it in the article. It does not belong there. There are a number of design differences which make it distinct from the rest of the M113 family. I'm not 'taking offense', I'm pointing out the problem with lumping them in with the A4s. They are not A4s or even M113s. - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with the M113A4 is that officially it does not exist ! That whole Mxxx nomenclature is proprietary US Army designation. Some armies who use US vehicles use US nomenclature for their US vehicles, too, some give them new, indigenous names. But since the M113A4 never entered service with the US Army, there is no official M113A4. But all M113-based vehicles which feature the stretched M113-hull and the additional, sixth roadwheel are referred to as A4 versions. And the sub-variants of the Talha which I cited do fall under that category and definition, too. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: I agree with you that only the Saad should be included, since the two other variants are not basic A4 versions, but specialized ones. I will edit that shortly.

But the Saad is a true and basic M113A4 variant, judge for yourself: http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/694/medium/IMGP0535_1_.jpg http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b373/azziqbal/saad.jpg -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why use misleading section headers like 'M113A4' when you acknowledge that these aren't really M113A4s? Why not add these to the list of Variants of the M113 armored personnel carrier where they honestly belong? Or create a section discussing clones and successor vehicles which would be both honest, and informative, without being misleading. And I'm aware of what the SAAD looks like, and no, it's not an M113. Yes, it's roughly the same size and shape, but again, there are differences. Sloping hull sides, sloping, and larger lower hull glacis. Like I said, it's based on the M113, but not an M113. It wasn't developed or licensed by FMC/UD/BAE. - Jonathon A H (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more careful about those versions. They are indeed all M113A4 versions, but the two latter ones are not baseline M113A4s, but special-purpose M113A4s. As such, they don't belong there, agreed. I will edit them out. The Saad, however, is a baseline M113A4 variant. The slopes on the upper backsides/roof are a minor design change of the hull - you may call it cosmetic - the rest of the whole vehicle is still an M113. Roadwheels, idlers, chains, lights, etc. are all 1:1 exchangeable with any given M113. Licensing is not an issue - a copy of an M113 is still an M113. The M113 is not a brand, bound to a specific company, but a military design, and it doesn't matter much who builds it. The Egyptian EIFV and other M113 variants are also built in Egypt indigenously, and so are the Turkish variants made by FNSS. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Destructive deletion of unsourced, but verifiable edits

please, please, do not delete easily verifible information such as the nickname "Zelda". These should be tagged as needing sources. It is simply destructive and wasteful of other people's efforts to abuse the "erase unsourced edits" to mean licence to delete anything, no matter how reasonable or verifiable which would result in the removal of 70% of wikipedia if this were enforced to the maximum degree. Most of these can be almost as quickly sourced with a quick google search (as was done for Zelda, Bucket, Vietnam Dumpster, and norweigan fridge) as with a delete. In fact, one editor reverted the addition of two sources without even checking to see that these sources had been added, which is very reckless. This sort of enthusiasm for deletionism is what is going wrong with WP, it is marvelous that people have taken the care to compile of these obscure nicknames when others simply seek to erase everything they think they can and justify this destruction as an "improvement" Bachcell (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the disputed section in case somebody else decides to go deletionist again:

The M113 has never received an official name, but has received a variety of nicknames over the years. The ARVN called it the "Green Dragon"; the Swiss referred to it as the "Elefantenrollschuh" (elephants' roller-skate). The Germans called it the "Schweinewürfel" (pig cube). U.S. troops tended to refer to the M113 simply as a "track" or an ACAV. The Israeli official name for the M113 is "Bardelas" (Cheetah) but the troops call it "Zelda". The Australian Army refers to its M113A1s as "Buckets", and the modified M113A1 fitted with 76 mm turrets as "Beasts". In the Norwegian army it is commonly referred to as the "Vietnam Dumpster", or "Jævla møkka vogn" (The fridge), referring to how cold it can get during arctic warfare. Among Danish soldiers it is often called "Dåsen" (The [tin] can), while Greek Soldiers call it "Papaki" (Scooter). The Spanish army official name is TOA (Transporte Oruga Acorazado). "Zippo", is reserved for the M132 Armored Flamethrower, which is based on the M113.

Note that most of the cites in that paragraph (i.e Global Security, Panzernet) are not WP:Reliable Sources - The Panzernet example appears to be a forum and shouldn't be used at all. Reliable sources are needed for this content or it should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you don't think removing "Zelda" was a good idea. You just need to establish that it's not just made up or spurious. Please tag it as needing a better source, rather than ripping out what is ultimately useful and valuable information. Only obviously bogus or harmful information needs to be deleted right away such as the M113 has been known as "Bozo". It's not assuming good faith to just remove everything that is not perfectly sourced or everything that you are not personally familiar with, and then assume that it must be a bad-faith made-up edit that is "dubious". Even less than perfectly reliable information can support the use of a nickname as long as it is demonstrated that somebody thinks it was called that, unless somebody created a spurious blog post just so that it could be cited on Wikipedia. Bachcell (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged".."be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material - these nicknames have been challenged - and had been tagged as needing a source for months, and so should have been sourced properly before being re-added - this is meant to be an encyclopedia - not a fansite.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It had been unsourced since inclusion, and tagged for lack of sources for months. If everything I removed is so easy to reliably source, do it, and reinclude it instead of accusing people of bad faith. (Hohum ^@) 21:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, "Jævla møkka vogn" provably doesn't mean fridge, it means "fucking shit wagon" in Norwegian, and the source provided is completely unreliable - a forum. I am removing it. (Hohum ^@) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the Globalsecurity link given does not refer to any German nickname.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just tagged that. Also, for the "dumpster" reference, please provide a page number for the source provided. (Hohum ^@) 22:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes http://www.unmoralische.de/bundeswehr.htm#Elefantenschuh a reliable source> - the definitions appear to be user suggested?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

References

retire plans

"The U.S. Army plans to retire the M113 family of vehicles by the end of the decade." - there is no context for this statement, so "end of the decade" is completely ambiguous. Which decade? 1990? 2000? 2010? 2020? 66.118.149.200 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Main body text says 2018, so I've updated the lead. (Hohum ^@) 22:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been a couple of attempts to say that the M113 will be replaced with the "GCV Light". The only Google hits for this lead to discussion forums and blogs. There is no report of a company proposing or planning to propose such a vehicle.Vstr (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

RPG vs M113 in Vietnam

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=1893

Article talks about high vulnerability to RPG and troops preferring not to use M113 or sitting exposed on top of machine instead of inside of it. I think I've seen this article on different website. Can't see similar links on wikipedia M113 article.

78.63.27.227 (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Just read that above website by Gary Breacher(?). It was pretty good (with the exception of the M113 in Vietnam) it appeared to be fairly well researched, written, and it was abit entertaining. On the Viet War thing (M113), GIs riding inside EVER while in Vietnam was almost unheard of (almost meaning-maybe someone tried it at one time or another). If anybody did do it, it was one or two men sleeping, wounded, or trying to get something from the inside to hand to the men riding on top (to include the TC or driver). Spitting fire and lead from those M113s was easy, fast, and effective. 2 to 4 men standing in the cargo hatch, the fifty gunner (TC) firing away, sometimes even the driver cutting loose with his M16...plenty of shooting was done! But riding inside...especially with a closed ramp (ramp up); never heard of it. Never saw it. Never did it. Wonder where that author "Gary B" got that information? That little tid-bit just about ruined his credibility for the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.96.58 (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

His article is pro-RPG7. It is unusable as credible source, if we can't find more information about M113 armor vs RPG7 effects. 86.38.207.20 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

However, the RPG-7 started fielding with the Soviets during the Vietnam War. It is doubtful that any were sent to the NVA, let alone the VC, until after the war. They would have been sent to front-line and elite Soviet units, first. What was used was the RPG-2. The wiki article includes a picture of an NVA soldier carrying one. Vstr (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The NVA were using the RPG-7 by, I believe, late 1967, and they were certainly in service by the time of the Tet Offensive (having seen film of examples captured near Khe Sanh). RPG-2s, though, do seem to have been more common.172.190.251.227 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Trance1776, 23 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The US Army currently has made it a standing order that the M113 family for track vehicles cannot do any water wading activities. The reasoning behind this is that drain plugs in the front of the vehicle either fall out during use or are no put back into place. Also on the belly plate which allows for access to the bottom of the engine there is a rubber seal. This seal is needed to keep the water out of the hull and sometimes it is lost or not installed after maintenance is done to the vehicle. Finally there is the back seal on the drop ramp. Over time it wares out especially on the bottom where it is step on or where something might be dragged over it. If this seal is not in place along with the drain plugs and the belly plate seal water will leak into the hull causing the track vehicle to sink or become unable to get out of the water.

Trance1776 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you give me a source (website, book, etc.) I'd be happy to add that. Marcus Qwertyus 03:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

add information about the use of armored vehicle by police(Law Use)

Add info aboute use o M113 from Brazilian Navy by BOPE(Special Forces of Police in Rio de Janeiro) i dont have reference in english, only in portuguese

bope pega blindados equipamentos com marinha para combate ao trafico —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkchewie (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to self

• M113 production ended in 2007. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/January/Pages/Army%E2%80%99sGroundCombatVehicleStirsConfusionInIndustry.aspx. Marcus Qwertyus 18:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, it's only the original manufacturer who ceased building it. The M113 is still in production in Turkey (FNSS), Egypt (EIFV), Pakistan and maybe some other countries I don't know of. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

East German use?

I just caught this on here, although an IP editor added it about a month ago with a source listed in the edit summary. Now I don't have the book source that the IP user mentioned, but I was wondering if anyone else has heard about M113's being used by the East German National Volksarmee. I was skeptical about this at first, but did find one non-academic source making the claim that these were used, along with M48(probably A3) Pattons delivered by Vietnam. The claim was that these were painted up like West German Bundeswehr tanks (since W. Germany used the M113 and the M48A2C at the time) and their crews equipped like Bundeswehr troops, in order for them to cause confusion behind NATO lines in the event of war (a la Operation Greif). having read that, it sounds somewhat plausible (though I am not fully convinced by any means), but I was wondering if anybody has heard of a similar thing, or could provide a source for such.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a book from Osprey, called "Soviet Bloc Elite Forces" from 1985, that said this. I've been trying to see if someone can verify this myself when I came across your post.Openskye (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Any possibility that someone could have confused the two NVAs (Nationale Volksarmee with North Vietnamese Army, the common wartime name of the PAVN)?--172.190.125.109 (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The claim about an NVA deception unit using US vehicles also pops up in Steven J Zaloga's book 'Red Thurst', but as he wrote the Osprey book on Soviet Bloc Elite Forces it's not exactly helpful when it comes to proving or disproving the existence of such a unit. Not sure where Zaloga got his sources from, though...

File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

M150 Variant

Mention does not appear to be made of the M150 variant. This was an M113 with a single TOW launcher fired from the rear upper hatch. I will try to find references for it, I believe it was in israeli service as well as US but dont have a lot more detail to hand at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralOconnor (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

main image oughta be changed.

The main image now ([File:M113_USFK_01.jpg]) isn't a 113. It's an M901 I-TOW or an M981 FISTV. They're both based on the 113 but it seems like we might as well have a plain ol' 113 for the lead image. 70.190.252.92 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a TOW or GLLD hammerhead to me, but I don't know what it is. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My fault. I was looking for a decent three quarters view of an M113 and didn't look at the model pictured closely enough. I'll look for a better one of the base M113. (Hohum ^@) 18:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed to File:M113 Iraq 041001-F-2034C-017.jpg. (Hohum ^@) 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nuts, is that a mortar carrier variant with a baseplate on the side? (Hohum ^@) 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an M106— see the cargo hatch that opens sideways as compared to the M113. The M106 was replaced by the M1064, but the cargo hatch is different (I have only seen photos of the M1064 though). I don't see any really great action photos on Commons. Wish I had better photos of my old track. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The only decent 3/4 view of a basic M113 I can find on commons is monochrome and has a South Vietnamese crew. I'll keep looking. (Hohum ^@) 23:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Gavin again

We need to: (a) Recognize that some readers will have heard the "Gavin" name; (b) Explain that its effectively a one-man campaign. I thought my recent 6 Sept edit did this pretty well - and I think the current long quote dissing the name both gives it more weight than it deserves, and would leave the reader puzzled about all this fuss over a name that no-one uses. I'll leave it to others to fight this one out tho... Snori (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what users think. The Gavin thing lacks any kind of RS and does not belong in the article, period. Jtrainor (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's needed to note it in the article, as two people have now said, because any time that section isn't there, regular as clockwork, one of Sparky's little group will come by and add that it is called the Gavin. Though these days he seems more concerned with adding notes that maybe the GCV / whatever it's called today project will be cancelled and spare his precious metal bawkses. Regardless, we have a reliable source debunking that the name is used, which is what we need there to keep the idiocy out. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "The vehicle was first fielded by United States Army's mechanized infantry units in Vietnam in April 1962."

Comment: U.S. land military units (e.g., Cav, mech inf.) didn't start arriving in SVN until 1965. The US Army received M113s in CONUS and in USAREUR in 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.243.123 (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So what's the story with this?

http://i6.imageban.ru/out/2013/07/22/7808c244918ee62c885a551a29fe32b1.jpg

Behold the Gavinmobile! More seriously, just how did something like this come to be? Herr Gruber (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant details about a unit that uses M113 again.

For the second time, I have removed several paragraphs just added about a unit that used the M113. It's simply too detailed for the WP:scope of the article. (Hohum ^@) 18:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsus-army-advances-with-ampv-programme

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Armament M113

The M113 armored personnel Carrie article does not that it also with a napalm flame thrower. I have a picture of it being used in Vietnam 1967 Not sure if this is the way to get the editor the information or not rlee131 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlee131 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately personal testimony rarely meets the requirements of WP:RS. While still unlikely to be acceptable source, there are a handful of other mentions of flame-throwing M113s around, for example: http://15thengineer.50megs.com/flame_apcs.htm (which appears to be a personal and/or blog page). An open question is how common this was - if it was only a handful of vehicles, it's probably not notable, unless the employment was somehow notable. But in any case the fundamental problem is finding a reliable source, preferable a reliable secondary source (as defined in WP:RS). Rwessel (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Gavin yet again

I'm not a regular editor on this topic, but this recent edit caught my eye. Looking at this talk page, I see that Gavin as a nickname has been discussed to death here. Even so, I think it might be useful to mention a couple of the sources I turned up by some googling:

• Mike Sparks (January–February 1995). "M113s Maximize Mechanized Infantry Mobility and Firepower in Contingency Ops". Armor. combatreform.org. Introducing the Super M113A3: The Gavin Airborne IFV. {{cite journal}}: External link in |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
• Huba Wass de Czege; Richard D. Liebert; Charles A. Jarnot (2002). Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century. Turner Publishing Company. pp. 120–130. ISBN 978-1-56311-616-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I don't know about the WP:RS standing of these sources in re this topic, but they looked inteesting enough to mention here. There are a lot of other sources out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The common thing between those two sources is Mike Sparks, who advocated that the M113 be called the Gavin, but failed. (Hohum ^@) 00:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's worth reiterating that Combat Reform and Air-Mech Strike are indeed self-published by the same man, a self-declared director of a self-created study group. He's been pushing this issue for twenty years on the internet, without success; judging by Google Books he now appears to be self-publishing James Bond fan-fiction(!). Towards the end of the book is a photo of the author dressed up in store-bought military gear. I know we're supposed to "play the ball, not the man", but he's quite clearly an extremely verbose fantastist. I'm genuinely surprised that the debate further up the page didn't degenerate into ranting about cyberharassment from status quo libel-trolls. The irony is that a few polite letters and some charm might have persuaded the US Department of Defense to give the M113 a name. Instead, his aggressive approach has repelled anyone who might have helped. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Nicknames

In the Swiss army, the M113 was named for its armor, "Alubüchse". "Büchse" is a can. https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Verzeichnis:Deutsch/Soldatensprache_der_Schweizer_Armee#A --General Lee (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on M113 armored personnel carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614071616/http://www.landscaper.net/namstory.htm to http://www.landscaper.net/namstory.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430044607/http://www.bctmod.army.mil/GCV_focus/GCV%20Narrative.pdf to http://www.bctmod.army.mil/GCV_focus/GCV%20Narrative.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114174201/http://www.dsca.mil/programs/eda/search.asp to http://www.dsca.mil/programs/eda/search.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114174201/http://www.dsca.mil/programs/eda/search.asp to http://www.dsca.mil/programs/eda/search.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513205333/http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/ to http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130826233723/http://www.militarium.net/wojsko_polskie/uzbrojenie.php to http://www.militarium.net/wojsko_polskie/uzbrojenie.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

M-113/M-577 hydraulic ramp failure

I was stationed at the 3rd Armored Division's Coleman Kaserne in Germany between Sept 1962 & Sept 1964 (i.e., I was RA [36 month enlistment] and married, but she stayed in CONUS; I therefore was on a 24 month tour; my 20th BD was 13 Oct 1962). I was in, to keep it simple, the 48th Armored Infantry. We had M-114s and M-113s (way before M-113A1's, etc.). I was a Morse Code operator attached to the Bn S3 track. The S2 and S3 "Command Tracks" were parked on a flat concrete surface on the Post. One day we were standing behind our ramp-up track w/ the driver inside. He started to lower the ramp . . . a few seconds into that the ramp crashed to the concrete narrowly missing the front ends of our GI boots (I was standing there with another radio operator waiting for the ramp to politely come down. -- Note: the ramp had come down only a couple of inches when it crashed down all the way to the concrete surface.). Twas never explained to me what happened -- but the thought occurred to me at the time: "I wonder how often (and how and why) this happens & how many have been hurt?" We didn't have a "brand new" driver - he was an experienced hand. JimC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.84.134 (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC) I now realize we were behind an M-577 Command track when the ramp "slipped". A little history: In December 1963 the first M-577's showed up at Coleman Kaserne. They were hybrids: M-113's with a built-up area and with a weld-line showing the attachment. I recall they arrived about mid-December, and a couple weeks later we were loading them on Comrade's choo-choo for Graf. (I have no idea when the weld-line M-577's were replaced by no weld line M-577s.)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on M113 armored personnel carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413104358/http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/29/army-mulls-1-7-billion-effort-to-replace-3-000-m113s/ to http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/29/army-mulls-1-7-billion-effort-to-replace-3-000-m113s/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716142800/http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/go7124.pdf to http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/go7124.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904034738/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/January/Pages/VendorsPourFundingIntoArmoredVehicleDevelopment.aspx to http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/January/Pages/VendorsPourFundingIntoArmoredVehicleDevelopment.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4271063&c=AME&s=LAN
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/article/71383/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040723002126/http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/2000/captions/KSC-00PP-1135.html to http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/2000/captions/KSC-00PP-1135.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The first, or the first in VN?

"On 30 March 1962, the first batch of 32 M113s arrived in Vietnam"

It is not at all clear if this means "the first 32 ever were shipped to Vietnam" or "the first shipment to arrive in VN, of 32 vehicles". IE, were these 32 among the first M113's built, as it currently suggests? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

no longer in service in U.S.A

can someone please tell me when is the M113 APC is not going to keep in service anymore? no offense, but USA had developed other armored fighting vehicles, like the MRAP and the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle

This information is in the article. (Hohum ^@) 23:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

APC - no, it is not only that!

The M113 Gavin is all kinds of things, from APC to Medevac to grenade launcher to tracked flame thrower and with more heavy modifications, howitzer and MLRS system base. It's a universal mobile platform, a box on tracks. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "M113 Gavin." Bones Jones (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Gavin

Whilst I don't want to dredge up a ten year old argument; the section about it *not* being called a Gavin is just attempting to prove a negative, which arguably isn't what the article is for. The consensus, on this talk page, that it's not called that holds firm so I don't see any reason to mention the suggested name in the article, at all. We can continue to resist edits that assert the name, on that basis, but having that info in there gives credence to a ridiculous, misguided campaign and we shouldn't really be doing that. onebravemonkey 09:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)